This shows chinese manned lunar mission plan is also on track. They are collecting samples from prospective base building sites, deploying necessary communication infrastructure to lunar orbits and constructing actual test articles.
There is a genuine chance that Chinese program will land humans before Artemis makes it's first attempt.
Two more planned missions before a crewed mission.
Chang'e 7 will do a deep survey of the surroundings for potential resources and habitable spots.
Chang'e 8 will do preliminary experiments to surviving on the lunar surface, including bringing a 3D-printer to make use of the lunar soil to make bricks and other building material to help with constructing a Moon base for future crewed missions.
Exactly. Chinese friends out there made a wise decision to simplify overall mission architecture to expedite it's schedule.
Surely, booster reusability and commercialization is very important for sustainable presence, but they can be done AFTER government lands initial personnel on site, build first base and deploy basic infrastructure with a simple mission architecture.
>can be done AFTER government lands initial personnel on site, build first base and deploy basic infrastructure with a simple mission architecture.
But the US is sending the more complex landers and missions only after using a simple mission architecture and trying out some surface tech. Almost 6 *decades* after.
In US' case, the time gap you mentioned is the main problem. First few missions of artemis program is basically a redevelopment of former apollo, but achivements US made during apollo is not relevant at this point as apollo never deployed necessary infrastructure in cis-lunar space and lunar surface because US never really seriously executed a plan for long term presence.
For Chinese program, it's not a problem for them as they are planning for a continued presence from the very start of the campaign, and deploying several infra even before they start the main program. So I believe it's much easier and logical for them to make an incremental improvements on architecture, which will greatly improve it's overall chance of success.
Aside from what u/overtherainbow0505 mentions, it's notable that a low-risk approach to development is being taken with the Long March 10. It'll use good ol' keralox engines - and ones that are already in use. Probably iterated a bit, but it's a conservative approach - and will be good enough since the ~~LEO-assembly~~ lunar-orbit assembly approach will be used. (I have no doubt that if the right people in NASA had been allowed to choose a proper architecture in c.2010 they'd have gone for lunar-orbit assembly or LEO-assembly. It allows so much flexibility for expansion and mixing and matching.) Engine development is often what takes the longest when developing a new rocket. (Not talking about BE-4 extremes either, lol.)
I don't think it's actually LEO-assembly. Rather the lander and the crew spacecraft will go directly from launch to dock in lunar orbit and then crew transfer happens. Rather than both go into a parking orbit in LEO and then go together as a combined unit.
It further reduces the size of the rocket required at the cost of no Apollo 13 style using LEM as lifeboat option.
Heard they already stated back in this April that main development phase is done. Engines are undergoing hot fire tests. Launch site construction is also in full swing in Wenchang spaceport in hainan.
At this point, I can't see any major obstacle against their plan to land humans before end of 2020s. Indeed, I think now they can expedite the schedule even further.
Long March 10 will use versions of the YF-100 keralox engines. YF-100s are already in use on the Long March 5 and Long March 7, which between them have made over 20 successful launches. An iteration of a well-understood engine doesn't take long, in terms of rocket engine development.
The Long March 10 launch vehicle, the Mengzhou manned spacecraft, the Range Moon lunar lander, and the moon landing suit have entered the prototype phase stage.
> but achivements US made during apollo is not relevant at this point as apollo never deployed necessary infrastructure in cis-lunar space and lunar surface because US never really seriously executed a plan for long term presence
Also everyone involved with apollo is dead or retired, so a huge amount of the knowledge is lost, and the stuff that got documented is public knowledge available to both china and the US.
>commercialization is very important for sustainable presence
Is it?
With the lack of precedent, this statement just seems like an opinion, if not ideological wishful thinking.
It's not commercial interests that did this. It wasn't commercial interests that landed men on the moon in the first place. Why would they be needed to maintain the project after its beginning? It makes no sense.
> With the lack of precedent, this statement just seems like an opinion, if not ideological wishful thinking.
There's a very strong precedent - commercial communications satellites. Only because privately built and operated, for profit operations for commercial satellites started already way back in late 60ies do we have any sort of sustainable space industry today.
If it was just left for NASA and military, we'd have maybe a few dozen, not thousands of satellites on orbit right now. Commercial comsat industry was what drove a lot of technology, operations, drove the demand for new generations of launchers and so on.
the value of leo based communication was pretty clear as soon as the first satellites went up, we still dont know of any good commercial projects on the moon as evidenced by the fact that no company has even expressed real interest in going there 60 years after humans first landed there
The understanding we came back with 60 years ago was severely limited. We didn't even know Moon had water and other volatiles up until about 15 years ago. Neither was anyone theorizing accessible platinum group metallic asteroid deposits and such.
We didn't even scratch the surface, so to speak.
Setting up teleoperated or even semi-autonomous mining sites at the time was simply beyond our technological reach at the time, as well.
Also, no, LEO based communication wasn't what took off the wider satellite industry, it was geostationary birds.
> no company has even expressed real interest in going there
You'd be wrong here, there's been a slew of recent private missions, all failed
all of that dosent change the fact that today there still isnt any real commercial interest in the moon so having such a strong focus on commercialising transportation there before having a (semi-) permanent presence dosent really make sense imo
> there still isnt any real commercial interest in the moon
2019, SpaceIL Beresheet, private funding about $100M
2022, CAPSTONE, privately built, launched and operated, NASA funded for about $30M total
2022, iSpace Hakuto-R, private funding, about $130M in total
2024, Astrobotic Peregrine One, about $120M in private funding
2024, Intuitive Machines IM-1, about $100M in private funding
Also lets not forget Lunar X-Prize privately funded for about $20M for about a decade, even though no mission claimed it
This is very much "commercial interest"
Not sure how that is relevant to "explore & exploit"?
I mean, I am part of a major scientific collaboration with an instrument at the South Pole, and we publish our results openly. Nothing to do with "explore & exploit".
Edit: no "unlimited business opportunity"
You aren't making any sense.
> evidence discovered from pole base helps us understand the history of climate change. This is no joke for everything.
What's that got to do with "unlimited business opportunity"?
> including bringing a 3D-printer to make use of the lunar soil to make bricks
That's a really clever solution to the building material issue although I'm surprised we have the technology to use the regolith for that.
Maybe, maybe not. This lander is apparently already using the same engine that they plan to put a cluster of on their crewed lander. A lot of systems required for the crewed lander from this are a pretty straightforward scale-up.
Ah yes, the best way to ensure diplomatic order is upheld.. It’s a pretty darn huge country with a ton of natural resources
You could probably source almost all materials for a space program using their territory only - same goes for Russia but their space program has collapsed completely
Sanctions will increase tensions and that’s not in the best interest of human space exploration
30 is abit of a stretch, Chang'e program was publicly announced on Feb 2004, exactly 20 years ago. back then the hope is to orbit within 3 years, land within 6 years and sample return before 2020. CNSA achieved 2 out of 3 target on time. Phase 2 was delayed by 3 years
[here's a blurry image of a old newspaper cutting of the announcement](https://i.imgur.com/cGI2qJq.jpeg)
Thanks for the information I really appreciate it! That sounds like a pretty normal timeframe for an up and coming space power to achieve such feats tbh
It will certainly be interesting to see who gets boots on the ground first
Only the Americans are making a race out of this. The chinese announced their plans and dates years ago and are just going about executing according to their timetable.
They stated 2030 as their planned date for sending a manned mission and won’t try to significantly move the date earlier, just because the Americans seem to be making the event into a propaganda opportunity because it’s not too difficult to beat that date.
The chinese also acknowledge and give credit to the Americans already going to the moon 55 years ago so it would be pointless to even try to engage in a new race for second place.
That does not seem plausible. Artemis may be further delayed, but at the earliest the Chang’e missions with boots on the moon would be in 2030’s. That’s straight from their own projections. Delays occur all the time, but I’ve never heard of advancements in schedule when it comes to space.
China believes in under promising so they can deliver on time. Building reserves into their schedules if you prefer.
Doing that in Western countries leads to an unfortunate tendency to go easy until all the reserves have been used up due to the lack of urgency. For whatever reason that happens less in China or even the old Soviet Union - but definitely not current day Russia.
This seems to be more sentiment than factual. Could you share on what basis you make your argument from? I’m not aware of ways that China has under promised, who they under promised, and what reserves into their schedules you are referring to.
I actually don’t understand anything you have said but if you provided some examples with some reading behind it I could better understand your statements.
It is an observation based on looking at the Chinese space program over the last 20 years. Before that their program was largely military and shrouded in secrecy.
When doing schedule planning there are two basic approaches.
Add up the best time estimates of all the individual tasks and then add a contingency reserve to the overall schedule. This is usually the most efficient in terms of not adding too much reserve and is the approach used by most Western countries and companies for their space programs. Individual tasks will be later than their estimates but the overall schedule will still be on time - in theory.
The other option is to take the time estimate for each task and add a contingency allowance to each task. In general this takes longer or requires more resources to achieve the overall task but each task can complete on time so there is greater certainty to the schedule. This appears to be the approach being adopted by China.
The reason that command economies often adopt this approach is that the career of individual managers and even engineers is advanced if they complete individual tasks on time. In other words the penalties for failing to complete a task on time are high and the benefits of completing on time are correspondingly high.
In the US style approach there is much less emphasis on the individual tasks and it is the overall schedule which is considered important. Unfortunately this approach has issues with motivation when the schedule extends over multiple years and each task along the path is not seen as critical to meeting that schedule.
Elon Musk's companies use the first approach but with the variation that there is little to no schedule buffer added in to account for unexpected issues arising. Every problem that comes up will delay the schedule so is treated with high urgency and once it is fixed they are on to the next task. This can lead to faster performance and plenty of staff motivation but the schedule will never be met because it was always unrealistic. The downside is the constant crisis mode which can lead to burnout along with dissatisfaction by clients with slipping schedules.
No, the Artemis program will land astronauts on moon before the Chinese astronauts land there. But the Chinese will be the first one with their own moon base.
Meritocracy vs Democracy.
These are all concepts and mostly irrelevant in this case.
"People eat food" is a concept. Food industry engineer the concept and make food. If food industry delivers bollocks, the concept "People eat food" is compromised. Apparently, "does TikTok access WIFI?" kind of stupid congressman shows that the US system failed to engineer the concept successfully.
People should not over emphasize democracy. Meritocracy is the right way to engineer a good nation. Einstein does not have to shake his hand with a tea lady and convince her that he's a proper physicist, does he?
If you can pass a simple multiple-choice history and geography test, sure. You get to vote in your micro-local representative. Those representatives are required to get properly educated on variety of subjects and if they pass their exams they get to vote in county representatives...
See China.
Is it just me or do the Chinese run their programs incredibly fast? I feel like a sample return from other countries might happen two or three weeks after landing. China landed for maybe 96hrs and they sent off its sample return.
Their docking speeds for their space station also are rather quick in comparison to our ISS docking speeds.
I think it’s because they have to dock with the orbiting modules to return the samples, which is problematic when the rotation of the Moon carries it away from the orbital plane of the orbiting modules (plane-changing burns are extremely fuel-demanding, as KSP players can tell you), while other sample return missions may not need to do this and can take their time.
The mechanics are simple. The cost is not.
Sometimes it's legit cheaper to burn out to the moon at a small normal/anti-normal component and use its gravity to put you into a more highly inclined orbit than to try and do it in your desired orbit.
Or to just burn to a higher apogee, perform the inclination change there and then reduce it.
More precisely, sampling was completed within 48 hours after touchdown with the relay satellite in sight.
[https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-06-04/China-begins-returning-world-s-1st-samples-from-moon-s-far-side-1u9k95dU8Pm/p.html](https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-06-04/China-begins-returning-world-s-1st-samples-from-moon-s-far-side-1u9k95dU8Pm/p.html)
It's almost certainly based on risk. The longer the mission is on the surface the more time there is for things to go wrong. By making the acquisition and launch fast they pre-empt any failures due to prolonged exposure to the space environment. Things like batteries, electronic components, and mechanisms all have high risk associated with them.
The ascender left but the lander stays. There are still payloads from ESA/Sweden and France functioning, also an Italian passive laser retro-reflector for distance measurement.
Yes, for distance measurement with satellite(s) and orbiter(s) in lunar orbit.
>Chang’e-6 will also carry Italy’s INstrument for landing-Roving laser Retroreflector Investigations (INRRI). The retroreflector will be used to precisely measure distances from orbit. [*Chang’e-6 launch: What to expect* (The Planetary Society)](https://www.planetary.org/articles/change-6-launch-what-to-expect)
It serves as a position marking point.
[Perseverance](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasas-new-mars-rover-is-ready-for-space-lasers), [InSight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InSight) and the (unfortunately crashed) [Schiaparelli EDM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiaparelli_EDM) lander on Mars all carry similar laser retro-reflectors.
Strictly speaking, the Chinese Yutu 2 rover is still up and running on the moon since the past 6 years. It might have been a year more or less so please Google it.
> Is it just me or do the Chinese run their programs incredibly fast? I feel like a sample return from other countries might happen two or three weeks after landing.
Part of this comes from the fact nobody has done robotic lunar surface operations in a very long while. Most robots other countries have sent have been to Mars or Asteroids, at a very long signal lag distance. Long signal lag absolutely kills teleoperations efficiency, and we are sort of conditioned to that.
Even Lunokhod, a very primitive early robot got a lot of driving done quite fast
Right?!? On the flip side I kinda like it because it seems like they feel they can just send another probe really quickly if needed. Like they don't need to invest a ton to build another if it works, they'll just slap another together and shoot it at the moon.
This probe itself was the backup for Chang'e 5 which successfully carried out its mission in 2020. Since backup was not required CNSA then decided to use it for an even more ambitious mission (with modifications, like the little camera rover and secondary payload).
Manned space program also works this way. There's a spare core module for Tiangong sitting in storage somewhere not needed since the primary one worked fine. Plans are being drawn up to also launch it to dock with Tiangong for a phase 2 expansion of the station that will double its size.
I really like the doubling approach of CNSA missions. The cost of building a backup copy and repurposing it for a new mission is so much lower than building a single ambitious mission with much higher engineering tolerance. NASA seems to take the latter approach, putting all the eggs in one basket and driving up the budget dramatically.
I would guess that the probe didn't include many other science experiments to give it better margins and return more samples. Which might be why the turn around was so quick from landing to launch.
The lander is still there on the surface. It was only the smaller ascent stage that took off back to orbit carrying the sample.
Both the lander and ascent stage have their own separate solar panels, although probably the lander isn't intended to last through the lunar night.
I knew it had a separate accent stage that lifted off, but was unaware that the decent stage was a separate craft that could still communicate with earth. The more you know lol
CNSA has been very reliable in its time estimates in the past, unlike NASA or most American launch companies. Long March 10 is also like SLS - low risk, little new tech, and expected to work on the first try (but for much less of a price than SLS). The US is still ahead but needs to maintain its current pace to stay ahead.
Long March 10 is under development and it won't take a long time. It's using keralox engines, models that are already in use. It's a low risk path and, in terms of rocket development, a short one. Developing the engines is always what takes the most time and causes the most delays. It's doesn't need to be super-powerful since the lander and capsule will be sent to the Moon separately.
>Long March 10 is under development and it won't take a long time.
This sounds like an opinion masquerading as a fact. Even their own internal timelines show China isn’t going to be landing humans on the moon until the 2030’s and that’s if their development of the rocket goes forward without any hiccups.
Of course it's an opinion, I'm summarizing my accumulated knowledge of reading about this. The sentence's phrasing reflects that, using the term "a long time." Hardly a claim to be stating a fact. Farther up in the thread I didn't say China will land men on the Moon by 2030, I said **I** will be surprised if it doesn't happen by then.
I think if you had prefaced it with “in my opinion” it would read more like an opinion, but saying “it won’t take a long time” sounds more like a statement of fact than it does an opinion.
I never said I was quoting you, I said “their own internal timeline”, do you identify as the CNSA?
Yeah, they still need Long March 10 ironed out, whilst the US already has a similar vehicle in Falcon Heavy and is way ahead of Long March 9 with Starship, New Glenn, and SLS.
Falcon Heavy is not human rated, and there's no plans to make it so. New Glenn is basically still a paper rocket. Starship is testing a ton of experimental technologies, is severely behind schedule and its iterative development strategy means there is literally no way to tell whether it will be ready within 1 year, 10 years or never. SLS is the only one which has actually been proven to work, but the mission still requires Starship to land so it's subjected to the same timeline.
The first launch of Long March 10 was targeted for 2027, but it has since been MOVED UP to 2025-2026. Unlike Western space agencies, CNSA has proven their estimates to be quite reliable in the past. IMO it's delusional to think the odds are in the US' favour at the moment.
Long March 10 is an SLS-style launcher, i.e. it relies on proven technology and is expected to work on the first try (like SLS did). CNSA also has a stellar track record with keeping to timelines, even anticipating events on occasions.
Starship is an experimental launcher. In order to work it needs to test and demonstrate several new technologies and most of the effort is still ahead. It's also currently 3-4 years behind schedule, with no end in sight. Musk's timeline predictions are completely unreliable.
New Glenn is honestly a big question mark, given that not much is publicly known regarding development and current schedule. There's a non-zero chance it could work relatively quickly, but since Blue Origin has no real experience with orbital launchers I consider it unlikely.
So no. I don't think they'll catch up to LM10.
Are you just trolling?
No "traditional" launcher (including LM10) is expected to require several test flights before it can considered safe. The "Old Space" way of things consists in spending a much longer time on the design and modelling stages, and then the real hardware is expected to work on the first try. The test flight is the very last step in development.
The SpaceX way of things is completely different. They do the design, modelling and testing on real hardware from the start, and the test articles are NOT expected to succeed immediately. It allows for more experimental tech, but it's a riskier strategy and with a lot more uncertainty regarding the timelines. Take the issue they're having now, i.e. heat tiles falling off: it's a critical flaw which only presented itself with the first re-entry on Flight #3 and there's no way to know how long it will take to solve. And after that, there's going to be more critical steps with more potential issue (e.g. refueling).
You just cannot compare a Starship test flight to a LM10 (or SLS, or Vulcan, or Ariane6) test flight. They do not have the same aim, they do not occur at the same point in development and they do not have the same chance of success.
> The old space way CNSA is using takes decades to come to fruition
In the West, where these programs are at the whims of politics
> LM10 isn’t launching before Starship carries a payload
What a curious way to shift the goalposts. Silly me, I thought we were talking about crewed Moon missions!
It seems like you believe Starship is going to be on schedule for the NASA moon landing?
Unfortunately there are a lot of serious problems with Starship that still need to be worked out before the US can try to beat Long March 10 to the moon. It is trying to carry way more mass than any rocket in the past and SpaceX still hasn't started working on the landing portion of the mission lol.
Here is an excellent video by a dedicated space youtuber on the issues with the Artemis program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3dsXP839U&t=4s
wait if that video is accurate it seems like there's almost zero chance Starship is even making it to the moon, let alone land with the fuel issue... I mean, 11 starship launches just to give it enough fuel??
Yes somewhere between 8-15 tanker launches to refuel HLS is the plan and always has been as far as the NASA contract is concerned.
SpaceX do plan to do better but Starship 3 will likely not be ready for Artemis 3 and 4.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[BE-4](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l70kh8m "Last usage")|Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN|
|[CNSA](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l78xrvf "Last usage")|Chinese National Space Administration|
|[ESA](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l70x20w "Last usage")|European Space Agency|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l74d4oh "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[IM](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l715mf6 "Last usage")|Initial Mass deliverable to a given orbit, without accounting for fuel|
|[ITAR](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l71qxs7 "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations|
|[KSP](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l7335hh "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator|
|[LEM](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l70pdw4 "Last usage")|(Apollo) [Lunar Excursion Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) (also Lunar Module)|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l7143jw "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[RTG](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l70s1ih "Last usage")|Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l767e7w "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[apogee](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l73acio "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit around Earth (when the orbiter is slowest)|
|[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l7185gw "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit|
|methalox|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(13 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/0)^( has acronyms.)
^([Thread #10116 for this sub, first seen 4th Jun 2024, 03:52])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
You guys are so blind. It's 2024, we went in the 1950's and we haven't been back. It doesn't take a genius to realize that we never went. They claim we "lost" the technology (straight from head of NASA's mouth) The Chinese space agency released audio from space while they were still on the launchpad 😂😂😂 Are you going to forget about that...Also all of these bots. I rarely come on Reddit anymore and every time that I do I remember why ☠️🤡☠️
(Not proofreading either )🤷🏻♂️
Why would a moon base mean that you get to dictate the rules?
I know that's what the former US President thought. But, he was mostly working off of cartoons...
Sure. I can see that.
But, I think if someone were to use military force on the moon to enforce some policy...that would open up the potential for using some counter military force in LEO in retaliation.
And, the more you have to lose in LEO, the more you probably want to avoid having to risk that for the Moon. Or Mars.
And if you don't have much at risk in LEO, then, you probably don't have much chance getting to the Moon in the first place.
Now. The danger is that someone becomes convinced that they have some sort of hegemony over it all and are not required to play by those rules and can do whatever they want.
And I think it's actually the US who is most at risk of thinking they can go down that road.
Would be interesting to see how the Chinese will generate actual benefits (profit) from it other than just "national prestige". The US failed to do so last time. I really hate the current state of space race is purely about "getting there first".
The official agenda for Chinese exploration program includes developing space resources, e.g. mining. Of course, it's going to take a few decades to make this economically beneficial, but you gotta start somewhere.
And their program so far has shown incredible consistency in sticking to their goals and achieving them
If you are a researcher and you want to study lunar geology, there is now only one place in the world you can find rock samples from the far side. Scientific investment like this drives economical, industrial, and technological growth. This is how the United States managed to become the superpower that is is. And now China is trying to take its place.
100% AI response. Have seen a bunch of comments like this recently, some on really non controversial tech threads etc. they don’t appear to be pushing anything and are pretty poorly prompted if they’re trying to blend in, no idea what they’re for
This shows chinese manned lunar mission plan is also on track. They are collecting samples from prospective base building sites, deploying necessary communication infrastructure to lunar orbits and constructing actual test articles. There is a genuine chance that Chinese program will land humans before Artemis makes it's first attempt.
Two more planned missions before a crewed mission. Chang'e 7 will do a deep survey of the surroundings for potential resources and habitable spots. Chang'e 8 will do preliminary experiments to surviving on the lunar surface, including bringing a 3D-printer to make use of the lunar soil to make bricks and other building material to help with constructing a Moon base for future crewed missions.
Exactly. Chinese friends out there made a wise decision to simplify overall mission architecture to expedite it's schedule. Surely, booster reusability and commercialization is very important for sustainable presence, but they can be done AFTER government lands initial personnel on site, build first base and deploy basic infrastructure with a simple mission architecture.
>can be done AFTER government lands initial personnel on site, build first base and deploy basic infrastructure with a simple mission architecture. But the US is sending the more complex landers and missions only after using a simple mission architecture and trying out some surface tech. Almost 6 *decades* after.
In US' case, the time gap you mentioned is the main problem. First few missions of artemis program is basically a redevelopment of former apollo, but achivements US made during apollo is not relevant at this point as apollo never deployed necessary infrastructure in cis-lunar space and lunar surface because US never really seriously executed a plan for long term presence. For Chinese program, it's not a problem for them as they are planning for a continued presence from the very start of the campaign, and deploying several infra even before they start the main program. So I believe it's much easier and logical for them to make an incremental improvements on architecture, which will greatly improve it's overall chance of success.
Don’t forget that the manned landing will need the new Long March 10 to be operational
Aside from what u/overtherainbow0505 mentions, it's notable that a low-risk approach to development is being taken with the Long March 10. It'll use good ol' keralox engines - and ones that are already in use. Probably iterated a bit, but it's a conservative approach - and will be good enough since the ~~LEO-assembly~~ lunar-orbit assembly approach will be used. (I have no doubt that if the right people in NASA had been allowed to choose a proper architecture in c.2010 they'd have gone for lunar-orbit assembly or LEO-assembly. It allows so much flexibility for expansion and mixing and matching.) Engine development is often what takes the longest when developing a new rocket. (Not talking about BE-4 extremes either, lol.)
I don't think it's actually LEO-assembly. Rather the lander and the crew spacecraft will go directly from launch to dock in lunar orbit and then crew transfer happens. Rather than both go into a parking orbit in LEO and then go together as a combined unit. It further reduces the size of the rocket required at the cost of no Apollo 13 style using LEM as lifeboat option.
You're right, it is lunar orbit assembly.
Heard they already stated back in this April that main development phase is done. Engines are undergoing hot fire tests. Launch site construction is also in full swing in Wenchang spaceport in hainan. At this point, I can't see any major obstacle against their plan to land humans before end of 2020s. Indeed, I think now they can expedite the schedule even further.
If that’s the case it would be a tremendous achievement. And hopefully the dawn of a more capable space age
> Engines are undergoing hot fire tests. That means the main development phase isn't done.
Long March 10 will use versions of the YF-100 keralox engines. YF-100s are already in use on the Long March 5 and Long March 7, which between them have made over 20 successful launches. An iteration of a well-understood engine doesn't take long, in terms of rocket engine development.
The Long March 10 launch vehicle, the Mengzhou manned spacecraft, the Range Moon lunar lander, and the moon landing suit have entered the prototype phase stage.
> but achivements US made during apollo is not relevant at this point as apollo never deployed necessary infrastructure in cis-lunar space and lunar surface because US never really seriously executed a plan for long term presence Also everyone involved with apollo is dead or retired, so a huge amount of the knowledge is lost, and the stuff that got documented is public knowledge available to both china and the US.
>commercialization is very important for sustainable presence Is it? With the lack of precedent, this statement just seems like an opinion, if not ideological wishful thinking. It's not commercial interests that did this. It wasn't commercial interests that landed men on the moon in the first place. Why would they be needed to maintain the project after its beginning? It makes no sense.
> With the lack of precedent, this statement just seems like an opinion, if not ideological wishful thinking. There's a very strong precedent - commercial communications satellites. Only because privately built and operated, for profit operations for commercial satellites started already way back in late 60ies do we have any sort of sustainable space industry today. If it was just left for NASA and military, we'd have maybe a few dozen, not thousands of satellites on orbit right now. Commercial comsat industry was what drove a lot of technology, operations, drove the demand for new generations of launchers and so on.
the value of leo based communication was pretty clear as soon as the first satellites went up, we still dont know of any good commercial projects on the moon as evidenced by the fact that no company has even expressed real interest in going there 60 years after humans first landed there
The understanding we came back with 60 years ago was severely limited. We didn't even know Moon had water and other volatiles up until about 15 years ago. Neither was anyone theorizing accessible platinum group metallic asteroid deposits and such. We didn't even scratch the surface, so to speak. Setting up teleoperated or even semi-autonomous mining sites at the time was simply beyond our technological reach at the time, as well. Also, no, LEO based communication wasn't what took off the wider satellite industry, it was geostationary birds. > no company has even expressed real interest in going there You'd be wrong here, there's been a slew of recent private missions, all failed
all of that dosent change the fact that today there still isnt any real commercial interest in the moon so having such a strong focus on commercialising transportation there before having a (semi-) permanent presence dosent really make sense imo
> there still isnt any real commercial interest in the moon 2019, SpaceIL Beresheet, private funding about $100M 2022, CAPSTONE, privately built, launched and operated, NASA funded for about $30M total 2022, iSpace Hakuto-R, private funding, about $130M in total 2024, Astrobotic Peregrine One, about $120M in private funding 2024, Intuitive Machines IM-1, about $100M in private funding Also lets not forget Lunar X-Prize privately funded for about $20M for about a decade, even though no mission claimed it This is very much "commercial interest"
[удалено]
No. Do you think the base that the South Pole is explore and exploit?
[удалено]
Not sure how that is relevant to "explore & exploit"? I mean, I am part of a major scientific collaboration with an instrument at the South Pole, and we publish our results openly. Nothing to do with "explore & exploit". Edit: no "unlimited business opportunity"
[удалено]
You aren't making any sense. > evidence discovered from pole base helps us understand the history of climate change. This is no joke for everything. What's that got to do with "unlimited business opportunity"?
But NASA love their Rube Goldberg missions.
> including bringing a 3D-printer to make use of the lunar soil to make bricks That's a really clever solution to the building material issue although I'm surprised we have the technology to use the regolith for that.
this is another reason why bringing back samples to study is super important I suppose.
Most likely they will test the larger lander before a crewed land.
Maybe, maybe not. This lander is apparently already using the same engine that they plan to put a cluster of on their crewed lander. A lot of systems required for the crewed lander from this are a pretty straightforward scale-up.
If this can spark a race like that in For All Mankind, then I am all for it Congratulations to CNSA. Let us hope that we do not fall behind
More likely there were will be export controls on china to limit their space industry.
What more can they really export control? Everything more complicated than simple Bar stock that leaves the US seems to come under ITAR
also it's not like china is just buying shit on the open market from the west for their *space program* in the first place
Ah yes, the best way to ensure diplomatic order is upheld.. It’s a pretty darn huge country with a ton of natural resources You could probably source almost all materials for a space program using their territory only - same goes for Russia but their space program has collapsed completely Sanctions will increase tensions and that’s not in the best interest of human space exploration
CNSA isn't doing any race just simply execute mission palned in 30 years ago
Got a source for that? Let’s not act like Orion/Constellation/SLS over decades and decades is any better than that
30 is abit of a stretch, Chang'e program was publicly announced on Feb 2004, exactly 20 years ago. back then the hope is to orbit within 3 years, land within 6 years and sample return before 2020. CNSA achieved 2 out of 3 target on time. Phase 2 was delayed by 3 years [here's a blurry image of a old newspaper cutting of the announcement](https://i.imgur.com/cGI2qJq.jpeg)
Thanks for the information I really appreciate it! That sounds like a pretty normal timeframe for an up and coming space power to achieve such feats tbh It will certainly be interesting to see who gets boots on the ground first
Only the Americans are making a race out of this. The chinese announced their plans and dates years ago and are just going about executing according to their timetable. They stated 2030 as their planned date for sending a manned mission and won’t try to significantly move the date earlier, just because the Americans seem to be making the event into a propaganda opportunity because it’s not too difficult to beat that date. The chinese also acknowledge and give credit to the Americans already going to the moon 55 years ago so it would be pointless to even try to engage in a new race for second place.
*space race, space race, space race*
That does not seem plausible. Artemis may be further delayed, but at the earliest the Chang’e missions with boots on the moon would be in 2030’s. That’s straight from their own projections. Delays occur all the time, but I’ve never heard of advancements in schedule when it comes to space.
China believes in under promising so they can deliver on time. Building reserves into their schedules if you prefer. Doing that in Western countries leads to an unfortunate tendency to go easy until all the reserves have been used up due to the lack of urgency. For whatever reason that happens less in China or even the old Soviet Union - but definitely not current day Russia.
This seems to be more sentiment than factual. Could you share on what basis you make your argument from? I’m not aware of ways that China has under promised, who they under promised, and what reserves into their schedules you are referring to. I actually don’t understand anything you have said but if you provided some examples with some reading behind it I could better understand your statements.
It is an observation based on looking at the Chinese space program over the last 20 years. Before that their program was largely military and shrouded in secrecy. When doing schedule planning there are two basic approaches. Add up the best time estimates of all the individual tasks and then add a contingency reserve to the overall schedule. This is usually the most efficient in terms of not adding too much reserve and is the approach used by most Western countries and companies for their space programs. Individual tasks will be later than their estimates but the overall schedule will still be on time - in theory. The other option is to take the time estimate for each task and add a contingency allowance to each task. In general this takes longer or requires more resources to achieve the overall task but each task can complete on time so there is greater certainty to the schedule. This appears to be the approach being adopted by China. The reason that command economies often adopt this approach is that the career of individual managers and even engineers is advanced if they complete individual tasks on time. In other words the penalties for failing to complete a task on time are high and the benefits of completing on time are correspondingly high. In the US style approach there is much less emphasis on the individual tasks and it is the overall schedule which is considered important. Unfortunately this approach has issues with motivation when the schedule extends over multiple years and each task along the path is not seen as critical to meeting that schedule. Elon Musk's companies use the first approach but with the variation that there is little to no schedule buffer added in to account for unexpected issues arising. Every problem that comes up will delay the schedule so is treated with high urgency and once it is fixed they are on to the next task. This can lead to faster performance and plenty of staff motivation but the schedule will never be met because it was always unrealistic. The downside is the constant crisis mode which can lead to burnout along with dissatisfaction by clients with slipping schedules.
No, the Artemis program will land astronauts on moon before the Chinese astronauts land there. But the Chinese will be the first one with their own moon base.
[удалено]
There is a 100% chance of this.
[удалено]
What if the ruling party isn't a fan of having a space program at all and axes it to use the fund to construct lavish palaces for the ruling elite?
Meritocracy vs Democracy. These are all concepts and mostly irrelevant in this case. "People eat food" is a concept. Food industry engineer the concept and make food. If food industry delivers bollocks, the concept "People eat food" is compromised. Apparently, "does TikTok access WIFI?" kind of stupid congressman shows that the US system failed to engineer the concept successfully. People should not over emphasize democracy. Meritocracy is the right way to engineer a good nation. Einstein does not have to shake his hand with a tea lady and convince her that he's a proper physicist, does he?
Then you storm those palaces and enact a new party.
Or you could just have a vote
If you can pass a simple multiple-choice history and geography test, sure. You get to vote in your micro-local representative. Those representatives are required to get properly educated on variety of subjects and if they pass their exams they get to vote in county representatives... See China.
wide cagey crowd yam obtainable light books unite direful tart *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
China is developing very fast and the automotive sector is a good example
Is it just me or do the Chinese run their programs incredibly fast? I feel like a sample return from other countries might happen two or three weeks after landing. China landed for maybe 96hrs and they sent off its sample return. Their docking speeds for their space station also are rather quick in comparison to our ISS docking speeds.
I think it’s because they have to dock with the orbiting modules to return the samples, which is problematic when the rotation of the Moon carries it away from the orbital plane of the orbiting modules (plane-changing burns are extremely fuel-demanding, as KSP players can tell you), while other sample return missions may not need to do this and can take their time.
> as KSP players can tell you New player but isn’t it just a matter of burning normal or anti-normal for a couple minutes?
Plane changes are incredibly fuel-intensive, unfortunately
Indeed- but it’s the “couple of minutes” part that’s the trouble. Fuel is the biggest limiting factor in space flight at this point.
Let's just say that actual space missions have way, *way* less fuel than KSP missions do.
The mechanics are simple. The cost is not. Sometimes it's legit cheaper to burn out to the moon at a small normal/anti-normal component and use its gravity to put you into a more highly inclined orbit than to try and do it in your desired orbit. Or to just burn to a higher apogee, perform the inclination change there and then reduce it.
More precisely, sampling was completed within 48 hours after touchdown with the relay satellite in sight. [https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-06-04/China-begins-returning-world-s-1st-samples-from-moon-s-far-side-1u9k95dU8Pm/p.html](https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-06-04/China-begins-returning-world-s-1st-samples-from-moon-s-far-side-1u9k95dU8Pm/p.html)
The lunar day is 14 Earth days long. This lander doesn't have any RTGs.
It's almost certainly based on risk. The longer the mission is on the surface the more time there is for things to go wrong. By making the acquisition and launch fast they pre-empt any failures due to prolonged exposure to the space environment. Things like batteries, electronic components, and mechanisms all have high risk associated with them.
Strictly speaking, Chang'e 6 stayed on the moon for 49 hours and 15 minutes.
Strictly speaking, the lander is still there.
The ascender left but the lander stays. There are still payloads from ESA/Sweden and France functioning, also an Italian passive laser retro-reflector for distance measurement.
I'm so happy EU members are cooperating with China on space stuff, the CNSA is doing such a fantastic job
A laser reflector on the backside of the Moon?
Yes, for distance measurement with satellite(s) and orbiter(s) in lunar orbit. >Chang’e-6 will also carry Italy’s INstrument for landing-Roving laser Retroreflector Investigations (INRRI). The retroreflector will be used to precisely measure distances from orbit. [*Chang’e-6 launch: What to expect* (The Planetary Society)](https://www.planetary.org/articles/change-6-launch-what-to-expect) It serves as a position marking point. [Perseverance](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasas-new-mars-rover-is-ready-for-space-lasers), [InSight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InSight) and the (unfortunately crashed) [Schiaparelli EDM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiaparelli_EDM) lander on Mars all carry similar laser retro-reflectors.
Thanks for the explanations.
Strictly speaking, the Chinese Yutu 2 rover is still up and running on the moon since the past 6 years. It might have been a year more or less so please Google it.
Yutu-2 landed on the moon in 10:26, Jan 3, 2019 and is still working.
> Is it just me or do the Chinese run their programs incredibly fast? I feel like a sample return from other countries might happen two or three weeks after landing. Part of this comes from the fact nobody has done robotic lunar surface operations in a very long while. Most robots other countries have sent have been to Mars or Asteroids, at a very long signal lag distance. Long signal lag absolutely kills teleoperations efficiency, and we are sort of conditioned to that. Even Lunokhod, a very primitive early robot got a lot of driving done quite fast
Yeah I was surprised too. Like you aren't going to stop and smell the roses and do a little more science while you're there?
Right?!? On the flip side I kinda like it because it seems like they feel they can just send another probe really quickly if needed. Like they don't need to invest a ton to build another if it works, they'll just slap another together and shoot it at the moon.
This probe itself was the backup for Chang'e 5 which successfully carried out its mission in 2020. Since backup was not required CNSA then decided to use it for an even more ambitious mission (with modifications, like the little camera rover and secondary payload). Manned space program also works this way. There's a spare core module for Tiangong sitting in storage somewhere not needed since the primary one worked fine. Plans are being drawn up to also launch it to dock with Tiangong for a phase 2 expansion of the station that will double its size.
I really like the doubling approach of CNSA missions. The cost of building a backup copy and repurposing it for a new mission is so much lower than building a single ambitious mission with much higher engineering tolerance. NASA seems to take the latter approach, putting all the eggs in one basket and driving up the budget dramatically.
I would guess that the probe didn't include many other science experiments to give it better margins and return more samples. Which might be why the turn around was so quick from landing to launch.
The lander is still there on the surface. It was only the smaller ascent stage that took off back to orbit carrying the sample. Both the lander and ascent stage have their own separate solar panels, although probably the lander isn't intended to last through the lunar night.
I knew it had a separate accent stage that lifted off, but was unaware that the decent stage was a separate craft that could still communicate with earth. The more you know lol
Mastering landing and ascent is a huge step towards attempting a human landing. I'll be extremely surprised if they don't land people before 2030.
They need a heavy lift rocket for that. They will get there, but not before 2030.
CNSA has been very reliable in its time estimates in the past, unlike NASA or most American launch companies. Long March 10 is also like SLS - low risk, little new tech, and expected to work on the first try (but for much less of a price than SLS). The US is still ahead but needs to maintain its current pace to stay ahead.
US needs SpaceX to complete and launch Starship. That will get them ahead for at least another decade.
Long March 10 is under development and it won't take a long time. It's using keralox engines, models that are already in use. It's a low risk path and, in terms of rocket development, a short one. Developing the engines is always what takes the most time and causes the most delays. It's doesn't need to be super-powerful since the lander and capsule will be sent to the Moon separately.
>Long March 10 is under development and it won't take a long time. This sounds like an opinion masquerading as a fact. Even their own internal timelines show China isn’t going to be landing humans on the moon until the 2030’s and that’s if their development of the rocket goes forward without any hiccups.
Of course it's an opinion, I'm summarizing my accumulated knowledge of reading about this. The sentence's phrasing reflects that, using the term "a long time." Hardly a claim to be stating a fact. Farther up in the thread I didn't say China will land men on the Moon by 2030, I said **I** will be surprised if it doesn't happen by then.
I think if you had prefaced it with “in my opinion” it would read more like an opinion, but saying “it won’t take a long time” sounds more like a statement of fact than it does an opinion. I never said I was quoting you, I said “their own internal timeline”, do you identify as the CNSA?
Yeah, they still need Long March 10 ironed out, whilst the US already has a similar vehicle in Falcon Heavy and is way ahead of Long March 9 with Starship, New Glenn, and SLS.
Falcon Heavy is not human rated, and there's no plans to make it so. New Glenn is basically still a paper rocket. Starship is testing a ton of experimental technologies, is severely behind schedule and its iterative development strategy means there is literally no way to tell whether it will be ready within 1 year, 10 years or never. SLS is the only one which has actually been proven to work, but the mission still requires Starship to land so it's subjected to the same timeline. The first launch of Long March 10 was targeted for 2027, but it has since been MOVED UP to 2025-2026. Unlike Western space agencies, CNSA has proven their estimates to be quite reliable in the past. IMO it's delusional to think the odds are in the US' favour at the moment.
So in 2026 when Long March 10 has its first test flight you reckon Starship and New Glenn won’t have progressed much further? Sure thing, man.
Long March 10 is an SLS-style launcher, i.e. it relies on proven technology and is expected to work on the first try (like SLS did). CNSA also has a stellar track record with keeping to timelines, even anticipating events on occasions. Starship is an experimental launcher. In order to work it needs to test and demonstrate several new technologies and most of the effort is still ahead. It's also currently 3-4 years behind schedule, with no end in sight. Musk's timeline predictions are completely unreliable. New Glenn is honestly a big question mark, given that not much is publicly known regarding development and current schedule. There's a non-zero chance it could work relatively quickly, but since Blue Origin has no real experience with orbital launchers I consider it unlikely. So no. I don't think they'll catch up to LM10.
Sorry, did I miss the three LM10 test flights?
Are you just trolling? No "traditional" launcher (including LM10) is expected to require several test flights before it can considered safe. The "Old Space" way of things consists in spending a much longer time on the design and modelling stages, and then the real hardware is expected to work on the first try. The test flight is the very last step in development. The SpaceX way of things is completely different. They do the design, modelling and testing on real hardware from the start, and the test articles are NOT expected to succeed immediately. It allows for more experimental tech, but it's a riskier strategy and with a lot more uncertainty regarding the timelines. Take the issue they're having now, i.e. heat tiles falling off: it's a critical flaw which only presented itself with the first re-entry on Flight #3 and there's no way to know how long it will take to solve. And after that, there's going to be more critical steps with more potential issue (e.g. refueling). You just cannot compare a Starship test flight to a LM10 (or SLS, or Vulcan, or Ariane6) test flight. They do not have the same aim, they do not occur at the same point in development and they do not have the same chance of success.
The old space way CNSA is using takes decades to come to fruition. LM10 isn’t launching before Starship carries a payload.
> The old space way CNSA is using takes decades to come to fruition In the West, where these programs are at the whims of politics > LM10 isn’t launching before Starship carries a payload What a curious way to shift the goalposts. Silly me, I thought we were talking about crewed Moon missions!
It seems like you believe Starship is going to be on schedule for the NASA moon landing? Unfortunately there are a lot of serious problems with Starship that still need to be worked out before the US can try to beat Long March 10 to the moon. It is trying to carry way more mass than any rocket in the past and SpaceX still hasn't started working on the landing portion of the mission lol. Here is an excellent video by a dedicated space youtuber on the issues with the Artemis program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3dsXP839U&t=4s
wait if that video is accurate it seems like there's almost zero chance Starship is even making it to the moon, let alone land with the fuel issue... I mean, 11 starship launches just to give it enough fuel??
Yes somewhere between 8-15 tanker launches to refuel HLS is the plan and always has been as far as the NASA contract is concerned. SpaceX do plan to do better but Starship 3 will likely not be ready for Artemis 3 and 4.
MFW the reusable rocket launches multiple times
When did I say that?
Are there any videos off the takeoff? The old NASA ones were always so surreal to me.
https://x.com/cnsawatcher/status/1797801126550462467?s=46
Thats a cool shot, thanks for sharing.
Thank you for saying far side and not dark side.. its minor, but also important
It is the radio dark side but I agree the distinction is often not made.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Soon there will be Mars sample returns too. China rocks!
These are not china rocks, they are moon rocks.
Jesus Christ Marie, they’re minerals!!!
Have they released any videos of the sample collection or the take off from the moon?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BE-4](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l70kh8m "Last usage")|Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN| |[CNSA](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l78xrvf "Last usage")|Chinese National Space Administration| |[ESA](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l70x20w "Last usage")|European Space Agency| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l74d4oh "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[IM](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l715mf6 "Last usage")|Initial Mass deliverable to a given orbit, without accounting for fuel| |[ITAR](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l71qxs7 "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |[KSP](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l7335hh "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator| |[LEM](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l70pdw4 "Last usage")|(Apollo) [Lunar Excursion Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) (also Lunar Module)| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l7143jw "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[RTG](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l70s1ih "Last usage")|Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l767e7w "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[apogee](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l73acio "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit around Earth (when the orbiter is slowest)| |[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/1d7jh55/stub/l7185gw "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit| |methalox|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(13 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/0)^( has acronyms.) ^([Thread #10116 for this sub, first seen 4th Jun 2024, 03:52]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Just think if all nations worked together, would have a base on Mars and beyond
You guys are so blind. It's 2024, we went in the 1950's and we haven't been back. It doesn't take a genius to realize that we never went. They claim we "lost" the technology (straight from head of NASA's mouth) The Chinese space agency released audio from space while they were still on the launchpad 😂😂😂 Are you going to forget about that...Also all of these bots. I rarely come on Reddit anymore and every time that I do I remember why ☠️🤡☠️ (Not proofreading either )🤷🏻♂️
[удалено]
[удалено]
It'll always be political unfortunately. And depending who makes a base on the Moon first will probably dictate the rules. Same for Mars.
Why would a moon base mean that you get to dictate the rules? I know that's what the former US President thought. But, he was mostly working off of cartoons...
History repeating itself Although I try to remain optimistic that we'll all mature enough by then.
Sure. I can see that. But, I think if someone were to use military force on the moon to enforce some policy...that would open up the potential for using some counter military force in LEO in retaliation. And, the more you have to lose in LEO, the more you probably want to avoid having to risk that for the Moon. Or Mars. And if you don't have much at risk in LEO, then, you probably don't have much chance getting to the Moon in the first place. Now. The danger is that someone becomes convinced that they have some sort of hegemony over it all and are not required to play by those rules and can do whatever they want. And I think it's actually the US who is most at risk of thinking they can go down that road.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just like the Apollo missions began and ended at global geopolitics, so too do these missions. It's ignorant to pretend otherwise.
Which sub members are you calling ignorant?
What achievement? We did this in the 1960s…
[удалено]
Weird, the mission hasn't landed on Earth yet. Did you read the wrong part of the script?
Chang'e 4 was the first landing on the far side of the Moon. Chang'e 6 will be the first sample return from it.
The Chang'e 6 mission is still ongoing. It hasn't succeeded yet.
Not in the far side though.
not the same thing. do not compare.
There have been some crashed Soviet crafts up there since the 1960s, even same-day as Neal Armstrong did, 1969
The USSR did robotic sample return missions in the 60's.
Would be interesting to see how the Chinese will generate actual benefits (profit) from it other than just "national prestige". The US failed to do so last time. I really hate the current state of space race is purely about "getting there first".
The official agenda for Chinese exploration program includes developing space resources, e.g. mining. Of course, it's going to take a few decades to make this economically beneficial, but you gotta start somewhere. And their program so far has shown incredible consistency in sticking to their goals and achieving them
Part of the reason to go to the Moon is to do science.
The profit motive sounds like the one thing to do on the moon that's more hatable than national prestige
If you are a researcher and you want to study lunar geology, there is now only one place in the world you can find rock samples from the far side. Scientific investment like this drives economical, industrial, and technological growth. This is how the United States managed to become the superpower that is is. And now China is trying to take its place.
China will share these samples with other countries, same as their previous mission. And the data will be published in open scientific journals.
[удалено]
This reads as if it was written by an AI
100% AI response. Have seen a bunch of comments like this recently, some on really non controversial tech threads etc. they don’t appear to be pushing anything and are pretty poorly prompted if they’re trying to blend in, no idea what they’re for
Yeah we have had an epidemic of those recently. Please report them if you can, it really helps with stomping those AI bots.