Slashdot Mirror


Photos Stream Back From China's Lunar Lander

After the successful soft landing of its carrier vessel on the surface of the moon, China's Jade Rabbit lunar rover has begun beaming back photos of the lunar surface. From the BBC's article, with links to video as well as several photos, comes this description: "Chang'e-3 is the third unmanned rover mission to touch down on the lunar surface, and the first to go there in more than 40 years. The last was an 840kg (1,900lb) Soviet vehicle known as Lunokhod-2, which was kept warm by polonium-210. But the six-wheeled Chinese vehicle carries a more sophisticated payload, including ground-penetrating radar which will gather measurements of the lunar soil and crust. The 120kg (260lb) Jade Rabbit rover can reportedly climb slopes of up to 30 degrees and travel at 200m (660ft) per hour. ... The rover and lander are powered by solar panels but some sources suggest they also carry radioisotope heating units (RHUs), containing plutonium-238 to keep them warm during the cold lunar night. According to Chinese space scientists, the mission is designed to test new technologies, gather scientific data and build intellectual expertise. It will also scout valuable mineral resources that could one day be mined."

37 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Burning Bush? by retroworks · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Gently reply
  2. Are they claiming more territory? by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, they found living organisms and they are delicious.

    2. Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Charliemopps · · 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.

    3. Re:Are they claiming more territory? by Teancum · · 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.

  3. Re:SO, does it look the same as it did in 1969? by Seumas · · 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.

  4. Rocks by Dan+East · · 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.
    1. Re:Rocks by Raumkraut · · 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.

  5. Be careful... by anyanka · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  6. Those who think that moon landing was a fake ... by Taco+Cowboy · · 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 !
  7. Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  8. Ignoring China ? by Taco+Cowboy · · 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 !
    1. Re:Ignoring China ? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Ignoring China ? by Teancum · · 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.

  9. Re: Can you be a little bit more specific ? by skadacl · · 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.

  10. Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  11. Re:assuming plutonium-238 is true by aXis100 · · 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

  12. Re:Can you be a little bit more specific ? by anyanka · · 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).

  13. Congrats to China by gman003 · · 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.

    1. Re:Congrats to China by VortexCortex · · 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.

  14. Re:US propaganda machine behind Hollywood moon lan by ebno-10db · · 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?

  15. A lot of steps to get there.... by speedlaw · · 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......

  16. Re:assuming plutonium-238 is true by confused+one · · 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.

  17. Re:It's just like JavaScript or NoSQL. by bill_mcgonigle · · 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)
  18. Re:Congrats! by 0123456 · · 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.

  19. oblig by melchoir55 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was a soundstage on mars.

  20. Mare Imbrium by mbone · · 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...

  21. Re:And where are we now? by ArbitraryName · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  22. photo quality? by stonebit · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  23. Will China share information with others ? by Taco+Cowboy · · 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 !
  24. Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by R3d+M3rcury · · 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?

  25. Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by Taco+Cowboy · · 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 !
  26. Trends by Uberbah · · 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?

  27. Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by fustakrakich · · 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!”
  28. Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by phantomfive · · 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."
  29. Re:Those who think that moon landing was a fake .. by FlyHelicopters · · 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.

  30. Perhaps US geeks are not their target audience by fantomas · · 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.