How China Will Get To the Moon Before a Google Lunar XPrize Winner

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How China Will Get To the Moon Before a Google Lunar XPrize Winner

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday December 8, 2013 @07:06PM from the third-is-better-than-last dept.

An anonymous reader writes in with this link about the advances in China's lunar program. "A $30 million Google-backed competition to land a spacecraft on the moon may be about to be scooped. China's Chang'e 3 probe successfully put itself into lunar orbit on Friday in preparation for an attempted touchdown around Dec. 14. China won't be winning the prize money, which is reserved for privately funded, previously enrolled teams, not government agencies."

173 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

One small post for man by Boronx · 2013-12-08 19:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

One giant leap for mankind.

--
Play Command HQ online
1. Re:One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 00:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  One giant leap for mankind.
  This.
  I live in America. I like its culture. I like its people. I'd like to see it propagate offworld. But if my tribe is no longer interested in taking the high ground, I'd rather see my species - be it 50, 500, or 5000 years from now - speaking some variation of Mandarin than not living offworld at all.
  My tribe's ancestors went there in peace for all mankind. Good luck, Chinese dudes.
2. Re:One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, when they realize they are the only ones there, coupled with the fact that they have the ultimate high ground, where a simple rock lobbed at earth becomes a weapon more potent than a nuke, but without the complexity, it will ensure that one race, the Han race completely dominates the world.
  Yes, it will be expensive, but if it means full control of the globe, and a change of the balance of power, it is far less expensive to toss up a metal rod launcher in a place the enemy can't touch than it would be to wage a conventional/nuclear war.
3. Re:One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  You're insane. How long of a time frame do you have for this scenario? After how many years or decades of nothing will you concede that you're glowingly, utterly wrong?
4. Re:One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Nixon's policies ended a war that started in 1940 when Vietnam pussed out and went the side of the Vichy French on an official capacity, but internally, amongst the people, couldn't decide if they want to be vichy(anti-allies), commie(anti-japan), or free(anti-commie/japan); hence, 35 years of war with minor and major powers in play. It could be put even more succinctly by saying it was a multi-decade multi-war over control of a majority of the world's rubber supply. Basically over 5,000,000 people died from 1940-1975 so you can wear rubbers.
5. Re:One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  You're delusional. Your "tribe" had some good Germans and had to scare the other "tribe" who also had Germans and beat you with many rockets. It was a Cold War saber rattling contest. Nothing more. No one's "propagating" your toxic culture offworld. They're dead, deadly empty rocks out there.
  True. We had help. So did they. And so it was.
  Survey of solar system resources complete within 100-500 years. Offworld (best guess, the asteroid belt or Mars) colonies within 1000 years. Some of these colonies will make it, many won't. Learning to live sustainably offworld will motivate similar technological developments on Earth. Interstellar is off the radar for the forseeable future; I'll let the descendants of humanity make that call. (Good luck finding something that can tick away a few tens of thousands of years and remain viable at the end of the journey.)
  Or we could do it your way. Bicker over the dwindling resources available on Earth, burn them up, and go extinct
  But you're still going to die of old age, QA. (If you want to speed up the process, reject the 3D printing advancements that will make the tissue replacements that will increase your quality of life, but will only delay the inevitable a few years.)
6. Re: One small post for man by iamhassi · 2013-12-09 03:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Considering the number of chinese that learn English in school compared to English speaking children that learn chinese, I have a feeling we will all be speaking a hybrid version of English and Chinese in hundreds of years. English isn't going anywhere, not when billions of chinese are all taught English from ages 4 thru 18.
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
7. Re: One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Y'all will be speaking spanish LONG before that
8. Re:One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Kennedy started (well, took over from the French) that war. Johnson escalated it. Nixon ended it.
9. Re: One small post for man by dgatwood · 2013-12-09 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Considering the number of chinese that learn English in school compared to English speaking children that learn chinese, I have a feeling we will all be speaking a hybrid version of English and Chinese in hundreds of years. English isn't going anywhere, not when billions of chinese are all taught English from ages 4 thru 18.
  So what you're saying is that Firefly got it right?
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
10. Re:One small post for man by Shadowmist · 2013-12-09 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nixon's policies ended a war that started in 1940 when Vietnam pussed out and went the side of the Vichy French on an official capacity, but internally, amongst the people, couldn't decide if they want to be vichy(anti-allies), commie(anti-japan), or free(anti-commie/japan); hence, 35 years of war with minor and major powers in play. It could be put even more succinctly by saying it was a multi-decade multi-war over control of a majority of the world's rubber supply. Basically over 5,000,000 people died from 1940-1975 so you can wear rubbers.
  Actually, Nixon prolonged that war when it could have ended in 1968. Deciding that a successful peace treaty would have been too big an electoral advantage for the Democrats, he sabotaged the peace conference by targeted messages to both sides of the table, effectively killing the peace process.
11. Re:One small post for man by rubycodez · 2013-12-09 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  nonsense, you do realize that the science fiction author who proposed that system was off in his calculations by a factor of a hundred? rods from space are a threat to a vehicle, not your city or country.
12. Re:One small post for man by rubycodez · 2013-12-09 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm amused at the constant slashdot meme that the Chinese or Indians are somehow overtaking the US space program.
  the chinese space program is about four decades behind the US one. and the Indian one even further, about five decades. we're talking about ballistic capabilities, systems complexity but not computer control. when will they have a launch system that can put solar observing satellite inside the orbit of mercury (which takes more delta v than going to another star!), or a launch system that could take men to the moon? not in the near future.
13. Re: One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Citation on this?
  Last time i was in Guilin/Beijing was a few years ago, but you would be pretty hard pressed to find someone who spoke English when i was there.
  The woman at the counter at the Beijing international airport didn't know what "bathroom" was.
  At a public pool in Guilin (population 4.7 million) some university student followed me around for a bit.
  When i asked why she was following me she responded "to learn English". Her English was absolutely terrible so i asked her to speak Mandarin with my wife to get rid of her. Turns out she was an English major and probably had a great understanding of written English but she basically couldn't speak it.
  There is a famous tourist attraction in Guilin in one of the mountains and it has a sign right by the entrance which reads "Be carful your head"
  The tourist authority actually took out ads in the paper asking people to stop trying to translate and ask for an official translation to stop this sort of mess.
14. Re:One small post for man by MugenEJ8 · 2013-12-09 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Please mod up...
  We just simply can't lift the required weight into space to displace existing strategic weapons... Our nuclear forces are here to stay until we have a breakthrough in heavy lift technology.
15. Re:One small post for man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps not everyone views things from a "war" perspective?
16. Re:One small post for man by danlip · 2013-12-09 09:41 · Score: 2
  
  the chinese space program is about four decades behind the US one.
  4 decades ago the US landed a man on the moon. They couldn't do that today - heck we couldn't even get a man into low earth orbit today. So being 4 decades behind the US space program doesn't sound like a bad thing.
17. Re: One small post for man by iamhassi · 2013-12-09 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
18. Re: One small post for man by iamhassi · 2013-12-09 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  You provided me with the citation. There's about a billion more people on earth that speak chinese than naturally speak English yet you said you went to tourist attractions in China and find signs everywhere in English but in the US you wouldnt find signs in chinese anywhere. Then while at a pool in china you said random chinese people start following you around just to hear you speak English. Thank you for proving my point. The number of Chinese that speak broken English is probably greater than the entire US population.
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
19. Re:One small post for man by charyou-tree · 2013-12-09 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  4 decades ago the US landed a man on the moon. They couldn't do that today - heck we couldn't even get a man into low earth orbit today. So being 4 decades behind the US space program doesn't sound like a bad thing.
  The US could put a man on the moon fairly easily, and soon.
  
  We just choose not to, because it's expensive, and as a nation we've judged that there's no point in going there for an afternoon of tourism. Especially considering our reduced tolerance for the risk of a blow'd up spacecraft and messily killed astronauts, risks that were easily accepted in the 1960s.
  
  China's still in the "tourism is a useful learning experience" stage with expendable human cargo.
  
  I know it's Slashdot-fashionable to downplay US abilities and stature in the world, but don't conflate the different goals and attitudes into a statement on capability.
20. Re:One small post for man by rubycodez · 2013-12-11 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  the new heavy launch system that NASA is designing exceeds the Saturn V
21. Re:One small post for man by KingBenny · 2013-12-12 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  it doesnt matter if china gets there before someone claims the google prize, the prize is still there and it can do what it was meant to do : spur innovation and initiative
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Well really.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 19:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

"which is reserved for privately funded, previously enrolled teams, not government agencies"
doesn't that make this article completely irrelevant?
1. Re:Well really.. by rioki · 2013-12-08 19:30 · Score: 2
  
  It does actually not. The summary does not mention this, but AFAIK the X-Prize has the clause "before any national space agency" (except NASA and the Russian obviously). If China succeeds they need to either renegotiate the prize or void it, since the original terms will make it obsolete.
2. Re:Well really.. by rioki · 2013-12-08 19:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I stand corrected, the clause was already dropped:
  
  A recent update in the teams’ legal agreement with the X Prize Foundation removed a $5 million penalty if a government entity got to the surface of the moon first.
3. Re:Well really.. by gl4ss · 2013-12-08 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  in regards to a moon landing it's a stupid combo then.
  why did they pen the original rules as such in the first place?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Well really.. by savuporo · 2013-12-08 20:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because everyone of the "new space" followers was high at the SpaceShipOne X-Prize victory at the time and they all believed space is much easier than government has made it out to be. So they thought putting a lunar lander together takes a blog, two guys in a garage, github and attending a summit - they will all have Chinese beat by years.
  Apparently, it doesnt quite work that way - and Branson is still waiting for his rocket to take him on his worlds highest rollercoaster.
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
5. Re:Well really.. by davester666 · 2013-12-08 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's good news, because the US landed there back in the 60's. And successfully returned.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
6. Re:Well really.. by erikkemperman · 2013-12-08 22:12 · Score: 0
  
  That's good news, because the US landed there back in the 60's. And successfully returned.
  Well that's what they'll have you believe, sure :-)
  I am not a conspiracy nut myself, at least not regarding the moonlanding. Still, I immensely enjoyed this mockumentary, which had the generous support of the Kubrick estate and various high profile politicos (Kissinger, Rumsfeld, among others):
  Dark side of the moon.
  
  --
  Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
7. Re:Well really.. by 91degrees · 2013-12-08 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  Unless China's space budget is less than US$30 million (or at least not too much more), then yes!
  
  We proved getting a spaceship to the moon was possible in the 1960's. The prize is for doing so in a cost effective manner.
8. Re:Well really.. by AC-x · 2013-12-08 23:03 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  . So they thought putting a lunar lander together takes a blog, two guys in a garage, github and attending a summit - they will all have Chinese beat by years.
  No wonder they failed, they forgot to make a kickstarter page :)
9. Re:Well really.. by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2013-12-09 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  The Russians sent a sample return mission in 1970. Luna 16.
  
  --
  Mostly random stuff.
10. Re:Well really.. by Desler · 2013-12-09 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of ultra-simplistic naive world do these children live in?
  Their parents' basements.
11. Re:Well really.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Here is an interesting thought. If they took the time to wander outside of the basement every now, and then, and look at the sky above. And then read some modern history books. Mankind had the chance to have the world ruled by business. The Government/Business model failed due to the lack of foresight of it's leaders, they developed in the wrong country. Now it is the time for the capitalist market to create it's newest enemy and leader. They will take over the world by once a day being overhead.Raise your eyes to the sky, pay a tax. Elevate an idea of god for all, pay a tax. Rebel? forget it, like in the movies, dumb bombs, kill just as effectively as smart bombs. Just as in earlier movies, he on the highest hill, will generally prevail in a battle. Highest hill can also denote deep pockets. But how much more is it to develop robotics...oh? that's already developed...maybe the box is part of boing self assembled missleplex, or intels radar array, or.........
12. Re:Well really.. by Charliemopps · 2013-12-09 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  That was a pretty dumb clause... since pretty much any country on earth with a few billion on hand could build a rudimentary rover, pay Lockheed Martin a butt-load of money and have one there in a few months. Hell, give me a couple of billion and I'll get the pirate bays servers up there... that'd be hilarious.
13. Re:Well really.. by Shadowmist · 2013-12-09 06:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Russians sent a sample return mission in 1970. Luna 16.
  More importantly, the Russians who had ample reason to do so... have never challenged the Apollo accomplishment.
14. Re:Well really.. by dAzED1 · 2013-12-09 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  err...uhhh...well, ok, yeah - any gov with a "few billion on hand" (short list of govs these days) could, sure - except how does that make the clause dumb? The point was to encourage private enterprise to do it before that very thing happened. And yes, anyone could cut the time short by spending even more, but why would a gov do that? Also, sure - put the pirate bay servers up there. The servers themselves rarely if ever go down - the overwhelmingly vast blocking of traffic to/from piratebay is done via IP, not at layer1. So sure - put it on the moon - where there is only one single feed to/from, so that everyone has a much smaller IP space to block. See if that makes the problem better.
15. Re:Well really.. by savuporo · 2013-12-09 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Some of them did
  http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams/omega-envoy/blog/earthrise-space-inc-launches-kickstarter-project
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
16. Re:Well really.. by dkf · 2013-12-09 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of ultra-simplistic naive world do these children live in?
  Their parents' basements.
  That's the problem right there. They'd find launches much easier if they started from their parents' attics.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
17. Re:Well really.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  . So they thought putting a lunar lander together takes a blog, two guys in a garage, github and attending a summit - they will all have Chinese beat by years.
  No wonder they failed, they forgot to make a kickstarter page :)
  My Canadian team had the blog, a couple of guys in a garage, github, a pile of duct tape, and a 1986 Pontiac Acadian but unfortunately, we spent our Kickstarter money on beer and Tim Horton's and our landing vehicle won't pass the provincial safety inspection.
18. Re:Well really.. by bitt3n · 2013-12-09 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  More importantly, the Russians who had ample reason to do so... have never challenged the Apollo accomplishment.
  What are you talking about? A Russian demolished Apollo and we had to go there and get revenge.
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 19:16 · Score: 0

When you unlimited, unrestricted government support and funding, its real easy to this kind of stuff.
1. Re:Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  I for one welcome our new governmental overlords.
2. Re:Well yeah by Opportunist · 2013-12-08 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  Who said that, Wernher von Braun?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  You the necessary authorisation for the verb budget, though.
4. Re:Well yeah by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-12-08 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, Wernher von Braun said "Ja, vee could fly to ze moon and back with zis rocket, but a one-vay flight to London vill do for now mein Fuhrer."
  Or were you talking about something he said in his post-paperclip period?
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
5. Re:Well yeah by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-12-08 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  You the necessary authorisation for the verb budget, though.
  The verb "need" needs authorization too it would seem.
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
6. Re:Well yeah by Opportunist · 2013-12-08 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
  that's not my department says Wernher von Braun.
  --Tom Lehrer
  But seriously. Of course, unlimited funds can move mountains. Or people onto the moon. And maybe even back, too. Von Braun sure had unlimited funds in the 60s.
  Too bad the US leaned back on the "we're #1, why try harder" position. Just think where we could be by now.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Well yeah by khallow · 2013-12-08 23:29 · Score: 2
  
  Too bad the US leaned back on the "we're #1, why try harder" position. Just think where we could be by now.
  At some point, they needed to have something in space which generated a return on investment. Apollo didn't do that. And the Shuttle ended up being even worse (for about ten years till 1984, no one in the US could actually launch a payload on a private launch vehicle).
8. Re:Well yeah by pahles · 2013-12-09 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that was the point of the AC...
  
  --
  Sig?
9. Re:Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Und I'm learning Chinese, says Wernher von Braun.
10. Re:Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Return on investment, that is for business to have, for you and I, the taxpayer, all we get is the bill. The return, better science, better world view, better communications, just think of what happened since that initial investment? No return? to be blind, you want?
11. Re:Well yeah by zwarte+piet · 2013-12-09 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not easy at all. But yeah, money is excellent lube for getting stuff done and they don't have to reinvent the wheel.
12. Re:Well yeah by khallow · 2013-12-09 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  The return, better science, better world view, better communications, just think of what happened since that initial investment?
  My point exactly. NASA has burned something like a trillion dollars and all we have to show for it is vague happy-speak like the above.
China scooped by the Soviet Union by erice · 2013-12-08 19:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you are going to include government probes than China was itself scooped by the Soviet Union's Lunokhod_1 rover more than 40 years ago.
1. Re:China scooped by the Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  It's ok comrade. Fame, fortune, and glory is shared by all fellow communists.
Finally First Landing on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 19:30 · Score: 1

I guess everybody is tired of these fake Hollywood landings.
Something about cart and house, counting chickens by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 19:32 · Score: 0

before they hatch, and whatnot. It's not like this is the 1950s and some Sputnik thing was in the news and I Like Ike on half of all rear bumpers. Now it is Apple bling, Facebook friends, and "Amazon is having a (fake) sale" time, not a (Space) race to the moon. It wa already done. A long, long time ago. Catcha a falling neutrino why don't you.
Google is eyeing The Moon!! by soumen_78 · 2013-12-08 19:33 · Score: 1

Google is not letting go any terrestrial object!! .. LOL!!
1. Re:Google is eyeing The Moon!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 20:01 · Score: 0
  
  Google is not letting go any terrestrial object!! .. LOL!!
  Okay, but what does that have to do with the moon?
How will China get there? by guttentag · 2013-12-08 19:34 · Score: 1

I give up. Are the Chinese running KitKat or Key Lime Pie on Chang'e 3?
1. Re:How will China get there? by jones_supa · 2013-12-08 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Using Windows XP is of course the best way to win XPrize. A copy with the WGA cracked.
missing the point by stenvar · 2013-12-08 19:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

The point of the X-Prize is to show that private space exploration is possible, i.e., that the costs have come down enough so that it makes sense for businesses to start engaging in space exploration, or that it has become cheap enough so that people can do it for fun.
The ability of space exploration by tax-payer funded government entities doesn't need to be established, it was established half a century ago. Communist nations tend to be even better at doing such things in the short run because they can redirect money more easily to such projects even if they don't make sense.
1. Re:missing the point by savuporo · 2013-12-08 20:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hmm. Apparently capitalist governments are even more effective at sinking funds into projects like that, because its widely recognized that US beat the Soviets in the early space race.
  Of course, for some inexplicable reason US didnt respond to Soviet challenge by leveraging the power of free markets, private industry and entrepreneurial spirit. They decided to beat massive Soviet state run design bureaus backed by their military industry complex by establishing their own massive state run design bureau backed by their military industrial complex. They even bagged members of the same team of germans as their design leads !
  Funnily enough, Russians are now launching the lions share of commercial space payloads, whereas the recent SpaceX Falcon 9 first comsat launch was the first in years for US.
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
2. Re:missing the point by stenvar · 2013-12-08 20:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Hmm. Apparently capitalist governments are even more effective at sinking funds into projects like that
  Yes, because they end up having more money to spend.
  
  Of course, for some inexplicable reason US didnt respond to Soviet challenge by leveraging the power of free markets, private industry and entrepreneurial spirit.
  The US leveraged the power of "free markets, private industry and entrepreneurial spirit" by taxing it.
  
  Funnily enough, Russians are now launching the lions share of commercial space payloads, whereas the recent SpaceX Falcon 9 first comsat launch was the first in years for US.
  Funnily enough, private industry has little incentive competing with government services, in particular if private industry is heavily regulated. And for anything other than satellite launches, there simply hasn't been much incentive for private investment at all. The Soviet union is, of course, still just living off resources created on the back of peasants and workers during the Soviet era.
  The moon landing may have been a good political stunt, but scientifically and economically, it was a huge waste of money.
3. Re:missing the point by savuporo · 2013-12-08 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  The Soviet union is, of course, still just living off resources created on the back of peasants and workers during the Soviet era.
  USSR doesnt exist anymore - but if you meant Russian space industry, then yes absolutely. And it has been crumbling for years.
  The moon landing may have been a good political stunt, but scientifically and economically, it was a huge waste of money.
  You'll get no argument on this one. Most of the manned spaceflight to date is still a huge waste of money.
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
4. Re:missing the point by subreality · 2013-12-08 21:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  its widely recognized that US beat the Soviets in the early space race
  By whom?
  First artificial satellite: Sputnik
  First human in space: Yuri Gagarin
  First human in orbit: Yuri Gagarin (He gets mentioned twice because he achieved this before the US managed even a suborbital flight)
  First lunar flyby: Luna 1
  First impact on the moon: Luna 2
  First spacewalk: Aleksei Leonov
  First soft landing on the moon: Luna 9
  The commitment to boots on the moon led to Gemini turning things around in the mid '60s, but before that the Soviets did quite well, especially with Earth-orbit tech.
5. Re:missing the point by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-12-08 22:17 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Hmm. Apparently capitalist governments are even more effective at sinking funds into projects like that, because its widely recognized that US beat the Soviets in the early space race.
  Dunno about that. IMHO the Soviets did every bit as much good pioneering work with the Lunokhod program and Mir as the US did with the entire Apollo program and the space shuttle program. Apollo was a spectacular propaganda Lunokhod represented a way of doing the same amount of scientific work the Apollo missions did with less risk and at a fraction of the price. Lunokhod set the pattern for the way space exploration is done today and Mir yielded a mountain of data on the problems of really long term missions in space. In my book it is rather uninteresting who gets there first, what counts is the scientific work you do once you get there and the what technologies you pioneer in the process. I also respect anybody who turns a profit in the space industry, especially people who manage that without any government subsidies in any form (direct or indirect) since that's not an easy thing to do by any means.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
6. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 23:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Also first woman in space: Valentina Tereshkova
7. Re: missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 23:15 · Score: 0
  
  You've never heard of "investment"?
  What do you think is the right way? Build a USS Enterprise with warp engines in the beginning - why waste all that money with small capsules and shit?
  All money spent in manned space exploration will pay dividends ultimately, at least a trillion fold.
  SyÃ vÃhemmÃn jÃkÃlÃÃ ja enemmÃn kalaa niin aivosi pysyvÃt virkeinÃ.
8. Re:missing the point by Dodgy+G33za · 2013-12-08 23:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bloody bean counters. It was not a waste of money. Any more than climbing Everest, or the race to the South Pole, or finding the Higgs Boson.
  The space race inspired the current generation of rich people prepared to put funds into private space initiatives.
  We don't want a robot to land on mars. We want a human to tell us how it feels to stand on an alien planet and try to spot the Earth in the nights sky.
  You want to look at a waste of money? Look at how much Coca Cola spend to try to make you buy their flavour rather than the oppositions. Now that is a REAL waste.
9. Re: missing the point by khallow · 2013-12-08 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  All money spent in manned space exploration will pay dividends ultimately, at least a trillion fold.
  I have no idea whether you're serious or not. But I'll point out that there are substantial opportunity costs when one burns a few billion on a white elephant rather than something productive.
10. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 23:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Also:
  Venera 3, first manmade object to impact another planet's surface.
  Venera 4, first spacecraft to measure the atmosphere of another planet.
  Venera 7, first spacecraft to successfully land on another planet.
11. Re:missing the point by khallow · 2013-12-08 23:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Lunokhod represented a way of doing the same amount of scientific work the Apollo missions did with less risk and at a fraction of the price.
  It didn't. The scientific output of Apollo was quite remarkable. And there's two simple reasons why. First, they had the best machines of the day, people (which incidentally are still the best machines of the day) gathering samples and running experiments on the surface.
  
  And second, they returned 380 kg of lunar material to be studied for the past few decades. Do you really think a 60s vintage lunar rover is going to get better data on lunar material on location than generations of Earth-based scientists do with a sample return?
12. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be mistaken, citizen. Ever since the US won the cold war* they have been meticulously re-writing history. You only have to watch the opening credits to Star Trek Enterprise to realise that the USA pioneered all aviation, spaceflight and exporation, and the USSR never even really existed at all. USA! USA! USA!
  *If you can count "managed to last a few extra decades before imploding economically and violently collapsing" as a win, that is.
13. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  Do you really think a 60s vintage lunar rover is going to get better data on lunar material on location than generations of Earth-based scientists do with a sample return?
  Note that the Soviets had their own, unmanned, Lunar sample return missions. They were more proof of concept missions and only returned minimal quantities, but it was entirely feasible. The Chinese have their own unmanned sample return missions planned, and the NASA would, if Congress let them.
14. Re:missing the point by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-12-09 01:03 · Score: 2
  
  Lunokhod represented a way of doing the same amount of scientific work the Apollo missions did with less risk and at a fraction of the price.
  It didn't. The scientific output of Apollo was quite remarkable. And there's two simple reasons why. First, they had the best machines of the day, people (which incidentally are still the best machines of the day) gathering samples and running experiments on the surface.
  And second, they returned 380 kg of lunar material to be studied for the past few decades. Do you really think a 60s vintage lunar rover is going to get better data on lunar material on location than generations of Earth-based scientists do with a sample return?
  No I don't but then that's not what I was trying to point out. I said the Soviets did a whole lot of invaluable pioneer work in the field of unmanned space probes and that Lunokhod pointed the way to the future. Or do you really think thtat the future of deep space exporation is in grandiose Apollo program like manned missions to remote corners of the solar system? What has been the focus of space exploration since Apollo? Wait... let me think... Oh yes it's been unmanned probes, even NASA acknowledges that. It will _always_ be more cost effective to send robot probes and that includes sample return missions. That writing has been on the wall since Apollo and it has only become more true as we have gotten better at AI and robotics.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
15. Re:missing the point by Vintermann · 2013-12-09 01:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  First lunar flyby: Luna 1
  The impressiveness of this feat is only slightly tainted by the fact that it wasn't supposed to be a flyby. They missed.
  All us KSP fans can relate to that, I'm sure...
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
16. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  The reason for the US effort to go to the Moon was not scientific. It was giving the USSR the middle finger telling them that we can drop a bomb on you anytime anywhere baby. I know. My father was one of the Apollo Moon shot development team. I live in Huntsville, Alabama and have been around this all my life. The Apollo mission documentation had to be stolen by Lewis Sinko (A real hero on many accounts) in order to save it. Presidents Nixon and Ford both ordered the Apollo documentation destroyed because it was considered to be an Arms Control issue. When Lewis Sinko (Huntsville, Alabama) died, his family found the data in his stuff and donated it to the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. It was subsequently digitized and is not stored and protected. NASA used data from it for much improvement of their current efforts. The greatest technological treasure of the 20th century had to be stolen to preserve it.
  The reason (I knew Lewis Sinko) Mr. Sinko stole it was events of the late 1950's. He was working at Redstone Arsenal on the first effort to launch an American Orbital Shot by the US Army. President Eisenhower viewed this as a complete waste of time and money and ordered the lab and all of its technical devices emptied into the Redstone Arsenal Dump. When Sputnik went up suddenly we needed the stuff. Mr. Sinko and others had conspired with the dump manager to have these items carefully protected. They then bought with their own money these dumped items back from the RSA dump and restarted America's effort to go to orbit after Sputnik. The USA would have beatend the Russians to orbit and the other firsts had Eisenhower not been a Horses patoot.
  Americans seem to require a kick in the butt in order to get them moving in the right direction. The Russians seem more able to keep the consistent plodding progress forward. China and India are looking to go up and do things because of strategic competition similar to that of USA vs. USSR.
  I cannot imagine how much better things would be if the world could actually do something without being terrified and doing it for war. Nobody seems to be willing to give a damn about the future until it is in dire peril of immediate death and destruction.
17. Re:missing the point by bluegutang · 2013-12-09 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Do you need human beings in order to bring back material for Earth-based scientists to analyze?
18. Re:missing the point by thrich81 · 2013-12-09 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Out of all the manned spaceflight milestones of the 60's, only three really stand out in history -- Gagarin's orbital mission (Vostok 1), the lunar orbit mission of Apollo 8 and the lunar landing mission of Apollo 11. Lesser milestones as far as future space development is concerned were the first orbital rendezvous of Gemini 6/7 and the first orbital docking of Gemini 8. Your caveat that things turned around in the mid-60's is a rarely acknowledged point in these sort of discussions.
19. Re:missing the point by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2013-12-09 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, for some inexplicable reason US didnt respond to Soviet challenge by leveraging the power of free markets, private industry and entrepreneurial spirit. They decided to beat massive Soviet state run design bureaus backed by their military industry complex by establishing their own massive state run design bureau backed by their military industrial complex. They even bagged members of the same team of germans as their design leads !
  The US led private industry design and build the Apollo project. I don't know how detailed the specs were that private companies like Lockheed and Boeing were given for their parts of the program, for example. I did have a chance some years ago to talk to a guy who worked on the Apollo project for NASA and he was working there during the first moon landing. He told me an interesting story about the onboard computer that the LEM (lunar lander) used and mentioned that MIT was responsible for the programming on it.
20. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and anyone who doubts that should look at the mission spec and outcome of Apollo 15. The ability to place trained men on the surface and actually be able to look at, examine and react to what they saw was what got us the Genesis Rock. No robot mission would have been able to do that, and we'd still be far less scientifically enlightened.
21. Re:missing the point by savuporo · 2013-12-09 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  Any everest climber pays for it with his own money, or by his direct sponsors that support his cause. South Pole the same. Higgs Boson and LHC are scientific endeavours, greatly contributing to science and our understanding of the word.
  Apollo was "our germans are better than your germans" and "we can build a bigger ICBM than you" pissing contest - and effectively bankrupted further space development on both sides. As has been said elsewhere in this thread - Lunokhods and Luna landers, and Surveyors were much much more reasonable use of the funds. And im not against manned spaceflight per se - i think X-15 was an excellent use of funds too.
  In fact, Apollo can be blamed on the fact that we still dont have O'Neill colonies and a lunar base, because it established the wrong paradigm that was unaffordable from the get go.
  We don't want a robot to land on mars.
  The world's attention on MSL/Curiosity landing and live broadcast on Time's square speaks otherwise.
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
22. Re:missing the point by sootman · 2013-12-09 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. Everyone knows (I thought) that the USSR had a good early lead.
  Image that sums it up nicely: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43907-Here-s-an-infographic-that-shows-the-space-race-in-it-s-historical-context
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
23. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  We don't want a robot to land on Mars. We want a human to tell us how it feels to stand on an alien planet and try to spot the Earth in the nights sky.
  Good luck with that. Earth is not visible in the night sky of Mars, any more than Venus is visible in our night sky. It is, however, sometimes visible in the dawn or evening sky.
  Mercury, now, Earth is visible in Mercury's night sky (part of the year). (It's not visible from Venus if you're standing on the surface.)
24. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  It will _always_ be more cost effective to send robot probes and that includes sample return missions.
  Citation required, i.e., show me the numbers.
  Granted, a single Lunokhod mission was cheaper (most likely) than a single Apollo mission, but compare a few grams of returned dust samples against hundreds of kilos of samples hand-picked by astronauts with geology training (and in one case, a professional geologist), plus the seismometers, magnetometers, solar wind samples, heat flow instruments, etc, etc emplaced or recovered by the Apollo crews.
  How many Lunokhod missions would it take to equal that, and what would they have cost?
25. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Eisenhower wanted civilians, rather than the military, to be first in orbit. But beyond that, he wanted the Soviets to be first so that he could establish his Open Skies policy. If a Soviet satellite overflew the US first, they could hardly object to US satellites overflying the USSR, even though they'd previously rejected Open Skies when it came to aircraft.
26. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  There are plenty of others achievements.
  Even more salient is the fact that the Soviets are still space-era ready. Since the space shuttles have been decommissioned, if you want to get past Earth's gravity well, you will be looking at a control panel in Cyrillic text.
27. Re:missing the point by Shadowmist · 2013-12-09 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Our luck with the Ranger program wasn't much better. We sent 9 Ranger probes to the Moon. Only the last three returned any usable photos.
28. Re:missing the point by Shadowmist · 2013-12-09 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  It will _always_ be more cost effective to send robot probes and that includes sample return missions.
  Citation required, i.e., show me the numbers.
  Granted, a single Lunokhod mission was cheaper (most likely) than a single Apollo mission, but compare a few grams of returned dust samples against hundreds of kilos of samples hand-picked by astronauts with geology training (and in one case, a professional geologist), plus the seismometers, magnetometers, solar wind samples, heat flow instruments, etc, etc emplaced or recovered by the Apollo crews.
  How many Lunokhod missions would it take to equal that, and what would they have cost?
  It would have taken a lot of Lunokhod missions true, but most likely it would have been at a much lower cost. Not to mention safety. The last three Apollo missions weren't canceled out of cost issues, but the realization that the NASA had been playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette when they could have easily lost an Apollo crew to solar flares as depicted in the fate of Apollo 18 in Jame's Michner's "Space". The loss of an Apollo crew would have been considered a propaganda disaster in the Cold War tainting the U.S. only real "first" in the space race, so having shown that we could repeatedly send men to the moon, the decision was quietly made to end it at 17.
29. Re:missing the point by couchslug · 2013-12-09 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  "We don't want a robot to land on mars. We want a human to tell us how it feels to stand on an alien planet and try to spot the Earth in the nights sky."
  Of course as space is permanently hostile to unarmored humans we'll need robots to do nearly everything for us once we get there, so I'll not quibble about sending robots (which can be developed far more rapidly than meat passenger systems) in advance.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
30. Re:missing the point by stenvar · 2013-12-09 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  The space race inspired the current generation of rich people prepared to put funds into private space initiatives.
  There is no evidence that that was a good deal; private space exploration might well have started far earlier if the US government had gotten out earlier. I think the space shuttle was an utter disaster.
31. Re: missing the point by stenvar · 2013-12-09 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  All money spent in manned space exploration will pay dividends ultimately, at least a trillion fold.
  No, the money is wasted; future manned space exploration will use none of those technologies. And if we had spent that money for unmanned, commercially viable space exploration, robotics, etc., manned space travel would be much further ahead by now.
  Manned space travel by NASA was a huge misallocation of resources that has held back both unmanned and manned space exploration.
32. Re:missing the point by khallow · 2013-12-09 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  It would have taken a lot of Lunokhod missions true, but most likely it would have been at a much lower cost.
  
  Than a national prestige mission that happened to have some scientific output as part of the package? A manned exploration program that put some effort into reducing costs would also have been much lower cost than Apollo.
33. Re:missing the point by khallow · 2013-12-09 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  You don't. But they'll still the best tool for a lot of space activities both from capability and cost standpoints.
34. Re:missing the point by Shadowmist · 2013-12-10 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  It would have taken a lot of Lunokhod missions true, but most likely it would have been at a much lower cost.
  Than a national prestige mission that happened to have some scientific output as part of the package? A manned exploration program that put some effort into reducing costs would also have been much lower cost than Apollo.
  How much cost reduction is debatable. A significant part of the payload for a manned mission has to be devoted towards keeping the living cargo....well... living. Apollo wasn't a mision about national prestige... it was simply stark fear. That did get kind of muted after the crash of Luna 15, and space eventually became a cooperative venture between the two powers. The Soviet Union even supplied the flight path of Luna 15 to ensure Apollo would not collide with it. That itself is places the Soviet Union as a corrobative witness to the moonflight.
35. Re:missing the point by romons · 2013-12-10 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  You don't. But they'll still the best tool for a lot of space activities both from capability and cost standpoints.
  If only they weren't so soft and squishy!
  
  --
  Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
Hey Cool by arcite · 2013-12-08 20:16 · Score: 0

China has caught up to cold war tech from 50 years ago! I'm much more impressed with the Indian satellite effort which just set off for Mars.
1. Re:Hey Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  The moon is actually a very hard target for autonomous rovers.
  The temperature differences on the moon are way more extreme than on mars. The russians basically landed a tank there when put their rover there.
  I don't think the US actually put an autonomous rover on the moon so far.
  The moon may be thought of as easy due to how close it is, but its environment is probably more difficult to master than mars.
2. Re:Hey Cool by TheloniousToady · 2013-12-09 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's all very impressive that they could land something on the moon 50 years later, but let's see them do it without microprocessors, as the US did. Whenever I think about the 1960s' moon efforts, I'm amazed that it could be done at all with the computer technology that was available at the time.
3. Re:Hey Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  China has caught up to cold war tech from 50 years ago!
  Which would already be remarkable enough given their state 50 years ago, if it was as simple as that.
  (Hint: It's not. Their mission is much more sophisticated than the Luna program.)
4. Re:Hey Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  Are you seriously delusional that India's Mars probe is in anyway "Indian"?
  India can't design/manufacture a proper infantry rifle of its own.
  INSAS rifle
  Having to source quantities of foreign rifles from among other places Taiwan!
Is it wrong by dale.furno · 2013-12-08 20:17 · Score: 1

That deep inside, I hope that the Chinese have a critical failure which either prevents them from completing the mission, or their lander is somehow destroyed on impact? It doesn't count if all you do is deposit litter does it?
1. Re:Is it wrong by savuporo · 2013-12-08 20:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes its wrong. China has lots of scientist and engineers that have put their hard work into this - and they are doing something that nobody has done for decades, and they are doing it better, with more modern and even completely new instruments.
  Why would you want this to fail?
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
2. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 20:54 · Score: 0
  
  That deep inside, I hope that the Chinese have a critical failure which either prevents them from completing the mission, or their lander is somehow destroyed on impact? It doesn't count if all you do is deposit litter does it?
  Yes it is.
3. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 21:26 · Score: 0
  
  It's call rooting for the home team... Something that is all well and good until someone loses a lander.
4. Re:Is it wrong by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-12-08 22:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Rooting for a weak home team hoping that the stronger team fails is pathetic.
  The correct attitude is to make the home team better.
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
5. Re:Is it wrong by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2013-12-08 22:13 · Score: 2
  
  I largely agree, but the original objective was binary -- "round-trip completed intact" | "round-trip not completed intact" -- and since the US & USSR didn't fail partway through the trip, there isn't a whole lot of room for doing it "better." They might do it more cheaply, complete the round-trip faster, or succeed against the most overwhelming odds, but those are all different issues, IMHO.
  
  --
  Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
6. Re:Is it wrong by psnyder · 2013-12-09 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  The home team is called "humanity". So I'm not sure what all of you are going on about. Maybe you're playing a different game?
7. Re:Is it wrong by dbIII · 2013-12-09 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes definitely. Look at what is happening on Mars and just be happy that there are more players instead of a pissing contest that NASA would lose to anyone that isn't getting their budgets cut. With a bit of luck a Chinese success will inspire more funding to NASA and more things for US nationalists to cheer for.
8. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's called stupid nationalism.
9. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  But that would be hoping the technology developed by the USA would be bad. How, reverse engineering, Boing, Northrupt, or whatever junkyards were shipped to china, just for that.If not for our business developing the next great enemy? where would they be? Maybe better?
10. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps, but one of the most nationalistic nations on this planet, is China. And the Chinese gov. is in a cold war with the west and intends to win. Hopefully, the Chinese citizens will realize that this is in NOBODY's interest and will rise up against the commies.
11. Re:Is it wrong by savuporo · 2013-12-09 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  I have a hard time understanding the concept of nationalism in a country made up almost exclusively of immigrants.
  
  --
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
12. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  China throwing off its communist tyrants (still the same people no matter what you libs think and lefties lie) would be a real 'win'.
13. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they could just take some of their $3.5 trillion in foreign exchange reserves and outsource this to the US?
14. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  so you're saying the Chinese aren't Human?
  Thats a little, I dunno, racist, actually more than a little
15. Re:Is it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 15:11 · Score: 0
  
  as opposed to china? How fucking stupid are you? I recognize you are sitting next to you liberal college professor right now trying to get his computer to work, and you are just trying to score points with him for your lame sophistry. The U.S. is so nationalistic, it makes the Chinese speak English. Which is good for the Chinese, since it gives them a common language to rally around instead of there hopelessly fragmented country.
  The fact is the U.S. simply assumes the rest of the world is an extension of the empire. Which is exactly how the British planned it.
  now fuck off.
As someone born in 1988 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 20:20 · Score: 1

I'm glad that someone is going to the moon. I never got to ride the Concorde either.
Perfect cycle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 20:33 · Score: 0

Sure, China will go to the moon, mine all the bitcoins, send them back to Earth, ban all the bitcoins causing the price to skyrocket straight back to the moon.
What did those on the LAST Concorde flight think? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 20:49 · Score: 0

I WISH I never got to ride the Concorde.
... We got there first... like in the 70s... by Karmashock · 2013-12-08 21:05 · Score: 1

So... China's trip isn't comparable to what the private companies are doing. When a private chinese company sends something to the moon... then they're in the running. Till then... welcome to the party china... the punch bowl is over there.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Re:... We got there first... like in the 70s... by Dodgy+G33za · 2013-12-08 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  I am looking forward to watching that runner sitting by the track with the stars and stripes watching the running in the red go running by. Closely followed by the one in the green orange and white.
  Space race Mk2. Bring it on.
2. Re:... We got there first... like in the 70s... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  What is Ireland doing in space? :)
  
  And if you think that USA is sitting on the sideline, then I suggest that you google on CCdev and then Bigelow Aerospace.
  And India is not even close to what SpaceX is doing. Their largest LV takes 5 tonnes to LEO, while F9 takes 17 tonnes to LEO. And within 1 year, SpaceX will take 52 tonnes to LEO. And all of this was without the massive failures that India has suffered on all of their launch systems. In addition, SpaceX's F9 is much cheaper than GSLV or POLV in terms of KG to LEO.
  
  And even China is not that close, assuming that US Congress will quit trying to hurt private space.
3. Re:... We got there first... like in the 70s... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  Hey Windbourne, I think you are delirious from all that Elon Musk ejaculant that you've guzzled down.
  SpaceX CRS-2 F9 has taken a grand total of ~5tons to LEO of which only ~0.5tons was useful payload. I'm having a hard time finding where "17 tonnes" dropped some 12 tonnes of it mid-flight.
  "Much cheaper"?
  SpaceX is handsomely paid $133million to lift this paltry 0.5ton to the ISS.
  For the same $133million, the Russians will put 2.5tons to the ISS.
long time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 21:22 · Score: 0

long time ago in haliford
the pun-ish-ment book say
holder stole the swimming pool keys
and then threw them away
I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 21:42 · Score: 0

It will explode from using low quality components.
This coming from a country that managed to blow up water melons amongst many other thing, I wouldn't be surprised.
1. Re:I when wonder... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-12-08 22:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It will explode from using low quality components.
  Many of the quality product you associate with "american-made" or "european-made" are in fact made in China, part or whole.
  If you still think China churns out shite copies of good products like in the 70s and 80s, you need a reality check. Many, MANY China products are brilliant, quality made and innovative. Granted, many are still shite and copies too, but that's changing fast.
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
2. Re: I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 23:17 · Score: 0
  
  OK please give some examples of which Chinese products are brilliant. I am curious.
3. Re: I when wonder... by jones_supa · 2013-12-08 23:31 · Score: 2
  
  China is an expert in manufacturing in both ends. They can make weak stuff but also extremely professional robust stuff.
4. Re: I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 23:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I work in China. Even the Chinese don't believe that their products are any good. Their manufacturing skills are sketchy. Their design skills are weak. Raw materials are sub par. Their key asset is low cost. Not quality.
5. Re:I when wonder... by khallow · 2013-12-09 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  They were saying similar things about Japan in the 1970s and creating chicken little blockbusters in the 1980s about how Japan was taking over the US. Now, Japan is merely a really big economy without either the ridicule or terror.
6. Re: I when wonder... by Luckyo · 2013-12-09 00:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's just like Japan in the 50s and 60s.
7. Re: I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  The iPhone.
8. Re: I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  The Japanese culture is different from the Chinese. The Japanese have some pride in their work and strive to make it better. The Chinese replace food products with melamine if they think they can get away with it.
  The Chinese are not guaranteed to follow the same trajectory as the Japanese, just because they started out in the same place.
9. Re: I when wonder... by mlts · 2013-12-09 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Part of it is that China produces what is specced and paid for. Spec out a piece of crap, and the Chinese factory will happily make sub-par components for you.
  Spec out top tier materials, high tolerances, good QC, and the shipping containers will have stuff that is on par with what Europe makes. The problem is that if you pay for the top tier stuff, China's competitive edge is less than doing it domestically or having it done in Japan or Europe.
  It isn't really China's fault they are the go to guys for the "make 'em cheap, stack 'em deep" orders by companies wanting to cut corners.
10. Re:I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Getting to moon obit proves China can make rugged products, if they want but they usually don't.
  I'm totally tired of all the China garbage crap products and I now make a point to shop for non-China items when possible.
  I've replaced more broken, failed and worn-out too-early items in last few years than ever, almost all from China.
  China products brilliant ? Well that really depends on your view point.
  Quality ? Are you on drugs? What a fucken joke!
  Innovative ? Well... sort-of but innovative as in making shit look good until it's purchased then used a few months untill it breaks, fails or just can't do what it was supposed to do.
11. Re: I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Well said.
  I am also tired of this "china makes crap" stories.
  Its pretty rare that we buy any products from China directly. There are always middlemen in there trying to cut corners and make a buck.
  If they asked the Chinese to make good products (and paid them for it) i'm sure they would.
  Look at the ever popular i* products and where 100% of it is made.
  All we want is to have walmart and the dollar stores fully stocked.
12. Re:I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  perhaps you should blame the people who asked the chinese to make the cheap crap you bought?
  All the items which broke or wore out early, did they have Chinese names on them?
  IE did your Chongqing motorcycle die or did the product have some domestic name on it?
13. Re: I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  Manufactured in china for sale in china, or for export?
  The stuff they make for sale there tends to be terrible, but the export stuff is built to spec (if you ask for cheap they will make cheap).
14. Re: I when wonder... by Luckyo · 2013-12-09 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, you seriously think that Japanese wouldn't do the same back in the 50s and 60s? Country with millenia worth of sacrificial culture, country that has existed in one of the least certain environments in the world leading many japanese to still adopt a very nihilistic view on life?
  They'd have done it in a heartbeat. And their public would have supported it. Wholeheartedly. They'd just shout "for the empire" and bury the kids, like they've done countless times before.McArthur had to do some very nasty cultural brutalizing to get Japanese "civilized" into more Western levels of respect of life of those of lower status.
15. Re: I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-10 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  Well, they apparently didn't, so there's that data point. But I guess your hypothetical argument counts just as much as historical data that actually happened.
  Meanwhile, the Chinese have a laundry list of melamine-in-food incidents that keeps getting longer. Every culture has its bad apples, but this sort of behavior seems very prominent and enduring in China.
16. Re: I when wonder... by Luckyo · 2013-12-10 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Err, they didn't because McArthur was in charge. Their first uplifting on the other hand back in late 1800 and early 1900 pretty much followed that particular form.
17. Re: I when wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-10 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile, the Chinese have a laundry list of melamine-in-food incidents that keeps getting longer
  A bit one-sided view of history, possibly ignorant possibly intentional, but neither lends much confidence in your judgement/opinion.
  As if the west's food supply is not tainted with steroids, antibiotics, insecticides, herbicides...all in the name of profit.
  Then there's genetically modified plants that you're enjoying day in and out...I'm not even an expert in chemistry or biology so I'm sure there are other controversial subjects but these are some issues you might want to explore in your own backyard before you meddle in topics you seem to have rather limited knowledge of.
Re:What did those on the LAST Concorde flight thin by zwarte+piet · 2013-12-08 21:49 · Score: 1

Why's that?
Re:What did those on the LAST Concorde flight thin by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-08 23:22 · Score: 0

Cramped, not very confortable, noisy on the inside.
Re:What did those on the LAST Concorde flight thin by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 00:29 · Score: 1

I presume he is referring to the Air France Concorde that crashed.
Too easy to fake + China = FAKE by fygment · 2013-12-09 01:00 · Score: 0

Really?
The US moon landing has been doubted for year despite: relatively open process, poor CG at the time, less knowledge of the moon's environment.
China has: very closed access to any of its government activities, access to the best in CG and amongst the most powerful computers, modern knowledge of the moon's environment.
In short: this self-aggrandizing goal is just TOO EASY TO FAKE. So they will.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
1. Re:Too easy to fake + China = FAKE by arcade · 2013-12-09 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm. Easy to fake? So, how will they fake out the huge amount of telescopes that will be pointed at the moon when they approach? How do they fake the large amount of listening posts that will listen for the chinese signals from the moon?
  Not to mention, flybys by other nations, later, will look for the equipment. It would be kind of embarrassing when nobody can find it. ;)
  
  --
  "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
2. Re:Too easy to fake + China = FAKE by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Mass hypnosis, of course.
3. Re:Too easy to fake + China = FAKE by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  woosh.
4. Re:Too easy to fake + China = FAKE by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hey Windbourne, I think you are delirious from all that Elon Musk ejaculant that you've guzzled down.
  SpaceX CRS-2 F9 has taken a grand total of ~5tons to LEO of which only ~0.5tons was useful payload. I'm having a hard time finding where "17 tonnes" dropped some 12 tonnes of it mid-flight.
  "Much cheaper"?
  SpaceX is handsomely paid $133million to lift this paltry 0.5ton to the ISS.
  For the same $133million, the Russians will put 2.5tons to the ISS.
Congratulations! by argStyopa · 2013-12-09 01:38 · Score: 1

A nation of 1.4 billion people, with a gdp of $8 trillion, the largest nation in the world, will manage to reach the moon before a couple of handfuls of mostly-private teams with budgets perhaps 1 MILLIONTH of theirs.
Go China!

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Congratulations! by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-12-09 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  A nation of 1.4 billion people, with a gdp of $8 trillion, the largest nation in the world
  I assume you're labeling them "largest in the world" because of their population, since the US GDP is almost twice that high, and even Canada is physically larger...
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
big surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 02:31 · Score: 0

You mean a giant government with a growing space program can beat a privately funded company to the moon? Nawwww... can't be.
China's plan to reach the moon by dysmal · 2013-12-09 02:54 · Score: 1

They're going to make a human ladder. One person stand on another's shoulders. THIS is why they've got so many people in their country. Why spend money on a space program when you can just climb your way there?!
1. Re:China's plan to reach the moon by rubycodez · 2013-12-09 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  actually, they only need to jump together repeatedly and in sync to slowly knock the earth's orbit through the Sol-Jupitar L1 or L2; from there they can go anywhere in the solar system with very little perturbation. Indians could do it too except they would have to eat more meat first.
Re:What did those on the LAST Concorde flight thin by gl4ss · 2013-12-09 03:34 · Score: 1

at least you had metal forks.
besides, you wan to try cramped, try an asian budget airline(still better service than norwegian or ryanair though..).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You're missing a few by tekrat · 2013-12-09 03:49 · Score: 2

First Woman in Space : Vanetina Terechkova
First Manned Space Station : Salyut
First Lunar Orbit : Luna 10
First Venus Landing ; Venera 7

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
One small post for A man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:15 · Score: 0

FTFY
what a stupid story by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 04:41 · Score: 0

Seriously, stupid. What is missed is that China is doing this and will turn over that technology to a 'private' group who will then attempt google on the Chinese dime.

The other item missing is that China has never done a landing. I am guessing that unless they have direct programming from other nations (either legal or illegal), it WILL fail. And to be honest, that is a GOOD thing. That means that they are finally doing their own work. OTOH, if it succeeds first time, and without the massive amounts of practice that other nations have taken to make this work, it is an indicator that China is still about stealing rather than developing. And to be honest, I hope that it fails so that China is forced to think out how to solve this problem. They may come up with a better solution than what they currently have, or possibly what the rest of the nations have.
1. Re:what a stupid story by mlts · 2013-12-09 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why would it be guaranteed to fail? The knowledge to do this is getting to the half a century mark. We have better knowledge, better computers for simulating potential mishaps, better engineering, better metals, superb polymer tech, and both the knowledge of the USSR and the US, with their mistakes.
  This is not as much breaking new ground as it is a task of getting a specialized factory up to speed, which is something China does damn well.
2. Re:what a stupid story by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  Look at how ESA failed with landing on mars. It was easier than landing on the moon. Yet, it crashed. Why? Because the fact is, that it is a HARD THING TO DO.
  Likewise, look at how private space is working their tail off to do VTOLs for NASA's prizes. They have had many crashes and still have failures.
  Then you have SpaceX who with NASA's help still has had issues landing on earth.
  
  And China has done none of the testing that SpaceX or other groups have done.
  
  As such, if they are successful, it will indicate that they simply made off with other's technology. IOW, they are stealing and copying. Heck, they could not even get a decent launch until American companies gave them a freebe (dumb fucks).
  BUT, if they fail, it is a good indication that they are finally, doing the work on their own and will acquire the real knowledge and experience to do real rocket science in the future.
  IOW, I would expect that in the next year or two, for a decent lander to be made.
  
  Always remember, that failure is a good indication of art being done. Science is when you have the knowledge and can avoid the failures.
Re:Something about cart and house, counting chicke by edremy · 2013-12-09 04:43 · Score: 1

Catcha a falling neutrino why don't you.
Being done as we speak, by one of the coolest (both figuratively and literally) experiments ever designed.
(Technically, they weren't falling but rising- Ice Cube uses the Earth as a shield to screen non-neutrino events)

--
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
so this is a NON-story ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 06:32 · Score: 0

Lots of slave labor taxmoney (you do realize the industry in China is all government controlled ... no ?) paying for this big PR/Propaganda job ---- will be funny as just before it supposed to land their constant talk about it goes dead and it is never mentioned again (you will know it crashed) OR are they sophisticated enough to have a CGI'd mission already 'in the can' for a very possible failure ???
Well lets see - Surveyor landed in 1966 - so they can still have a chance of beating being 50 years late, even if they have to try several moire times.
Oh and Sorry China - our flags been there for many many decades already.
1. Re:so this is a NON-story ??? by rubycodez · 2013-12-09 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, that's totally different from the USA where over half our wealth is taken in taxes, we're only governmet slaves until mid July
2. Re:so this is a NON-story ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-09 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Know what i find funny here, your assumptions.
  You assume China will fake the mission, and yet you proudly state the flags have been there since 1966 but yet this is not an assumption?
  I'm no moon conspiracy theorist but you do realize that many (including US citizens) feel the US faked it?
  What do you consider the US bailout? Are those industries not "government controlled"?
  Who pays for all the big US propaganda if not the tax payers? Certainly not businesses as many large profitable multi-nationals actually receive tax refunds.
  Please share some more of your "do as I say not as I do" type logic.
which organization can go forward? by peter303 · 2013-12-09 07:05 · Score: 1

China has slow, steady well financed program. Private contests may have some hope. the US program suffereing death by a thousand small cuts. They manage to get two Mars probes funded this decade, otu several planned. JPL-NASA is talking about turning off Opportunity soon because they cannot financially afford to operate multiple Mars Rover due to sequester cuts. Curiosity has more powerful instruments and has less explored its area.