Slashdot Mirror


China Completes Its First Lunar Return Mission

China's Chang'e 5-T1 mission to the moon has not only taken some beautiful pictures of the Earth from the craft's perspective (hat tip to reader Taco Cowboy) but as of Friday evening (continental U.S. time) returned a capsule to Earth. (The capsule landed in Inner Mongolia.) From the linked article: Prior to re-entering the Earths atmosphere, the unnamed probe was travelling at 11.2 kilometres per second (25,000 miles per hour), a speed that can generate temperatures of more than 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,700 degrees Fahrenheit), the news agency reported. To slow it down, scientists let the craft "bounce" off Earths atmosphere before re-entering again and landing. ... The module would have been 413,000 kilometres from Earth at its furthest point on the mission, SASTIND said at the time. The mission was launched to test technology to be used in the Change-5, Chinas fourth lunar probe, which aims to gather samples from the moons surface and will be launched around 2017, SASTIND previously said.

72 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. same week... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How curious that this comes in the same week the Americans lost two space vehicles in one week.

    The future of space belongs to China. They are the ones with the cajones to do it. They'll be the first manned mission to Mars too because they'll just fucking do it. They won't be crippled with fear and pork.

    China 2014 = USA 1960.

    1. Re:same week... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      If China 2014 - USA 1960 then China from 2026 and on until who knows when will be grounded, pathetic and useless.
      Good for them that they will get to shine for the early 2020s though!

    2. Re:same week... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Oh, they will take pork, trust me - it is delicious!

      You won't be seeing any non-pork eating nations on Mars anytime soon.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re:same week... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Don't knock "fat, dumb, and happy" - it beats most of the alternatives!

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    4. Re:same week... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This really, really doesn't have to turn into a discussion of which country is the best.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:same week... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I'll give you fat and dumb.

      But do you seriously think that paranoid frothing at the mouth America is "happy"?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:same week... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      Are you awared India has sent a probe orbiting Mars successfully just few weeks ago? Only four nations did it: Russia, USA, European Space Agency and India. Only one succeeded on first trial, India.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
  2. Back to the future by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How curious that this comes in the same week the Americans lost two space vehicles in one week.

    The future of space belongs to China. They are the ones with the cajones to do it. They'll be the first manned mission to Mars too because they'll just fucking do it. They won't be crippled with fear and pork.

    China 2014 = USA 1960.

    Oh shut up. They've managed to do something we did in the 1970's. Good for them, it's not a trivial accomplishment by any means, but it doesn't mean that Taikonauts will be owning near space for the next millennium. I do wish them luck and persistence - somebody needs to kick the US in the kiester and get us 'competing' against something.

    Besides, the Chinese love pork.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Back to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      China can get humans in to space today... and the USA cannot.

      I think that points to the direction... not what happened 50 years ago.

    2. Re:Back to the future by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      somebody needs to kick the US in the kiester and get us 'competing' against something.

      The only competition in America these days is during elections. For every right that The People lose, the political scene gets an additional right. It's quite a competition, and The People are getting their asses kicked.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    3. Re:Back to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If China was building 1969 cars, would you be all upset and emotional that China is building 1969 cars and the USA cannot?

      Of course not. Same thing with the space stuff, it's equally as obsolete.

      Get over it! The emotional attachment to these space delusions is baffling to me.

      It's over, finished, done. The Space Age fantasies never made any sense, they won't suddenly make sense because some other country is sending a 50 pound RC car to get dust back from the Moon.

    4. Re:Back to the future by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Taikonauts will be

      Please stop. We don't need to invent a new word every time a different country sends a man into space. What you gonna do in a few decades, memorize 100 different words for "astronaut"?

      Do you say "Angela Merkel is on her way to the summit in a Flugzeug"? "Kim Jung Eun is returning to North Korea in his private Bihenggi? You're talking in English, just use the motherfucking English word for airplane.

    5. Re:Back to the future by x0ra · · Score: 2

      Your analogy would be correct if the US were capable to build Saturn rockets, which is NOT the case. http://amyshirateitel.com/2011...

    6. Re: Back to the future by ZorglubZ · · Score: 2

      And you think that #2, "star traveller", is a better word than #1, "space traveller"? Why?

    7. Re:Back to the future by jandersen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > China 2014 = USA 1960.

      Oh shut up. They've managed to do something we did in the 1970's.

      Well, he/she does have a point, as you actually manage to say yourself. When the US did this, they were in a massive, economic upturn, as is China now; and we in the West were in the grip of a massive, if somewhat naive, optimism - remember the Hippies? It was in the 60es and 70es that we shook of the post-WWII gloom and started believing that we could achieve anything and everything. Unfortunately we also managed to squander much of it - my personal opinion is that it is consumerism more than anything that's to blame, and unless China reins in a bit, they will too. So it goes in the world, but when that time comes, perhaps we will be ready again.

    8. Re:Back to the future by KeensMustard · · Score: 2

      Aeroplane

    9. Re:Back to the future by peragrin · · Score: 2

      except china isn't building rockets with 1960's tech. they are using modern tech. modern flight systems.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    10. Re:Back to the future by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If China was building 1969 cars, would you be all upset and emotional that China is building 1969 cars and the USA cannot build any cars at all

      FTFY.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    11. Re:Back to the future by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Uh, the Chinese moon missions are unmanned.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    12. Re:Back to the future by itzly · · Score: 1

      The USA still has rockets that can take humans into space. All it requires is relaxing the safety protocol a bit.

    13. Re:Back to the future by itzly · · Score: 1

      And they're not any better than unmanned US missions.

    14. Re:Back to the future by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Well said!

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    15. Re:Back to the future by itzly · · Score: 1

      my personal opinion is that it is consumerism more than anything that's to blame

      Plus all the cheap oil is gone.

    16. Re:Back to the future by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The question is, if the US really wanted to go back to the moon would they use a Saturn V anyway? If you take the Falcon Heavy launching early next year with two booster rockets and add four more so it's a hex ring around a center rocket you'd have a Falcon Superheavy that would roughly match the Saturn V. The Falcon Heavy does 53000 kg to LEO / 3 (center + 2 side) * 7 (center plus hex) = 123000kg ~= 118000kg for the Saturn V. I'm guessing if you gave SpaceX a billion dollar check they'd have a working prototype on the launch pad in a year or two for ~$250 million/launch with maximal reuse of existing and up-to-date technology.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Back to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what? The delusions about space don't suddenly make sense because we have better computers!

      As a matter of fact, all it shows is that we managed to make better technology right here on the Earth without your mythical cheap access to space we apparently "need"!

    18. Re:Back to the future by itzly · · Score: 2

      That's nonsense. The USA currently have a number of rockets that can lift more than the Chinese rocket. And the manned/unmanned thing is a matter of policy.

    19. Re:Back to the future by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Um, I have no objection to the use of Taikonauts. Because honestly, there are no astronauts right now except retired ones. Once the space station is decomisioned, there will only be 'Taikonauts'

    20. Re:Back to the future by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      "What you gonna do in a few decades, memorize 100 different words for "astronaut"?"

      There's going to be only one : unemployed. There's no future in space for people. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

      "'I think there is a world market for about five computers' —Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943". At a computer trade show in 1981, Bill Gates uttered this statement, in defense of the just-introduced IBM PC's 640KB usable RAM limit: "640K ought to be enough for anybody." Thought I would post a few people who said things as incredibly shortsighted things as well. I am amused at how little you know about how much stuf have been gained by space. So go one keep believing what you believe. Watson died in his belief. Gates was forced to change his mind and it affects Microsoft to this day.

  3. Re:To put into TIME perspective by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1972 Last US Moon Landing
    1972 - No one does a damn thing

    Nope, I don't really see any reason to pick on China specifically there.
    At this rate they will be inventing the wheel in about 200 years but good for them because the rest of us will have forgotten how to do even that!

    But don't worry, we still have junk food and reality TV.

  4. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    US has never had an unmanned sample return mission from the moon. Soviets did, though, in the early 70's.

    They can spin it, "US sucks, they have to send up humans because their robots are too dumb."

  5. So much envy from America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just accept that the Chinese will own the 21st century of space exploration, ok. There's no need for your envy, be proud of our achievements as a race and commend China for taking the lead, for all of us.

    And don't bring up the "we did it before you"-bullshit, because the Russians beat ALL OF US going into space. The Russians had crafts in orbit, people in orbit, and landers on the Moon, Venus and Mars, before anyone else. The Russians were the definitive pioneers of space exploration, period.

    1. Re:So much envy from America by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      I think that the failure with space exploration in our lifetimes will be because it's one nation or another trying to one up each other for some stupid reason.

      It's pathetically sad that the space challenging nations don't pool resources in a genuine push to grow beyond earth.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re:So much envy from America by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Yes, maybe we could do something cool like all build a space station together.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:So much envy from America by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2

      And how much has America let China contribute to the space station?

      I'm hoping you're down modded really soon - I wish there was a -1 uninformed mod.

      And Yes, I live in America, and Yes, I think it's stupid to not have all countries that want to share in space exploration actually share.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    4. Re:So much envy from America by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I'll trade you for a "-1 no sense of humor" mod. Sheesh.

      You're point is well taken that the US has blocked China's inclusion into the ISS program. Politics is everywhere, of course, and probably to be expected when states are funding things. Russia is now threatening to no longer take US astronauts to the ISS in retaliation for our sanctions against them. Unfortunately, it appears that with the reality of politics being what it is, depending too much on anyone else for technology simply leaves you vulnerable to political machinations. We probably did China a favor by forcing them to implement their own space program.

      In my defense, your post made it sound like we weren't collaborating with anyone like in the days of the US/Soviet space race, and that's clearly not the case.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    5. Re:So much envy from America by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      The Russians had crafts in orbit, people in orbit, and landers on the Moon, Venus and Mars, before anyone else. The Russians were the definitive pioneers of space exploration, period.

      First Soviet satellite in orbit: Sputnik 1. October 4 1957. Transmitted radio signals for 22 days and burned up on reentry in 92 days.

      First US satellite in orbit: Explorer 1. January 31, 1958. Transmitted data for 111 days and was the first spacecraft to detect the Van Allen belt. remained in orbit until 1970.

      So the Soviet Union sent up a radio transmitter that beeped at 20 and 40 MHz four months sooner than the US. Explorer 1 which had; a Geiger counter, multiple temperature sensors, a transducer and solid state amp to record micrometeorite impacts, and a wire grid for detecting micrometeorite impacts.

      Don't get me wrong. Sputnik 1 was first and a hell of an achievement. However, it's obvious the US could have sent up something sooner if they had wanted to. It's not like you can just develop a space program from scratch in four months. The US had started Project Orbiter in 1954 and was in competition with the Vanguard project, which gained favor politically. So work on Project Orbiter was shelved. Vanguard made an unsuccessful attempt to put Vanguard TV3 in orbit at the end of 1957. Once Sputnik 1 was launched, Project Orbiter was completed in less than 90 days.

      The Soviet Union had five failed mars flyby missions before the US even attempted to send anything to Mars. The US then had one failed flyby before the first successful one by Mariner 4 in 1964. USSR then had three more failures followed by 2 successful US and one failed flyby by the US . Then two more failed USSR flybys before their first successful Mars mission. The Soviet Mars 3 orbiter/Lander sent back 8 months of data and the lander managed to transmit 20 seconds of data. However Mariner 9 successfully achieved orbit around Mars a little over two weeks before that in November 1971.

      The Soviet Luna-2 crashed into the moon in 1959 and didn't do much else. So it was a first. The US crashed Ranger 7 into the moon in early 1965. But it returned 4300 pictures in the process.

      Laika was sent into orbit knowing full well the dog would suffocate. As far as I know, all of the deaths of US launched animals were due to catastrophic mission failures.

      I could go on, but there's not much point. While there was plenty of dick waving during the space race. The Soviet Union tended to get there first by simply lobbing a rock with the Soviet flag painted on it. While most of the US missions tended to actually send back useful data for the first time.

    6. Re:So much envy from America by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Thank-you for posting this. Usually I feel the responsibility to point out details like this about the early missions, but you saved me the trouble. There are many other examples such as the thousands of pictures returned by the Lunar Orbiters and Surveyor missions to the moon in the mid-60s. By the early 70's the US had missions on the way to Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury, places no one else has even attempted yet (the Europeans are planning to go to Jupiter and Mercury soon but haven't launched the spacecraft yet, and they did hitch a ride to Saturn on the US Cassini mission with their Huygens lander.)

    7. Re:So much envy from America by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      I'm certainly not trying to marginalize the Soviet space missions. Their early moon rovers were fantastic feats. Hell, I don't think there's been a more successful rover program until Spirit and Opportunity.

      But then look at the Voyager probes launched by the US. They've traveled farther than any man made object to date. And depending on your definition, are/will be the first to leave the solar system. Voyager 1 crossed the heliopause a little over 2 years ago. I'm pretty sure that's a first. ;-)

    8. Re:So much envy from America by MakerDusk · · Score: 1
      Just a FYI:

      The first mars rover that crashed as an international undertaking. In fact, that's one of the reasons it went wrong: us Canadians were responsible for the final calculations. We assumed, Americans being Americans, that the measurements given were in feet. (Yes, our stereotype has Americans pegged as being so backwards that the entire nation doesn't know System International, or are too prideful to use the standardized system.) However, the Americans had been kind and already converted to meters. Needless to say, that rover crashed hard.

      The incident is still repeated at my university, to this day, when collaboration with American physicists is suggested.

    9. Re:So much envy from America by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      I would of thought the context to be bloody obvious since the op is about China and taking pictures around the moon.

      Hence the non recognition of any humor in your first reply.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  6. Re:Fucking Chicoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're just some small envious person who have no idea what you're talking about. The U.S has been doing monumental spying for 50 years via the NSA, and most of your achievements are the fruits of European and Asian immigrants. Your suggestion that the Chinese can't achieve anything on their own is something only a clown and a loser would come up with.

  7. Somebody needs a hug by jpellino · · Score: 1

    and a replacement box set of Firefly.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  8. China Completes Its First Lunar Return Mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Congrats China!

  9. Re:To put into TIME perspective by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think we can actually pin the blame on Korolev here. He died in 1966, and without him Soviet space program lost their main driver.

    And without stiff and successful competition he provided, US didn't use the same resources as before on space exploration after clawing their one victory after series of losses. A very smart thing to do considering the costs of the program and the fact that people only remember your last victory, not the string of losses that came before it.

  10. China, mankind's last hope? by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    The rest of the world seems to have become so risk adverse and cost focused that it is very doubtful any significant space exploration will be forthcomming in the near future. Perhaps what little communal pride is left in China will help spur exploration for explorations sake, and not just the pursuit of profit?

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:China, mankind's last hope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China and India. India got to mars recently and plans an unmanned landing soon.

    2. Re:China, mankind's last hope? by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Well, let's consider actual space missions in flight right now. Just next year, in 2015, the American Dawn spacecraft will enter orbit around the asteroid Ceres, after leaving orbit around asteroid Vesta in 2012. And in July 2015, the American New Horizons spacecraft will fly by Pluto. And there is the American Juno mission to Jupiter, launched in 2011 due for arrival in orbit around Jupiter in 2016. Plus the ongoing flotilla of orbiters around Mars, including Maven which just entered Martian orbit less than two months ago and the two functioning rovers on Mars. Oh, and the functioning American orbiters at Saturn and Mercury. Closer to home, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is still in orbit around the Moon taking pictures with half meter resolution. I'm sure I left some out -- so which of those interplanetary and lunar missions doesn't count as exploration for exploration's sake? The American space program has a PR problem -- they have so many space missions going on at once that no one pays any attention any more -- come on -- we're flying past PLUTO next year! The Europeans are landing a probe on a COMET this year! I'm happy to see the Chinese successes, but the Americans and Europeans are doing more space exploration than anyone right now and can do things there that no one else can.

  11. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by x0ra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    AFAIK, today, even the US is back to the pre-1970 era. IIRC, NASA has lost knowledge about the Saturn's engine. Even in the nuclear domain, the industrial knowledge on how to produce some critical element of nuclear warhead has been lost.

  12. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by x0ra · · Score: 2

    Actually, no, it would seem the US were finally able to re-manufacture FOGBANK after 10 years and nearly $100 millions spent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

  13. Good job by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    Go China! A scientific victory for any of us is a scientific victory for all of us. Congratulations and keep up the good work!

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Good job by itzly · · Score: 1

      While an impressive step, it's still engineering, not science.

    2. Re:Good job by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Rocket science is easy.

      Rocket engineering is extremely, mind-curdlingly HARD

  14. Re:To put into TIME perspective by itzly · · Score: 1

    People lost interest in seeing men walk around on the moon, or riding around in a golf buggy. And they had picked enough rocks to last a while. What reason would there be to keep going ?

  15. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by skegg · · Score: 1

    Wrong: the specs are still present, and much of the institutional knowledge is still present.

    What the US lacks is the financial will however, rest-assured that both the US and Russia could hop back into the space race whenever they chose. It would hurt financially, but they could do it.

    These countries are choosing not to spend as much on space programmes as they once did. Back against the wall, they could switch priorities.

    I wish people would stop playing-out their fantasy that former world leaders (US, UK, Russia, France) are wounded giants with buzzards surrounding them ... they pack a mean punch and will continue to for some time.

  16. Oh my god by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

    Oh my god, it's not full of stars... Seriously though, how come there are never any stars? Is the surface reflection really that bright, or are space-cameras just inherently shit?

    1. Re:Oh my god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Surface reflection really is that bright. If you set the camera exposure to see stars, Earth and the Moon would be white blobs.

    2. Re:Oh my god by itzly · · Score: 1

      Compare to here on Earth. The moon is bright enough to be visible during daytime, but you can't see stars.

  17. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by x0ra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    cf. http://amyshirateitel.com/2011...

    If the problem was only economical, there wouldn't be a problem nowadays for a new launch vehicle to go to Mars. The $6 billions NASA budget in 1966 would be equivalent to $43 billions today. Even at FY 2013 budget, $17 billions, assuming the R&D had already been done, documented, and tooling still exist, the saturn launch vehicle could easily be re-made. But strangely, it could not. you are also disproved by the fact the NASA engineer have only been testing the Rocketdyne F-1 engine quite... recently... http://www.nasa.gov/exploratio...

    Let's face it, the US space program is not what it used to be, but hey, if you like to live in the past, good for you :-/

  18. Re:To put into TIME perspective by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

    Clearly after going to the Moon, someone discovered there is no point anymore to go there. USA proved its superiority as intended when JFK launched the program. The only incentive was national superiority during the Cold War. The rest was pure waste of money and resources.

    Comparison with aviation does not hold water. The aviation industry has proven to be profitable and fast transportation valuable to human activity and economy. No such thing exists for manned missions to the Moon or even Mars. In short, there is no incentive to do it again or even go to Mars, Cold War is over.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  19. Re:To put into TIME perspective by itzly · · Score: 2

    Even if they continued the missions, bringing samples from the moon would still be way too expensive to be handing them out to school kids.

  20. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, today, even the US is back to the pre-1970 era. IIRC, NASA has lost knowledge about the Saturn's engine.

    You mean the F-1? The funny thing is, NASA never had a lot of knowledge about the engine in the first place: the computers of the time were not powerful enough to allow them to simulate a lot of stuff, so a lot of the design decisions were simple guesswork. (The same actually goes for the Russians, too.) Here's a great article on a recent piece of "industrial archeology".

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  21. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Actually, the F-1B engine seems to be progressing nicely.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  22. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Well, it depends on what "15% better" means. If it means "15% better parameters, regardless of 30%-60% higher manufacturing costs", it will be bad. If it means "15% cost improvement while keeping the parameters the same or somewhat better", that sounds like a better deal to me. I wouldn't blame computers for computer abuse.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  23. Inner Mongolia? by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    Forget the Moon, who knew there was actually an inner Mongolia ?

    1. Re:Inner Mongolia? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Obviously, not the average US raised kid.

  24. Re:Newsflash! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The government - if that is the word - of the middle Northern American country, colloquially known as the Americas [sic?],

    In American English, "America" unambiguously identifies he United States of America. The Americas unambiguously refers to North, South, and Latin America collectively. The people I've found with the most confusion on this point is those who learn English as a second language, and the wording is different, and they tend to insist that their English is better than millions of natives, because it sounds like their native language.

  25. The door to the universe is ajar by Dollyknot · · Score: 1

    Brilliant news, find water on the moon and we have found the moon's rocket fuel. Get that rocket fuel back to earth and use it to accelerate a craft to escape velocity, in the safety of the vacuum of space and we are on our way.

    Please read my thesis http://dollyknot.com/nonlinear...

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  26. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    "It would seem the US were finally able to re-manufacture FOGBANK"

    As with the manufacture of seamless tubing for SSMEs there was heavily reliance on the memory of retired staff.

    Not the first technique that was lost and certainly won't be the last.

  27. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    "What the US lacks is the financial will"

    Not just the financial will. Even with an unlimited budget the USA could not resume manufacturing SaturnV-class launchers without at least a decade lead-time.

    For what it's worth, before the "space race", the USA was planning the Dyna-soar project, using a truly massive booster (Sea Dragon), which would be fabricated in a shipyard. Long-term that kind of booster is going to be needed, unless the political will to build Orion-class launchers is somehow found (and short of a Footfall scenario I can't see that happening)

  28. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    "NASA engineer have only been testing the Rocketdyne F-1 engine"

    No, they've only been testing the gas generator from the engine. Firing the entire engine will take a LOT more work.

  29. Re:Welcome to 1970, China! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    Just to clarify: The "gas generator" is the part of the engine which drives the turbopumps which supply fuel+oxidiser to the main combustion chamber. It's analogous in some ways to the high pressure injector pump in a diesel engine.

  30. Re:To put into TIME perspective by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    As one commentator put it "Even if there were gold bars stacked at the landing site ready for collection, it still wouldn't be worthwhile making the flight to collect them"

    The issue was that the space race was about militaristic chest-thumping and was promoted as such. Because of that, interest was lost as soon as Apollo 11 landed. The USA had won, why bother with anything more?

    There were plenty of opportunities to keep interest up but the media had other priorities and exo-geology still doesn't feature highly on their radar.