Chinese Spacecraft Enters Orbit Around the Moon

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese Spacecraft Enters Orbit Around the Moon

Posted by Soulskill on Monday January 12, 2015 @03:16PM from the how-do-you-say-"that's-no-moon"-in-mandarin dept.

mpicpp sends this report from Scientific American: A Chinese spacecraft service module has entered orbit around the moon, months after being used in the country's landmark test flight that sent a prototype sample-return capsule on a flight around the moon and returned it to Earth. The service module from China's circumlunar test flight arrived in orbit around the moon this week, according to Chinese state media reports. The spacecraft is currently flying in an eight-hour orbit that carries it within 125 miles (200 kilometers) of the lunar surface at its closest point, and out to a range of 3,293 miles (5,300 km) at its highest point. Earlier reports noted that a camera system is onboard the service module, designed to assist in identifying future landing spots for the Chang'e 5 mission that will return lunar samples back to Earth in the 2017 time frame. Reader schwit1 adds a detailed report on Russia's next-gen space station module, writing, "The Russians have always understood that a space station is nothing more than a prototype of an interplanetary spaceship. They are therefore simply carrying through with the same engineering research they did on their earlier Salyut and Mir stations, developing a vessel that can keep humans alive on long trips to other planets."

152 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Great to see by SuperKendall · 2015-01-12 15:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Glad to see someone is returning to the Moon, no matter which nation. We need more space exploration in general.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Great to see by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-01-12 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed. Humans are returning to the Moon.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Great to see by Michael+Woodhams · 2015-01-12 15:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Since 1969 there have been people living on Earth who have visited another world. It would be a terrible failure of humanity if one day this was no longer true. I am not fond of the Chinese government, but if they send people to the moon, I'll be enthusiastically cheering them on.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
3. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps now we'll finally find that elusive general chao.
4. Re:Great to see by ourlovecanlastforeve · 2015-01-12 16:00 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  You mean the sound stage?
5. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 16:49 · Score: -1
  
  The branch of liberalism which believes that reforms of economic exploitation are possible WITHOUT violent extermination of believers in free market capitalism is called socialism. China is a communist nation, which is the OTHER type of liberalism(and the moon is a harsh mistress).
6. Re:Great to see by KeensMustard · 2015-01-12 16:53 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Since 1969 there have been people living on Earth who have visited another world. It would be a terrible failure of humanity if one day this was no longer true.
  Why is that? We don't consider the passing of other outdated technology as a failure. For example, "It would be a terrible failure of humanity if one day no one was ale to make a buggy whip"
7. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 17:00 · Score: 0
  
  Our grasp of space technology is possibly outdated. The uses of space technology have barely been explored. Mining is a prime candidate for broad commercialization.
8. Re:Great to see by phantomfive · 2015-01-12 17:02 · Score: 2
  
  We (mostly) stopped making buggy whips because technology progressed. We stopped going to the moon and technology has receded.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
9. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 17:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, until there's New Alcatraz on the moon under the auspices of "research".
10. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  We stopped going to the moon because the next step after that (Mars) was FAR, FAR more difficult than reaching, let alone landing, on the moon.
  At this point, the only reason to go to the moon is to say that your country did it (again) or to prototype some kind of long-term space survival system (which would obviously begin by simulations on a space station in Earth's orbit for practicality reasons)
11. Re:Great to see by SirSlud · 2015-01-12 17:13 · Score: 2
  
  Technology has receded since the last time humans landed on the moon? That's pretty funny.
  
  --
  "Old man yells at systemd"
12. Re:Great to see by SuperKendall · 2015-01-12 17:17 · Score: 2
  
  The technology to land on other planets has absolutely receded. We are kind of starting from scratch.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
13. Re:Great to see by quenda · 2015-01-12 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  It would be a terrible failure of humanity if one day this was no longer true.
  
  Was it a terrible failure of humanity that we stopped building giant pyramids? Sure the first few are cool, but its awfully expensive.
  Why not wait a few generations until the technology has progressed sufficiently, that we can do something substantially better.
  There is only so much you can reasonably do with muscle power or fossil-fuel rockets.
14. Re:Great to see by Teancum · 2015-01-12 17:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  America has lost the capability of being able to reproduce the original Mercury flight of Alan Shepard. There are some efforts to try and build some new spacecraft that might actually be useful in the future and they are currently under development, but none of them are flight worthy. If some alien creature was discovered orbiting the Earth and simply asking for somebody from the Earth to meet with them in orbit in exchange for huge amounts of cultural and scientific data, it would have to be done right now with a Soviet-era Soyuz spacecraft or with a Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft. America wouldn't and simply can't do something like that.
  Yes, the technological capability of going to the Moon has been lost in the past 40 years and needs to be rebuilt from scratch. All we know is that it was done in the past, where sadly an entire generation of kids are starting to believe the Moon hoax guys because the technology to get to the Moon no longer exists.
15. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 17:38 · Score: 0
  
  No, the INDUSTRIAL capacity to land on the other planets has receded. The TECHNOLOGY has not.
16. Re:Great to see by itzly · 2015-01-12 17:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  America wouldn't and simply can't do something like that
  It's not really a matter of technology that has been lost, rather than safety requirements that have been increased to the point that nothing passes them right now.
17. Re:Great to see by ShanghaiBill · 2015-01-12 17:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The technology to land on other planets has absolutely receded. We are kind of starting from scratch.
  There is an active rover on Mars that would disagree with you if it was sentient.
  We do not lack the technology to land on other planets.
  What we lack is a reason to include humans in the landings.
  The robots are doing fine without us.
18. Re:Great to see by Michael+Woodhams · 2015-01-12 17:57 · Score: 2
  
  A minor nit-pick: I think you mean "chemical rocket".
  Probably the most common rockets are liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen. Neither are fossil fuels. Solid rockets could contain oil-derived plastics in their fuel, I don't know enough to say how often this is so. SpaceX uses kerosene/liquid oxygen which does use fossil fuel, although I expect it wouldn't be hard to substitute a suitable biofuel if they really wanted to.
  
  --
  Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
19. Re:Great to see by quenda · 2015-01-12 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  A minor nit-pick: I think you mean "chemical rocket".
  No, I was trying to stress the antiquated nature, and the limited reserves of this resource we are squandering.
  
  rockets are liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen. Neither are fossil fuels.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
  > Currently, the majority of hydrogen (95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal gasification.
  OK, so "fossil-fuel-derived" ? But so is gasoline.
20. Re: Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 18:58 · Score: 0
  
  The first stage of the Saturn V used a form of kerosene. Stages 2 and 3 used
21. Re:Great to see by camperdave · 2015-01-12 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why do people use buggy whip makers as an example of outdated technology? Have you not heard of harness racing? Have you not heard of horse drawn carriage rides? Have you not heard of the Amish? People with fetishes? Rodeos?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
22. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 20:08 · Score: -1
  
  -1? Really?
23. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Dragon has been operational since 2012, and has a life support system (primitive, but no more so than Shepard's) and the proven ability to return safely. Dragon could fly people tomorrow if NASA just had the guts to accept some risk.
24. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  The technology to land humans on Mars has never existed. We haven't lost it, we just don't have much of an idea how to land masses greater than 1 metric tonne safely on the surface. It may be possible in the future, but right now it isn't.
25. Re:Great to see by Richard_at_work · 2015-01-12 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  People use the buggy whip as an example because some inane person mentioned it on Slashdot a billion years ago and people have co-opted it since then for ridiculous arguments that make no sense - buggy whip makers went out of business because there was no longer a mass market for their product, not for any other reason. Buggy whip makers went on to make other things, they didn't die a horrible starving death because one of their products went away.
26. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 21:46 · Score: 0
  
  Why?
27. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yes really. Smoke less weed if you can't formulate a coherent, on-topic sentence.
28. Re:Great to see by hackertourist · 2015-01-12 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  America has lost the capability of being able to reproduce the original Mercury flight of Alan Shepard.
  
  No they haven't. The US is perfectly capable technology-wise of designing and building manned rockets. They've just chosen to accept (for political, not technological reasons) a gap of a couple of years between the retirement of the Shuttle and the inaugural manned commercial flight.
29. Re:Great to see by dave420 · 2015-01-12 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's kind of the point people are trying to make when they talk about buggy whip manufacturers - the manufacturers complained when horses dwindled, yet society as a whole benefited, and the buggy whip manufacturers didn't all die out in the gutters lamenting their lost industry...
30. Re:Great to see by KeensMustard · 2015-01-12 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  It seems like you couldn't argue my point, so chose to quibble about nonsense. No prize for you.
31. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 23:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm a Chinese (well, Hong Konger, but after the fucking handover now I'm technically Chinese) and I've worked in the mainland, so listen to me. China is NOT communist. Not even close. Sure, the Communist Party is in power there, but they are just crooks. If you actually go to the mainland you can see the elders walking the streets, begging for money and food. It's everywhere, from the biggest city to the little town. A communist government would actually care about these people and provided them shelter, foods, health care, and so on. And on the other hand, you see the CPC people with thousand dollars hand bags, luxary goods (all imported, because despite the CPC says China is the best nation in Earth they don't like or trust China's products), 5 star meals every night cooked by chefs who make maybe 300 USD a month. There's no way China is even close to Communism. It's a corrupted dictatorship.
32. Re:Great to see by KeensMustard · 2015-01-12 23:17 · Score: 2
  
  What does that have to do with it? We can mine far better using robots than humans. That's kinda my point
33. Re:Great to see by KeensMustard · 2015-01-12 23:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  We stopped sending humans to space because technology progressed and humans are no longer needed.
  How can you say that technology has receded? That is so far from the facts that I cannot believe that you said that deliberately.
  Did you forget that last year we landed on a Comet? Did you forgot the Titan Landing, the minor issue of our presence on Mars for what - 15 continuous years now? Did you forget Cassin, Voyager, MESSENGER? Did you forget that even at this moment we are on the brink of our first good look at Pluto?
  You live in a bizarre world.
34. Re:Great to see by itzly · 2015-01-12 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Mining is a prime candidate for broad commercialization.
  No. It's too expensive. Even metal-rich asteroids are mostly made of base metals such as iron and nickel, of which we have plenty down here on Earth. The valuable metals in the platinum group are still relatively rare. This means you either have to install a refinery on an asteroid, or try to safely deorbit tons of worthless garbage for a handful of precious metals. Either proposition is hopeless.
35. Re:Great to see by KeensMustard · 2015-01-12 23:55 · Score: 2
  
  America has lost the capability of being able to reproduce the original Mercury flight of Alan Shepard.
  That's not true. It's not that we can't. We just don't want to.
36. Re:Great to see by Richard_at_work · 2015-01-13 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no, thats not the point people are trying to make when they talk about buggy whip manufacturers, as in many cases its put across as a far more course argument - "buggy whip manufacturers went away because no one wanted their product", and yet the modern examples that buggy whip makers are used for, the products are still massively in demand...
37. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  doesn't the Curiosity Rover weigh almost 4 times that?
38. Re:Great to see by drinkypoo · 2015-01-13 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Dave420 says "the buggy whip manufacturers didn't all die out in the gutters lamenting their lost industry" and you say "Buggy whip makers went on to make other things, they didn't die a horrible starving death because one of their products went away." So you agreed with him? The truth is that the buggy whip meme is the best-understood and least-misused meme on slashdot.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
39. Re:Great to see by Bengie · 2015-01-13 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  We haven't had a single project since, that has had so many technological break through. Ignoring power generation, engines or pharmaceuticals, nearly everything we use in our daily life is because of NASA trying to go to the Moon. Batteries, computers, communications. Name almost technology, and you can trace it back to NASA.
  
  Technology naturally progresses at an exponential rate, but NASA jumped us forward 20-30 years.
40. Re:Great to see by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  I can see most of the base metals produced in space being used "locally," such as in structure for vast solar arrays. But as the cost of mining on Earth keeps on going up as we have to go deeper and weirder (under the ocean, etc.) for supply, the temptation to drop asteroidal metals down to Earth will become irresistible. Keep two things in mind: While it is and still will be blisteringly expensive to haul goods up the gravity well from Earth and then further out of the Sun's gravity well, sending anything the other way will be much cheaper. And space mining itself is not going to be anything like thousands of Chinese peasants hacking away at the hills of Placer County. It will be virtually all robotic.
41. Re:Great to see by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  1,982 pounds, slightly less than 1 tonne.
42. Re:Great to see by thrich81 · 2015-01-13 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  During the period 1975 to 1981, the period between the last crewed Apollo flight and the first crewed Space Shuttle flight, the US did not have an operational system to launch crewed spacecraft. I was around during that time and don't remember any of the wailing that "America has lost the ability to go into Space!" like is common now. The Russians could still do it then (with pretty much the same hardware as they use now) so that wasn't the difference. I think it is just trendy now to bash American technical prowess in space which is uninformed as proven by rovers on Mars, probes on the way to Jupiter, Pluto, and Ceres, and orbiters around Saturn and Mercury. Unlike the 1975-1981 period there are currently THREE (four if you count Dreamchaser) crewed American spacecraft in advanced development, two of which have already flown in uncrewed configuration. So by any standard the US space program is stronger now (far stronger on the robot side) than it was in the late 70's. And, to be blunt, the statement that "America has lost the capability of being able to reproduce the original Mercury flight of Alan Shepard," is just ignorant -- Space-X could reproduce the orbital flight of Apollo 7 (first crewed flight of Apollo) tomorrow if there was a reason to, using the Falcon 9/Dragon system.
43. Re:Great to see by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  We never stopped building giant pyramids. Those specific structures were votive, like the European cathedrals we built later for a different style of worship. The Romans followed the Egyptians with concrete buildings, aqueducts and a highway system. The pyramids of today are undersea tunnels and ultra-tall buildings. Expansion into space is just a continuation of the same process.
44. Re:Great to see by itzly · 2015-01-13 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Deorbiting stuff safely isn't cheap either. Remember that the stuff is going Mach 25, and you only have a very short time to slow it down in a controlled manner. The more massive the chunk is, the bigger the problem. And you don't want a uncontrolled deorbit. First of all, it will make it hard to predict how it will interact with the atmosphere and where it will land. Also, it will land with such an impact that the explosion will blow your precious metals all over the place.
45. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  Me Chinese
  Me play gag
  Me pee pee on your stupid flag
46. Re:Great to see by itzly · 2015-01-13 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that the old pyramids were useless, but extremely expensive, artefacts. Similar to astronauts planting a flag on the Moon. Undersea tunnels and aqueducts actually serve a very useful purpose. The problem is that there's very little useful stuff we can do in space. The biggest exception would be commercial satellites, but we're already doing that. Unmanned exploration is nice for some (I like it), but not appealing enough for the majority of the people to allow for big budgets.
47. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but that IS de facto communism. Such poor conditions and corruption are not the exception, but the rule of communism. Every nation which has ever proclaimed itself to be communist has resulted in such. It doesn't matter how loud you cry that isn't real communism - that is just the no true scotsman logical fallacy.
48. Re:Great to see by orasio · 2015-01-13 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know whether what he says is true, but beggars are not a typical sight in communism.
  In a communist state, they would either not get much gain by begging on their streets (think Cuba, at least when foreigners are not involved), and or be thrown in jail by doing it (like what they say happens in North Korea)
  Also, political leaders enjoying luxury goods and meals is the norm in most countries, communist ("real" or not) or otherwise.
49. Re:Great to see by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  The deorbiting problem is one of controlling the descent, while taking something to orbit requires an inescapable amount of applied energy. Over the years we have gotten good at controlling spacecraft much faster than we have gotten good at lifting heavy weights.
50. Re:Great to see by itzly · 2015-01-13 03:29 · Score: 2
  
  Deorbiting requires removing a lot of energy, and that's almost as difficult. Notice for instance that our capability to bring stuff in orbit greatly exceeds our capability to bring stuff down. The best thing right now is the cramped Soyuz reentry vehicle, barely capable of bringing three astronauts and some carry-on luggage. The Dragon capsule promises a bit more, but it's still nothing compared to what you would need to do mining. And don't forget that the reentry vehicle needs to be launched from Earth, putting limitations on both mass and volume.
51. Re:Great to see by thrich81 · 2015-01-13 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  "returning to the moon" -- Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, a NASA spacecraft, is operational in orbit around the moon right now and has been there since 2009. NASA just makes it look so easy that when they do it, nobody notices.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...
52. Re: Great to see by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Uh no. The majority of rockets have not been lh2/lox. It is absolutely rp-1 or kerosine combined with lox. And second would be udmh combined with N2O4.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
53. Re:Great to see by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  I don't see us bringing back asteroidal metals in any sort of spacecraft, especially one launched from Earth! It's going to be more like sending back refined metal shaped into an aerodynamic reentry body wrapped in something ablative, perhaps made from slag generated during refining. We need to come up with a shape that is self-righting and which can be aimed with reasonable accuracy at a large unpopulated area, such as Mojave or Mauritania, for pickup.
54. Re:Great to see by phantomfive · 2015-01-13 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  How can you say that technology has receded?
  The USA doesn't even have a rocket capable of sending people to the moon, or even into LEO, and it's not because we don't want it.
  
  You live in a bizarre world.
  Yes, that's absolutely true, and I wouldn't want that to change.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
55. Re:Great to see by itzly · 2015-01-13 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, you'll need to send a refinery to space. Any idea how much mass that is ? And even then you'd still be limited to small pieces (ablating too much during descend) and hard impacts (scattering your profits). If you add up all the cost, space mining just doesn't make any sense. Where do you get all the energy for your mining and refining ? Asteroids are far from the sun, so solar panels aren't going to work very well.
  It's much easier to stay on Earth, and go after the low grade ores. We have plenty of those.
56. Re:Great to see by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I'm assuming a smelter at the point where the metal is extracted. Such a refinery would of course not be cheap, but could take advantage of microgravity and baseload solar energy (no weather, no night, no bird poop, no environmental 'activists') to produce high-purity metal at perhaps a lower cost than accelerating unusable mass back to LEO.
57. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. If you build another Apollo rocket - you can surely find volunteers for the "unsafe" mission. People who happily sign papers and take all responsibility off your troubled hands.
  But you can't build another Apollo - not for any kind of money. Too many important little details were not written down.
58. Re: Great to see by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  F9, delta, and atlas are all capable of sending 7 or more ppl into space.
  In addition, dragon 1 and 2 are fully capable of holding 7 humans today.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
59. Re:Great to see by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-13 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Comprehend much, poster is commenting on how it would be a shame if it came out that the US never sent a manned mission to the moon.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
60. Re:Great to see by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-13 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Soyuz reentry vehicle, barely capable of bringing three astronauts and some carry-on luggage.
  I seem to recall the space shuttle having recovery capability and far more capacity than 3 astronauts and some carry-on.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
61. Re:Great to see by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-13 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Think ARC from Doom.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
62. Re:Great to see by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-13 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  There's a mothballed set of shuttles that could go up if absolutely needed.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
63. Re:Great to see by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-13 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Then that one buggy whip maker that kept producing got rich from cornering a niche market.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
64. Re:Great to see by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-13 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You have to admit though it leaves one questioning how it could be done, I've heard it said today if expense wasn't a concern a pyramid like the greats could not be reproduced using modern tools.
  
  I'm not an engineer so I don't know how true it is.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
65. Re:Great to see by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-13 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  In 4000 - 6000 years how many of our structures will remain?
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
66. Re:Great to see by argStyopa · 2015-01-13 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Enthusiastically? Maybe not.
  I submit that as much as people like to complain about Pax Americana, Pax Sinica will be a helluva lot more overbearing, ethnocentrist, and painful to anyone not Chinese (and within that group, very narrowly benefiting their "1%ers" to an even more lopsided degree than US society today).
  It will be interesting to see how 'open' their space program will be to other countries; they've already shown themselves to be rather terrible 'space citizens' in terms of debris-consequences.
  
  --
  -Styopa
67. Re:Great to see by cusco · 2015-01-13 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  The S&M market?
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
68. Re:Great to see by david_thornley · 2015-01-13 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard a lot of nonsense said today. We may not have specific plans to build a giant pyramid, but we can definitely move the rocks around, far better than they could back then, and if somebody had the land and actually wanted to pay to build one it wouldn't be hard.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
69. Re:Great to see by quenda · 2015-01-13 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard it said today if expense wasn't a concern a pyramid like the greats could not be reproduced using modern tools.
  I'm not an engineer so I don't know how true it is.
  I hear Obama is a Reptilian, but I'm not a zoologist.
70. Re:Great to see by slashdotwannabe · 2015-01-13 12:17 · Score: 2
  
  By that definition the United States is a Communist nation.
  
  --
  This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
71. Re:Great to see by JakeBurn · 2015-01-13 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  lol what? In an agency where pretty much everything is monitored by multiple people and they didn't keep notes? I've seen some of the binders for things like simple tool allocation/procurement and that one was fifty pages.
72. Re:Great to see by dryeo · 2015-01-13 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget no gravity, needed for traction in mining (try using a shovel or bulldozer in zero gravity and then there are explosives) and needed for purifying the metal through the trick of lighter things floating on heavier things.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
73. Re:Great to see by Teancum · 2015-01-14 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  The Dragon can't carry a crew right now, so you are wrong.
74. Re:Great to see by Teancum · 2015-01-14 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that both launch pads 39A & B have been completely dismantled for new rockets, that the Shuttle processing facility to get the vehicles ready for launch has been also rebuilt to do other things, and there are no external tanks available nor even a manufacturing plant capable of building them, I'd say those Shuttle orbiters are going to stay mothballed permanently.
  At this point, even the engines have been torn apart and are currently being repurposed and reworked for use on the SLS.
  No, there is no way they will ever launch again and it would be years of effort to even try with billions of dollars spent in an effort that would be akin to building a whole new Shuttle by the time you are done. The capability of launching the Shuttle is definitely gone.
75. Re:Great to see by Teancum · 2015-01-14 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  You are confusing science with technology. The equipment necessary to send a crew into orbit simply doesn't exist right now in America. Yes, the science in terms of how it can be done has been created and you can look at previous designs to see how it was done in the past can be done, assuming of course that some of the really critical steps done by previous engineering teams was even recorded and documented.
  It also helps to know that previous designs were successful, so you are attacking this engineering challenge with the knowledge that somebody has solved this problem before and that it can be done. That doesn't mean that any particular design will be successful though. It is also far more than political issues right now. Going into space on any current American spacecraft would get that crew member killed. Period.
76. Re:Great to see by Teancum · 2015-01-14 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Space-X could reproduce the orbital flight of Apollo 7 (first crewed flight of Apollo) tomorrow if there was a reason to, using the Falcon 9/Dragon system.
  I would ask a SpaceX engineer about this first. The ones I've talked to about this very point have cringed with even the mere suggestion of this idea. And yes, they've been asked.
  No, SpaceX could not duplicate the flight of Apollo 7 tomorrow. They are gearing up to be able to duplicate that flight though in a fashion, so no doubt they will get there somewhat soon, but the Dragon 1 capsule as it currently stands is not crew capable and neither is the Dragon 2 capsule prototype.
77. Re:Great to see by thrich81 · 2015-01-14 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected on the state of the Dragon. Still, I don't feel the angst about the US space capabilities which is often expressed around here. Having lived through the 70's with the abandonment of the Apollo/Saturn hardware, with two flyable Saturn Vs left to corrode away on the ground, and then the long, slow disappointment of the STS, the rebuilding situation in crewed capabilities we have today just doesn't seem so bad, and that doesn't consider the golden age of interplanetary programs going on now. And, come on, you can't really stand by your statement that the US couldn't build a system equivalent to Mercury-Redstone in a couple of years if some billionaire wanted to do it. Anyway, thanks for the (nearly) direct info on Dragon.
78. Re:Great to see by hackertourist · 2015-01-14 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  You're confusing technology with "currently in production". Several companies in the US posess all of the technology needed to put humans in space. They just haven't produced and flown spacecraft yet.
  It is a political issue, pure and simple. The transition between the Shuttle and new manned systems was planned badly, allowing a several-year capability gap.
79. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-14 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  its a criminal failure of our government and thus us the morons who keep voting in the losers than run the greatest nation currently on Earth (America) that we seem to have abandoned the tech high ground on so many areas including space. Sadly I might live long enough to experience the downside of the situation.
80. Re:Great to see by lucien86 · 2015-01-14 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  I like the word 'planned'. A shuttle replacement did exist but was cancelled by George W Bush.. Each new president likes to cancel the projects of the previous administration and create their own new ones - that is where all the money goes...
  
  --
  Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
81. Re:Great to see by lucien86 · 2015-01-14 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  In case anyone missed it the Orion capsule recently underwent a test which is basically the main one required for manned certification. Of course you would need a capsule ready before you could launch it - and actually building a new capsule takes about something like 1 to 2 years. ..
  
  --
  Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
82. Re:Great to see by lucien86 · 2015-01-14 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Ur Maybe the whole problem is that buggy whips are somewhat simpler than manned rockets. And of course people still make buggy whips, its just that the market is a lot smaller than it was (10,000 x smaller ?)
  
  --
  Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
83. Re:Great to see by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-17 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  You are just another fool in the crowd ...
Neat! by hel1xx · 2015-01-12 15:28 · Score: 0

This is quite neat! Where's the American contrib..... wait. "Cruz" missile strike. Oh the casualties =[

--
IT Professional.
1. Re:Neat! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  This is quite neat! Where's the American contrib..... wait. "Cruz" missile strike. Oh the casualties =[
  America is busy spending 500B+ a year on security (like TSA, CCTV cameras, wire tapping, infiltrating crypto standards, etc. etc.) and another $800B on military. So they don't have money for real world R&D anymore. NASA's budget is simply too big anyway.
2. Re: Neat! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  Do you realize that the people (all of them in DC) running the government for the last 6 years have put the USA in greater debt than all the governments we've had in the history of the country added together? If a small small fraction of that huge pile of money had been given back to American companies with the idea they should use it to go to the moon, we would have been there again 2 years ago.
Success rate of 0% by CajunArson · 2015-01-12 15:40 · Score: -1, Flamebait

"The Russians have always understood that a space station is nothing more than a prototype of an interplanetary spaceship."
Given the fact that Russia has never managed to even get an unmanned probe working successfully on Mars -- much less even gotten a manned mission to orbit the Moon -- maybe they should realize that the "prototypes" they've been building for over 40 years haven't been too successful.
Oh, and oil just crashed... have fun paying for all that with your Putin Pictures -- uh, I mean "rubles".

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
1. Re:Success rate of 0% by TWX · 2015-01-12 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't the Russians send a crew around the Moon, but NASA managed to land first?
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re: Success rate of 0% by bitflusher · 2015-01-12 16:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To add to this: Mocking the only nation currently capable of bringing humans to the iss for their incompetence seems odd..
3. Re:Success rate of 0% by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 16:41 · Score: 0
  
  No Russian ever reached escape welocity.
4. Re:Success rate of 0% by kellymcdonald78 · 2015-01-12 17:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, the Russian's were hoping to do a manned flyby as part of the Zond program, but the Proton rocket had a number of teething problems and it took awhile to become reliable enough to even consider putting people on (ultimately it never flew manned). There were also a number of problems with the Soyuz 7K-L1 spacecraft. US intelligence thought the Soviet's were closer to flying a crewed lunar flyby mission as Zond 5 was largely a successful test. However Zond 6 depressurized and crashed on re-entry (killing the animals aboard) which ended any immediate plans of a crewed launch. Apollo 8 was originally to be a "D" mission, testing the Lunar Module in Low Earth Orbit with Apollo 9 an "E" mission testing it in Medium Earth Orbit. Due to delays with the Lunar Module, they decided to swap the missions and instead send Apollo 8 into lunar orbit (with no Lunar Module). Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders became the first humans to leave low Earth orbit Dec 21st, 1968. They successfully orbited the moon 10 times on Christmas day and returned Dec 27th After that the Soviet's pretty much gave up on the flyby in favor of a manned lunar landing, but they could never get the N-1 rocket to work
5. Re:Success rate of 0% by Teancum · 2015-01-12 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  It didn't help that Sergei Korolev died right before the Apollo moon landings. It was even apparently due to a poorly trained surgeon for what should have been a routine medical procedure that caused his death. Had Korolev been around to provide strong leadership to the Soviet Moon program, I think there might have been an outside chance for a Soviet crewed lunar landing to have happened by about 1970 with the N-1 rocket becoming successful.
  The funny thing is that the N-1 engines that should have gone to the Moon ended up being used by Orbital Science for sending supplies to the International Space Station. Then again, when one of those engines exploded shortly after launch, it destroyed one of the cargo modules and a couple of satellites... so the disaster of the N-1 seems to keep repeating itself.
6. Re:Success rate of 0% by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2015-01-12 18:44 · Score: 2
  
  The Russians landed one of the only working probes on the surface of Venus.
7. Re:Success rate of 0% by Gavagai80 · 2015-01-12 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  have fun paying for all that with your Putin Pictures -- uh, I mean "rubles".
  Does any Russian currency feature Putin on it? Not to my knowledge.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
8. Re:Success rate of 0% by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  None one of the only working probes, _the_ only working landers (plural) on Venus. Everything else has been an orbiter or a flyby.
9. Re: Success rate of 0% by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 20:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No human ever reached escape velocity. No human's ever been outside Earth's sphere of influence.
10. Re: Success rate of 0% by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing that gravity's range is infinite, your statement is content-free. I suspect you don't know what "escape velocity" is either.
11. Re:Success rate of 0% by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 22:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, except for that whole Sputnik and Gagarin thing, what have the Russians ever done? You know, besides making all the big tough Americans soil their collective britches in '57?
  Face it, sending people into space is useless. There's nothing out there for us, and space "exploration" consists of analyzing photons, something we can do right here from our computer chairs.
  The Russians also sent Luna 16, an unmanned Moon sample return mission.
  What have you done?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
12. Re: Success rate of 0% by drinkypoo · 2015-01-13 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  To add to this: Mocking the only nation currently capable of bringing humans to the iss for their incompetence seems odd..
  They're the only currently physically capable, but not the only technologically capable. We chose to let them have that spot, it didn't happen because we couldn't prevent it. And it's a situation which will soon be remedied. And we're mocking them for their incompetence because they can't do what we have done, which is much harder.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re: Success rate of 0% by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  He means escape velocity of the Earth, Sheldon.
14. Re:Success rate of 0% by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  The most high-quality stream of photons we have ever received from space is PRODUCED IN SPACE. And keeping it going has required periodic servicing by human crews.
15. Re: Success rate of 0% by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Nope
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
16. Re:Success rate of 0% by kellymcdonald78 · 2015-01-13 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  In my view the problems facing the Soviet space program at the time were just too systemic for even Korolev to have resolved. Unlike the US which had NASA and thus a single coordinated moon program, the Soviets essentially had 3. Korolev, Yangel and Chelomei were constantly fighting each other for political influence and funding. Even then, the funding never matched the grandiose political statements (similar to NASA today). While Sputnik, Vostok and Voshod could be accomplished on a shoestring budget, leveraging the R-7 program, the Soyuz, N1 and LK (the Soviet Lunar Lander) programs required substantial investment that never really emerged. Korolev was never able to build a test stand for the N-1 due to lack of funding, meaning they had to "debug" it in flight, an insane approach for something as large, complex (and expensive) as the N-1. In 1966, Korolev spent the entire annual N-1 budget by March and wasn't able to do anything more until the next year. The under investment in Soyuz resulted in Komarov's death on a spacecraft no where near ready to carry a crew. The first unmanned flight of the LK didn't even take place until the end of 1970. It's interesting to note that the slashing of NASA's budget began in 1967, shortly after the CIA released its intelligence estimate on the state of the Soviet Space Program. While they indicated a manned flyby by 1968 was likely, a manned landing wasn't likely until 1972 if at all.
17. Re: Success rate of 0% by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH , Apollo was only 200 mph shy of earth escape speed.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
18. Re: Success rate of 0% by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure that I agree with you about n1. Its issues was that they had lousy QA ( still do, which is why they build designs that can handle that ).
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
19. Re: Success rate of 0% by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Landing on Venus is trivial. Getting the lander to survive the heat and pressure is not a big deal.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
20. Re: Success rate of 0% by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Mod op up please.
  note that without human fixes, we would have discarded Hubble. The fact is, that repairing a sat via robot is difficult.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
21. Re: Success rate of 0% by kellymcdonald78 · 2015-01-13 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Agree on the QA issues, but that reflects on lack of funding and resources. Even then, only 1 of the 4 N-1 launches failed due to QA (The second flight when an engine ingested a loose bolt). The rest were all design issues (Flight 1: high frequency oscillations, Flight 3: insufficient control authority, Flight: 4 pogo). Bear in mind that these were all issues with the first stage, the upper stages were NEVER tested (engines yes, but not stages). Without test stands to validate and debug the design before first flight there was no guarantee that assuming they had finally resolved the first stage issues, that there wouldn't have been a slew of other problems with the 3 upper stages. .
22. Re: Success rate of 0% by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-13 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing you have no clue what "outside Earth's sphere of influence" is either.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
23. Re: Success rate of 0% by david_thornley · 2015-01-13 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Space-X could carry humans to the ISS at any time. Currently, they haven't gone through the very large amount of testing to be certified for it, and the Russians are still willing to do the carrying.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
24. Re: Success rate of 0% by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  Note that it would cost less to simply send a new one up instead of the expensive kludge of the Shuttle+humans.
  Absolutely ridiculous.
omg by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 15:44 · Score: 0

" Earlier reports noted that a camera system is onboard the service module" A camera SYSTEM? omg omg omg
The moon belongs to the USA! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 16:08 · Score: -1

There's a flag that says the USA was there first, commies not welcome.
1. Re:The moon belongs to the USA! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  Humor lost on you peasants, I see
2. Re:The moon belongs to the USA! by phantomfive · 2015-01-12 17:03 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I think it just wasn't funny.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:The moon belongs to the USA! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 17:52 · Score: 0
  
  Oh you do, do you?
  You could be right.
4. Re:The moon belongs to the USA! by phantomfive · 2015-01-12 17:59 · Score: 2
  
  It's ok, someone didn't like my comment either.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5. Re: The moon belongs to the USA! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 20:08 · Score: 0
  
  if commies aren't welcome then we aren't welcome because we have commies in our government.
Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 16:49 · Score: 0

...Congress appointed Ted Cruz to oversee NASA. Yay.
A new space race? by MrKaos · 2015-01-12 16:52 · Score: 2

I hope it's not more SyFy, it would be great to see humans progress beyond LEO.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
1. Re:A new space race? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  The Republicans don't beleve space exists so they're against NASA and especially against LEO trips. That is the way of their kind. They hate humanity in general so they won't allow us to go to space, because they don't believe in it.
2. Re:A new space race? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 23:31 · Score: -1
  
  And the Dems don't believe in poor lazy fat black welfare queens popping out babies to get more government aid. They believe all these people are out of work because they got screwed over by "the man" when reality is they are lazy ignorant worthless fucks abusing the system.
3. Re:A new space race? by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-01-13 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  A new space race? Asians!
4. Re:A new space race? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  New space race would require another nation to first land a 1 ton rover on Mars.
We should face facts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 16:54 · Score: 1

Our systems, especially propulsion, are just too primitive to be sending any humans to any of the planets. And most of that technology will have to be built on the moon, outside any atmosphere and in a much smaller gravity well. Also, considering our success rate in such things, we have just as good a chance of terraforming the moon as we do Mars. It will all be under glass anyway. Without a working core Mars can never generate and hold a breathable atmosphere. And unless the damn spaceships are as comfortable as your house, traveling in these tin cans are guaranteed to be a recreation of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.
1. Re:We should face facts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Use a nuclear rocket. Have a self-contained reactor heating your working fluid and expelling it out the back (say, hydrogen) at high pressure & velocity.
  Now, your fuel is a bit more common, you just have to get sizable quantities of it one place. As an alternative, you could just have it use whatever was available (within specs) as a working fluid.
2. Re:We should face facts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  How about a methane fueled rocket? Simply load the ship with thousands of cans of spicy beans, attach a hose to each astronaut's ass - hey presto!
3. Re:We should face facts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  No, the issue is light speed. If we can't get past it, it's because we're doing it wrong. We are going have to learn to separate mind from body, and then safely rejoin, as Kennedy said. Before that, forget about all this silliness. It's just plain dumb.
Chinese mucking the universe by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-12 20:56 · Score: 0

Now moon will also get polluted and populated.
Congrats China for being successful by abhishek765 · 2015-01-12 22:36 · Score: 1

Congrats China for being successful
1. Re:Congrats China for being successful by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  You're an idiot.
There's a goal they haven't thought of yet... by VAXcat · 2015-01-13 01:53 · Score: 2

If I was running the Chinese space program, I'd put together a mission to the Sea of Tranquility, and bring bak some Apollo 11 souvenirs. It would be the most intense possible statement that there are now two nations on the Earth that have had the technology and will to travel to the Moon, and the USA no longer has a monopoly on it.

--
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
1. Re:There's a goal they haven't thought of yet... by beheaderaswp · 2015-01-13 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  I hope they do this... it would trigger a new space race: Then we all win!
  
  --
  Another consultant who stuck it out.
  
  "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
2. Re:There's a goal they haven't thought of yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Someone could finally prove the moon landings were faked!
3. Re:There's a goal they haven't thought of yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps because disturbing those sites would cause irreperable damage to one of humanity's greatest acheivements? Then again, the Chinese do nutty stuff all the time.
4. Re:There's a goal they haven't thought of yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-13 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  1) The moon is a very large globe. It would be a waste of rocket fuel to land there. I hope they find another place to land where we can learn something new.
  2) Interplanetary dick-measuring with multi-billion dollar rockets is not a good idea for any civilization.
obviously, you have no clue by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 03:46 · Score: 1

Assuming that the american GOP can be stopped, america will have humans at a luner base by 2022 if not 2020. Bigelow, with NASA help, are working hard to put us there. What is needed is spacex's MCT, which is designed to put 100 tonnes on mars in one shot, for less than $.5B. Musk will be happy to do lunar trips as well, but the GOP keep trying to gut Bigelow and spacex.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:obviously, you have no clue by lucien86 · 2015-01-14 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  We have to remember the reason they gave for ending the original NASA manned Mars program. - To end the threat of scientific and technological progress.
  The 'real' GOP are the kind of people who burn a telephone after using it because its the 'devils box'.
  
  --
  Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
relax. by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 03:47 · Score: 1

The west will be on the moon by 2022 or sooner.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
not anymore. by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 03:50 · Score: 1

Since snowden, US is quite restrained on spying. Instead, we are going to see a major increase in terrorist attacks.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
well, not great, but not bad by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 04:02 · Score: 1

Yeah, america keeps landing larger crafts on mars which is far more difficult than earth, venus, or the moon. As such when ppl claim that we have lost it, they obviously do not read.

But I differ with you about how robots are doing fine without us. They are very limited. In addition, the GOP continues to force NASA to be a jobs program, which means that economically, we could not go to the moon or mars.

musk and Bigelow are changing the economics of it. Both are making it so that not only will america be on a lunar base within 6 years, but we will be at a Martion base within 15 years.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:well, not great, but not bad by ShanghaiBill · 2015-01-13 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  But I differ with you about how robots are doing fine without us. They are very limited.
  How many manned missions continue to operate for 4300% of their planned mission duration?
that's bs. by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 04:06 · Score: 1

Even now, dragon 1 and dragon 2 are very capable of launching humans into space and bringing them back. What is missing is that NASA and faa would deny launch because full testing has not been completed.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:that's bs. by Teancum · 2015-01-14 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  The Dragon has no life support right now and is very much incapable of carry a human crew. Elon Musk jokingly said that you might be able to get a ride with a cot and a scuba tank, but it definitely would not be capable of bringing a crew into orbit with its current configuration. The Dragon 2 (which still isn't flightworthy by any stretch of the imagination) is going to be crewed and like I said, some effort is currently underway to get that crew capability to return. I think you are underestimating the effort that SpaceX still needs to take in order to get people into space.
  And no, I'm not just talking flight worthiness standards either where you might say NASA is being too cautious. That might be a legitimate gripe as arguably the Space Shuttle also failed to meet those standards too. It also isn't just the FAA-AST nor a NASA flight certificate as the Dragon capsule that just flew into orbit would literally kill a crew member if somehow somebody stowed away themselves inside that capsule. While docked to the ISS the capsule uses the ISS ventilation and life support system with merely a couple of fans inside of the Dragon that help to circulate the air. That is definitely not life support equipment.
  As it stands, the Dragon capsule can't even be used as an emergency escape devices if somehow the Soyuz was damaged in a disaster like depicted in the movie "Gravity".... even assuming that the ISS crew could improvise something to act as emergency couches by stuffing in a bunch of soiled clothing and odd soft parts of the ISS. It is a nice thought experiment though.
  No doubt that SpaceX is close to the caapability and having the capability to do downmass of several metric tons of supplies is definitely a key step to crew capability. It will be happening in the next couple of years, but SpaceX is still definitely incapable of sending or even recovering a crew from space even in an emergency.
Oh! Oh! I know what those are called! by allquixotic · 2015-01-13 05:05 · Score: 2

"...within 125 miles (200 kilometers) of the lunar surface at its closest point, and out to a range of 3,293 miles (5,300 km) at its highest point..."
Thanks to Kerbal Space Program, I know what those are called! The first one is the periapsis and the second one is the apoapsis. :D (Yes, I know, common knowledge, but it's cool that a game taught me a thing or two about spaceflight...)
Too bad real life has the Ferram Aerospace mod enabled; this craft very likely would be unable to reenter the atmosphere and land (or splash down) without breaking up, because it's not designed to withstand the heat and drag forces.
a valid justification for Man in space by Thud457 · 2015-01-13 05:08 · Score: 1

Ah, but robots can't stand on the veranda of the space station Freedom and piss on every single one of you cowering groundhogs at the same time.
a man's reach should exceed his grasp -- Robert Browning

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re: a valid justification for Man in space by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  BTW, I doubt that you will see any human piss in space.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
nope by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 06:56 · Score: 1

Going to mars after going to the moon is much easier than going to the moon for first time.
The problem is that going to mars was too expensive because companies became too expensive. Now, spacex and Bigelow are making it cheap to go to both.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Souvenirs by phorm · 2015-01-13 07:23 · Score: 1

I'm not sure a lot of the souvenirs left behind would be desirable.
What total BS by WindBourne · 2015-01-13 13:49 · Score: 1

Think it is easier? Look at how long we have taken for JWST. Basically, building massively new large sats remains expensive.
OTOH, it is MUCH cheaper to fix the hubble. Even with the shuttle, it was still cheaper. Now, with the coming Dragon along with Inflatable space stations.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Go China by bombman · 2015-01-14 00:17 · Score: 1

Not a fan of the Chineese govt., but well done China!