China To Launch Mars-Sampling Mission In 2028 (spacenews.com) 64
"China is on track to launch its Tianwen-3 mission to Mars in 2028, two years earlier than previously planned," writes the South China Morning Post, a change that one space policy research believes "suggests a rising confidence by China in its ability to get the technology right for the complex operation."
On Thursday, Liu Jizhong, chief designer of China's Mars mission, told the Second International Conference on Deep Space Exploration in Huangshan, Anhui province, that the team aimed to bring back around 600 grams (21 oz) of Martian soil... A 2028 launch date should see Martian samples returned to Earth around July 2031, according to a previous presentation made by Tianwen-1 mission lead Sun Zezhou at Nanjing University in 2022.
The mission will actually consist of two launches from Earth, reports Space News: Two Long March 5 rocket launches will carry a lander and ascent vehicle and an orbiter and return module respectively. Entry, descent and landing will build on technology used for the Tianwen-1 rover landing. The mission may also include a helicopter and a six-legged crawling robot for collecting samples away from the landing site...
NASA is working on its own, more complex Mars sample return mission. However the program is being reassessed, following projected cost overruns. Studies are being conducted to identify concepts that can deliver samples faster and cheaper than current plans.
Liu stated that the search for evidence of life is the Tianwen-3's top scientific goal, according to state media China Central Television (CCTV). Earlier reporting notes that potential landing areas will be selected based partly on astrobiological relevance. This includes environments potentially suitable for the emergence of life and its preservation, such as sedimentary or hydrothermal systems, evidence of past aqueous activity and geological diversity.
"China states that it plans to work with scientists worldwide to cooperatively study and share Martian samples and data," according to the article: The China National Space Administration has made samples from its Chang'e-5 lunar nearside sample return mission available to research applications for international researchers. The same is expected for the recently-completed Chang'e-6 lunar farside mission."
Further ahead, Tianwen-3 will include partnering with countries and research institutions to define the objectives and tasks of a future Mars research station. This will include analyzing requirements, conducting conceptual studies, design implementation plans, and tackling key technological challenges.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Iamthecheese for sharing the news.
The mission will actually consist of two launches from Earth, reports Space News: Two Long March 5 rocket launches will carry a lander and ascent vehicle and an orbiter and return module respectively. Entry, descent and landing will build on technology used for the Tianwen-1 rover landing. The mission may also include a helicopter and a six-legged crawling robot for collecting samples away from the landing site...
NASA is working on its own, more complex Mars sample return mission. However the program is being reassessed, following projected cost overruns. Studies are being conducted to identify concepts that can deliver samples faster and cheaper than current plans.
Liu stated that the search for evidence of life is the Tianwen-3's top scientific goal, according to state media China Central Television (CCTV). Earlier reporting notes that potential landing areas will be selected based partly on astrobiological relevance. This includes environments potentially suitable for the emergence of life and its preservation, such as sedimentary or hydrothermal systems, evidence of past aqueous activity and geological diversity.
"China states that it plans to work with scientists worldwide to cooperatively study and share Martian samples and data," according to the article: The China National Space Administration has made samples from its Chang'e-5 lunar nearside sample return mission available to research applications for international researchers. The same is expected for the recently-completed Chang'e-6 lunar farside mission."
Further ahead, Tianwen-3 will include partnering with countries and research institutions to define the objectives and tasks of a future Mars research station. This will include analyzing requirements, conducting conceptual studies, design implementation plans, and tackling key technological challenges.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Iamthecheese for sharing the news.
Re: (Score:1)
A shame it has to be in China, but with Russia spending all its money on wars and we here in the US too busy trying to figure out if we're fascists or leftover hippies, well - the planet's superpowers aren't done with as long as there's one willing to do what's hard. God speed, China.
So brutal, dictatorial, expansionist regimes are okay, as long as they aren't Russia?
Re: Good to see science is still alive. (Score:2)
Could you guide me to the correct propaganda?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
brutal, dictatorial, expansionist
China is neither of that.
Objective reality seems to disagree a bit there. Let's start with brutal. China executes at least 8,000 people per year. Even in the US, it's typically under about 20 per year, although it went as high as 85 back in 2000. Even accounting for China's larger population, that seems to be a particularly brutal justice system they have. Then there's the question of whether China is dictatorial, Xi Jinping has been President of China for 11 years now and has had term limits removed. He has also systematically dem
Re: (Score:2)
The death penalty can be a deterrent, we just do it wrong. China has a number of crimes for which the death penalty applies, when they added bribery to the list much of the issues with low level bribery in the country disappeared overnight for one example. Their court system is also **FAR** faster and more efficient, whereas here most "death penalty" sentences are carried out by old age as the offender spends the rest of their life on Death Row.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fast and efficient" death sentences and executions? Whatever you might think about the deterrent effects, I would say that's objectively brutal. So I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here.
Re: (Score:2)
China executes at least 8,000 people per year.
What has that to do with the topic?
Well, the topic was is China brutal, yes or no. By most people's definition of brutal, executing people promiscuously is, in fact, brutal.
As you point out:
Murder, Rape, Bribery, Corruption...
Now, bribery and corruption are bad, and I certainly want them to stop, but they're also white collar crimes. Once again, death for a white collar crime seems to fit the definition of brutal.
You might approve of an easy death penalty, and I suppose you have a right to your opinion, but that's beside the point. It's definitely brutal.
There are no such claims. They make artificial islands with airbases because they are shit scared about the USA. Which has surrounded China from coast to coast with air bases.
Positing an excuse f
Re: (Score:2)
Every death penalty is brutal.
Duh! That's the point. The original poster said that China was brutal among other things. You replied with:
China is neither of that.
You watch the wrong propaganda.
I was pointing out that China is, objectively, brutal. The heavy usage of the death penalty being a prime example. You're free to approve of the brutality, but that's not the point of the discussion. The point is that, objectively, compared to most other nations, even other nations that have the death penalty, China is, in fact, brutal just like the original poster said.
Point is: it only happens if one commits a crime, that by law can be punished with a death penalty.
How is that the point? The point was about whether China is brutal or not. You're just making up your own point.
So you if your country still executes the death penalty, it is equally brutal than China.
No, incorrect. Objective measures would also consider per capita volume relative to actual crime rate and also what safeguards are in place to prevent execution for false conviction. Having poor safeguards means gratuitous executions of innocent people, which adds to the brutality. Saying that you'll just swiftly and "efficiently" kill people because they're probably guilty is a brutal mindset. There's no getting around that.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but when he mentioned brutal, he was not talking about death penalty.
He moved the goal post to that later.
The heavy usage of the death penalty being a prime example.
No that is not the point. The post implied, and you do the same, that China is brutally suppressing its population with death penalties. Which it clearly is not.
Death penalties are warranted for Murder, Rape, various kinds of corruption. So: China is a corrupt country. Obviously the amount of people are corrupt enough that under THEIR OW
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but when he mentioned brutal, he was not talking about death penalty.
He moved the goal post to that later.
Who moved the goalpost to that? I get the feeling you're not keeping track of who you're talking to. It was a different poster who said that China was brutal. I'm the one who brought up the quick and easy executions as an example of brutality. Note that's not actually "moving the goalpost". That's offering up a behavior - in this case promiscuous executions - as an example of something China does that's brutal. Note that it is what is called an "example" which means that it's a behavior, inside the set of b
Re: (Score:1)
No it was not a out the definition of brutal.
You bring in your baggage of misinterpretation and silly arguments.
A state is not brutal, unless it is. Death penalty is brutal.
So? Why declare China a brutal state, in comparison to which other state(s)?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. I'm not sure how to parse the first part of that. You read like you're drunk.
As to the second part... Because brutality is a spectrum. There are other states that are also on the brutal end. Some certainly even more than China. North Korea comes to mind, with it's anti-aircraft gun public executions. Clearly though, China is on the more brutal end of that spectrum as compared to, for example, Denmark. So, yes, China is brutal. To deny it questions the very meaning of brutality.
Re: (Score:1)
The original point was not about executions.
Get it or don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
The original point was about brutality. Promiscuous executions are a form of brutality. QED. I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this.
Re: (Score:2)
So brutal, dictatorial, expansionist regimes are okay, as long as they aren't Russia?
Our loss of initiative in science is our fault, not China's. When Chine takes the initiative to let the Thirty Meter Telescope be built on the Tibetan Plateau, the anti-science problem will be even more our fault and not China's fault. More power to them.
Re: Good to see science is still alive. (Score:3)
Why shame it is China? They're quite generous in sharing their findings with others, so it's actually a better thing that is it China. Good job it isn't the USA, I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why shame it is China? They're quite generous in sharing their findings with others, so it's actually a better thing that is it China. Good job it isn't the USA, I'd say.
??
USA has flaws, but "failing to share planetary science findings with others" is not one of them.
Re:Good to see science is still alive. (Score:4, Insightful)
>and we here in the US too busy trying to figure out if we're fascists or leftover hippies,
Americans seem to have a distorted perception of politics. Presumably by 'leftover hippies' you are implying far-left politics, but by international standards the US doesn't have a left politically at all. You have 'right' and 'far-right'.
Policies about social safety nets, gun control, universal medical care, and some additional constraints on free speech aren't 'left' to most of the rest of the developed democratic world... they're pretty much the center of the spectrum.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>You foreigners need to mind your own business.
1) I'm a bit pissed that Canada actually has some Russian assets trying to interfere in the US elections for Putin. But at least we've outed them.
2) Given that the US is a ridiculously huge portion of our economy and we share a giant indefensible border with you, US elections ARE our business.
3) Fuck it, you're neighbours, and despite the differences we do share a lot of cultural roots. We want to see things improve for you. Which is something we can want
Re: (Score:3)
Also let's not that Tenet paid those media influencers more money in 1 year than Hunter Biden made in 6 years working at Burisma.
Re: As I'm sure Trump would say . . . (Score:2)
You mean the lobbyists hired by billionaires and the AIPAC to influence the elections for their benefit? Surely not, as we all know elections are influenced by meme gifs seen once by a few people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Presumably by 'leftover hippies' you are implying far-left politics, but by international standards the US doesn't have a left politically at all.
Which international standards? Western Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
The civilized world. Today's supposed "left" party in the US is to the right of the Republicans in the 1970s. Hell, Richard Nixon was too liberal to be allowed on the Democratic ticket today.
Re: Good to see science is still alive. (Score:1)
What's the civilized world to you? Cuba?
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. China is just as authoritarian as russia, though russia at least pretends to be democratic. The US has political parties, which is, IMO, our problem. Ban political parties and watch as the middle of the road takes over. Nebraska banned them for all offices except the governor and federal offices and you see a lot more cooperation in their state legislature than you see in other parts of the country.
Regardless, a lot of care needs to be taken with samples. We have detected things that are life-like, and
Re: (Score:2)
China is just as authoritarian as russia, though russia at least pretends to be democratic. The US has political parties, which is, IMO, our problem.
China solved the problem with having two parties by having only one! It's so efficient!
The problem in the US isn't having parties, it's not having any constitutional limits on them. The founders pretended parties didn't exist when they wrote the constitution. Opinions vary on whether this was because they wanted them to not exist, or because they wanted to use them to control elections. I suspect that this is primarily because some were in the first camp, and some the second.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a bit of point and I imagine a bit of misplaced idealism, that the system would be enough to discourage parties but I think too much of human nature for like minded people to band together so it was inevitable that some type of aprty structures would form. Also the fact that they didn't write anything in the system originally to limit their formation either.
If they didn't want parties or for it funnel down into a 2 party system then (and this is hindsight of course) they should have used a di
Re: (Score:2)
China is just as authoritarian as russia, though russia at least pretends to be democratic. The US has political parties, which is, IMO, our problem.
China solved the problem with having two parties by having only one! It's so efficient!
Russia also.
The problem in the US isn't having parties, it's not having any constitutional limits on them. The founders pretended parties didn't exist when they wrote the constitution.
Yes, they "pretended" they didn't exist because they didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they "pretended" they didn't exist because they didn't exist.
You still had people referring to themselves as whigs and tories, they weren't going to just not have parties. It's an effective way to organize around a platform.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an effective way to organize around a platform.
Party platforms are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Party platforms are part of the problem.
Nowhere in this have I disagreed, but pretending they weren't going to exist was at best incompetent. Not prohibiting them guaranteed that they would exist, and not limiting them guaranteed that they would become powerful.
Re: Good to see science is still alive. (Score:2)
That would be a terrible idea. At the end of the day, what's the difference between political parties and ordinary groups of people airing a common set of grievances?
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day, what's the difference between political parties and ordinary groups of people airing a common set of grievances?
They're now formally entrenched in our processes in congress.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words: "You pro-democracy advocates are too entrenched into congress, so we're going to have you removed from office, fined, and jailed."
You call the founders incompetent, but I've yet to see anything that you're competent at.
Re: (Score:2)
You call the founders incompetent, but I've yet to see anything that you're competent at.
They might not have been incompetent. It could have been malice on the part of the privileged land owning white guys who wanted to stay in power.
Nah, couldn't be
Re: Good to see science is still alive. (Score:2)
Have I ever told you that you're one of the dumbest people on the planet? Either way, it's true. "All else being equal, more bits is better hur-dur!" Can't even educate yourself on shit before running your mouth and biting into it.
If they wanted to stay in power, why not simply not have a revolution at all? Most of these guys were already high ranking in the British military or even part of the aristocracy in some cases, particularly the state governors that participated. George Washington already had all o
Re: (Score:2)
Have I ever told you that you're one of the dumbest people on the planet?
You say a lot of stupid shit, so probably.
Re: Good to see science is still alive. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The founders pretended parties didn't exist when they wrote the constitution.
Rather, they really didn't like them. The whole idea of political parties basically runs counter to the enlightenment: It causes people to think collectively instead of as individuals. When people think collectively, you get elitism, concentrated power structures, etc.
The constitution was written in such a way to discourage all of that, not reinforce it.
Re: (Score:1)
The constitution was written in such a way to discourage all of that, not reinforce it.
It's a pity that no-one writing the constitution was particularly good at mathematical reasoning. A huge opportunity was missed in the constitution to define how voting would work. As it stands, every state and individual regions within the states pretty much get to do it their own way. Most of them opt for the simplistic system where each person gets one vote for one candidate in one round. Now, this is the perfect voting system for a two-party system. You choose candidate A or candidate B. Trouble is, if
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. China is just as authoritarian as russia, though russia at least pretends to be democratic.
China is more democratic in the sense that people can freely vote for their representatives and the people they vote for probably will get elected fairly and hold office. The problem comes from two sources:
1) No freedom of speech means representatives who don't toe the party line probably won't be allowed to keep their internal organs for long
2) Power structure is highly concentrated at the top, i.e. no checks and balances, which means the person at the top is effectively a dictator in all but name. That in
Re: (Score:3)
Mao didn't build the system, that's been the system in China for centuries. People don't complain about not having freedom of speech because neither they nor their ancestors ever expected to have it. Their system is highly centralized because it's always been highly centralized and that's what people have always expected.
It's not necessarily a failure of their system, it's just a different system. Our system wouldn't work for them any more than their system would work for us. The difference is that thei
Re: (Score:1)
Where does this organs bullshit come from?
If you are a death row candidate, yes, they harvest your organs.
To be a death row candidate you need to have commuted a capital crime.
Neither disagreeing with the party, nor public voicing your opinion about disagreeing is a crime. Not even talking about capital crime.
Get some Chinese friends and talk with them about democracy and politics.
They laugh about the american system.
Just like in most countries, there are people who like politics, and want to vote hands on
Re: (Score:2)
It's good that China is pushing forward with space exploration, and encouraging the US to move forward with it too. I doubt NASA would be headed back to the Moon in the next few years if China hadn't announced a 2030 goal of manned landings, followed by an international base on the surface.
NASA's sample return mission was focused on getting back the best quality samples. Their rovers located and stored them, ready for collection. But now that China looks likely to do it first (they have a good record with t
Re: (Score:2)
And that's where SpaceX comes in. Starship may be far enough along already to attempt a landing, albeit only good for the data. I could see them making the attempt in 2026 easily.
2028 for sample return should be doable, albeit on the edge of realism.
And SpaceX is already focused on Mars, so...
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt Starship will be ready for Mars this decade. First they have to perform a manned Moon landing with it, so all effort needs to go into getting that done.
Mars is much further away too, so their technique of iterating the design is going to have issues if they have to wait a year between each test.
I honestly wish them Luck (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I honestly wish them Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Just them getting to Mars and landing on it successfully when they have never done that before would be a good mission accomplishment.
Not sure what you're thinking of. China successfully put a lander on Mars in 2021, and deployed and operated a rover. From Wikipedia:
"Designed for a lifespan of 90 sols (93 Earth days), Zhurong was active for more than 347 sols (358 days) after its deployment on Mars's surface.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Difference between China and the USA (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The triumph of capitalism! /s
Mars Sample Return Mission - A Practical Approach (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that time Elon is digging on Mars with a shovel (Score:2)
China's got to up their game.