China Set To Launch First-Ever Spacecraft to the Far Side of the Moon, Will Attempt To Grow Plant There (scientificamerican.com)

AmiMoJo writes: Later this week, China plans to launch its Chang'e-4 spacecraft to the far side of the lunar surface. The aim is to land a rover on the dark side of the moon for the first time. Blocked from direct communication with the Earth, the lander and rover will depend on China's Queqiao communication satellite launched in May. If the landing is successful, the mission's main job will be to investigate this side of the lunar surface, which is peppered with many small craters. The lander will also conduct the first radio astronomy experiments from the far side of the Moon -- and the first investigations to see whether plants will grow in the low-gravity lunar environment.

The ultimate goal of the China National Space Administration (CNSA) is to create a Moon base for future human exploration there, although it has not announced when that might happen. Chang'e-4 will be the country's second craft to 'soft' land on the lunar surface, following Chang'e-3's touchdown in 2013.

Comments

China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

If this isn't proof I don't know what is.

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

well Trumptards are.

Re:China is retarded.

[Crash Dummy Redux]

There are easier places on Earth to grow pot.

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious! The basic idea is funny (China growing pot on the moon), and the execution ("There are easier places") really brings out the humor. It reminds me of the hilarious non-sequiturs spewed out by homeless people begging for spare change.

I'm sure when you talk to your friends, co-workers, wife, and children (and perhaps several girlfriends on the side?) this will get a marvelous laugh out of them. Thanks for sharing!

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Friar Reimer! How would YOU know!

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be Chinese.

Re:China is retarded.

[Crash Dummy Redux]

I can't speak for Friar Reimer (whoever the fuck that is). But I have some personal experience in running a grow operation in Oregon.

Re:China is retarded.

[Oswald McWeany]

It will be harder for anyone to spy on a base on the far side of the moon and doing so would come at a higher cost.

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be Mrs. Robinson

FTFY - For the younger generation, cultural reference for Mrs. Robinson

Get it? Because China makes most products in Walmart and you could meet someone named Robinson at a Walmart! Double entendre! I'm funny!

And likeable!

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing what? Your moobs?

Repent, Friar Reimer! For you have sinned the sin of GLUTTONY!

Is it true that the first Roman collar you ordered they thought it was a mistake? They thought you wanted it around your waist but that was just the size of your chin!

FLOFL!!

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you say "fuck"? That makes me think of the song "too drunk to fuck!" Hilarious! You were talking about one thing, and then I took a single word and started talking about something else otherwise unrelated!

According to Wikipedia,"Too Drunk to Fuck" is the fourth single by Dead Kennedys. The record was released in May 1981 on Cherry Red Records with "The Prey" as the B-side. Both songs from this single are available on the rarities album Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death (1987).

Re:China is retarded.

[Crash Dummy Redux]

No, I wrote duck. Like, fuck the duck. Asshole.

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still think you're replying to creimer? Sad. Fucking sad.

Re:China is retarded.

[mark-t]

Explain how you come to that conclusion.... why do you think that the far side of the moon would be any harder to spy on than the near side? What about the far side of the moon makes it any more difficult for satellites to fly over?

Or do you somehow think that we'd ordinarily try and monitor things on the lunar surface from the ground here on earth using optical telescopes or something?

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you said duck, I wondered if you meen Freedonia!

Wikipedia says this about "Duck Soup": The wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont) insists that Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho) be appointed leader of the small, bankrupt country of Freedonia before she will continue to provide much-needed financial aid. Meanwhile, neighboring Sylvania is attempting to annex the country.

whoosh, asshole.

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe, you really captured the essence of the creimer non sequitur

Re:China is retarded.

[lokedhs]

There are very few satellites orbiting the moon. The moon is much farther away from earth than even the farthest earth-orbiting satellites.

That doesn't mean that the original post made much sense though. I'm not sure what kind of secret activities you'd conduct on the moon that you couldn't just as well conduct in a secret lab on earth.

Re:China is retarded.

[mark-t]

Obviously, but even putting that aside, it still makes no sense at all how having something on the far side would supposedly make it any more difficult to spy on it than something on the near side.

Re:China is retarded.

[Oswald McWeany]

Obviously, but even putting that aside, it still makes no sense at all how having something on the far side would supposedly make it any more difficult to spy on it than something on the near side.

Well the comment about secret bases on the moon was tongue in cheek based on the cliché of secret moon bases... but absolutely it would be much harder to spy on.

The US has a space spy plane that is capable of going beyond the moon but no one else does. There are no satellites or any other space craft that come with in line-of-sight of the far side (and even other electromagnetic signals would be harder to spy on due to the mass of the moon). The near side of the moon can easily be spied upon by satellites from any number of countries without even standing out.

Any intention to spy on the far side of the moon by anyone other than the US space plane, which presumably has other missions to conduct, would involve building and launching a craft to do so at considerable expense.

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The US has a space spy plane that is capable of going beyond the moon but no one else does.

Uh... citation?

Re:China is retarded.

[mark-t]

Any intention to spy on the far side of the moon by anyone other than the US space plane, which presumably has other missions to conduct, would involve building and launching a craft to do so at considerable expense.

My argument is that any intention to spy on even the *NEAR* side of the moon would involve no less of an expense, and so putting a base on the far side would not pose any greater of a barrier than any other situated lunar base.

It's not like you can spy on the moon from the ground or hell, even in earth orbit.

Re:China is retarded.

[Oswald McWeany]

Any intention to spy on the far side of the moon by anyone other than the US space plane, which presumably has other missions to conduct, would involve building and launching a craft to do so at considerable expense.

My argument is that any intention to spy on even the *NEAR* side of the moon would involve no less of an expense, and so putting a base on the far side would not pose any greater of a barrier than any other situated lunar base.

It's not like you can spy on the moon from the ground or hell, even in earth orbit.

I think you're highly underestimating technology, and it depends on the level of spying that is involved. It's much cheaper and easier to put a satellite in orbit around the earth than around the moon. With no atmosphere around the moon and a powerful lense from an earth orbiting satellite you could definitely see basic structures being built, maybe judge activity too and fro the building (which buildings are being docked with), you could monitor for electro magnetic signals. A lot of this could probably be done with existing satellites in orbit.

Re:China is retarded.

[Oswald McWeany]

> The US has a space spy plane that is capable of going beyond the moon but no one else does.

Uh... citation?

There's this little thing called google that was invented a few years ago... this isn't exactly secret knowledge (google or the spy plane) - how about you give it a try?

Re:China is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I Googled "space spy plane that is capable of going beyond the moon" and came up with zilch.

Maybe you could meet the burden of proof and tell us exactly what the fuck you're talking about??

Re:China is retarded.

[mark-t]

I think you're highly underestimating technology, and it depends on the level of spying that is involved. It's much cheaper and easier to put a satellite in orbit around the earth than around the moon. With no atmosphere around the moon and a powerful lense from an earth orbiting satellite you could definitely see basic structures being built.

I think you are overestimating optical acuity.

The absolute *maximum* that we could resolve even from very high earth orbit is at best something that is no smaller than about 50 meters or so on the moon... and even then, it would be just a single pixel in size using even the most powerful telescopes that we have today. The only practical way to resolve any appreciable amount of detail that would be required to effectively do any spying on what is happening on the moon is at best from lunar orbit.

Re:China is retarded.

[lokedhs]

The absolute *maximum* that we could resolve even from very high earth orbit is at best something that is no smaller than about 50 meters or so on the moon...

And I think it's important to point out that this limit is not technological but physical. At a certain resolution you start running into Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which causes refraction to increase as you focus more precise.

On the dark side?

[Joce640k]

How will it grow with no sunlight?

Re:On the dark side?

[BringsApples]

Actually, the dark side of the moon gets more sunlight than the side that faces Earth.

Re:On the dark side?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The "dark" side of the moon is the one that's tidally locked to point away from the earth. It gets the same amount of direct sunlight (although less total light, because it doesn't get reflected earth light.) It has more small craters because it gets hit more often (although the earth doesn't shield it that much) by meteorites.

TL;DR dark meaning unknown or mysterious, not dim.

Re:On the dark side?

[TexasDiaz]

How will it grow with no sunlight?

You're kidding, right? It's called the "Dark Side" because *we* never see it, it doesn't mean the sun never shines on it.

#Science

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

No Sunlight??????
It has just as much sunlight as the near side!

Re:On the dark side?

[PackMan97]

Thank you! It should be called "The Far Side of the Moon". The moon's day is 29 days, 12 hours and 44 minutes long, which is how long it takes to circle the earth and end up in the same position with respect to the sun. Note: It's longer than a lunar month because in that time the earth travels almost 1/12 of the way around the sun and the moon has to make up that distance.

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark.

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, it's a dumb name.

Re:On the dark side?

[toonces33]

Pink Floyd fans will go up there with grow lights.

Re:On the dark side?

[careysub]

As the summary says the far-side.

Despite what certain progressive rock bands would have you (metaphorically) believe there is no "dark side of the Moon".

Re:On the dark side?

[ShanghaiBill]

Actually, the dark side of the moon gets more sunlight than the side that faces Earth.

Then why is it dark?

Perhaps because it only faces the sun at night.

Re:On the dark side?

[BringsApples]

Being that, from time to time, the Earth blocks light from the sun to the moon (a lunar eclipse), the other side gets more light.

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone flunked basic astronomy chapters in science. What an idiotic question.

Re:On the dark side?

[cayenne8]

There is no dark side of the moon, really.....

'matter of fact, it's ALL dark.....thump thump....thump thump....thump thump.....

Re:On the dark side?

[ShanghaiBill]

Being that, from time to time, the Earth blocks light from the sun to the moon (a lunar eclipse), the other side gets more light.

I don't think so. Lunar eclipses occur so infrequently that the total amount of light blocked is inconsequential.

Meanwhile, the nearside gets "earthshine": reflected sunlight from the earth. The earth is much bigger than the moon, and the albedo of earth's clouds is much higher than lunar regolith, so earthshine on the moon is much brighter than moonshine on the earth.

Ergo, the nearside gets more light.

Re:On the dark side?

[The Grim Reefer]

Actually, the dark side of the moon gets more sunlight than the side that faces Earth.

Then why is it dark?

Because the Pink Floyd album The Dark Side of the Moon was extremely popular.

Re:On the dark side?

[BringsApples]

Earthshine. Touche.

:)

Re: On the dark side?

[c6gunner]

It seems like a dumb name because English is goofy. The word "dark" has a half dozen different meanings depending on context; anything from "unlit" or "unreflective" to "hidden", "malicious", "angry" or even "inactive".

In reference to the moon, "dark" means "hidden" or "unexplored" rather than "without light". That's why Africa used to be referred to as "The Dark Continent" back in the early days of English imperialism. It's not like people thought the continent didn't receive sunlight ...

Interestingly enough, the word "dark" itself is likely descended from an old Germanic word meaning "concealed". So yeah, "Dark Side of The Moon" works ... even if it confuses plenty of less educated people.

Re:On the dark side?

[AlwinBarni]

Then why is it dark?

Perhaps because it only faces the sun at night.

Technically it's not "dark side" but "far side", just people's habits are hard to change and it's not like the only language imprecision out there.

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was called The Far Side of the moon then there would be an inordinate number of Cows and Chickens there. An entirely different experiment!

Re:On the dark side?

[mark-t]

I'm pretty sure that the inside of the moon is pretty dark, actually.

Speaking of which, whatever became of that lunar cave they discovered from lunar orbit? Was any probe ever sent to explore it?

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is dark because we cannot see it.

In a similar fashion the dark web isn't actually dark and a black box isn't actually black.

Given that the moon always has the same side towards Earth I assume that a Moon day will be about a month.
It would be interesting to see if there is anything that would grow under those conditions.

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am curious what it is called in Chinese. In French, it's simply "the hidden side of the moon".

Re:On the dark side?

[nospam007]

"Actually, the dark side of the moon gets more sunlight than the side that faces Earth.

Then why is it dark?"

It's a Pink Floyd Trademark.

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a minimum of 2 lunar eclipses per year; I'm sure all the people the Incas and the Aztecs sacrificed during the eclipses thought that twice a year was consequential!

Re:On the dark side?

[reboot246]

If you made alcohol on the Moon using an illegal still, would the product be called "earthshine"?

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we never see it we can't be sure.

Re: On the dark side?

[javaman235]

+1 this thread needed that. Also, why not shrooms? My bets are they would do better in space, the whole structure of a plant is based on holding it up.

Re:On the dark side?

[ShanghaiBill]

Given that the moon always has the same side towards Earth I assume that a Moon day will be about a month.
It would be interesting to see if there is anything that would grow under those conditions.

There are some high points near the poles that have constant sunshine. This is also close to polar ice deposits, so it is a perfect spot for a moon base.

Polar sunlight on earth is weakened by atmospheric diffusion. That is obviously not a problem on the moon, where even at the poles the sun is at full intensity, about twice as bright as on earth.

Re:On the dark side?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Actually, the dark side of the moon gets more sunlight than the side that faces Earth.

Then why is it dark?

Perhaps because it only faces the sun at night.

It's dark, as in unknown.

Anyway, in the sun would instantly fry the plant without tremendous cooling, so shadow with heater and artificial light is needed.

Testing growth in low gravity is largely pointless. Of far greater interest is how much nutrient needs to be added for successful growth in lunar soil (in above containment unit.)

For that matter, will plants grown in lunar soil be hopelessly impregnated with millions of micro shards, all very sharp like glass, which never got worn down by erosion, unlike on Earth?

Re: On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 this thread needed that. Also, why not shrooms? My bets are they would do better in space, the whole structure of a plant is based on holding it up.

Mushrooms need oxygen and produce carbon dioxide like us...They wouldn't do well unless you have at least a two week supply of oxygen, water, and can keep the environment at a constant 60-65 degrees Fahrenheit at 100% humidity with day and night cycles.

Re:On the dark side?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually a valid point. 1 "Day' on the moon is ~27 Earth days, sun up to sun up. IE, the far side or near side that's roughly 13 days of darkness each rotation around the Earth.

Re:On the dark side?

[dryeo]

It's dark as in unknown or unexplored, or at least was unknown. Like darkest Africa.

Re:On the dark side?

[AlwinBarni]

I see your point, and personally have nothing against your interpretation: dark - unknown, just heard some astronomers correcting to 'far side'.
I think we can settle to "far side" as scientific term and "dark side" as a poetic term.

Re:On the dark side?

[dryeo]

Yes, that sounds best.

I predict a series of accidents.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

No way they'll succeed. The secret moon base on the far side of the moon will blow up that spacecraft before it gets close. Gotta make it look like an accident though!

Re:I predict a series of accidents.

[DigiShaman]

Space Nazi's grab plant and smoke it. Good stuff. Ironsky will invade

Re:I predict a series of accidents.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not far off the mark. In the instance there is not the aforementioned secret base, the base looking to be established would be the first, and would be able to hold the defensive position and territory combined with the ability to assault any position on the planet Earth without fear of reprisal on the base itself. If there is an ability to grow food there it would pretty much make China the indisputable ruler of Earth.

Re:I predict a series of accidents.

[lactose99]

On the plus side they may see some of the ships lost in the Bermuda Triangle before detonation.

Re:I predict a series of accidents.

[pgmrdlm]

Here you go, your secret moon base.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1...

Moon ganja

[nwaack]

They're planning on growing the same plant they were smoking when they came up with this idea.

Re:Moon ganja

[Freischutz]

They're planning on growing the same plant they were smoking when they came up with this idea.

Well, at least they'll be smoking 100% genuine space weed.

Re:Moon ganja

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called 'Moon Cabbage' for a reason.

Not the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't call it the dark side. It's just the side that we can't see from Earth.

Re:Not the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU, aspie faggot.

Re: Not the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

Please donâ(TM)t send us seeds before (and if) requested or there will be an unhappy accident - this message brought to you for your personal comfort, edification, and safety

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Good Job Slashdot

[zamboni1138]

First time in quite a while with a story about the far side of the Moon and not the "dark side" of the Moon.

Good job, you guys appear to be actually learning!

Re: Good Job Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

look at me, I am a tremendous faggot who uses code tags

Hopeful

[TimMD909]

Hopefully this will start a new space race, and focus the US on kicking ass in space. We're the only ones to successfully land on Mars, but we shouldn't get lazy and stop boldly going where... Dammit. ST:TNG marathon is what I'll be doing now.

Re:Hopeful

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron. There's nothing to do in near space. Robots can go beyond our solar system. This message will repeat. You're a moron. There is nothing to do in near space. Robots can go beyond our solar system.

Re:Hopeful

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, nope, Mars 3 of the soviets did the first ever soft landing on Mars. It stopped working within seconds after landing, but it did land successfully. Not much compared to success of later Viking 1 lander, but they did get that first landing milestone. Sort of like posting "First!" on Slashdot, not much content, but at least it's the first one.

Re:Hopeful

[NettiWelho]

There is nothing to do in near space.

Mining the gas giants for hydrogen fuel.

Re:Hopeful

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that seems like a good idea for manned space flight. You should leave immediately and prove me wrong. You might even make it into Jovian orbit, someday.

Re:Hopeful

[Tablizer]

Mars 3 of the soviets did the first ever soft landing on Mars. It stopped working within seconds after landing...

There was a dust storm in the area, which may have affected the electronics. The dust storm was known about via Earth telescopes, but these particular probes had no ability to hang out in orbit to wait out a dust storm.

At the time, it was also speculated that it sank in something akin to quicksand. In case the same thing happened to the upcoming Viking mission, the Viking cameras were programmed to photograph a footpad and send it almost immediately after landing. That way, they'd at least get one photo, and verify the quicksand theory if the probe went dark.

In the very first photo ever taken from the surface of Mars, the left side is kind of foggy. This is because dust was still in the air from the landing rockets. The cameras "scanned" in strips somewhat like a fax machine, so that as the scan "beam" moved right, the dust had settled.

The quick-sand theory has now been pretty much ruled out, leaving the dust-storm theory as the most plausible reason for the short life of Mars 3. Or maybe it just failed on its own.

Re:Hopeful

[Kjella]

Hopefully this will start a new space race, and focus the US on kicking ass in space. We're the only ones to successfully land on Mars, but we shouldn't get lazy and stop boldly going where... Dammit. ST:TNG marathon is what I'll be doing now.

I'll settle for the replicator and the holodeck, you can have the warp drive.

Re:Hopeful

[Gravis Zero]

Hopefully this will start a new space race, and focus the US on kicking ass in space. We're the only ones to successfully land on Mars...

That's not true at all! Plenty of probes sent to Mars by other countries successfully land on Mars. The only difference is that their probes land much faster and in more pieces. ;)

Re:Hopeful

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't replicate and holodeckinate your way out of many global extinction events. I'll take the warp drive for the future of our species.

Re:Hopeful

[Anonymous Coward]

America is broke. $21T in debt and growing every single second. We don't have the money to blow on ridiculous, unnecessary things like human spaceflight. Those days are long behind us.

Re:Hopeful

[Anonymous Coward]

And what will you stick that pretty little warp drive on? You still need more technology to get safely away.

Re:Hopeful

[Anonymous Coward]

The space race wasn't so much about humans in space as it was about the military advantage of having satellites.
The human on the moon aspect was more a propaganda tool to get public support and thereby secure funding.
The US didn't "win" because they got people on the moon, they won because the Russians ran out of money.

Not really sure what the advantage of having stuff on the moon is.
It is further out so it will be harder to shoot down, but it is probably easier to jam anyway.
I guess the important thing is to have something that others don't for some political dickwaving and the far side of the moon qualifies.

Re:Hopeful

[Raenex]

Hopefully this will start a new space race

The manned moon missions ate up ungodly amounts of funding and did very little science in return. It was awe inspiring, to be sure, but we need to be smart with our spending. We already spend plenty on space telescopes, probes, and landers.

Re:Hopeful

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll settle for the replicator and the holodeck, you can have the warp drive.

Funny, the warp core was needed to power said holodecks and replicators.....

Re:Hopeful

[citylivin]

"focus the US on kicking ass in space"

Its quaint that you think after all that has happened that the US will be any sort of player by the year 2100. Your nation was built with the free labour of slaves, and propped up mid century by being geographically isolated from europe during the second world war.

The new super power is quite obviously china. No surprise since you sold them and outsourced all your tech there.

Re:Hopeful

[q4Fry]

Hopefully this will start a new space race, and focus the US on kicking ass in space. We're the only ones to successfully land on Mars...

That's not true at all! Plenty of probes sent to Mars by other countries successfully land on Mars. The only difference is that their probes land much faster and in more pieces. ;)

Oh, I see. You think they forgot to define success criteria.

Re:Hopeful

[Gravis Zero]

Explaining the joke doesn't make it funnier. -_-

What is Winter Sunlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Working of Error

The DARK side ?! WTF ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is a flat earth MORON writing SCIENCE stories for Slashdot ?!?!

My God, it's full of stars!

[xxxLCxxx]

Should they manage to spot any stars from there, somebody's gonna be in deep shit. ;-)

That's not the question to ask.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're planing on the Darkside of the Moon, I think it should be marijuana. You can't really get into the Darkside of the Moon without some pot.
Just say'in.
And I didn't realize that Pink Floyd was that big in China.

are they sending Matt Damon as well ?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's going to need fertiliser.

First?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Apollo 8?

Re:First?

[scdeimos]

Correct. Although Apollo 8 took plenty of pictures of the far side of the moon it did not actually land there.

Nooo...

[Dan East]

The far side of the moon is where Sam Bell's clones are mining helium-3. It's already been claimed.

Remember when?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when they used to try to have all spacecraft clean of biological components that might infect new worlds? Now we're going to bring plants there? I hope someone has figured out the environmental impact to the planet!

Since China has already built islands that became military outposts, I'd expect this "farm" to become a military outpost, too.

Re:Remember when?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking stupid or something? The Moon has ZERO atmosphere. Nothing can or ever has grown there, unless it can live in vacuum. You can't 'contaminate it with life'. Their experiment will be growing something in a bubble they bring with them.

Re:Remember when?

[Anonymous Coward]

Atmosphere isn't necessarily a prerequisite for life. (Unless you have some definition of life I'm not aware of.)

No-one thinks that there are elephants running around on the moon but extremophiles can exist pretty much anywhere, especially if we don't limit ourselves to lifeforms that are similar to what we have on Earth.

While it is extremely unlikely that there is any life form dug down anywhere on the moon it is very hard to disprove it.

Re:Remember when?

[Anonymous Coward]

The moon does have atmosphere.... About 100 molecules of it. Before you say that is negligible consider the fact that its higher than you can count.

Re:Remember when?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can count to 100, thank you very much!

Freedom of navigation

[Anonymous Coward]

First the Spratly Islands... now the Moon. Silly Americans will now build a "Space Force" to taunt Chinese scientists at their new base^H^H^H^H research facility.

Well Shit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to move my supervillain moon base. All volcanic islands are already taken. Any ideas?

Re: Well Shit...

[Anonymous Coward]

The darker side of the dark side.

Re:Well Shit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy or rent in DC, City of London or someplace similar. If you really want to cheap out all you need is a post box in Caimans, Jersey etc.

How will success be known if no communication?

[Micah NC]

If there's no communication with the far side of the moon, how will they know if the plant is growing?

Send out some auditors? A "take my word for it" kind of thing?

Re:How will success be known if no communication?

[cellocgw]

If there's no communication with the far side of the moon, how will they know if the plant is growing?

Well duh, they'll wait to see the roots breaking thru the near side. Then it's time to transplant and re-pot.

Re: How will success be known if no communication?

[c6gunner]

You should have probably read the whole summary instead of stopping after two and a half sentences.

At least you could have read three sentences.

Re:How will success be known if no communication?

[Micah NC]

Bwha ha ha ... nice.

Re: How will success be known if no communication?

[Micah NC]

Apparently I read it too fast. Apologies.

Would that be a MILITARY base?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what they're really up to... after all the moon has been theirs since ancient times.

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[Rick Schumann]

There's an International agreement in place for a long time now 'preventing' such a thing from happening, but that only works if every nation on Earth continues to honor it, it's not like it's a binding agreement in any way shape or form.
Considering the way China behaves overall, I wouldn't put it past them, though, to establish a 'colony' (read as: fortified military base) on the Moon, then try to claim the entire Moon as Chinese territory.

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[Gavagai80]

Remind me how many far away lands with no historical Chinese identity China has laid claim to, compared to say the USA or UK. China has shown little interest in being even a global military power, their interests are simply the South China Sea and Taiwan and other small islands they've long laid claim to but not had the power to assert the claim before.

If there were a reason to militarize space, you can bet the USA as the world's arms dealer would've done it already. The reason there's no military installation in space is that it makes no tactical sense. It makes your weapons more visible than they are on the ground, and it takes a hell of a lot longer for the weapon to hit the Earth target if you launch it from the moon than if you launch an ICBM from your home country.

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[Oswald McWeany]

There's an International agreement in place for a long time now 'preventing' such a thing from happening, but that only works if every nation on Earth continues to honor it, it's not like it's a binding agreement in any way shape or form.

Considering the way China behaves overall, I wouldn't put it past them, though, to establish a 'colony' (read as: fortified military base) on the Moon, then try to claim the entire Moon as Chinese territory.

US has already proposed breaking that treaty by starting up the Space Cadets military branch that Trump already proposed. Besides, that, the Black Bird could be considered "militarizing space".

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[Oswald McWeany]

Remind me how many far away lands with no historical Chinese identity China has laid claim to, compared to say the USA or UK. China has shown little interest in being even a global military power, their interests are simply the South China Sea and Taiwan and other small islands they've long laid claim to but not had the power to assert the claim before.

If there were a reason to militarize space, you can bet the USA as the world's arms dealer would've done it already. The reason there's no military installation in space is that it makes no tactical sense. It makes your weapons more visible than they are on the ground, and it takes a hell of a lot longer for the weapon to hit the Earth target if you launch it from the moon than if you launch an ICBM from your home country.

Historically, yes... and you can include many other Europeans nations in that equation too. Of course the main difference is, when there is a territorial dispute nowadays they let the people living there decide. Tibet, Eastern Turkistan, Taiwan, etc, and other occupied regions wish they had that freedom. Noone living on the moon currently of course- and it wouldn't surprise me it nations did try to divide it up amongst themselves by setting up bases and declaring territory theirs... treaties against that now- but that's changing.

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[mark-t]

If there were a reason to militarize space, you can bet the USA as the world's arms dealer would've done it already. The reason there's no military installation in space is that it makes no tactical sense. It makes your weapons more visible than they are on the ground, and it takes a hell of a lot longer for the weapon to hit the Earth target if you launch it from the moon than if you launch an ICBM from your home country.

This is only true if you are using missiles for weapons.

What about using a super-high-powered laser? Of course, that means that any any one time, only half of the planet is actually within firing range, but the time to hit any target that is visible at the moment would still be only about a second or so. The down side is that it might take up to 12 hours for a would-be target that has just swung out of view to swing back in.

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me how many far away lands with no historical Chinese identity China has laid claim to, compared to say the USA or UK. China has shown little interest in being even a global military power, their interests are simply the South China Sea and Taiwan and other small islands they've long laid claim to but not had the power to assert the claim before.

Really? You really think they will just stop when they taken the South China Sea?

No expanding country in the known history have ever settled after taking over the next territory. Once they secured the current goal they find a new one.
The driving force is seldom immediately economical either. There is a lot of dickwaving going around with expanding the territory.

Anyone willing to use force to expand their borders needs to be shut down hard and early.
Waiting just makes everything worse.

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[hackertourist]

the Black Bird? The 1960s era reconnaisance aircraft that didn't go to space? No, that was not an instance of militarizing space.

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[Rick Schumann]

Yeah sure, and historically speaking, how many warlords have done anything other than conquer their neighbors, then their neighbors, and so on, and so on, in building their empire? The Moon would be an exception simply because it's not part of the Earth, but I could also argue that the Moon is every nations' neighbor, since there's one step to getting there from your country: a rocket. You're not making a good argument for your point at all.

Re:Would that be a MILITARY base?

[currently_awake]

Ground based lasers are much cheaper, can be hidden, and can wipe out your orbital lasers before you even know you're under attack. They can also shoot down incoming cruise missiles and short range balistic missiles as well as ICBM's. Putting weapons in orbit is a disadvantage.

Anyone remember "Earth: Final Conflict"?

[Rick Schumann]

Right now would be a lovely time for someone to discover an alien spacecraft sitting on the farside of the Moon.

Fucking bamboo will grow anywhere

[Kevoco]

Definitely Bamboo

NASA used a HUGE flash when they took this picture

[pgmrdlm]

of the Dark side of the moon so that we could see what it looks like. https://www.google.com/search?...:

When they land...

[MiniMike]

The first picture sent back by the Chinese lander will contain a sign reading "This spot reserved for Elon Musk's Tesla" and a set of tire tracks going to the horizon.

(yes I know the Roadster was not sent to the Moon...)

Seems like a long way to go

[CanadianMacFan]

Seems like a long way to go just to grow some pot. Should just come over to Canada where it's legal now.

Re:Seems like a long way to go

[Oswald McWeany]

Ask Tibet! When the Chinese arrive in your country they don't tend to leave.

More Fake Pool Space from China

[Anonymous Coward]

FAKE FAKE FAKE. The Chinks just cant help themselved.. all they know how to do is lie and commit forgery.

LOL. Grow a plant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow a plant means what? There will be a source of light provided, in an air-contained container with water and nutrients? Wow. Not impressed at all.
Or are they going to grow a virus? Not impressed also.

Given that this generation is into sensationalism without substance, just wait 12 months and this will be forgotten and denied ever having occurred. Just like NASA's ( Nerds Assuming Stupid Assumptions) discovering aliens. Or an Elon Musk dope-smoked statement, pick any.

Re: Member when Op had brains?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ youre a fucking mong. Never reproduce!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nazis!

[ilsaloving]

Oh please, we all know that their REAL missions is to make contact with the secret Nazi base built on the dark side of the moon.

I mean, hasn't anyone watched Iron Sky?

Re:Nazis!

[nospam007]

"Oh please, we all know that their REAL missions is to make contact with the secret Nazi base built on the dark side of the moon."

Indeed. Hopefully the Chinese won't take an iPad Pro to the moon or we're all doomed.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

There is no dark side of the moon, really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Matter of fact, it's all dark.