Photos Stream Back From China's Lunar Lander

Burning Bush? by retroworks · 2013-12-15 11:02 · Score: 4, Funny

That first photo makes me think they are coming back with tablets and commandments...

--
Gently reply

Re:Burning Bush? by Optali · 2013-12-17 03:05 · Score: 1

That first photo makes me think they are coming back with tablets and commandments...
Damn Apple! They did it again!!!

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast

Reference, please? by Lisias · 2013-12-15 11:05 · Score: 1

As far exerybody can thrust the submitter =P on the matter, giving us some links for references would not had hurt anyone. :-)

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org

Are they claiming more territory? by mc6809e · 2013-12-15 11:06 · Score: 5, Funny

I heard that the Sea of Tranquility is now the South China Sea of Tranquility.

Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Anne_Nonymous · 2013-12-15 11:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Also, they found living organisms and they are delicious.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by KingOfBLASH · 2013-12-15 11:37 · Score: 1

You jest but what do you think will happen globally if China starts planting flags and claiming the moon for their own personal use?
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by SuperKendall · 2013-12-15 11:39 · Score: 1

First one do to so deserves to keep what they can keep a footing on, I'd say.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Razalhague · 2013-12-15 11:51 · Score: 2

Considering that China has signed and ratified the Outer Space Treaty (which explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet), they'd probably get a few stern words and looks. On the other hand, if they actually manage to mine and transport something back, then there might be some mild repercussions.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 12:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Sea of Tranquility has always been part of China.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Razalhague · 2013-12-15 12:37 · Score: 1

I said mild.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Goody · 2013-12-15 13:04 · Score: 1

If China plants flags all the US needs to do is send a robot to the moon that finds flags and shreds them. Problem solved.

--
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Charliemopps · 2013-12-15 13:22 · Score: 1

Which would be nothing once our government drops a rock on their camp site and calls it a meteor strike.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Charliemopps · 2013-12-15 13:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

The treaty doesn't say anything about them not being able to mine the shit out of the moon. It just says they can't claim territory or place nukes in space (which you can be damned sure we've already breached) It also says the parties retain rights over whatever the launch into space, so should they start building mining platforms and shipping stuff back, we couldn't touch the equipment without breaching the treaty.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Teancum · 2013-12-15 13:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Then again that treaty has language which states all any signatory country needs to do (including China) is to give a one year's notification that they are withdrawing from the treaty. They China (or America or Russia) can do whatever they want to do with no need to worry about a pesky treaty that might get in the way.
Besides, there is really no enforcement provision that stops any country from claiming sovereign territory other than it might be causus belli (a rationale for war) for other countries to step in and try to stop them. That likely would happen with or without the treaty anyway so it is mainly window dressing and nothing more on that point.
If there was some extra-terrestrial real estate that some country really wanted to claim, I think that one year notification rule would be plenty of time before anybody else could get to that same hunk of rock in the sky.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by R3d+M3rcury · 2013-12-15 15:40 · Score: 1

Of course, if we in the US landed today, it would be the AT&T Sea of Tranquility.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by ArsonSmith · 2013-12-15 16:58 · Score: 1

Mmmmm, Budweiser Sea of Tranquility

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by SuperKendall · 2013-12-15 17:30 · Score: 1

Don't you think any serious lunar presence would kind of plan for the possibility of large rocks? Us sending one specifically is just messing with probability a little.
Not to mention we would have to first find a rock to drop, and do all that without anyone noticing.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by NewtonsLaw · 2013-12-15 18:08 · Score: 1

Oh I wish I had mod points today.
Spat my coffee all over my screen when I read that.
ROTFFL
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by TheGratefulNet · 2013-12-15 19:23 · Score: 1

but you are forgetting one thing: the deflagulators are all made in china! and now, they won't sell us any; now that we've revealed our true intentions.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by VortexCortex · 2013-12-15 19:59 · Score: 1

mine and transport something back
Well, their little rover will be sampling soils.
Considering that China knows how valuable rare-earth materials are, I'd wager they would rather extract them on the moon and use / sell them for creating things off-world without incurring the gravity tax.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by m.alessandrini · 2013-12-15 20:16 · Score: 1

They also found scientific evidence that the Great Wall can be seen from Moon.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by m.alessandrini · 2013-12-15 21:09 · Score: 1

We are managing the Antarctica quite well without fighting each other, and that's much easier to colonize than the moon.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Razalhague · 2013-12-15 21:40 · Score: 1

The treaty doesn't say anything about them not being able to mine the shit out of the moon.
Never said it did.

It just says they can't claim territory or place nukes in space (which you can be damned sure we've already breached) It also says the parties retain rights over whatever the launch into space, so should they start building mining platforms and shipping stuff back, we couldn't touch the equipment without breaching the treaty.
We wouldn't need to touch the equipment, just implement trade sanctions on whatever they mined out (or the resulting products made from them).
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Razalhague · 2013-12-15 21:51 · Score: 1

Frankly, the ability to withdraw from the treaty is irrelevant. The stern words and looks would just come when they withdrew from the treaty, instead of when they claimed their bit of the moon (actually, they'd probably receive some of the words and looks then, too).
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by KingOfBLASH · 2013-12-16 00:39 · Score: 2

Trade sanctions against china are another sort of Mutually Assured Destruction.
As they're basically the world's factory, trade sanctions would toast our economy as our factories wouldn't be able to replace capacity in China.
China also holds a huge chunk of US Assets and debt. It would be very disruptive to the US ability to finance the government if they decided to dump it.
And there you have it. We can't hurt they unless we hurt ourselves.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-12-16 01:23 · Score: 2

If you want to avoid a gravity tax when building stuff in space, it makes much more sense to mine the stuff you'll need the most of, weight wise. Stuff like metals. The small amounts of rare earth materials could just be sent up by rocket along with parts manufactured earth-side.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Teancum · 2013-12-16 03:22 · Score: 1

Frankly, the ability to withdraw from the treaty is irrelevant. The stern words and looks would just come when they withdrew from the treaty, instead of when they claimed their bit of the moon (actually, they'd probably receive some of the words and looks then, too).
Stern looks and mean words are irrelevant as well. Only backing it up with a threat to destroy, occupy, and control the country making such a move would have any sort of teeth to the treaty.
More than likely what would happen is a division of the Moon between the permanent members of the UN Security Council, with perhaps a bone thrown to most of the G20 nations as well to each get their piece of the action. It might just be a blueprint for other places around the Solar System as well.
Eventually there is going to be a need for some country to do more than simply send out scientific expeditions, and the Universe is a big enough place to not let everything above the Kármán line simply remain an international heritage park.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Teancum · 2013-12-16 03:32 · Score: 1

No, "we" are not really managing Antarctica very well. The fighting that could be happening there is simmering just below the surface where occasionally a country like Chile has tried to assert their sovereignty there. The primary thing that keeps war from breaking out in Antarctica is a threat of global thermonuclear war between the nations involved, and that Antarctica by itself isn't worth that kind of national destruction.
For myself, keeping Antarctica as an international heritage park and essentially just a scientific playground is more than sufficient for what is a limited resource... and has value simply for the scientific exploration that still is happening there. There are natural resources to be found in Antarctica like coal, oil, uranium, and other deposits of natural resources, so there is something to fight over from a global war standpoint. Antarctica could also economically support through mining activity alone a permanent habitable city, but the current stalemate between the major countries is likely a good thing too.
This is a terrible template to impose upon other places in the universe though, as it essentially dooms mankind to just the Earth and nowhere else. There are other reasons why I think the Outer Space Treaty was a bad idea, but ultimately the benefits for the countries who reach out to the rest of the Solar System are going to be so apparent economically that the treaty is going to be discarded completely at some point in the future. I think it is an unstable relationship that is sooner or later going to burst and better to resolve peacefully in a manner that acknowledges sovereign claims of extra-terrestrial real estate than presuming the current situation is going to continue forever until a war breaks out to force a change.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by m.alessandrini · 2013-12-16 04:42 · Score: 1

Well, i don't see it as negative as you, i think there is so much space out there for everyone to expand with or without treatys, and the supposed economic benefits would require such a technological leap that (hopefully) human race will have evolved, too.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Teancum · 2013-12-16 05:09 · Score: 1

If you really think we can get beyond territorial claims, you must come up with some sort of government system that fundamentally changes human behavior and actions. Even something so simple as a basic mine to extract raw materials like iron ore (a very common element among the asteroids and even on Mars and the Moon) is going to require somebody to stake out a claim of some nature where those operating the mine will not be happy if somebody else decides to share in the easy pickings after they have spent million or even billions of dollars building up the infrastructure necessary to get that mine operational.
In other words, for resource extraction to take place, you need to assure some sort of property claim, which implies some sort of government besides the end of somebody's shotgun (laser riffle, or whatever else you can think up for space-based personal combat). It can be orderly, but land title claims would need to be enforced by a government entity of some sort.
As big as space is, as many asteroids that exist and I admit that Mars is as large for surface area as the entire land area of the Earth, there still are going to be some spots that will be more desirable than others and will be a source of competition and "friction" between groups of people. There are also lazy people who will gladly take the work of others and use it for themselves that need to be shown the frontier and told to move on.
I guess I'm a realist on this matter, and I think it is a shame to continue supporting a treaty that was explicitly drafted by a bunch of communists (primarily the idea of the people in the Soviet Union at the time it was negotiated) who thinks personal property rights are a thing of the past. Without personal property rights in space, mankind will never go into space.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Lord+Lemur · 2013-12-16 06:42 · Score: 1

China also holds a huge chunk of US Assets and debt.
8%of our publicly held debt is owned by China.
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by cusco · 2013-12-16 07:01 · Score: 1

Trade sanctions? Are you unaware that the US isn't the only market for Chinese goods? Big freaking deal. They can sell the electricity from a solar power satellite to anyone they want, or lease space in their extreme-vacuum lab, or whatever. The US market isn't the be-all and end-all of international commerce.
Actually, after about ten seconds of thought, any US corporation that wanted access to the products of the Chinese space program would simply create an offshore subsidiary to do business, the same as they do for trade with Iran.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Are they claiming more territory? by m.alessandrini · 2013-12-16 07:15 · Score: 1

I may agree on your point, apart from the usual american trend of calling "communist" everything diverging from their opinion. The treaty was welcome by all the countries, and conversely the soviets were willing to "own" the world as much as the americans.

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by Seumas · 2013-12-15 11:09 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm really tired of the media and politicians dismissing our lack of investment in science and space exploration by belittling Chinese efforts. "Durp durp, we already done been to the Moon, you stupid backwards Chiners durp durp!".

It's a first step that they'll likely quickly capitalize on and while our media and government like to convince us that the Chinese are goofy little 50-years-later-runners-up, they're an economic and political powerhouse that will, if they decide to invest further in it, leapfrog our accomplishments by light years. And sooner rather than later.

If we don't get serious about doing it ourselves -- or even better, co-operating with scientists on an international scale for the betterment of everyone -- we're going to look like the back water yokels.

Also, Iran Claims 2nd Successful Monkey Launch by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 11:14 · Score: 2, Informative

In addition to the Chinese moon-rover landing Iran is claiming a 2nd successful launch and recovery of a Rhesus macaque.

And Slashdot has already reported about India's Martian expedition.

Rocks by Dan+East · 2013-12-15 11:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are some rocks of significant size immediately behind the rover. Those are certainly large enough for the rover to get hung on or to flip it over on its side. I'm surprised the lander touched down within just a few feet of rocks like that. Either their hazard avoidance system looks only directly beneath the footprint of the lander, or it failed to properly detect those rocks. Had it landed just 50% closer to those rocks, the ramp the rover descended would have been right on them..

--
Better known as 318230.

Re:Rocks by Raumkraut · 2013-12-15 11:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

Rejiggering the launch site for an unmanned craft, with several seconds round trip phase lag for course corrections from the ground control, is an even worse problem.
Chiang'e 3 had a ~30 second "hovering" stage during its decent, during which it scanned the area it was over (using radar and laser IIRC), and itself made the decision where exactly to land based on that information.
AFAIK ground control could have interrupted and overridden the process at any stage, but did not.
Re:Rocks by Dan+East · 2013-12-15 11:54 · Score: 1

I'm saying the margin for error seemed needlessly minuscule given the stakes involved.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Rocks by fractoid · 2013-12-15 12:49 · Score: 1

In that case, (a) they probably picked this spot because the available space was within tolerance, and (b) well now, hovering around for 30 seconds before landing is just showing off. :P

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:Rocks by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 14:20 · Score: 1

The whole surface is covered in rocks, it's hard to find anywhere that's really a "good" landing site. You may be familiar with the story that Armstrong had to manually land the Eagle, with rapidly diminishing fuel and a navigational computer continually throwing up overload error messages due to a minor mistake in the protocol manual, in a different area to that planned because once he got close up he could see it wasn't suitable.
Re:Rocks by spasm · 2013-12-15 14:24 · Score: 1

You forgot the third option - the hazard avoidance system saw the rocks and avoided them. The fact the lander didn't hit them suggests this is at least a plausable option..
Re:Rocks by m.alessandrini · 2013-12-15 21:37 · Score: 1

Yes, CPUs are a little better today than the Apollo ones. Drones can land on an aircraft carrier even with the worst sea conditions.
Re:Rocks by StripedCow · 2013-12-15 22:07 · Score: 1

They have taken a thousand complicated steps to make this mission work, and you think they were just fooling around when it came to designing the landing procedure?
Nope. The Chinese are smarter than you want to believe.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:Rocks by FhnuZoag · 2013-12-15 23:34 · Score: 1

So, not exactly '40 year old tech', eh?
Re:Rocks by fractoid · 2013-12-16 00:12 · Score: 1

Not in the slightest. 20 years from now China will be mining the asteroids.

Time to start learning Mandarin.

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:Rocks by cavebison · 2013-12-16 14:46 · Score: 1

There are some rocks of significant size immediately behind the rover.

You mean Rocks Of Unusual Size(tm)

Polonium 210 is so versatile by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-12-15 11:21 · Score: 2

Is keeps Russian probes warm and turns Russian spys cold.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Be careful... by anyanka · 2013-12-15 11:23 · Score: 4, Funny

They better be careful... We all remember what happened to the Tsien. Fortunately, this one is not manned...

Re:Be careful... by cavebison · 2013-12-16 14:50 · Score: 1

We all remember what happened to the Tsien.
.. everyone Tsai'd?
(inter-language humour..)

congratulations to russia by elmer+at+web-axis · 2013-12-15 11:29 · Score: 2

Normally people buy flying toys from China and are happy to have them land without crashing. China brought a really big toy from Russia and was happy to not crash it. I think more congratulations should be directed to Russia than China. Russia has a thriving space program even if it is via proxy. Maybe America needs to take a page out of Russia's book and licence more tech to places like China to allow them to continue space exploration while America seems to lack the will. At least then if something does go wrong America could learn from it but be able to point fingers at China saying it was really their fault. Beta testing at it's finest.

Those who think that moon landing was a fake ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-12-15 11:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's time for those who insisted that the moon landing by the Apollo astronauts were fake to stop spreading their falsehood.

The moon pictures that the Yutu rover and the Chang'e 3 lander take look very much like the pictures that NASA provided us some 40-odd years ago - of course they can try to claim that these new batch of pictures are fake as well.

I do not understand why there are still people holding on to that kind of conspiracy theory. I just do not understand.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 11:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Pics or it didn't hap-... Uh, wait...

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 11:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Can you be a little bit more specific ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-12-15 11:45 · Score: 1

They better be careful... We all remember what happened to the Tsien. Fortunately, this one is not manned...

Can you kindly elaborate what you mean by " the Tsien " ?

I have been closely monitoring China for the past 40-odd years and never encountered any Chinese spaceship with any name that associated with "Tsien".

I'll be very appreciative if you can share with us the information that you have on "Tsien".

Thanks !!

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re: Can you be a little bit more specific ? by skadacl · 2013-12-15 11:53 · Score: 4, Informative

Arthur C. Clarke... Space Oddyssey 2010. The chinese secretly constructed an interplanetary spacecraft in plan sight... saying it was a space station.
Re:Can you be a little bit more specific ? by RDW · 2013-12-15 11:53 · Score: 2

You really need to pay more attention. The Tsien landed on Europa three years ago. Unfortunately there was technical problems and contact with the lander was lost.
Re:Can you be a little bit more specific ? by anyanka · 2013-12-15 12:12 · Score: 3, Informative

Here's the guy Clarke named the craft after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsien_Hsue-shen (it's only in the book, not the movie, so you may be excused for not being aware).
Re:Can you be a little bit more specific ? by DigiShaman · 2013-12-15 17:47 · Score: 1

What part of -Attempt no landing there- do people not understand? Obviously, someone didn't get the memo.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re: Can you be a little bit more specific ? by CohibaVancouver · 2013-12-15 17:57 · Score: 1

saying it was a space station
That's no space station! It's a moon.

assuming plutonium-238 is true by rewindustry · 2013-12-15 11:50 · Score: 1

how are they allowed to pollute the moon like that? do we simply assume humans will never go there, or is 238 some kind of magic vanishing form of radiation, that will not simply sit there and radiate, as nuclear waste tends to do? we can safely assume, i assume, that shielding was not included in the 120kg design, or am i wrong? have they some legitimate excuse for this, or should we simply assume "some sources" are wrong about the plutonium, in the first place?

Re:assuming plutonium-238 is true by aXis100 · 2013-12-15 12:03 · Score: 5, Informative

The radioactives used in RTG's are usually alpha emmitters that can be sheilded very easily - thin sheet metal is enough, let alone the whole carrier assembly. It's gamma rays that are the problem and require several feet of lead to shield fully. Chosing the right isotopes with a favourable decay chain reduces or eliminates gamma ray production.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Selection_of_isotopes
Re:assuming plutonium-238 is true by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 12:10 · Score: 1

On the moon I would be more worried about cosmic radiation...
Re:assuming plutonium-238 is true by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 13:28 · Score: 1

How else are you going to keep General Tso's Chicken warm for the man in the moon? I wish my delivery guy had some of that shit.
Re:assuming plutonium-238 is true by confused+one · 2013-12-15 13:35 · Score: 4, Informative

1. It's necessary, without it the equipment freezes and gets destroyed during the 2 week "night". 2. It's an insignificant amount of radiation compared to what the Sun is doing to the surface of the Moon. 3. You're surrounded by naturally occurring radioactive materials, stop freaking out every time someone mentions the word "radiation", or starts talking about "uranium", "radon", "polonium", "cesium", or "plutonium". These are useful materials if correctly handled and applied. Need I remind you that bananas are a source of concentrated Potassium 40.
Re:assuming plutonium-238 is true by VanessaE · 2013-12-15 23:24 · Score: 1

Not to mention one other thing: the moon is FUCKING DEAD. There is literally nothing there to pollute. In the face of a constant barrage of meteroites, who honestly gives two shits if we leave tons of trash up there, let alone active, running research equipment?

Ignoring China ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-12-15 11:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

The same goes for China. Industrially, they're getting to where the US was in the mid-1800s. Their space technology is in the 1950s, and early 1960s. Socially, they're pre-1750s in many ways. Militarily, they're in the 1910s, at best

I certainly hope that you are NOT an American.

If you are, please, I beseech you, please WAKE THE FUCK UP.

America is in a steep decline, and the rate of decline has quicken in the past 2 decades.

And America's decline is in stark contrast with the rapid growth of Brazil, India and China.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Ignoring China ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 12:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

What you call the "rapid growth" of those nations is basically just them trying their best to catch up to where the West was many decades ago. They aren't even doing that particularly well. India is, and this is putting it politely, still an absolute shithole. Brazil is only marginally better, and China only marginally better than that.
Merely doing what Western nations accomplished 50, 100, or even many more years ago just isn't impressive. I'm sorry to say that, but it's the truth.
Any decline happening in America doesn't make growth in the countries that you mentioned any more impressive. In fact, much of the development in places like India, China, and Brazil is solely due to the involvement of American companies and American capital, or at best the educations that natives of those countries obtained at American universities. If it weren't for the involvement of American interests, they'd still be third-world nations.
Re:Ignoring China ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 12:20 · Score: 1

And if it weren't for the Nazi scientists, the US and Soviet space programs wouldn't have existed. The only mostly isolated nation is North Korea, and we know how that's working out for them (great, if you go by the Great Leader's and his buddies opinion).
Re:Ignoring China ? by gossamer+thread · 2013-12-15 12:22 · Score: 2

How right you are, IMHO. From where I sit, this great country has totally pissed away an amazing legacy through apathy, allowing ignorant backwater thinking to fill the vacuum. Can we come back from this?
Re:Ignoring China ? by ElectricTurtle · 2013-12-15 12:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Oblig.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:Ignoring China ? by Teancum · 2013-12-15 12:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

And if it weren't for the Nazi scientists, the US and Soviet space programs wouldn't have existed. The only mostly isolated nation is North Korea, and we know how that's working out for them (great, if you go by the Great Leader's and his buddies opinion).
Obviously Robert Goddard was a Nazi scientist. And Dr. Buzz Aldrin never wrote any papers about spaceflight that by itself would ensure his role in the history of mankind (ignoring his weekend camping trip he took in the summer of 1969 that was broadcast as a reality TV show). And of course Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Sergei Korolyov were just a bunch of stupid lab assistants who knew nothing about rocket science either.
This kind of stuff is pure BS. Yes, there were some German scientists who did some impressive things with rockets and their assistance was useful for perhaps pushing ahead the American and Russian space programs by about a decade or so in the 1950's. But to suggest that the programs wouldn't have existed at all is a bit of a stretch when it is patently clear there were plenty of both Russians and Americans who were active in trying to get spaceflight including manned spaceflight happening in their lifetimes. Werner Von Braun openly acknowledged both Goddard and Tsiolkovsky (together with Oberth.... who was never a Nazi either) by name in his autobiography as inspiration for his work.
Re:Ignoring China ? by drinkypoo · 2013-12-15 14:38 · Score: 1

I don't want to downplay America's decline, which is real, but let's not overplay China's rise. They're riding a debt bubble and they have whole cities of emptiness. Again, I'll grant you that some of the USA's cities are starting to empty, but we're talking about places that were never even inhabited, let alone filled. You can't just do that forever without repercussions.
What it says about both countries (and others as well) that these places are let go idle while in other cases people are homeless in the same country is a whole other conversation, but it probably shouldn't be.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Ignoring China ? by NewtonsLaw · 2013-12-15 18:06 · Score: 2

Reminds me of my favorite part of Iron Sky where the North Korean delegate stands up and ascribes credit for the approaching fleet of space ships to his glorous leader Kim Yong Ill.
Love that movie!
Re:Ignoring China ? by savuporo · 2013-12-15 18:46 · Score: 2

India is, and this is putting it politely, still an absolute shithole. Brazil is only marginally better, and China only marginally better than that.
I'm sorry but i dont think you travel much. Try it some time, it can be really eye opening.

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Re:Ignoring China ? by Vintermann · 2013-12-15 19:46 · Score: 1

To Brazil, or to Michigan?

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Ignoring China ? by ImOuttaHere · 2013-12-15 22:22 · Score: 1

Serious students of PRC policy in regards to the role of science and technology need to read China’s Program for Science and Technology Modernization: Implications for American Competitiveness . In particular...
...Viewing science and technology as the key to economic development and international competitiveness, the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has launched a comprehensive effort to become an innovative nation by 2020 and a global scientific power by 2050. China’s effort will draw significantly on the resources and planning role of the state, whose national science programs have long made targeted investments in research and development (R&D) efforts in areas deemed critical China’s economic and military needs...
Additionally, this could shed further light on the topic - State Council, Guojia Zhongchangqi Kexue he Jishu Fazhan Guihua Gangyao (2005 - 2020) National Medium to Long - term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology (2005 - 2020), February 9, 2006. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2006 - 02/09/content_183787_2.htm
I agree that America needs to wake up to more than corporate "profitability" that has enabled the transfer of manufacturing, product development, and intellectual property into China. China clearly knew what they wanted when they opened it's doors to the West and enabled US corporations to fill America's shelves with cheap goods. It is only a means to a much bigger end for China and it is coming at a very steep cost to the common citizens (ie: labor, engineering) in America.

The same goes for China. Industrially, they're getting to where the US was in the mid-1800s. Their space technology is in the 1950s, and early 1960s. Socially, they're pre-1750s in many ways. Militarily, they're in the 1910s, at best
I certainly hope that you are NOT an American.
If you are, please, I beseech you, please WAKE THE FUCK UP.
America is in a steep decline, and the rate of decline has quicken in the past 2 decades.
And America's decline is in stark contrast with the rapid growth of Brazil, India and China.
Re:Ignoring China ? by drinkypoo · 2013-12-16 02:47 · Score: 2

Why not? If people have food, clothing, and homes, all they need after that is something to keep them busy.
That is the antiquated mindset that leads to this type of unnecessary economic activity. But what you are forgetting is the externalities. Building a modern city produces a horrendous amount of pollution and waste. They've done this repeatedly to no end. Now take a look at Beijing, it looks like Blade Runner. If they'd spent half what they spent on building cities they don't need which are depreciating even as we speak (unmaintained buildings, which is what they are, lose value rapidly) on emissions controls and retrofits, it wouldn't be like that at all.
Compare and contrast the money we're spending building warmachines we don't need for a war that will never be fought (because it will be between tiny robots, or at least, tiny robots and men, and not between F-35s and some mythical opponent which does not exist which warrants them) and you'll see that there is in fact very little difference. Either way, we are not just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, we are manufacturing deck chairs on the titanic. And so's China.
Just like the USA, China is not going to let people live in the empty buildings if they cannot "afford" to live there. And since there's no prospect of enough jobs since China's expansion is based on that of the rest of the world and much of the world is currently enjoying a state of financial crisis, there's really no prospect that they will ever fill those cities. Instead, they will stand until nature tears them down.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Ignoring China ? by JazzLad · 2013-12-16 02:54 · Score: 1

build whatever the damn they wish
Spock? Is that you?

--
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever

Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 11:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

My congratulations to the scientists and engineers that made this mission work! A difficult job done well!

Re:Congratulations! by ebno-10db · 2013-12-15 13:28 · Score: 1

That's way too simple, reasonable and straightforward for Slashdot, but I heartily agree anyway.
Re:Congratulations! by MightyYar · 2013-12-15 14:45 · Score: 1

Came here to post this. I'm happy for them - glad they are working on a space program.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Congratulations! by ebno-10db · 2013-12-15 18:41 · Score: 1

How appropriate. If you watch video of Zhou Enlai, you can see that was his style of applause.

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by Java+Pimp · 2013-12-15 12:00 · Score: 1

Only if they used the same Hollywood set NASA used in 1969.

--
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!

Congrats to China by gman003 · 2013-12-15 12:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously, I'm glad somebody else is going into space. NASA seems to be doing well in deeper space - Mars rovers, missions far out into the solar system, and deep-space satellites - but we still have plenty to discover in our own backyard.

Even though the rocketry task has been done before (putting a rover on the moon) there's a hell of a lot of difference between a 1960's Soviet rover and a 2010's rover, so they're going to be uncovering plenty of new stuff.

Re:Congrats to China by VortexCortex · 2013-12-15 20:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think it's neat the ESA and China are working together to get the data back from their probes. It's another timid step towards international cooperation in space.
When you look back at our small blue fragile world hanging in the vastness of space, it's apparent we're all in this together. It's good to have friends. There are no borders in space.

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by couchslug · 2013-12-15 12:22 · Score: 1

China needs a benchmark and this is one. That simple.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by ElectricTurtle · 2013-12-15 12:27 · Score: 2

1910s, huh?

You're a troll.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit

Re:Why such low quality? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 12:28 · Score: 1

These are the very first pictures transmitted. They visually confirm a successful rollout of the lander. Guessing that once all the components are given a full check for malfunctions, the photos; video will be smoother.

Nice job of getting there, looking forward to more. It's a good reason to be proud of China/ Russian and human technology.

Congrats! by NetNinja · 2013-12-15 12:28 · Score: 2

Grats to China!

Please go take pictures of the U.S Rovers and launch pads so the sales of books and DVD's that the USA never landed on the moon make them look like the foolish people they are :)

Re:Congrats! by 0123456 · 2013-12-15 13:53 · Score: 3, Funny

Please go take pictures of the U.S Rovers and launch pads so the sales of books and DVD's that the USA never landed on the moon make them look like the foolish people they are :)
Except, as we all know, this so-called Chinese 'lunar' rover is actually just driving around a sound stage in Mongolia.

The Machinery Looks Chinese? by enter+to+exit · 2013-12-15 12:56 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if it's me projecting things but do those rockets and robots _look_ Chinese to anyone else? How it that possible?

Re:The Machinery Looks Chinese? by confused+one · 2013-12-15 13:37 · Score: 1

Maybe it's the Chinese flag. Or maybe you're just a racist.
Re:The Machinery Looks Chinese? by enter+to+exit · 2013-12-15 14:14 · Score: 1

Stating something "looks Chinese" is not racist in any way. It's what you extrapolated in your mind that's racist.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 12:58 · Score: 1

Hey, dumbshit, do you think it would have been possible to fool the Soviets? Or that they would have let the US get away with lying to the world?

Re:Thanks ! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 13:02 · Score: 1

This is Taco Cowboy, I'm using a public connection so I log in as an AC.

Many thanks for the explanation from you and others!

Thanks again !

Thought you sounded different. :)

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Boronx · 2013-12-15 13:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's a bad policy.

--
Play Command HQ online

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by ebno-10db · 2013-12-15 13:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Big difference: China landings are driven by science and verifiable by high-tech equipment.
US Hollywood moon landings were driven by hate towards Russians who put first man in space.

Here I was expecting some troll to criticize the Chinese effort for being a copy of what was done 40+ years ago, or simply a stunt. Instead I find a troll saying "China landings are ... verifiable by high-tech equipment", thus implying that US efforts weren't. Are you a conspiracy nut suggesting the US landings were faked?

"China landings are driven by science ...". The science is great, but if you think that prestige and publicity aren't part of the reason for the Chinese effort, then I've got a bridge to sell you. I've also got no problem with that being part of the motivation.

"US Hollywood moon landings were driven by hate towards Russians who put first man in space." Wow, you've heard about the space race - a term that was coined at the time because it described the obvious. BTW, what do you think motivated the USSR? It wouldn't have been a race without at least two sides. However, "hate" is a ridiculously way to describe such a competition. Whatever you say about the motivation, the space race was a lot more peaceful than the arms race. A nice side effect was all the science done and the technology developed. Out of curiosity though, what was Hollywood about the moon landings? That they televised it? Not even Hollywood is that good - it got 125M viewers around the world. Maybe it had something to do with it being such an impressive and historic event, albeit a silly thing like the first time that people set foot on any body other than the earth.

P.S. You also overlook that this Chinese probe is more analogous to a Soviet mission of 40 years ago, than to the manned US landings, But hey, any idiotic excuse to bash the US, right?

A lot of steps to get there.... by speedlaw · 2013-12-15 13:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

You have to get out of orbit...you need to get to the moon....you need to get into lunar orbit and then land....successfully. Read the history of the Ranger Program to see how much work this took the US, and they were crashing onto the moon, not trying to land a working Rover. Getting the insertions correct is not easy. China has done something difficult and laudable. While I'm sure they had the full data from the US program, and the USSR program, making this happen is still a great achievement. I have noticed how the US media is paying little attention to this......

Re:A lot of steps to get there.... by c0d3g33k · 2013-12-16 01:20 · Score: 2

You have to get out of orbit...you need to get to the moon....you need to get into lunar orbit and then land....successfully. Read the history of the Ranger Program to see how much work this took the US, and they were crashing onto the moon, not trying to land a working Rover. Getting the insertions correct is not easy. China has done something difficult and laudable.
While I'm sure they had the full data from the US program, and the USSR program, making this happen is still a great achievement.
I have noticed how the US media is paying little attention to this......
Just as I was reading this (8:10am Eastern time, 12/16/13), the chinese rover was prominently mentioned on the Today show (NBC). They discussed the rover, made a quick reference to the manned moon landings of the US and finished with a summary of the future plans of the chinese for the moon. The segment ended with a round of "that's cool" from all the hosts. So it's certainly not being ignored and the achievement does seem to be acknowledged for what it is, not belittled or downplayed.

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-12-15 13:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Their space technology is in the 1950s, and early 1960s.

China has over one million people working on their space program. They have so much cash that they've been buying US Treasury Bills despite their dubious value and have recently stopped being so silly. They're building a moon base in the next decade and will be landing men on Mars in the 2030's.

Buy lots of cheap stuff at Walmart - it's fueling humanity's journey to the starts.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by speedlaw · 2013-12-15 13:38 · Score: 2

You could not fake radio messages from the moon. The signals where UHF, line of sight. Anyone with the equipment to receive it also had to point those antennas....triangulate......

Re:And where are we now? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 13:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

The Space race is half a century old by now. It's ancient history. Get over it. We went there, we saw, we never went back. Space is empty, dead, deadly and hostile. You want international cooperation and competition? Figure out the new social model that we'll need to sustain the 7 billion of us that are staying right here, right now.

We're not running out of resources. We have enough to feed everyone here, why aren't we? Why are we fighting? Why do we need to work so much despite the much-vaunted technology and productivity we have?

Where are we now? Right here! What more do you want? *Everything* and *everyone* is right here!

oblig by melchoir55 · 2013-12-15 13:59 · Score: 3, Funny

It was a soundstage on mars.

Stage? by Curlsman · 2013-12-15 14:35 · Score: 1

What makes you think this is a stage in Mongolia?

Re:Stage? by 0123456 · 2013-12-15 15:26 · Score: 1

What makes you think this is a stage in Mongolia?
They couldn't get visas to fake it in Arizona.

Mare Imbrium by mbone · 2013-12-15 14:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

The lander did not land in Sinus Iridum, but in Mare Imbrium proper.

I do not think this was a mistake, as they could have waited a few more orbits and made the original landing point in Sinus Iridum. For some reason, a site in Mare Imbrium was chosen. As the actual landing site is on the border between the Titanium rich and Titanium poor parts of Sinus Iridum, I suspect this was not an arbitrary choice, but driven by a desire to understand better the mineral resources of the Moon.

If we are really lucky, the rover will drive the 120 km North to Montes Recti, a mountain range to the North. (These mountains are really islands of old terrain high enough to avoid being submerged in the Mare Imbrium lava flows.) At 100 m/day, it would only take 3 years...

Re:Mare Imbrium by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 18:46 · Score: 1

Lucky then that it can do 200m an hour
Did you not even read the summary?

Re:And where are we now? by ArbitraryName · 2013-12-15 14:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe he wants them to line up in an orderly fashion to complain.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Sean · 2013-12-15 14:51 · Score: 2

Hopefully the Chinese will release some high quality pictures. I'm not suggesting the moon landings were fake, but given the overall cost and engineering that goes into such an endeavor, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect photos of the same quality I can take with my cell phone.

I read that the first images we see now are low quality to keep transmission time low. The high quality ones, including full video of the decent, will follow.

photo quality? by stonebit · 2013-12-15 15:03 · Score: 5, Funny

The quality of those photos is terrible. What'd they do, send up a cheap digital camera made in chi...

Re:photo quality? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 17:46 · Score: 1

The quality of those photos is terrible. What'd they do, send up a cheap digital camera made in chi...
Those photos obviously are not original, just look at the "AP" logo on it.

Will China share information with others ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-12-15 15:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, enough of the bickering.

There is a page claiming that CNSA (China National Space Administration) will share all the data it gathers from both the Chang'e 3 lander and the Yutu rover with scientists from all nations.

http://io9.com/heres-what-chinas-yutu-rover-is-doing-on-the-moon-1483746967

I do not know if the CNSA really will share all the data it gathers with the world. Time will tell.

But if it does (and I hope it will), that will be a plus for humanity.

And I sincerely hope that the ISS will be open for China's involvement as well.

It is utterly stupid to play politics in space.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Will China share information with others ? by cusco · 2013-12-16 08:12 · Score: 1

For all of the dozens of redundant posts below complaining about image quality, these are the system management cameras. Science cameras are supposed to be deployed today.
Planetary Society's coverage of Chang'e.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by R3d+M3rcury · 2013-12-15 15:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

I always begin these by saying that, yes, I believe the moon landings are real.

That said, I would imagine the radio signals from the Moon would be the easiest part. Land a receiver and transmitter that just takes what it receives on one channel and broadcasts it back to Earth. If you take the live feed from NASA and send it to the astronauts who reply immediately, it will take the appropriate amount of time for NASA to receive the signal from the Moon and no one at NASA would be wiser (except for the conspirator who was making sure the live signal went to the astronauts).

It's a neat thing to think about--not whether they were faked but how could they have been faked. How much of a mission would you have to go through? I mean, we heard from Neil, Buzz, and Michael the whole trip out and then we heard from Buzz and Neil on the Moon. You could conceivably use a similar technique for voice communication, but the weightless part inside the capsule would be pretty tough to do on Earth. Did they do TV broadcasts from inside the capsule (like was shown on Apollo 13)? The capsule could have stayed in orbit--either Earth or lunar--but that would be tricky to sync up the movements of the fake moon-walking astronauts with the voices from the capsule.

One of the questions I have for the conspiracy nuts is what missions were faked? Only the Apollo missions? Assuming it was only the Apollo missions, then the Surveyor missions weren't faked and that shows that NASA could land equipment in the Moon. Were all the Apollo missions faked? Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 sent men around the Moon. Were those faked?

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-15 15:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Space race was part of the arms race.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-12-15 15:28 · Score: 4, Informative

According to this page (which I do not know if the info is true or not)

http://io9.com/heres-what-chinas-yutu-rover-is-doing-on-the-moon-1483746967

it claims the following:

A. The Chang'e 3 lander has a powerful HD science cameras that can send at a rate of one image per second.

B. The Yutu rover will be sending high-definition images, including panoramas, back to Earth.

and

C. Ouyang Ziyuan, one of the chief scientists on the Chang'e-3 mission, said the in an interview: ( @ http://english.cntv.cn/program/newshour/20131130/102473.shtml )

"Number one: space observation from the moon. This is the dream of many astronomers because atmosphere, wind, snow and pollution don't obstruct visibility as they do on earth. The result is also better because of the longer periods of uninterrupted observation from the moon due to it orbiting the earth. One day of observation on the moon is equivalent to 14 days on earth.

Number two: we have an ultraviolet camera on the lander to monitor the earth. This camera is different from the one used by America's Apollo 16. Ours can see the formation of the earth's plasmasphere and its density change. It's better than a satellite, which can only record data section by section as it orbits around the earth. On the moon it can observe half of earth at a time without moving. This is something people have always wanted to do.

Number three: we will be the first to learn the structure and layers of the moon 100 meters below its surface with radars installed at the bottom of the rover. As the rover drives on the lunar surface, it will be as [if] it can cut and see what's 100 meters below. "

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Trends by Uberbah · 2013-12-15 16:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

What you call the "rapid growth" of those nations is basically just them trying their best to catch up to where the West was many decades ago. They aren't even doing that particularly well. India is, and this is putting it politely, still an absolute shithole. Brazil is only marginally better, and China only marginally better than that.

Developing nations are generally doing some or all of the three:

1) Building their industrial base
2) Providing free or low cost education
3) Providing free or low cost health care

The United States is doing the opposite of that. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our lack of high speed rail is a joke, as is our lack of mass transit outside of a few major cities, and our internet and cell phone networks are a decade behind Europe's. More job-crushing trade laws are being pushed (TPP), getting a college degree means five or six figures of debt, and the trivial detail that Obomneycare will still leave the U.S. with the worst health care system in the industrialized world.

How are those trends sustainable for the United States, where 80% of the population is in poverty or a paycheck away from it?

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Sean · 2013-12-15 16:08 · Score: 1

I'm sure looking forward to their findings!

Re:flipphone quality photos by hey! · 2013-12-15 16:08 · Score: 1

Shall I explain how the Shannon-Hartley Theorem shows that you can't transmit unlimited amounts of information in realtime unless you have infinite power, or shall we just agree that Americans are better than the Chinese at black magic and leave it at that?

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by fustakrakich · 2013-12-15 16:24 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't think the Chinese have the technology to fake a landing, so they had to do it for real.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by Gregory+Arenius · 2013-12-15 16:57 · Score: 2

They may have a lot of people working on their space program but I find it hard to believe they have a million people working on it. SpaceX has been able to develop a launcher with capabilities similar to that of the Chinese launchers at a price that is also competitive and they've only got 2-3000 people working there. I know a space program is more than just a launcher but if the extra 997,000 people only gain you one lunar lander more than that you're doing something wrong.

Also, I'd like to see documentation on a concrete plan to build a moon base by 2023 because from what I understand of their program thats not going to happen.

Not to knock the Chinese because what they're doing is really impressive but if you want to indirectly fund humanity's journey to the stars I think you're better off buying a Tesla than some cheap stuff at Walmart. SpaceX has better odds of pushing the envelope in space than the Chinese in my opinion.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by phantomfive · 2013-12-15 17:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's be honest, anyone who still thought that the moon landings were fakes, isn't going to be convinced by this either.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by phantomfive · 2013-12-15 17:58 · Score: 1

Here I was expecting some troll to criticize the Chinese effort for being a copy of what was done 40+ years ago, or simply a stunt........if you think that prestige and publicity aren't part of the reason for the Chinese effort, then I've got a bridge to sell you

Ironically you ended up being the one to say what you thought a troll would say.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:A conspiracy to ruin Slashdot? by Runaway1956 · 2013-12-15 18:06 · Score: 1

No, the site doesn't become "unusable" with the beta. It's different, it takes a bit of getting used to, but it is definitely usable. I've noted elsewhere that member's user numbers don't appear on the beta. Some other things are odd. But you can use the site just fine with the beta. Good grief - this isn't 1999 any longer. If you're going to use a nerd site, act at least nerdy enough to make the site work for you.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by cyn1c77 · 2013-12-15 18:14 · Score: 1

I'm really tired of the media and politicians dismissing our lack of investment in science and space exploration by belittling Chinese efforts. "Durp durp, we already done been to the Moon, you stupid backwards Chiners durp durp!".

It's a first step that they'll likely quickly capitalize on and while our media and government like to convince us that the Chinese are goofy little 50-years-later-runners-up, they're an economic and political powerhouse that will, if they decide to invest further in it, leapfrog our accomplishments by light years. And sooner rather than later.

If we don't get serious about doing it ourselves -- or even better, co-operating with scientists on an international scale for the betterment of everyone -- we're going to look like the back water yokels.

Don't be too down on the US space program. Remember that they have landed (and continue to land) probes on most of the planets in the solar system.

It's great that China is getting into the game. But they are doing something that the US and Russia did over 40 years ago. So it IS 40 year old tech.

Any negative comments on the part of the US are probably due to integrated frustration over the years being on the receiving end of industrial espionage by China.

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by ebno-10db · 2013-12-15 18:30 · Score: 1

No, read more carefully. Nowhere does it say I expected to encounter a troll who criticized the Chinese effort because it was motivated in part by a desire for prestige and publicity. Moreover I specifically said "I've also got no problem with that being part of the motivation." Now what was your point?

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by ebno-10db · 2013-12-15 18:38 · Score: 2

Here's a clue: the space race was about sending both unmanned and manned missions into space, including earth orbit, the moon, and other planets. The arms race was about developing better ways to nuke the other side (though also likely suicidal).

Perhaps you meant to say that both were motivated by competition with, and hostility towards, the USSR, although it's hard to see how the space race was motivated by hostility, since it wasn't aggressive. Did they sometimes use similar technologies, like rockets? Yes, as indeed computers were also used for both. In other words, they were the same thing ... if you completely ignore the differences.

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by phantomfive · 2013-12-15 18:39 · Score: 1

What was your point?

Specifically? That your post is hilarious. And it still is.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:And where are we now? by savuporo · 2013-12-15 18:44 · Score: 2

*Everything* and *everyone* is right here!

No, everything is not here, and quite possibly everyone is not here either. I will buy a ticket to see a sunrise on the moon, as soon as i can afford one.
But if you are happy with your seven continents and 2-dimensional map of the world, don't let yourself be bothered by the rest of us hoping to go see the stars.

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by hcs_$reboot · 2013-12-15 18:54 · Score: 1

Buy lots of cheap stuff at Walmart

Well, according to the first picture of the link, probe from rover, they seem to have bought their camera at Walmart, and it was cheap.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-12-15 19:46 · Score: 1

That seems strangely logical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by VortexCortex · 2013-12-15 19:54 · Score: 1

The wise try not to reason in absolutes; There are almost always exceptions...

Complete indifference! by m.alessandrini · 2013-12-15 19:57 · Score: 1

Hell, a mission on the moon does not happen every year, and I cannot find absolutely *anything* on the web apart from a couple of meaningless photos. Where is the landing, or photos taken around the rover, or anything? Unlike Mars, that thing is controllable in almost real-time, what are they doing? Maybe China is like the former USSR in keeping information secret, or the world is really apathetic.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by m.alessandrini · 2013-12-15 20:06 · Score: 1

Currently China is only sending us computer animations, so they want to ease life of conspiracy people.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by FlyHelicopters · 2013-12-15 20:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your idea is neat, but it doesn't work either.

The transmissions used were line of site, VHF, the transmissions to the moon were followed by replies from the moon.

Both sides of the transmissions could be monitored by other nations, including the USSR who would have been VERY fast to call phony.

Also, the USSR had spacecraft that could listen in and could tell where it was all coming from, so because of the time of travel and source of the transmissions, the only way to fake it would be to have the entire thing prerecorded before launch.

But you would still have had to land the recordings and transmitter on the moon as well as send back the images of the moon, which would have to be faked ahead of time and sent to the moon.

Except that much storage didn't exist back then.

So no, it couldn't have been faked, unless the USSR and perhaps several other nations were in on it. I guess that part is possible, but frankly I think in 1969 it would have been easier to just send men to the moon than it would be to fake the whole thing and get the USSR on board.

That, plus I've personally met two of the moon astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Gene Cernan. I met Buzz only briefly, however I've spoken with Gene for more than an hour about his experiences.

He could be lying, but frankly, I believe him and I don't think you'd get those 12 men to lie about it for as long as it has been.

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by bob_super · 2013-12-15 20:20 · Score: 2

The space race about using the populations' egos to justify spending immense resources on improving military space technology.

The US has since made it very clear that whoever controls the skies controls the battlefield (unless it's insurgents in urban areas). Space is just a sky above the sky, and controlling that was believed to be the key to beating the other guy, when ICBMs were in their infancy.

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by Su27K · 2013-12-15 21:04 · Score: 2

All false yet marked insightful, this is why /. is crap these days.

1. Please give the source for one million people working on their space program. Also I think it should be obvious to anyone with project management experience that more people doesn't equal more work gets done, it's usually the opposite
2. They buy US Treasury Bills because they are running a trade surplus against the US by manipulating the exchange rate, if they have enough cash they wouldn't need to do this. And China is not the only one buying US Treasury Bills, Japan/Brazil/Taiwan/etc all have sizable holdings, so saying it has dubious value is simply false.
3. As for moon base, just because they are raising the possibility does not mean it will happen, US private companies plus Russian and Japan also released plans for moon base. And China have not officially released any plan regarding manned Mars missions.

So if you're an American, stop buying craps from China and support American companies such as SpaceX, this is the best bet to see humans on Mars.

Woud love to say... by CuteSteveJobs · 2013-12-15 21:15 · Score: 1

... that this is what happens when a country puts its energy into space travel and not spying on its own people, but China is of course doing both.

Where as the US is only doing one of these.

Oh ZING! YEAH! THAT'S GOTTA HURT!

Re:Woud love to say... by m.alessandrini · 2013-12-15 21:25 · Score: 1

I think this is what happens when you put enough money in any project, like going to the moon and back with '60s technology. I'm 100% sure today we could have cures for cancer, clean energy and food for everyone, if someone had put enough money on them.

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by Su27K · 2013-12-15 21:29 · Score: 1

I'm really tired of internet trolls dismissing United States' science and technology capabilities by inflating the significance of China landing a rover on the Moon. "OMG, China now owns the moon, they are the number 1 now, we all need to bow to China."

Here the reality check, Google is funding an X Prize for private rovers on the Moon, so what China did using the resource of a entire country is not only 40 years late, it's also something we're asking private enterprise to do for less than a day's profit of Google. The same is true for their manned capabilities, we have 2 private companies building spaceships for NASA, and more building sub-orbital planes/rockets, the vitality and innovation in the private space sector is something China cannot dream of as long as the communist party is in charge.

The only thing less optimal in the US space program is NASA's lack of direction in manned space flight and reduction of funding in automated missions, even so the projects they're working on (SLS, JWST, new Mars lander) far outpace China's plan in these areas (LM-5, more lunar probes with sample returns)

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by Alioth · 2013-12-15 22:16 · Score: 2

No it's not 40 year old tech.

People drove a car on my route to work perhaps 70 or 80 years ago. But that doesn't mean my Honda Civic is 80 year old tech. While the outcome is the same and the principles are the same, the technology used to make that journey now is quite different.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Perhaps US geeks are not their target audience by fantomas · 2013-12-15 22:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Perhaps delivering high resolution images to US/ Western geeks is not their primary mission. Perhaps a few low res snapshots to keep the western media off their back (see, we really did it, put away your conspiracy theory stories) is all they felt obliged to do.

Maybe there's a high res camera sending pictures back to their scientific research / military people and they just don't feel the need to distribute this material to the general public in other countries. The Chinese funding model might not be the same as the USA's, maybe they don't need to distribute high res holiday snaps to ensure continued funding.

Perhaps there's no high res camera on board because the science of the mission doesn't need any more than a few low res snaps. The real work might be elsewhere. I've read a couple of articles that note that the lander is much bigger than you might expect for a rover of this size, so it might be the real mission here is to test lander technologies in preparation for sending a manned mission. It might be that the real science is around testing that platform, and the rover is just supplementary, a nice addition for extra kudos and you might as well do it while you're there.

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by FhnuZoag · 2013-12-15 23:32 · Score: 1

Look at what the US uses for its space program, these days: With the retirement of the space shuttle, the only thing left for boosting crew to the ISS is the Soyuz.

If the Chinese are using 40 year old tech, the US space program is using 50 year old tech -- built by a foreign country.

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by FhnuZoag · 2013-12-16 00:00 · Score: 1

It is 40 year old tech in the same sense that the Soyuz the US uses now is 50 year old tech. The basic point is that space technology has advanced only incrementally since Apollo, especially with the Shuttle ending up costing more than non-reusable spacecraft and turning out to be a technological cul-de-sac. If the Chinese want to build, according to modern technology, the most cost-effective and efficient launch system, it's going to look a lot like this '40 year old tech', albeit with better computers, more sensitive sensors and other, less obvious, improvements. I'd say that the Chinese are essentially on a par with the US in terms of space technology. (For example, the automated hazard avoidance/hover land system is quite reminiscent of what the Curiosity rover landing system had, and that was much lauded. It's a lot more advanced than the manual remote control, or 'sit and pray you don't land on a rock' landings using for the Cold War landings, and for most of the Mars probes.)

What they lack is practical experience with actually *using* this technology, which is what these missions are about.

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by X0563511 · 2013-12-16 02:38 · Score: 1

So you're trying to tell us that a military from 1910 would have automatic rifles, functional tanks, current-generation aircraft, advanced radar (and stealth), nuclear warheads, and launch vehicles that can put payloads on the moon safely?

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by X0563511 · 2013-12-16 02:52 · Score: 1

It's not really the camera - just like the US landing - the live picture looked like crap, but the images captured directly and brought back on film were fantastic.

It's the transmission bandwidth - that you have to share with telemetry. Also recall that you don't have a 4ghz CPU core up there to nicely digitize it with an efficient codec - it's hard to cool things up there.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:Werner Von Braun & Arthur Rudolph by Teancum · 2013-12-16 03:01 · Score: 1

The idea that Goddard had something to do with it is pure fiction. Do some research man.

You, sir, have no clue about rocket science either to entertain such an idea. Do you even know who Robert Goddard is?

BTW, I would also include Willy Ley and Walt Disney as major reasons why the Apollo Moon landing happened.

Re:A conspiracy to ruin Slashdot? by TangoMargarine · 2013-12-16 03:42 · Score: 1

Technically it's usable; it just makes me want to gouge out my eyes with a dull spoon.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by TangoMargarine · 2013-12-16 03:45 · Score: 1

There's a reason they said "let's nuke the site from orbit" :)

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

Re:And where are we now? by TangoMargarine · 2013-12-16 03:50 · Score: 1

Don't forget to take the "Thus Spake Zarathustra" tape along.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by TangoMargarine · 2013-12-16 03:56 · Score: 1

Nobody can beat nobody in all out non-nuclear war. Not on this planet. US can't control iraq, or afghanistan, same goes for russia.

Funny, I don't remember any nukes being used in Iraq or Afghanistan.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

Re:A conspiracy to ruin Slashdot? by Runaway1956 · 2013-12-16 04:13 · Score: 1

Do you have your own spoon, or can I offer you one?

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-12-16 04:56 · Score: 1

1. Please give the source for one million people working on their space program.

Check out Science Friday's podcast on the Jade Rabbit mission. You'll learn something.

All false yet marked insightful, this is why /. is crap these days.

No, it's the Dunning-Kruger effect that makes Slashdot comments lame at times.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Teancum · 2013-12-16 05:20 · Score: 1

You also need to remember that all of this happened with technology developed in the 1960's. Some of this fakery that can happen now simply was not available (especially live computer graphic simulations). The live feeds of Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt running around on their rovers, for not just a few minutes but almost continuously for several days straight, is something that I think would have been impossible to fake.

Besides, you can't reason with those who think it is all a huge conspiracy. Some of them are convinced that NASA has subsequently sent stuff up to the Moon to fake the landing sites... as if faking stuff on the Moon is any easier than simply doing the real mission and doing exactly as has been claimed.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by aurizon · 2013-12-16 05:29 · Score: 1

China bought the vacuum stage, no wonder they look similar....;)

Re:And where are we now? by savuporo · 2013-12-16 06:03 · Score: 1

>>Or water or air for that matter.

Please educate yourself. Moon has abundant oxygen and hydrogen, and very likely also water. It also basks in abundant sunlight which is about 8 times stronger than on earth, and there are permantly lit mountain tops on polar locations that do not have the 2-week lunar night.
In fact, there is pretty much every resource on the moon to support a nice small city for millenia. It also has elements and isotopes that are exceedingly rare or very hard to access on Earth and have very high value - like helium-3.

You should read something other than childrens "science" books from 50ies, sometime.

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by neonKow · 2013-12-16 06:40 · Score: 1

The Wise also know when to not take the literal meaning of phrases and then give a pedantic response.

Strange objects in the lander photo. by BBWEST · 2013-12-16 06:44 · Score: 1

Ok, I see the lander and the rover photos, however it makes me wonder about the lander photo. Is that photo taken on the moon? Because if so what on the moon looks like what we see in the background. Several rectangular objects on the horizon just before the black background. Both left and right of the top of the lander. They look like they are lighted and smooth with a row of inverted objects that are u-shaped with posts for what ever purpose. Any ideas.

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by cusco · 2013-12-16 06:49 · Score: 1

Well, we've been losing in Afghanistan for a decade and have had to retreat entirely from Iraq, after having only managed to destroy their infrastructure and put the Islamic fundies in control. Not even the Kurds like us there. So yeah, if we can't nuke 'em and the populace hates us we'll lose.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by cusco · 2013-12-16 06:50 · Score: 1

Ooh, a car analogy. I like it. May have to steal that one.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by cusco · 2013-12-16 06:55 · Score: 1

An advantage the Chinese space program has over the US one is that they don't have lawyers and generals thinking that they can design a spacecraft better than a rocket scientist could (which is why the Space Shuttle was the abortion it ended up being). I'm hopeful that if they can open their space operations up to international joint efforts (like the cooperation with the ESA) they can do great things.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by TangoMargarine · 2013-12-16 07:20 · Score: 1

Oops, I read "all out nuclear war." How embarrassing.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

Re:What a coincidence by cusco · 2013-12-16 07:35 · Score: 1

When two teams of engineers are presented with an identical problem to solve it's quite likely that their solutions are going to be very similar. If China wanted to build a new jet aircraft their airfoil would "look like a US design" for the simple reason that it's the best way to build a wing.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Re:And where are we now? by savuporo · 2013-12-16 08:06 · Score: 1

>>I guess NASA made a mistake in the 1960s packing air and water on the Apollo mission?

In a way, yes. More robotic exploration beforehand would have told them many things we know now that they didnt know back then. In situ oxygen production was an idea that came around right when people started looking at lunar rock samples.

The abundance of volatiles like hydrogen and potentially water came about only decades later - because it didnt occur to anyone to survey polar latitudes extensively before that.

Had they known what we known now, we might have ended up with quite a different space history, where a lunar base would have been established early. Unfortunately the program was driven by saber rattling and beating the soviets, rather than actual drive to gain a foothold off the planet.

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!

Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by bob_super · 2013-12-16 08:27 · Score: 1

Fat Kim just sent a "satellite" up for propaganda, not at all to test an ICBM.
"history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes", right?

At least India and China are physically close enough that you can believe their moon/mars expeditions are mostly for propaganda.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by R3d+M3rcury · 2013-12-16 09:00 · Score: 1

The transmissions used were line of site, VHF, the transmissions to the moon were followed by replies from the moon.

Why not use a laser to communicate? Pretty tough to listen in on. They certainly had lasers back then, as everybody likes to point out that they set up laser reflectors on the Moon. I'm sure there's some way to scramble the audio as well.

Also, you assume the Soviets didn't believe that we were sending people to the Moon and would be checking every scrap of communication to verify it. It could be that the ruse worked.

Again, I'm going to reiterate that I believe we landed on the Moon. There's plenty of evidence that we did, we had the capability, etc. I'm just saying that (a) the communication isn't really a problem and (b) it's fun to think about how you could fake it.

For example, when someone points out they put laser reflectors at the Apollo landing sites, I like to ask whether anybody pointed a laser at those sites before we landed to verify that there was nothing reflecting lasers beforehand. Also, I'm pretty sure that with 1960s technology, we could land a laser reflector on the Moon.

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by KingMotley · 2013-12-16 13:34 · Score: 1

I didn't say China was scary, but.. nevermind take it how you will. I just stating that you should underestimate China is all. All things considered, China is a fairly peaceful country (in comparison to what they could be, or others as powerful as they are/could be).

Specifically replaying to "The same goes for China. Industrially, they're getting to where the US was in the mid-1800s. Their space technology is in the 1950s, and early 1960s. Socially, they're pre-1750s in many ways. Militarily, they're in the 1910s, at best." which is so wrong that the AC that made it is obviously a child.

Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by Su27K · 2013-12-16 14:26 · Score: 1

Why do I need to listen to a freaking podcast? You need to give a source from the Chinese government, your source won't even hold up in wikipedia, that is what's wrong with this site, it's full of people who just want to bash the US and have no idea what they're talking about.

I can podcast that Chinese only has 1 people working on the project, which is actually much more worrying than 1 million.

Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Optali · 2013-12-17 03:06 · Score: 1

Have you ever watched "Breaking Bad" or Trainspotting?
Well, there's your answer ;)

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast

Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by Optali · 2013-12-17 03:21 · Score: 1

This is vital science and we all know China is only able to progress its technology by sending a camera on wheels to the Moon.

A camera on wheels and a baked potato still wrapped in tin-foil!!!

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast

i do by rewindustry · 2013-12-18 16:03 · Score: 1

so don't.

Slashdot Mirror

Photos Stream Back From China's Lunar Lander

171 of 268 comments (clear)