Slashdot Mirror
China Plans Moonbase
jfruhlinger writes: "According to this BBC news article, the Chinese government plans to put a human on the moon by 2010, with the long-term goal of 'set[ting] up a base on the moon and min[ing] its riches for the benefit of humanity.' The article seems to think that the program is more for the benefit of China's defense and aerospace industry. D'ya think they can pull it off?"
Moon unit alpha, or moon unit zappa?
They should switch to democracy instead!
Our long-term goal is to set up a base on the Moon and mine its riches for the benefit of humanity.
I guess the Chinese will have all the market share for selling green cheese to the world.
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
I wonder what would happen if China offered the US participation in the program. It probably would not happen but if China is serious about benefiting the whole of mankind (?) they should consider such an offer.
"Can they pull it off"
I hope so. Perhaps this is the start of the second space race?
It would not necessarily be a bad thing if the US government thought China might successfully build a moon base. Perhaps there would be more serious initiatives to encourage more space exploration and development on this side of the Pacific.
Hey, it worked with Sputnik...
One thing of interest in all this that isn't mentioned in the BBC story: as of the mid 1990s, anyway, the official position of the People's Republic of China was that the Apollo program was faked (or at least that it "hadn't been proved true"). My junior year of college (1994-95), I had a roommate who was a grad student in Astronomy. There was a big conference on planetary science at our school, with several scientists from the PRC in attendence. Apparently everything had to be carefully orchestrated so that these scientists wouldn't have to attend any talks in which the US moon landings were a given, since they'd be politically required to stand up and dispute it or they'd be in trouble back home! She (my roommate) says that they (the scientists) didn't actually belive this hokum, but that the conference organizers didn't want to endanger their careers/lives.
I'm not sure how this idea got intot he PRC leadership -- senile Chairman Mao watching Capricorn One too many times? Unless the PRC has changed its tune, we may be witness to the odd and embarassing spectacle of the Chinese claiming to be the first on the moon...
jf
Land at the apolo sites and prove once and for all wether the americans managed to land there first?
I've see the pictures and they look a bit dodgy to me
So in 2011 we can look forward to people claiming that the Chinese Moon mission pictures are fake, then?
"Of course the Marco Polo trip was fake. You expect me to believe humans could cross the Gobi Desert? This whole "China" thing sounds a bit dodgy to me..." -- 13th century conspiracy theorist
--
Benjamin Coates
The Americans sent men to the moon using 1960s technology. The very thought of this makes my blood run cold. However, it worked.
I'd say any sufficiently determined organization with enough money to sink into the project could build a moon base.
Another factor: They'll find it easy to recruit enthusiasts from all over the world. Imagine a brain drain toward China.
Can they get someone to and back from the moon by 2010 - Hell yes. They have at least a million young men who are willing to risk thier lives for a chance at glory and honor.
Will they do it before we do? - A resounding 'Hell yes'. They don't have to go through all the red tape that we've made for ourselves. IF the goverment says we are going to do it they will do it.
Will they establish a STABLE moon base by 2010 - Hell no. There will be too many countries trying to sabatoge those ambitions(present country included) for both political and security reasons.
I learned where the word sabatoge came from by watching Star Trek movies.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I don't give a damn who pulls this sort of thing anymore, as long as I get to see it in my lifetime. I'm sick of waiting for cool things to become profitable before actually being done. I can't believe that the ISS is still being built, although it has had some very close shaves in the US Congress over the past few years, all because of fucking money. What's so difficult about kicking the secretary's personal assistant's secretary's page off of the government payroll, stopping the spending on idiotic pork projects and $6,000 curtains (thanks Asscroft), and just using the tax money to do things that our decendents will look back at and say, "Bitchin'?"
don't the Chinese have the right idea? That is to say, we hear a lot about how the Americans want to send a manned mission to Mars, but its unclear to me that the Americans have sufficient real-world experience in long term manned deep space missions. To first establish a long term base on the moon would go a long way towards gaining that experience. It's only 3 days away, as opposed to several years for Mars. Just a thought. Comments?
NO CARRIER
Exactly. What's up there, that you can't get easier here? Basalt and quartz are plentiful enough here. What could you do with a lot of silicon, vacuum, and free solar energy?
What you might get from the moon:
- Astronomical observations (especially on far side)
- First class secrecy (on far side)
- Solar power?
- Fair vacuum, easily accessed
- Prestige
- High ground, drop rocks on anybody you don't like (Heinlein)
If bars of pure gold were neatly stacked anywhere you like on the moon, we couldn't go there and bring them back and show a profit. I've never seen a study done on the economics of asteroid mining, but there's a couple of things to remember. They're further out, which means lots more fuel, and they have negligable gravity, which makes working them harder. Plus, one final consideration: if by capture you mean strap a booster to it and move it into earth orbit, remember that the brain trust at NASA recently crashed a probe into Mars because they didn't convert their units correctly. Do you really want someone, anyone, trying to manouver an asteroid into Earth orbit? So basically, until we get huge advances in lift technology, there's no way that any sort of space mining will be economical.
Lets also hope it's governed by similar laws as Antarctica.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It's funny though, is it just talk like the russians did in the 60's and 70's? or are they serious. The united states doesnt have the balls to try something so ambitious. Hell we dont even have the capability to make a rocket as powerful as the saturn 5 anymore. (capability as in nasa's abilities and our government body having enough leaders not looking at the prostate in their own rears first hand..) Hell we made the stupid decisiot to choose a vaporware shuttle replacement over a working prototype.. and now the new shuttle program is now dead..
sorry but the US as a leader in space research is dead... put a fork in us as we are done.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
...if 1.5 billion people say they say they are gonna do it, they will.
Be it in business, life, current affairs -- whatever the situation. It's almost ingrained into the Chinese worldview. This has been shown time and time again, through the projects that have been completed and/or worked upon, in China. The Great Wall and The Three Rivers Gorge are the first two obvious examples that come to mind; the manmade Kunming Lake elicits the same thoughts, as well.
Now, I'm not saying these tasks are/were not costly, both in terms of dollars and human lives, nor am I saying that many (especially current) Chinese projects are without corruption and/or controversy.
Rather, what I am pointing out is the historical Chinese trend of "progress" against odds. I don't really want to use the term "determination", because there is certainly the very real possibility that people work on these things against their will. Yet in any case, foreigners who've worked there on corporate projects for a while will tell you that, when working with a Chinese corporation, while they may promise you something seemingly outrageous... but short of a few exceptions, they won't promise you something they can't/won't complete.
The aforementioned exceptions are, however, predictably tied to corruption, where unwilling corporate heads -- or even middle management -- can very easily tie up a project with red tape, unless there's a little cash to "oil the wheels". If China's going to build a moon base, this corrupt undercurrent, in my opinion, is the most likely stumbling block. (As an aside this goes for the 2008 Olympics, too. After just getting back from Beijing a few weeks ago, I will be most amazed if they solve, at least to a large degree, the pollution problem, as they have promised.)
In most cases, however, while a project may take 10, 20, or two hundred years, the Chinese have historically tended to accomplish any goal that they've set out to do.
Again, it's all in the mindset... a "slow but steady" one, at that. Westerners tend to think in short, digestible timeframes. "Project ABC has to be completed in X months." The Chinese, on the other hand, look at things across a much, much larger timetable. What's a hundred years, when you've been around for several-thousand, already?
Granted, in a modern world, this opens the door to corruption and inefficiency... but how many of those "really cool projects", on which you've spent countless hours at work, have gotten tossed into the circular file because they were deemed too costly or too time-inefficient by the corporate heads?
So they say they'll have a moon base? I really don't doubt it. It may not happen in my lifetime, or yours... but it will probably happen, nevertheless.
You mean they fell for that backlot footage of us landing on the moon?
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
If the title was "US to build Moon base", 90% of the discussions would be related to technical issues, and similar things.
When the title is "China to build Moon base", 90% of the discussions are related to 'communists', 'stealing technology', 'human rights'. I presume, most of the people have never been to China.
Couldn't people stop 'stealing technology' stories for a moment (think US would have nukes if they haven't *stolen* German scientist and research?), and talk about feasibility of this project, no matter who does it.
There are so many sites dealing with politics - don't turn Slashdot into another one.
I wonder what would happen if China offered the US participation in the program. It probably would not happen but if China is serious about benefiting the whole of mankind (?) they should consider such an offer.
... as if they had modern special effects back in 1969) will be enough to at least send someone up to secure that historical site. :-)
It is good for humanity, regardless.
If China is serious about this, maybe it will be get US Government off of its sorry ass, stop underfunding NASA, and start actually doing something to facilitate long term economic exploitation of space.
If the US doesn't get off its ass, humans will still have finally gotten off their sorry asses and begun colonizing space. Once we have colonies independent of earth, the liklihood of our extinction goes way down. This is a Good Thing(tm), regardless of whether those humans come from the United States, China, or Timbuktu.
If the Chinese manage to start another space race with the United States I will personally take my hat off to them, because apparently we (the United States, and the West in general) don't have the will, or the vision, to do it on our own, without competition from the Russians or someone else.
Maybe the threat of having the Chinese sweep away all physical proof of the lunar moon landings (to promote the absurd myth that the landings were somehow fake
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I don't think the moon's resources will justify the proposed Chinese effort, but it's a symptom of the failures of central planning (as if we needed another) that they're trying to dictate what the market will be, rather than letting it happen naturally.
IOW, the US government should "stand by" and do nothing (whether they will resist the urge to waste taxe$ in space is another question). Let's look at how space-commerce (the voluntary, non-government-supported kind) is going in the real world, right now:
So far, it's ALL rich people, and all "tourism." 100%! No exceptions!!
This was to be expected, but think ten years (and maybe 100 orders of magnitude cheaper) down the road...Space-tourism is going to evolve toward one thing, and it's a thing that governments (of any sort) don't seem to want to consider:
SEX tourism. Couples are going to want to have intercourse without gravity (and without annoying swimming pools, scuba gear, etc.). Many honeymooners will want to, uh...start out with a bang (sorry! Couldn't resist).
This will happen naturally, I'm sure of it. Ultimately, all this sex will be the main thing supporting science up there, but no central planning bureaucrat (Chinese or US) will anticipate this, it'll just happen. I only wish that I could find some way to make money off my prediction when it comes to pass...
JMR
(My own opinions, nobody else seems to want them.)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
It's a surprise that nobody here mention the many attempts by the United States in blocking China to get into space.
The thing started way back in the '50s, and throughout the Cold War, and even AFTER the Cold War has (supposingly) ended.
Take the International Space Station (ISS) for example - why countries like Brazil and Japan are allowed to take part, while China isn't even part of it?
The thing is that the US will NOT let China in taking part in ANY space program, not even those which are supposed to be PEACEFUL.
Wonder why the article concern so much about China's plan for moonbase ? Of course, the only concern for the author is that China must NOT be allowed to go into space.
All these while the Japs are encouraged to take part in space programs.
Don't you think it's kinda double standards ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If you're on the moon, you don't need nuclear weapons. As for communications, the signal loss is so dramatic, especially for signals that aren't explicitly pointed at the moon, that you'd be wasting your time.
Since 80% of the effort of going to the moon is actually used in getting off the earth's surface, you'd be better off with earth-based satellites. For some information (of unknown quality) on this topic, check the Federation of American Scientists site.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
The author is Heinlein. The book is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
In the book, large rocks are encased in iron, and shot out of the moon's shallow gravity well with a rail gun to be caught by Earth's much stronger gravitational field. I am not a physicist, but I don't think it would take a very big rock to equal the destructive power of a nuclear weapon if it was dropped from just inside the Earth's gravity well.
Incidentally, this is going to occur to the Dept. of Defense as well. If China actually makes progress, we (the US) are going to see a lot more money in NASA's budget very soon. I think this kind of thinking is what the original space race was all about.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
I'll take a swing at a few of your ideas, although I can't address much about the photographs as I've never studied them.
> After watching the video of the moon rover driving around and kicking up dust as it went... and then seeing the video of the Lunar Lander rocketing off the moon's surface without stiring up any dust at all????? The only way I could see the smaller force of the rover kicking up more dust than the larger force of the rocking pod not able to moving ANY dust at all is if the laws of physics are not constant on the moon.
Actually, the trap you're falling into is based on assumptions about how dust behaves on the Moon. Those assumptions almost always stem from observed behavior of dust and dirt on Earth. There are a few key differences, however, that make a HUGE difference in how small particles behave in these two very different environments. They are:
Atmosphere: this is by far the most important, and the most confusing. This causes two things. First is that there's a lack of turbulence that is unfamiliar to those who don't work with vacuum. This is what causes your disparity of observation. You'll notice in the film that the return module of the lander did not fire a rocket directly at the moon, but instead it pushed on the top of the descent module. That means the main thrust of the engine went downward into the descent module and then straight out sideways. On Earth, this would cause a swirl of air all around the module, but on the Moon, there's no air to swirl, and the thrust never gets to the ground, so there's no dust movement. Second, dust on the Moon is not like dust or dirt or sand on Earth. On Earth, these things get worn smooth by air and water. On the Moon, they don't so dust is very hard-edged, and its behavior more closely mimics wet snow than sand.
Gravity: this tends to cause things to behave differently than expected, and it goes hand in hand with the lack of atmosphere. Just as Mr. Armstrong did not descend quickly to the surface, we'd expect dust to fall slowly. However, what the mind fails to suss out is that the lack of air resistance more than makes up for the lesser gravity when small particles are concerned, so when dust falls quickly, it looks odd. However, the rub is that the only place dust can fall as quickly as a human being is in a low gravity vacuum, which would seem to prove that they were in fact on the Moon.
> Not going to get into the issues of trying to pass through the Van Allen Belts wearing suits of 7 layers of 'glass like' material for protection.
This stems from misunderstanding how radiation works on the human body. The method for determining exposure has two factors: intensity and duration. One can get a fairly high dose of radiation and not develop health problems if the the duration is short. Conversely, low exposure for long periods can cause difficulties, which is why x-ray technicians stand behind a wall when they use the machine (else they'd get small doses, but lots of small doses) while you get to stand in the beam (high exposure, but you only do it a few times in your lifetime). The Van Allen belt has (relatively) high radiation levels, but unless you're planning on living in it (and most space stations are positioned outside it (well, inside it, relative to Earth)) you're not going to get a lethal dose. All of the discussions about how much shielding is needed for the Van Allen belt are based on the amount of shielding necessary to block all of the radiation, but it's not necessary to do that if you limit the amount of time spent there. The balance is that the Apollo astronauts did get a dose of radiation, but it was in the area of 1 rem (radiation sickness doesn't normally appear until the levels get to about 20-25 rems), so it wouldn't be particularly dangerous (or at least no more so than the trip to space on the booster rocket was to begin with).
Virg
As always, the essential question is why. Prestige only gets you so far. Notice that after mankind proved it could be done in 1969 - 1974, we just plain stopped. Know why? We'd gotten all the scientific information we could reasonably have gotten, it was very dangerous, and very expensive. So now we have to ask why and look for deeper responses, an actual purpose to flying out into space. What possibly could be done on the moon that couldn't be done right here, or perhaps on our money pit noisemaker, the Int'l Space Station (ISS)? I strongly suspect the answer is nothing.
Speaking in a larger, world exploration of space sense, couldn't we get more scientific gain by sending out many, many more satellites equipped with finely engineered sensors? I know our human nature makes us feel that if there's not a biped there we haven't really experienced it, but putting a base on the moon, landing on mars, doing deep space exploration, etc - these are all things that become exponentially cheaper if we decide to send machines instead of people to do it.
Before we went to the moon it held an air of mystery for us. But when we got there we found it was just a big dusty gray rock, and so our fascination was with ourselves with succeeding in getting there, not with the destination itself. People who dream of moonbases fail to realize that it'll never happen. It's like going to a far-away island - anything you need you have to bring with you. Food, housing, any and all equipment to do anything - it's ridiculous and there's no reason for it. We'll also never practice interstellar travel, or likely even get beyond Mars & Venus as humans, mainly due to the gamma ray problem. And will it be worth it? For science, yes. But not for any practical purpose.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
The space-based Hubble doesn't have the resolution to see such things, and even if it did, the very properties of light are such that you can't see something that small from that far out (the wavelength of the light itself limits resolution). However, there's a reflector on the Moon designed to bounce a laser back, which was put there by Apollo astronauts (I don't remember which mission) to measure distances to the Moon. It has since been used many times, and every time someone shoots a laser at the right coordinates, they get the beam back, which is impossible to do with regular Moon surface. It's odd that the conspiracy theorists are so quiet about this device.
Virg
It might be a whole lot easier to accomplish getting somebody to the moon to live if you didn't have to worry about getting them back. I'm willing to believe that the Chinese would send people up to the moon with supplies to attempt to set up a moon base, and keep sending them more stuff, but not worry about the return trip, at least not right away. Send 3 guys up with O2, food, water, and equipment to process lunar dust and rock to extract O2. Use the weight budget that would have been used for a return trip for more survival supplies. Send up resupply rockets. Once the people on the moon have had a chance to experiment on the lunar dust and get a better idea of what would work (perhaps dying in the process), send more people with better equipment. Keep sending people. Don't worry - those who died on the moon did so in the firm belief that they were paving the way for those who followed. They'd be heros on the ground.
The dynamics are way different if you are willing to accept casulties.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."