Slashdot Mirror


China to Land on Moon Around 2017

smooth wombat writes "China has announced that it plans to land on the moon around the year 2017. They also plan to set up a moon-based astronomical telescope, measure the thickness of the moon's soil as well as the amount of helium-3 on the moon. Helium-3 is regarded by some researchers as the perfect non-polluting fuel source. China's first lunar orbiter could blast off as early as 2007, coinciding with its third manned space trip in which possibly three men would orbit Earth in Shenzhou VII and conduct a space walk."

33 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Helium-3 is great and all... by Krach42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But since it's a fermion, it can't become a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

    Sorry... too much Wikipedia :(

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    1. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Helium-3 is really just an excuse. We can make all the helium-3 we want here on earth for much cheaper than it would ever be from the moon.

      Helium-3 is a decay product of tritium (which has a reasonable half-life). Tritium can be produced by neutron bombardment of lithium targets. That's what it takes to make the stuff here on Earth

      What about on the moon? Its crust is only 20 ppm helium. That's just helium, though - He3 is 10 ppb. That's a tiny, tiny amount of He3. Given that mining, refining, and shipping costs in extraterrestrial environments are going to be preposterously high for the near future, realistic recovery is just right out.

      What about its applications? First off, first-gen nuclear reactors aren't going to be able to burn He3. You'd have to scale up something like ITER far beyond its already gargantuan size to think about getting that sort of confinement. Some potential reactors, such as inertial electrostatic fusion or focus fusion, should be able to scale to generate power from He3 (if they were able to pass break-even - a big if). Yet, such reactors could be similarly scaled to use B11+p fusion, which is a much better proposition than He3 fusion.

      So, I don't hold much credence for He3 fusion, and even less for getting it from the moon.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
  2. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    US knows how to do it with 1960's technology, making the moon viable as a platform for other activities, requires almost repeating the Apollo program all over again. Why? Because all moon activity was stopped in 1972 when the last 2 Apollo flights were scrapped.

    Plus maybe the most imporant factor: money. I guess China needs 10 year to spread the cost. Or would you rather pay for it? (And here I mean you, as in US citizens) USA owns China a LOT of money, i.e. China sits on wast dollar reserves. and can easily drive the value of dollar down the drain and/or raise the US interest rate a few points. Result of the almost 8 trillion dollar deficit USA has.

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  3. Not He-3 again! by Rorschach1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Frankly, I think this is a really stupid argument for lunar exploration. Yeah, it might be a good fuel - IF we had fusion reactors that could use it! It's not like bringing back a truckload of this stuff is going to instantly solve our energy problems.

    Exactly how much better than the usual DT mix would this stuff have to be to make it worth the expense of getting it and bringing it back?

    1. Re:Not He-3 again! by Krach42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think they're mostly going there to see how much there is there, not to start trucking it back.

      First you have to know how abundantly you can get a fuel before you start using all of it. It'd be stupid to work on a fusion reactor that burns He-3 when it would just run out of fuel when we stopped being able to get ahold of the stuff...

      you know... like coal, and gasoline.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    2. Re:Not He-3 again! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The world as a whole is consuming energy at a rapidly accelerating pace. The reserves of non-renewable energy are quite well known, and they aren't going to last long (in terms of where we'll be in 2050-2100). There are many ways to reduce the dependency on oil (fuel cells, natural gas, hybrid cars, electric cars) but they all require energy. Apart from the ever elusive fusion reactor, there really aren't any exciting plans to generate more energy. The renewable sources are fairly well known (sun, wind, water, wave energy) and don't amount to much. Remember that we are using up the natural supplies accumulated over millions of years in a few short centuries. That will not be easily replaced.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. Just wait 'til they get there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait until they arrive and find out it's just a Hollywood set.

  5. Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're taking the long view of becoming a super power.

    And leaving their enemies radiation free.

    1. Re:Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They're taking the long view of becoming a super power.

      At first I was trying to get the joke. Then I realized, it's an incredibly brilliant insightful remark - joking or not. The Chinese have a much longer view than we Westerners. They are on their way to becoming a Superpower and they know it. What I'm concerned about is this and subsequent administration's (US) take on this. Hopefully this may mean a new interest in space exploration and NASA?

      If so: Whoo hooo!

      --
      Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
  6. Mine the moon screw up the environment by technoextreme · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let's just mine the moon of it's natural resources. It won't affect the earth in any way or will it... If we take off any sizable chuck of the moon it will affect the tides.

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:Mine the moon screw up the environment by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, do the math. If we stripped off the first mile deep of mass all the way around the moon, its volume would only be reduced by 0.28% or so. That's a lot of mass, and not much of an effect.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  7. Re:Territorial claims? by trevdak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that it would be logical for countries to establish bases within reasonably close proximity. There is too much that can go wrong for someone to risk establishing a 'loner' base.

  8. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Funny

    "[...] China sits on wast dollar reserves [...]"
     
    ...which they need in order to pay for their nuclear wessels.

    (I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.)

  9. They just want check... by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that they can see the Great Firewall from space.

    --
    Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
  10. Proving something? Anything? by carsamba · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since the days of US vs CCCP space race has passed and nobody seems to be interested in our very convenient stepping stone for some real exploration. We have become so much accustomed to satisfied with the warp drives and photon sails and whatever in the space opera shows we like so much, many people (perhaps excluding most /.ers) are overlooking the fact they are waiting to be invented and implemented. Since the Soviet Union is no more, the battlefield has shifted somewhere else, space exploration has served its temporary political purpose now the russkies are defeated (though it was very useful for technological advances as a side effect). We are living the days of land and resource grab (WMD anyone?), when nobody wishes to look ahead.
    China has been a world power for -let me see- all known history, and is chinese first and anything else a distant second. They are a pragmatic people, move with slow but sure steps. I certainly hope this move of theirs will have more real tangible benefit to humankind, and not just for political bravado.

    1. Re:Proving something? Anything? by mikapc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China has not been a world power for all known history and you only need to look at the 19th and early 20th century to see they were dominated by Europeans states like the UK. Furthermore the point should be made that the China nation that existed 2000 years ago is different enough from the modern state we call China, that they should be regarded as separate entities. The same could be said for other nations that claim a western civilization heritage with the ancient greeks. While it's true Britain and the United states existence has been strongly influenced by the ancient hellenistic greeks there certainly are plenty of differences including time, place, other customs that clearly differentiate them from one another. All I'm saying in a nutshell is that the modern, industrialized world we live today is so different then that of the ancient or medieval world, that the modern Chinese have more in common with modern Europeans and Americans, then they do with their 2000 year old ancestors. Also whatever you want to say about China's greatness, the fact of the matter is the Europeans were the ones who eventually brought about the industrial revolution and the modern world we live in today. Who knows, it's quite possible China may take the lead in 21st century in furthering the progress of civilization another step but only after it has embraced the modern world that western civilization has created (Which it is doing by the way, including it's current capitalistic reforms). The fact is all civilizations borrow and steal great ideas from one another and China is no exception. So get rid of your foolish nationalistic pride that everything that is good was derived from Chinese civilization. The world is becoming more globalized and internationl to the point where it's often not possible to associate a technological achievement with a country.

  11. It was a crash program when we did it by Doug+Coulter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And, NASA was mostly all engineers -- good ones. Now it's mostly PhDs. This is a big difference when it comes to actually accomplishing something. An engineer solves several problems a week, and writes reports about them -- all in the same week. A PhD has solved one problem, took a few years, then took another few years to write the report. And oh yeah, his solution doesn't have to work outside the lab. As a result of working with ex-NASA employees (the good engineers who got chased out by the academic snobbery) I found the corporate culture to be pretty sick in recent (some years ago) days. Gosh, this IS rocket science, and some of it is dangerous (work out how many horsepower hours it takes to put a car into orbit, with 100% efficiency -- it's one heck of a bomb those guys ride), but they are too timid to admit that surely some folks will die playing with it. It seems China has a more healthy outlook here, and might go somewhere with it. Of course, if the academics weren't eating every last dime of the appropriations to "study stuff that can't be checked or proved", there might be money to get the job done, as there was last time. It's profitable to remember that these super smart academics missed Mars by failing to know the difference between metric and English units. Of course they are scared to attempt something most perceive as "simple". They'll want to study it for the rest of their careers and pass the problem to the next guys.

    1. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's profitable to remember that these super smart academics missed Mars by failing to know the difference between metric and English units.


      Actually, Lockheed Martin Engineering's team used the English system while Nasa was expecting Metric:
      http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric. 02/

      Besides standard being an idiotic system and that even England switch away from it's own system in measuring many things, most people learn in 6th grade science class to use Metric dealing with science.

      It seems engineers in Lockheed dropped the ball, not the Ivory Tower academics at Nasa.
    2. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Informative
      In the real world, a lot of engineering gets done in standard, particularly in the US. The reason? If I walk to the hardware store, they are gonna sell me a 2"x4" piece of wood, not 40mm X 90mm. The same is true for metal, screws, bolts, even the specifications for things like motors and sensors.
      Well I'm an engineer in the real would and pretty much everything is done in metric. Look at your car sometime. It doesn't matter if it is an American car or not, every bolt in there is a metric bolt. Cylinder heads are measured in mm. Volume in cc's. The only time I have to use imperial is when dealing with a small machine shop that hasn't updated their equipment yet. In construction even a 2x4 isn't 2" x 4". It's a historical naming convention.
      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  12. We'll build more nukes. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We will operate under the same belief that served us well against the Soviet Union. We will build so many nukes and aim them at China that we will be able to destroy their entire country if they should ever attack us.

    The problem is that, this time, we'll be playing the part of the Soviet Union and go bankrupt trying to support an Earth-bound force when they can drop rocks on us all night. All of our satelites will be useless. All of our production facilities will be useless. But we'll still spend money on them.

    1. Re:We'll build more nukes. by suitepotato · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, we can build and loft transorbital weapons carrying vehicles at a rate that is truly staggering compared to China. Of couse, so could Japan for that matter. Ours though would carry some very well designed and very specialized nukes that would make any lunar base a thing of the past in short order. China can't militarize the moon. We could.

      Never mind that doing so would be insane given the nearly quarter million mile distance away. An orbital vehicle with tungsten rods deorbited by rocket would be much more effective and need no advanced materials technology in comparison to any "railgun" or other electromagnetic weapon. These can be lofted for a small fraction of a moon mission so forgo one moon mission and buy a small fleet of satellites that can pound any known ground force into dust and smoke in the blink of an eye.

      Going to the moon is ego polishing for China, irrespective of the communists who know how old and feeble they are getting and have only been playing for time against their shorter and more violent removal. They know China will become a multi-party democratic nation eventually, but that moon landing with always be a CHINESE event. Everyone who has ruled China back to the first emperor would find pride in it.

      Pride is a powerful motivation and one the west seems to be forgetting in an orgy of nonsensical "the west is responsible for all evil" self-loathing. The Chinese don't loathe themselves or their nation or their people. Neither should we on the other side of the planet loathe ourselves. We've all done some amazing things in a short period of time and have a right to hold our heads up and continue driving forward. Us here in the west AND China in the east. If more people understood that the evil that men do does not make the men inherently evil and unworthy of continuance, we might already have lunar colonies. Instead we sit here on this limited ball of rock crying our beer about the past. We have a future to get on with and we shouldn't throw it away. China isn't.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  13. Hmmm by sundancekid503 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bought many of acres of moon land through the "Lunar Registry". I assume that China will check with me before picking a landing spot? I don't want any of my prime real estate damaged by their rockets.

    I didn't pay $32/acre just to let anyone use it. That would be stupid!

  14. So they'll be there first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    China - 2017
    USA - 2018

    not of course counting: Hollywood - 1969

  15. Vapor hardware by amightywind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It notice that is 1 year before the first planned landing for NASA's new lunar lander. For China to land on the moon by 2017 Apollo style they would have to have at least a 100 ton class booster and a huge, visible effort. The planned Long March 5 booster is only 25 ton class (like Arianne V or Atlas V). Development isn't even approaved yet and it will take 7 years to develop. I doubt if the Russians will be helping them. If you ask me I'd say the Chinese spokesman was smoking crack.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  16. Asians in Space. by natedog44 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They don't even know how to drive a car, and they're going to land on the moon? Good Luck... Hopefully they don't dent up the ISS while en route =P

  17. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

    "sits on wast dollar reserves. and can easily drive the value of dollar down the drain and/or raise the US interest rate a few points."
    You see that is the funny thing. If China drove down the value of the dollar then cheap stuff from china wouldn't be cheap! The less reason for jobs to be out sourced and production would shift back to the US. China can not afford to devalue the dollar or have it's currency go up. The last thing they want is to become a consumer economy instead of an exporting one. What you think would hurt the US would actually in the long run help it.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  18. He-3 Not Feasible by LordMyren · · Score: 3, Informative
  19. Re:You really have an odd sense of history by HungWeiLo · · Score: 4, Informative

    China has always been a poor farming country until recently.

    Poor farming countries tend not to be able to carry out voyages with a fleet of over 300 ships of which some are the size of a small aircraft carrier, halfway around the world (and some say all the way around the world) nearly 100 years before Columbus.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  20. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Trigun · · Score: 5, Funny

    They could just stand on each other's shoulders like they did in the kung fu movies.

  21. Re:Territorial claims? by ashitaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, it wasn't.

    I heard it with my own ears when he said it and a thousand times since. There wasn't enough time between "for" and "man" for there to have been an "a". Also the way his diction moves through "for man" differs than that if he had said "for a man" which would have come out more like "fora man". (Say it to yourself a few times)

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  22. China is NOT party to that treaty... by Danathar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China has NEVER signed either the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 OR the updated Moon Treaty of 1979.

    If they want to claim it there is no international legal mumbo jumbo to say it's not theirs.

  23. Re:repeating history? by tftp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China is the largest regional power; it was such for thousands of years. All this is well documented. However it was never a global power (=superpower); Emperors just minded their own business and practiced calligraphy. Now is the time to change that. A base on the Moon, armed or not, will be a very strong statement, and China has resources to do that. USA does not have money (all it has is a huge debt to, for example, China...) So USA can compete only if China allows it, in form of investing into more green pieces of paper.

  24. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Not quite but it's the next best (?) thing. China is a country full of poor people. These space missions are rah-rah points for the leadership to show how great the country is on the world scene so the sustinence farmers making do on $800/year will feel as if their sacrifices are not in vain.

    China had 3 billionaires in 2004, this year they've got 10.

    Adjusting income for cost of living, there's plenty poor people in the USA.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar