China Successfully Lands Probe, Rover on the Moon

[Simon_Jester]

One, the money is often being spent on science missions- we've learned a lot about all planets in the solar system, including Earth, from NASA science missions. That is explicitly part of NASA's mission so you can hardly complain if they do it. So far, China has worked very hard to build up manned space infrastructure, but they are a long way from matching the US's progress in planetary science, though they're making progress.

Two, a lot of the manned program's resources go/went to maintaining the ISS, including numerous shuttle launches and other expensive things. Whether this is "inefficient" depends on your point of view, but it was a policy decision made above NASA's level, so they cannot be responsible for it.

Three, a lot of the money that did go into developing advanced programs has been systematically wasted by political decisions outside NASA's control, the biggest one being Obama's decision to scrap the Constellation rocket program and start over from scratch, essentially pouring several billion dollars of work down the drain, expending billions more just to close out the contracts while obtaining zero value for NASA, and delaying any actual space program by at least five years if not more.

[Broomstick]

Something frequently forgotten is that NASA is more than just space - a substantial part of their budget goes to research and safety of aviation, that is, atmospheric flight here on Earth. When you talk about NASA's budget are you talking about just the space budget or are you including other things, like the NASA run aviation safety reporting system utilized by both civilian and commercial aviation, the icing conditions and systems research, and all those other things they do along with space?

[K. A. Pital]

Interplanetary probes are a damn money black hole, Simon, and I wouldn't say a word against the Chinese program since they lack the heavy boosters to reliably throw stuff towards other planets. Next thing you know after LM5 is ready - China throwing probes towards Mars or... Venus. I just want to see the Venus probe program ressurected. There's so much more to know about that planet.

[PeZook]

I really wouldn't call probes a black hole. The data collected by MSL alone is going to be absolutely invaluable during a manned Mars mission, for example, to say nothing of what we have already learned about Mars and its past. They're also relatively cheap, compared to manned spaceflight, although the US routinely spends Apollo-level money on developing military equipment, too, so in absolute terms...space is not that expensive.

[Simon_Jester]

PeZook's right. The Apollo landings would have been insanely dangerous if not for the information first collected by unmanned probes of the Ranger, and Surveyor series, which examined important questions like "where can we land on the moon without tripping over a huge rock and overturning the lander" and "can we even land on the moon at all without sinking into a sea of dust?"

Moreover, there are large parts of the solar system that are likely to be effectively out of reach of manned exploration for many decades even if we pursue space technology avidly. If we want to know anything about the moons of Saturn in the 21st century, we're probably going to have to send a robot to find it out.

[K. A. Pital]

Just depends on the ships we're willing to use, really. A manned Orion exploration ship could easily take humans out to Ceres, if not further, without too much trouble. Question would be: why bother with taking humans that far out right now? In 5-10 years the AI would be strong enough (and by that I don't necessarily mean Turing test strong) to work autonomously and thus we could establish robotic settlements on the planets which would then proceed to send data once in a while. Anything further than the Moon suffers from signal lag issues severely, so we'd have to devise autonomous machines to do that work.

[Simon_Jester]

Manned Orion drive is a long way off, because it's a huge engineering effort to make it work. In theory it's doable but it's never gone past the feasibility survey. It might be closer to engineering reality than, say, a fusion rocket. But it's not that close.

To be fair, maybe we could have one by 2100 if it wasn't for those bothersome restrictions on the militarization of space and nuclear tests. But the basic point stands- if we want to learn anything about the outer system now, or about extreme environments like Mercury and the surface of Venus, we need probes. Nor would it be wise to send a manned mission to a place where no robotic probe has ever made observations of the basic physical conditions. For example, imagine what would happen to a manned expedition to Jupiter unprepared to deal with the intense radiation belts that were historically found by the Pioneer probes.

[K. A. Pital]

I am not suggesting this either. What I meant by the "money black hole" thing is that probes tend to suck a lot of money in the manufacturing and launch process without clear returns. The usefulness of the probe exploration to space exploration itself (but only that!) is obvious. But the usefulness of near-earth satellites to the entire current multitrillion world economy is even more obvious - shipping, deliveries, automated positioning, construction technology, agriculture et cetera et cetera... so I guess humans are stuck with this less-than-ideal scenario for a while.

[Broomstick]

If we hadn't launched the "money hole" satellites and other programs in the 1960's we wouldn't have the extremely useful global satellite network we have now. If we don't do the "money hole" probes in these decades we won't have whatever useful thing can come of them in 40 or 50 years.

[Simon_Jester]

Probes are relatively cheap and help to keep up a sustained interplanetary launch/tracking/control infrastructure, as well as a sustained space science community that can actually contribute meaningfully to the planning of manned expeditions.

[K. A. Pital]

If we hadn't launched the "money hole" satellites and other programs in the 1960's we wouldn't have the extremely useful global satellite network we have now. If we don't do the "money hole" probes in these decades we won't have whatever useful thing can come of them in 40 or 50 years.

The problem is that perhaps you, I and a handful of space fanatics think that way. Ordinary people think (and perhaps they are also right) that the farther something is from Earth, the less useful it becomes. Satellites were never a "hole" in 1960s from the decision maker standpoint - they were deeply tied to the potential militarization of space, sad as it is. A probe on Venus has zero military and zero civilian (=economic) utility as of now, its only utility is the utility to the space program itself.

Perhaps we need to work on the orbital and Lunar infrastructure - if we have truly large self-repairing habitats, we can start working on orbital assembly projects and this would make many of the probes actually useful once sending stuff to other planets in bulk becomes a matter of constructing it in orbit or on the Moon instead of hauling it all the way from the ground on a rocket.

[PeZook]

Ah, so you're concerned about the public perception of unmanned missions?

Well, I actually think NASA has gotten pretty good at promoting its unmanned missions. Witness all the people who went to Times Square to watch MSL land despite it happening at some ungodly morning hours in the US. They have a sizeable and capable PR department.

[K. A. Pital]

Not so much public perception as decision maker perception. It is undeniably true that unless we somehow quickly jump to mining he-3 on the Moon and actually develop automated mining on other planets, the farther something is from Earth, the less useful it is for the Earth economy for the foreseeable future (10-20 years). LEO and GEO satellites had clear uses from the very start as communication devices - if not for this, perhaps the entire launch industry couldn't even be adequately sustained outside command economies where you could simply make people do it for the sake of space exploration achievements.

[mr friendly guy]

Well the conspiracy theorists have come out. It just needed a few days.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/China's_ ... 1/Y/M.html

Last week China made international news claiming to have successfully landed a spacecraft carrying a lunar rover called the “Jade Rabbit” on the moon. Unfortunately like other publicized space exploration spectacles this event is highly questionable and appears to be another hoax. Many researchers have proven conclusively that the American missions to the moon during the Apollo era of the late 1960s and early 1970s were faked in a television studio on Earth. It is no wonder why Apollo astronauts like Buzz Aldrin get angry and punch people when confronted about their participation in the fraud. It is truly sad that the Chinese have decided to follow this same hoax formula as they attempt to project national prestige through their space program. It is however much more cost effective to fake a mission into space than to actually do it legitimately.

China’s space program already has a dubious history after many independent researchers questioned the authenticity of video footage claiming to show the nation’s first manned spacewalk back in 2008. The footage of the alleged spacewalk at one point (3:00 in) shows what appear to be water bubbles floating past an astronaut. This indicates that the footage the Chinese passed off as their first spacewalk was shot in a water tank and not in space. Details surrounding the so-called successful spacewalk including quotes from the astronauts involved in the mission were released prior to the mission even launching. In other words, the scripted event was released to the public too early. This embarrassing situation further confirmed people’s doubts about the spacewalk’s legitimacy and provided more proof that the entire event was staged.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... 54808.html

Why all the moon landing hoaxes? First, the Apollo 13 hoax, which had many obvious holes, and now the Chinese! Is it competition? Prestige? Money? All of the above?

The main reason that does it for me is the Van Allen Radiation Belts. If it’s still impossible, to this day, to pass through these deadly radiation belts, how did the Apollo 13 pass through and land on the moon without any danger to the astronauts back in 1969? They didn’t have the technology to do so, as the following article seems to indicate:

[Broomstick]

Er... someone needs to tell the conspiracy theorist that no one has ever claimed Apollo 13 actually landed on the Moon. What is claimed is a fly-by.

[PainRack]

I mean, watching Neil DeGreasse Tyson suddenly go off about the LHC and NASA budget was a huge eye-opener, given the other talking point that all of NASA spending = 1 year of US military budget.

I must have missed that one...link please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40YIIaF1qiw

Go to 33 min. Although it might be more fun to watch it from 25min onwards, to see Neil trip and increasing agitation:D

The entire video was quite fun, especially the interplay between Krauss and Neil.

Its also quite funny to see Neil get the Super Conducter circumference wrong, look shocked, and then admit his fault and saying thank you before going on to his bashing topic

[energiewende]

If we hadn't launched the "money hole" satellites and other programs in the 1960's we wouldn't have the extremely useful global satellite network we have now. If we don't do the "money hole" probes in these decades we won't have whatever useful thing can come of them in 40 or 50 years.

I don't think so. No more technology or larger boosters are needed to launch GPS satellites than were developed for ICBMs unrelated to any scientific interest in space, and GPS itself is basically a bomb-targeting system. US doesn't materially lose out from ceding civilian space race to China; it's mostly a means of acquiring prestige and it's not really in the interest of the US, as the world's currently most prestigious nation, to join a race where the best possible outcome is status quo.

[Broomstick]

If we hadn't launched the "money hole" satellites and other programs in the 1960's we wouldn't have the extremely useful global satellite network we have now. If we don't do the "money hole" probes in these decades we won't have whatever useful thing can come of them in 40 or 50 years.

I don't think so. No more technology or larger boosters are needed to launch GPS satellites than were developed for ICBMs unrelated to any scientific interest in space, and GPS itself is basically a bomb-targeting system.

I disagree. The space program built some pretty good infrastructure for launching, more practice made launching anything more reliable, and provided motivation for integrated circuits and miniaturization of electronics that have had a lot of benefits down the line.

Also, GPS is a navigation system, not a "bomb-targeting" system. It certainly can be used for targeting bombs, but the major use of it is for navigation. It's nice of the USAF to allow such extensive civilian use of it, too. Fly an airliner recently? It's how all of them get around these days. You're welcome. Yes, there are competing systems, and that's a good thing, too.

US doesn't materially lose out from ceding civilian space race to China; it's mostly a means of acquiring prestige and it's not really in the interest of the US, as the world's currently most prestigious nation, to join a race where the best possible outcome is status quo.

Er... Actually, aside from a few of us nerds most of the US doesn't give a fuck. We were there first and we know it, and left footprints and flags as proof. Space photos from Mars and Titan got more air time in the US media than the Chinese rover did. Once again, you completely miss the boat here. Why don't you just stop pretending you know fuck-all about the US?

Whoever lands first somewhere other than the Moon, THEN you'll see some notice.

But, seriously, bravo to the Chinese. Even if they're "just" replicating what was already done 40 years ago successfully soft-landing anything on the Moon is an accomplishment to be proud of. Since I'm very pro the human race getting out into space I'm happy to see them do it and wish my fellow humans all the success possible.

[energiewende]

If we hadn't launched the "money hole" satellites and other programs in the 1960's we wouldn't have the extremely useful global satellite network we have now. If we don't do the "money hole" probes in these decades we won't have whatever useful thing can come of them in 40 or 50 years.

I don't think so. No more technology or larger boosters are needed to launch GPS satellites than were developed for ICBMs unrelated to any scientific interest in space, and GPS itself is basically a bomb-targeting system.

I disagree. The space program built some pretty good infrastructure for launching, more practice made launching anything more reliable, and provided motivation for integrated circuits and miniaturization of electronics that have had a lot of benefits down the line.

Also, GPS is a navigation system, not a "bomb-targeting" system. It certainly can be used for targeting bombs, but the major use of it is for navigation. It's nice of the USAF to allow such extensive civilian use of it, too. Fly an airliner recently? It's how all of them get around these days. You're welcome. Yes, there are competing systems, and that's a good thing, too.

GPS is, as you point out, a military project designed for military purposes. Civilian systems have been allowed to use it since there is no downside, but it's not the reason for its creation.

US doesn't materially lose out from ceding civilian space race to China; it's mostly a means of acquiring prestige and it's not really in the interest of the US, as the world's currently most prestigious nation, to join a race where the best possible outcome is status quo.

Er... Actually, aside from a few of us nerds most of the US doesn't give a fuck. We were there first and we know it, and left footprints and flags as proof. Space photos from Mars and Titan got more air time in the US media than the Chinese rover did. Once again, you completely miss the boat here. Why don't you just stop pretending you know fuck-all about the US?

Whoever lands first somewhere other than the Moon, THEN you'll see some notice.

But, seriously, bravo to the Chinese. Even if they're "just" replicating what was already done 40 years ago successfully soft-landing anything on the Moon is an accomplishment to be proud of. Since I'm very pro the human race getting out into space I'm happy to see them do it and wish my fellow humans all the success possible.

When US raced USSR there was a clear pay-off: US could show that its free-ish market was superior to a planned economy, something a lot of people then doubted. If US races PRC then, best case, US wins and everyone thinks the same of US as they did before. Worst case, US loses, and can't claim it just did not care enough due to being first and blah blah blah, instead it loses huge prestige to PRC. And loss to PRC isn't by any means implausible in the next 20-30 years, since there isn't really an ideological struggle anymore, just large population/developing economy vs small population/developed economy.

[Broomstick]

GPS is, as you point out, a military project designed for military purposes. Civilian systems have been allowed to use it since there is no downside, but it's not the reason for its creation.

Oh, look, the little ass weasel is shifting the goalposts! First GPS was a "bomb targeting" system, now it's just a "military system". Hey, asshole, you were wrong, just admit it and move on.

Actually, there IS a downside to civilian use of GPS as it is currently done. Anyone with a GPS receiver can use the signal, including enemies of the US. That's why the USAF retains the capability to degrade the civilian use signal or even jam it altogether. Which is also why several other nations/groups of nations have put their own satellites up, because even if they normally use GPS they don't want to be overly reliant on it. They want a back up in case Uncle Sam yanks it out of service.

When US raced USSR there was a clear pay-off: US could show that its free-ish market was superior to a planned economy, something a lot of people then doubted. If US races PRC then, best case, US wins and everyone thinks the same of US as they did before. Worst case, US loses, and can't claim it just did not care enough due to being first and blah blah blah, instead it loses huge prestige to PRC. And loss to PRC isn't by any means implausible in the next 20-30 years, since there isn't really an ideological struggle anymore, just large population/developing economy vs small population/developed economy.

I think it should be obvious by now that a large slice of the American population really does not care what the world thinks of them, and most of those are likewise convinced that America is number one in everything it does regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Frankly, in many ways America's reputation outside of America matters more to everyone else BUT America.

Given that there was little hew and cry when the shuttle was retired (and even some cheering in a few quarters) I really don't think the US public gives a fuck that other nations are more space-capable at the moment. Some folks don't think we should be out there at all, some think it's a waste of money, and quite a few believe the government should get out of space and private industry take over on ideological grounds. IF someone puts a viable permanent moonbase up or lands on Mars we might see the US getting into manned space travel again but right now both the government and most of the public seems happy to send out automated probes. I'm sorry you don't understand that this is no longer the 1960's and the attitude of the general American public has changed but there's only so much I can do to help the mentally deficient.

[energiewende]

GPS is, as you point out, a military project designed for military purposes. Civilian systems have been allowed to use it since there is no downside, but it's not the reason for its creation.

Oh, look, the little ass weasel is shifting the goalposts! First GPS was a "bomb targeting" system, now it's just a "military system". Hey, asshole, you were wrong, just admit it and move on.

GPS is used to target bombs and you haven't demonstrated it isn't. I merely have no interest going off on a tangent of pedantry when it has no relevance to the point I am trying to make whether GPS was built to target bombs, to provide location information for planes carrying bombs, or (the correct answer), both, among others. Last time I posted here I decided to stop engaging with your strings of pointless misunderstandings and circular non-arguments and am regretting not continuing to do so.

Actually, there IS a downside to civilian use of GPS as it is currently done. Anyone with a GPS receiver can use the signal, including enemies of the US. That's why the USAF retains the capability to degrade the civilian use signal or even jam it altogether.

So, it is not a downside, because the US can unilaterally remove this foreign capability to use GPS whenever it likes while retaining its own military advantages.

When US raced USSR there was a clear pay-off: US could show that its free-ish market was superior to a planned economy, something a lot of people then doubted. If US races PRC then, best case, US wins and everyone thinks the same of US as they did before. Worst case, US loses, and can't claim it just did not care enough due to being first and blah blah blah, instead it loses huge prestige to PRC. And loss to PRC isn't by any means implausible in the next 20-30 years, since there isn't really an ideological struggle anymore, just large population/developing economy vs small population/developed economy.

I think it should be obvious by now that a large slice of the American population really does not care what the world thinks of them, and most of those are likewise convinced that America is number one in everything it does regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Frankly, in many ways America's reputation outside of America matters more to everyone else BUT America.

Given that there was little hew and cry when the shuttle was retired (and even some cheering in a few quarters) I really don't think the US public gives a fuck that other nations are more space-capable at the moment. Some folks don't think we should be out there at all, some think it's a waste of money, and quite a few believe the government should get out of space and private industry take over on ideological grounds. IF someone puts a viable permanent moonbase up or lands on Mars we might see the US getting into manned space travel again but right now both the government and most of the public seems happy to send out automated probes. I'm sorry you don't understand that this is no longer the 1960's and the attitude of the general American public has changed but there's only so much I can do to help the mentally deficient.

It seems we are both agreeing that the only purpose of manned civilian space travel is prestige, and US doesn't feel the need to enter the prestige game at the present time.

[Broomstick]

GPS is, as you point out, a military project designed for military purposes. Civilian systems have been allowed to use it since there is no downside, but it's not the reason for its creation.

Oh, look, the little ass weasel is shifting the goalposts! First GPS was a "bomb targeting" system, now it's just a "military system". Hey, asshole, you were wrong, just admit it and move on.

GPS is used to target bombs and you haven't demonstrated it isn't.

YOU were the one limiting it to targeting, not me.

Navigation is the primary activity, and not even for "bomb-carrying planes". Militaries have always needed to be able to navigate and anything that improves navigation is an advantage. They need to navigate to transport troops and supplies, not just to drop bombs, and there a lot more of the troop-and-supplies traveling going on than the bombing. GPS was an improvement over systems dating back to WWII.

Again, you fail.

Actually, there IS a downside to civilian use of GPS as it is currently done. Anyone with a GPS receiver can use the signal, including enemies of the US. That's why the USAF retains the capability to degrade the civilian use signal or even jam it altogether.

So, it is not a downside, because the US can unilaterally remove this foreign capability to use GPS whenever it likes while retaining its own military advantages.[/quote]
It's a disadvantage because prior to a shut-down it can be used to determine very precise locations of stuff. Shutting it down removes a lot of the utility but not all of it.

It seems we are both agreeing that the only purpose of manned civilian space travel is prestige, and US doesn't feel the need to enter the prestige game at the present time.

When you put it that way, yes, we are in agreement. Until there is some purpose other than mere prestige the US isn't really interested. If it becomes economically useful then you'll see another space race.

[energiewende]

Those WWII systems were explicitly developed as bomb aiming systems. Look up Gee and Oboe. It's not the only, but the original, and still the most important application of GPS has been to dramatically increase the ability of the US military to destroy fixed infrastructure with minimal expenditure of munitions and pilots, to a level previously only achievable with nuclear weapons.

Anyone could always work out where a fixed point is with arbitrary precision; the difficult thing is knowing where a moving object is in real time.

[Broomstick]

Er... I don't think we're talking about the same systems. I'm talking about radio navigation systems developed in WWII, which weren't developed for bombing but to keep airplanes from getting lost over oceans.