China lands on far side of the moon

[JackRT]

A problem with early manned missions to the moon was that a far side mission would have cut off the crew from direct radio contact with the earth. This could have been partly overcome by placing a satellite in a high moon orbit that could act as a relay station to at least provide intermittent contact. I suspect that the Chinese are doing something like this.

 

[RDKirk]

A problem with early manned missions to the moon was that a far side mission would have cut off the crew from direct radio contact with the earth. This could have been partly overcome by placing a satellite in a high moon orbit that could act as a relay station to at least provide intermittent contact. I suspect that the Chinese are doing something like this.

I have read (but I didn't follow up) that the Chinese did indeed place a satellite at a LaGrange point opposite the moon from the earth.

 

[RDKirk]

Just curious as to why NASA didn't think it was important. Budget cuts? .

Early missions to the opposite side of the moon would have been out of radio contact with the earth.

 

[RDKirk]

NASA is more focused on its Mars mission, as well as deep space exploration, with dozens of probes flying around without the public taking any notice because they wont reach their goal in years.

I'm opposed to a Mars mission--and even another moon mission--if it's just going to be a stunt. I'd rather see the permanent orbiting torus that they promised us back in the 60s built as a deep-space vehicle assembly point and a permanently staffed moon base before a Mars mission. That's what the shuttle was originally supposed to have been for--to build the torus.

Any Mars mission done before that happens will just be another stunt.

 

[USincognito]

Nobody has ever landed on the moon.

Oh this should be good. What makes you think that?

 

[USincognito]

Actually, there is a secret Nazi base on the dark side of the moon.

Iron Sky (2012) - IMDb

(And how many of you probably thought this thread couldn't go Godwin?)

Fun fact - the Moon Nazi attack happened in 2018. Also the sequel has finally been completed and will be released this year.

 

[Nithavela]

Oh this should be good. What makes you think that?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh this should be good. What makes you think that?

Are you surprised that a "moon truther" showed in this thread? lol, I'm not. I was half expecting flat earthers to show up in here as well.

 

[Lost4words]

Looking at the title to this thread, how did they manage to land China on the moon?

 

[SimplyMe]

I'm opposed to a Mars mission--and even another moon mission--if it's just going to be a stunt. I'd rather see the permanent orbiting torus that they promised us back in the 60s built as a deep-space vehicle assembly point and a permanently staffed moon base before a Mars mission. That's what the shuttle was originally supposed to have been for--to build the torus.

Any Mars mission done before that happens will just be another stunt.

I know NASA is wanting to build either a permanent base on the moon, or a space station above the moon. As you point out, at least one point of the project would be to help facilitate missions to Mars. Of course, the issue is funding.

It is worth noting, NASA, at one point (in the 60s) was getting over 4% of the United States Federal budget. Once we got to the moon, the government was not willing to keep those levels of funding, even cancelling the last three planned Apollo flights (that were to be heavily focused on science research); though "Apollo 20" was cancelled so the rocket could launch Skylab into orbit. Two complete Saturn V rockets were produced and went unused, which are now on public display at Kennedy Space Center (Florida) and Johnson Space Center (Houston).

 

[mindlight]

Looking at the title to this thread, how did they manage to land China on the moon?

rocket propelled China tea set from my grandma

 

[usexpat97]

As you point out, at least one point of the project would be to help facilitate missions to Mars.

That makes a lot of sense. The moon is a potentially large source of propellant. And a good way to research how exactly to mine extraterrestrial propellant (or anything, for that matter). And with the lower gravitational pull and air resistance, all that fuel spent just to lift off becomes much less. A significant obstacle to getting to Mars is that we have to expend all this fuel to propel...the fuel....

 

[dgiharris]

...But the significant thing from my perspective is the speed with which they are closing the gap with NASA and now coming up with firsts - this is the first soft landing on the far side of the moon. This is a part of coherent plan in which Chinas earth based interests and space based interests are all a part of. They develop new technologies, hope to achieve technical parity with American space systems and these will all ultimately bring benefits to Chinas long term prospects and security.

This x1000

Historians will look back at the rise of China and America's ignorance/complacency and they will scratch their heads.

There are also those who would argue that during the Obama administration the agency got a little *too* focused on recruitment efforts and tangential matters and almost lost sight of some of its actual objectives.

Are you serious? NASA's defunding and lack of focus far far FAR outdates the Obama administration by decades. Obama's "focus" was rightfully on preventing a Global Depression and getting us out of 2 wars as well as dealing with the 2008 - 2016 Republican Party which was the most obstructionist party in the history of US politics during a national crisis that was easily arguably worse than 9/11.

I'm opposed to a Mars mission--and even another moon mission--if it's just going to be a stunt. I'd rather see the permanent orbiting torus that they promised us back in the 60s built as a deep-space vehicle assembly point and a permanently staffed moon base before a Mars mission. That's what the shuttle was originally supposed to have been for--to build the torus.

Any Mars mission done before that happens will just be another stunt.

One of the worst things in my opinion is the US's short sightedness in regards to Space and the importance of establishing a presence in Space that is more than just lip service.

There are trillions of dollars to be had in Space as well as the establishment of a new profit stream/economy for not just our country but the entire world. Not only are there a bazillion tons of various metals to be mined in space but we've reached the technological point where plenty of products would actually be easier and cheaper to manufacture in Space than on Earth-- a lot of high tech products require Vacuum technology and clean rooms and those environments are very expensive to maintain on Earth

It amazes me that despite all the technology we enjoy today (some of which was a byproduct of the Space Race) that we are so short sighted to investing into Space.

Instead, the US and USSR took Trillions of dollars and literally buried it in the ground (ICBMs). If we had taken that same money and invested it in Space, we'd have several space stations and platforms as well as a colony on the moon by now

 

[dgiharris]

Are you surprised that a "moon truther" showed in this thread? lol, I'm not. I was half expecting flat earthers to show up in here as well.

Funny how moon truthers will look down their noses at flat earthers

 

[Zoii]

Amazing achievement by China who seem to have large scale space aspirations

 

[mindlight]

I'm opposed to a Mars mission--and even another moon mission--if it's just going to be a stunt. I'd rather see the permanent orbiting torus that they promised us back in the 60s built as a deep-space vehicle assembly point and a permanently staffed moon base before a Mars mission. That's what the shuttle was originally supposed to have been for--to build the torus.

Any Mars mission done before that happens will just be another stunt.

The development of SpaceXs starship gives a lift capacity that could work for any one of these options or all 3 simultaneously. There is no need to build a Moonbase and SpaceStation as a first step to colonising Mars and it may not be cost effective to do so if Mars is the focus. But if there is a general move into space then these are all parts of that and there is a different value in each project. Bundling all 3 together has been part of the problem for the last 50 years cause no one was prepared to provide the funding for all 3 schemes simultaneously. Now that they can be unpackaged from each other and that the costs are massively reduced that excuse no longer applies.

But there should be a coherent plan and funding to make these things happen. China seems to have such a plan but America is relying on entrepreneurs like Musk , Besos and the UKs Branson to make that happen.

 

[RDKirk]

The development of SpaceXs starship gives a lift capacity that could work for any one of these options or all 3 simultaneously. There is no need to build a Moonbase and SpaceStation as a first step to colonising Mars and it may not be cost effective to do so if Mars is the focus. But if there is a general move into space then these are all parts of that and there is a different value in each project.

There is no viable concept to "colonizing Mars" unless there is also a general move into space.

 

[mindlight]

There is no viable concept to "colonizing Mars" unless there is also a general move into space.

There is a "Starship" planned to make a test flight in 2020 and a Mars trip in 2022. These will be Direct flights with a near earth orbit refuel from a Tanker. It does not need the extra infrastructure to make this trip.

The aim of the planned 2024 manned expedition to Mars is to create a fuel depot and refuelling centre on Mars. With that in place the transportation is ready and the other things can follow if there is a political will or economic rationale for that. The same technology could be used for Moon bases and spacestations also.

So you are wrong , this can quite easily be separated off from grand dreams of Moon bases, Big wheel space stations etc. This is important because breaking down the costs of each project into separate budgets makes it more likely that each one will occur. But yes my hope is that we will have all three, Moon bases, Space stations AND a Mars Colony.

There is a hard core of people who have always supported space travel and there is a large alternate group who always try and divert the funds away from it. That space has now gone private means that it is more likely to succeed as it is no longer a question of securing majority support, or political backing but rather of establishing a workable business model. Given that the market is there and the technology is there this now exists

 

[RDKirk]

There is a "Starship" planned to make a test flight in 2020 and a Mars trip in 2022. These will be Direct flights with a near earth orbit refuel from a Tanker. It does not need the extra infrastructure to make this trip.

The aim of the planned 2024 manned expedition to Mars is to create a fuel depot and refuelling centre on Mars. With that in place the transportation is ready and the other things can follow if there is a political will or economic rationale for that. The same technology could be used for Moon bases and spacestations also.

So you are wrong , this can quite easily be separated off from grand dreams of Moon bases, Big wheel space stations etc. This is important because breaking down the costs of each project into separate budgets makes it more likely that each one will occur. But yes my hope is that we will have all three, Moon bases, Space stations AND a Mars Colony.

There is a hard core of people who have always supported space travel and there is a large alternate group who always try and divert the funds away from it. That space has now gone private means that it is more likely to succeed as it is no longer a question of securing majority support, or political backing but rather of establishing a workable business model. Given that the market is there and the technology is there this now exists

You are only focusing on the technical aspects and not the political and popularism sides.

 

[mindlight]

You are only focusing on the technical aspects and not the political and popularism sides.

Because if this now a private sector venture it no longer requires the impossible "everyman" to support it. It only needs enough of a base to generate a profit. That base exists. The politicians really just need to make sure they do not get in the way of human progress.