Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Targets 2018 For Landing Probe On Far Side of Moon (reuters.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the do-you-have-any-water-in-the-back? dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Despite all the time we've spent studying the moon, nobody has ever deployed a probe to its far side. Now, China has announced that it plans to land a probe there in 2018. The craft they plan to send is similar to the Chang'e-3 probe with its Jade Rabbit rover. They plan to study the geologic conditions on the far side of the moon. "China insists that its space program is for peaceful purposes. However, the U.S. Defense Department has highlighted China's increasing space capabilities, saying it was pursuing activities aimed at preventing its adversaries from using space-based assets during a crisis. In March, the Chinese government said it would open up its lunar exploration program to companies rather than simply relying on the state-owned sector as before, hoping to boost technological breakthroughs."

101 comments

  1. Would make sense for a military base. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would want to locate it on the far side of the moon so that it could not be easily monitored from Earth. Very suspicious.

    1. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      The gobi desert is already part of china, I don't think they need to rule over more dirt. There isn't really anything precious on the moon, except perhaps the dust which can be used in fusion reactors one day.

    2. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Guess we'll just have to park some satellites up there. So much for radio silence in the region.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I can only assume you are joking, isnt it insightful that the US DoD thinks it should raise issue with the Chinese having a space presence, when all they are doing is playing a long delays game of catch up to the US?

      Surely by the same interpretations, the US has already pursued 'activities aimed at preventing its adversaries from using space-based assets during a crisis'?

      But no, this is after the CHINESE, not the people who are the defenders of goodness and freedom that is the US of A.
      I can only imagine that the Chinese well know that destroying markets for their own produced goods would greatly advance their success..
      Oh, wait a moment, that makes no sense at all. Silly me.

    4. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who cares about making sense? Bring on the next space race already...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The Chinese have tested anti-satellite weapons, which is what the USA has raised objections to, and the USA has not done though presumably could. Their moon program obviously has no practical military dimension.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    6. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there is no reason for the rest of the world to object to most of China's space aspirations, let's not forget that they intentionally created a whole bunch of dangerous and unwanted space debris back in 2007 with an anti-satellite missile test. Nothing peaceful about blowing up satellites.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    7. Re: Would make sense for a military base. by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      The OP was making a reference to Iron Sky.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    8. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "let's not forget that they [China] intentionally created a whole bunch of dangerous and unwanted space debris back in 2007 with an anti-satellite missile test. Nothing peaceful about blowing up satellites."

      As in "no other country*1 would do that"?

      *1 Except, of course, USA.

    9. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by shione · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's easy to forget this which happened 1 year after the 2007 test.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      You got this right though, "Nothing peaceful about blowing up satellites."

    10. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by mbone · · Score: 2

      "let's not forget that they [China] intentionally created a whole bunch of dangerous and unwanted space debris back in 2007 with an anti-satellite missile test. Nothing peaceful about blowing up satellites."

      As in "no other country*1 would do that"?

      *1 Except, of course, USA.

      Well, the Soviet Union did it too. We and the Soviets at least had the taste to pick satellites orbiting closer to the atmosphere, so the debris wouldn't be around for a century or so.

    11. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by AntimatterPumper · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    12. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by matfud · · Score: 1

      The US has tested anti satellite weapons.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The US performed two tests with two different systems. The one above destroyed a satellite.

    13. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by WoOS · · Score: 1

      As the article you cite shows, the U.S. had as least the pretext trying to prevent an accident by an already de-orbiting satellite and the remains of the destruction de-orbited within a few months.

      Now of course the U.S. could just have had its satellite de-orbit on purpose but even then this launch could be seen as a demonstration of U.S. capabilities necessary after the Chinese test to uphold mutual deterence ("If you kill our satellites, we will kill yours").

    14. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by cheekyboy · · Score: 0

      its quite strange nasa would not even send one prob or rover to the far side of the moon, or even have a perm satelite around the moon, like they have 3 around mars.

      The moon isnt boring, they are just lazy asses.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    15. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by RoverDaddy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was launched in 2009 and as far as I can tell it is still orbiting the moon. Its science mission may be finished though. In any case, keeping satellites in permanent orbit near the moon isn't simple, because of gravitational anomalies of the moon:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    16. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      Civilian and military work have been tightly linked since the very start of the space age. Half the purpose of launching Sputnik was to test a new rocket that had been developed for use as an ICBM. And even today, in the new age of the commercial space industry, they're still tightly linked. Notice that United Launch Alliance, one of the three companies that's been awarded a launch contract by NASA, is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing--both major defense contractors.

      So if China is developing a civilian space program, it's a pretty good bet they also have a military space program. Because so does everyone else.

      Anyway, if they want to study the far side of the moon, I think that's awesome. If we have to have military space programs, I'm glad something useful is coming out of it too.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    17. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has tested anti satellite weapons.

      Not to mention they've blown up nukes in space, temporarily creating radiation belts capable of frying everying in LEO.

    18. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the real trigger for all of this was in 2002 when the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Here's a quote from Donald Rumsfeld on why they did it:

      “the U.S. government should vigorously pursue the capabilities called for in the National Space Policy to ensure that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to, and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests."

      The US tends to have a consistent problem understanding that, when it scuttles treaties, it removes obligations from others as well as itself.

    19. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also had the decency to not do it in a high orbit which would leave dangerous debris for centuries

    20. Re:Would make sense for a military base. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other thing people don't realize is that the moon is the ultimate high-ground.

      It is a lot less of a challenge to put a permanent second-strike-fuck-you weapon at a base on the moon in case some shit-head thinks he can win at global thermonuclear war rather than trying to maintain it in orbit forever.

      Really all one has to do is throw lunar rocks down the gravity well and if it's timed right, you can project exactly when and where they will hit.

  2. Road Manager Peter Watts provided the laughter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To the song Brain Damage on this Album?

  3. There is no dark side of the moon really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matter of fact it's all dark.

    1. Re:There is no dark side of the moon really... by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Presumably you mean dark like basalt. Otherwise, only half of the moon is in darkness at any one time. Several days ago the dark side was the near side, as I assume everyone here on /. knows.

      BTW, this mission was widely reported in the press as aiming for a landing on the dark side of the Moon. At least here on /. they got it right: the far side.

  4. Eek by liqu1d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Careful of the nazis there.

    1. Re:Eek by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      You mean those Nazis? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt10...

    2. Re:Eek by WallyL · · Score: 1

      No, some other ones.

  5. Monolith Location by eric31415927 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that where the monolith lies?

    1. Re:Monolith Location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that where the monolith lies?

      LMGTFY

      TMA-1 is on the near side.

    2. Re:Monolith Location by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      No, now they use multi-threaded Lisp.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Monolith Location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tycho crater

  6. Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by DesertNomad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that no one knows whether you were successful or not...

    1. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 12 hours the earth would rotate around the moon and we would be able to see them.

    2. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean that in 182.5 days the moon would rotate around the earth and we would be able to see them.

    3. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I think neither of you has ever looked up at the moon in the sky, or you'd have noticed you always see the same side.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. The "outer" side of the moon NEVER faces Earth. That's the whole reason why it's being called "dark side of the moon". Not because it's perpetually night there (why would it be, the Earth is not what illuminates the moon) but that we have NEVER seen it before we sent something behind the moon.

      It's tidally locked to us. Anything on the backside of the moon we will never see from here.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative

      Partially correct. We get to see 59% of the Moon's surface at various times, but not all at the same time.

    6. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      I think neither of you has ever looked up at the moon in the sky, or you'd have noticed you always see the same side.

      Never seen the moon? Quick, do a google search.

    7. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing about landing on far side of Moon ... Is that no one knows whether you were successful or not...

      Don't worry. Next week, North Korea will tell us that they already have a probe there.

    8. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have bad eyesight, you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      The Soviets used to launch probes in secret, and if they failed, never acknowledged their existence. They'd number the probes only after they were successful. It would be like Microsoft saying, "What Vista"?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    10. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by AntimatterPumper · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    11. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      First of all it is called "far side" of the moon.
      And yes, idiots call it the "dark side" because they don't grasp it is just like the other side: half of a 'month' it is 'day' there and the other half it is 'night'

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I think you mean that in 182.5 days the moon would rotate around the earth and we would be able to see them.

      Achievements in ignorance. The Moon is tidally locked and always presents the same side to the Earth. Due to the fact that the Moon's orbit is not perfectly circular, there is some wobble, but about 41 percent of the Moon's surface is never seen from the Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    13. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      "Dark side" was used in the sense that it was unknown to us, like "Darkest Africa" (Africa also used to be known as "The Dark Continent"). "Far side" has become preferred because people misinterpreted "Dark Side", and anyways it's not unknown anymore.

    14. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by idji · · Score: 1

      We can see 100% moon at all times
      L1 satellites
      L2 satellites

    15. Re:Good thing about landing on far side of Moon by mcswell · · Score: 1

      The Far Side? Moon? I thought it was this: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

  7. space based assets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wah they want to stop America using the illegal nukes and other shit they have already got in space.

  8. far side of the moon. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1, Funny

    they better bring flashlights.

    1. Re: far side of the moon. by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they can make them for about 4 cents each.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    2. Re: far side of the moon. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      yesterday it occurred to me that maybe I should think about voting for bernie. I'm feelin the bern!

    3. Re: far side of the moon. by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      Hillary will really start feeling the Bern in just over two weeks!

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    4. Re:far side of the moon. by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

      Why? Daylight last for two earth weeks on the moon.

      --
      You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
    5. Re: far side of the moon. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly on-point.

    6. Re:far side of the moon. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Oddly accurate.

    7. Re:far side of the moon. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And if you count the other side of the moon, too, it is even four earth weeks :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  9. Worry about China? by msobkow · · Score: 1

    I don't worry about China's space efforts. I worry about those of the U.S. Which nation has invaded countries and been at war for the vast majority of it's history?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Worry about China? by waspleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both, and China is far older.

    2. Re:Worry about China? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Yes the US space commands publications make it clear the role space will play for the USA.
      "Vision for 2020" https://fas.org/spp/military/d...
      Kind of puts the comments about another science probe with interesting communications needs from China into perspective.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Worry about China? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Antarctica!
      https://youtu.be/9ZlOhSt_qW0

    4. Re: Worry about China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever get tired of knee-jerk anti Americanism? What am I talking about, of course you don't.

    5. Re: Worry about China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you Americans ever get tired of knee-jerk anti-Chinese rhetoric? Or anti-Iran rhetoric? Or anti... the list goes on and on. You Americans are against over half the world.

    6. Re:Worry about China? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 0

      Yes, you're so cool and edgy with that shit. I don't give a shit that you have a 5 digit ID. you're behaving like a fucking child.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    7. Re:Worry about China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I want China there, but there is no country, and no one to oppress or wage war on. Or are they hiding in the green cheese?

    8. Re:Worry about China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before worrying about space, worry about the apostrophe. it's means it is.

    9. Re:Worry about China? by msobkow · · Score: 2

      Sprout a brain. The US "warns" the world about China, Russia, Iran, and pretty much EVERY nation who dares to try to achieve anything unless they're a member of the "Five Eyes." The US is so fucking paranoid it is disgusting, and every single excuse that there is to post a "warning" about the achievements of other nations, Slashdot's "editors" do so.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    10. Re:Worry about China? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Both, and China is far older.

      Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that no nation has been at war for as great a percentage of its existence as the USA, if you count things we call "police actions" (we send the military, not the police, so we all know that's a euphemistic bullshit phrase) and whatnot. We've had like two years of not being at war with anything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Worry about China? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Well, the President has legal authority to send the military to places for police actions (with the goal being to assist local police or try to calm things down - admittedly, this isn't usually effective). He can't send actual police officers though. And counting minor deployments of troops as "being at war" is silly; a lot of times troops are deployed to send disaster aid or are only there briefly.

      Doing a quick Google search, I found some idiot claiming that America has been at war for 93% of its existence. Of course, this included every single year of the Cold War and a number of "quasi-wars" which aren't really explained, as well as "wars on pirates". If you include all the Chinese uprisings and civil wars, repeated Mongol invasions, expansions into Mongolia/Tibet/Vietnam/etc., I would say the two are probably comparable.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    12. Re:Worry about China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, shithead, I thought you were leaving Slashdot for good. After all, that's what you claimed a few months ago in a moment of epic butthurt. If you don't like the US, feel free to haul your sorry ass back to Canada and stop mooching off American taxpayers by collecting disability. The US would be a better place without you. Nobody in the US needs you or wants you.

  10. Obligatory probe of the dark side post by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3

    Probe of the dark side of Uranus, looking for Klingons.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any post that starts with "obligatory" and/or involves a "uranus" joke is generally unoriginal and pointless. This is a good example.

    2. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      Any post that starts with "by Anonymous Coward" is generally equally unoriginal and pointless. The above reply is a good example.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great ad hominem. I assume your use of the word "equally" above confirms you actually agree with the original point you parodied.

    4. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Of course my original post was pointless. The fact that you seem compelled to reply to it, not once, but twice, does make another point, though ... about you :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another excellent ad hominem. Replying to a reply is not the same as replying to the same post twice - nested comments ensure that.

    6. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Of course it's an excellent ad hominem - you provided all the materials needed to justify it. So - feeling like replying 10 x more is going to make any difference?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consistently replying with suggestions that the act of replying implicates something negative about my character is a wonderfully ironic self-referential loop. Congratulations, if you intended that.

    8. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Of course it's intentional - I pretty much said so ....

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that deserves a response.

    10. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Then why did you respond? :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Obligatory probe of the dark side post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To prove that your grasp of irony is nothing like what you claim.

  11. Re:Best place to fake a landing these days... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    And today nobody has rockets powerful enough to prove you didn't land on the far side of the moon.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. The DoD and china. by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    First oh now they are worried about china activities in space maybe they can get some of that military cash sent to NASA We could have a rover parked there in the spot china has picked out before china even gets theirs launched. If anyone cared enough about space or space defense to fund it.

    Second China is going to open up their lunar program to private companies? I bet their last rover having all its wheels lock up had something to do with that.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  13. Once you get in lunar orbit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck cares?

    1. Re: Once you get in lunar orbit.... by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      The aliens stationed there storing the mutilated cattle parts might care.

      But I don't think the Chinese are party to the agreements which forbid Americans going back to the moon.

  14. Re:Best place to fake a landing these days... by mbone · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uh, we have the LRO, which can image any location on either side of the Moon with 10 cm resolution.

  15. Helium3? by Thagg · · Score: 1

    One of the possible interesting things about the moon is the possible prevalence of Helium 3, a rare (on earth) isotope that could make nuclear fusion super-easy. Perhaps it is more common on the far side of the moon?

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Helium3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demand as high as 70,000 liters per year was outpacing government supply in 2008.

      How much he3 is currently needed for nuclear fusion? Is moon mining putting the cart before the horse?

    2. Re:Helium3? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest that you actually read up on Helium 3, much harder to fuse then H2+H3 but cleaner, and very sparsely spread on the lunar surface, easy to make on Earth as Tritium decays into He3.
      As it is deposited on the Moon by the Solar wind, probably same concentration on the far side as the near side.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Helium3? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe the Nazis used it all up on the far side.

    4. Re:Helium3? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      How do these rumours get started? I thought everyone knew the Nazi's only used D+T fusion, which was why they stuck to the far side of the Moon, didn't want to be detected by the neutron emissions. Luckily they never knew about neutrinos which is how they were tracked down.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  16. Dark in the sense of radio silence by tepples · · Score: 1

    The far side is not always dark to sunlight, but it is dark to radio transmissions from Earth. Also "Darkest Peru" in the sense of unexplored wilderness.

  17. Vista was more like Hubble by tepples · · Score: 1

    Windows Vista was more like the Hubble Space Telescope. Both were launched successfully, usable in reduced functionality mode despite serious flaws, and ultimately repaired in the field. Hubble got a corrective lens, and Windows Vista got Service Pack 1 "Mojave".

    1. Re:Vista was more like Hubble by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how the Hubble scope went from being one of the biggest embarrassments (lens boo boo) to one of the greatest scientific instruments ever, including images that captured public imagination. It's a grand Second Chance story.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  18. Sanders campaign's OCILLA mistake by tepples · · Score: 1

    Hillary will really start feeling the Bern

    Until his staffers mistakenly DMCA his campaign website off the Internet, like they did with his Wikipedia article.

  19. Probe Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thus the U.S. Defense Department begins hyping a mythical Probe Gap, looking for funding for yet another massive military build-up.

    Anyone remember the Bomber Gap? How about the Missile Gap? Somewhere around 2000 the military began talking up a "Pearl Harbor in Space", as a way of ginning up funds for space weapons systems.

    Look, I understand it's the military's job to look for possible threats. However taking a space exploration probe, pretending it's a weapons system, and then asking for money is an example of a long-standing political gambit in the military. It's the best, most reliable way of getting huge dark pools of funding that don't have to produce much of anything.

    And it's the civilian leadership's job to spot the gambit, see it for what it is, and say "we have other priorities too. You get 1/10 of what you asked for and need to be grateful for that much."

  20. What about NASA's Lunar Orbiter 1 in 1966? by calque · · Score: 1

    https://tools.wmflabs.org/geoh...

    Why are people saying things (not only on slashdot) like "nobody has ever deployed a probe to [the Moon's] far side" Is there a joke I'm not getting?