-
I don't believe it!Quote
China Becomes First Country To Land A Spacecraft On The Far Side Of The Moon
01/03/2019 01:08
China became the first nation to land a spacecraft on the far side of the moon, the country’s state-run media announced Thursday, a milestone that solidifies Beijing’s ambitions to become a world leader in space exploration.
The probe, dubbed the Chang’e-4, touched down at 10:26 a.m. Beijing time, landing on the moon’s dark side, which forever faces away from the Earth. It’s the first lunar landing since 2013, when the Chinese Space Agency sent another craft to the moon, the Chang’e-3, becoming the third nation to send a vehicle to the moon, after the United States and the former Soviet Union.
Chang’e-4, which is carrying a rover that will explore the far side, has already sent images back to Earth. China sent a separate satellite into space in May to serve as a communications relay with the rover because being on the dark side of the moon prevents a direct signal from being sent back to Earth.
China has announced bold plans for its space program and plans to send another probe, the Chang’e-5, to the moon next year. That craft would be the first to bring moon samples back to Earth since 1976.
The New York Times also noted that China could soon be the only nation to have a space station in orbit. President Donald Trump has considered ending funding for the International Space Station by 2025 even as he touts America’s new Space Force. That would leave China’s Tiangong-2 as the only such structure in existence.
The United States remains the only country to send humans to the moon, but Trump has said he wants to send Americans back to the lunar surface in the future.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-lands-spacecraft-far-side-moon_us_5c2da202e4b08aaf7a95d583 -
Have faith
-
yes, they do.
Ultimately, the far side of the moon will be an ideal site for observing the rest of the universe without radio interference from the Earth.
They do ? I can't find any reference on this, as Chinese orbiting satellites sent are not there anymore.
Example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program -
yes, they do.
Ultimately, the far side of the moon will be an ideal site for observing the rest of the universe without radio interference from the Earth.
They do ? I can't find any reference on this, as Chinese orbiting satellites sent are not there anymore.
Example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program
Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_4
Queqiao relay satellite has been in halo orbit of the Moons L2 point since June.
There's also the Longjiang-2 orbiting the moon, although strictly speaking it's using the moon as a shield, not actually exploring it.
I'm not sure what happened to the spacecraft that carried the lander. I haven't seen anything about that. Details are a little slim on the Chinese programs. -
Several years ago some guy in the RTLSDR community was successfully able to receive the "Jade Rabbit" (yes that really is its name- see ) Chinese lunar missions (very weakly) using two off-the-shelf SDRs and a re-purposed satellite dish.
It would be impossible to fake that. -
I call BS, you can't land on the dark side of the moon, it's too dark!
-
I call BS, you can't land on the dark side of the moon, it's too dark!
Most street lighting equipment is now made in China. Now we can see that the primary motivation in developing this industry was to be able to light landing sites on the dark side of the moon. -
I call BS, you can't land on the dark side of the moon, it's too dark!
There's no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact its all dark. -
10/10 for the Pink Floyd reference
-
The obvious question now is: did the Chinese land on the dark side of the moon for real?
-
This is an amazing thing that Apollo program used (and planning for Chang'e 5 as well) below concept has been proposed... 1919 (!!!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvousQuoteLunar orbit rendezvous was first known to be proposed in 1919 by Soviet engineer Yuri Kondratyuk, as the most economical way of sending a human on a round-trip journey to the Moon.
-
Well, everyone interested in rocketry and human spaceflight should really know about Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.
The really uncomfortable part of the early US space program is how much of it relied on Operation Paperclip scientists, and the results from human experimentation by Nazi scientists (especially high altitude experiments that essentially defined the survivability envelope). I do believe, but don't have any references at hand, that Nazis also did lethal radiation exposure experiments (initial LD50 equivalent doses), and that their results were essential in choosing an acceptable risk practical trajectories through the Van Allen belts (avoiding the inner belt, and only passing through the outer edge of the outer belt).
I suspect that most who believe that sending humans to the moon was/is too dangerous, simply do not understand how thorough the human experiments Nazis did were, and how much of a boost they gave to human spaceflight.
(I myself am quite conflicted about it, because those results -- brutally and inhumanely obtained by essentially torturing innocents to death! -- gave a real, significant boost to understanding of what humans can endure. How do you express the importance of those results correctly, while at the same time pointing out how absolutely horrible the experiments were? It certainly is an intriguing topic to discuss regarding human morality, price of individual human life, and the age-old question of whether it is evil to torture a few to death when the results could potentially save hundreds, if not thousands? I myself don't have any answers to that.) -
i think the Nazi did a lot that potentially helped medical science as well.
-
(I myself am quite conflicted about it, because those results -- brutally and inhumanely obtained by essentially torturing innocents to death! -- gave a real, significant boost to understanding of what humans can endure. How do you express the importance of those results correctly, while at the same time pointing out how absolutely horrible the experiments were? It certainly is an intriguing topic to discuss regarding human morality, price of individual human life, and the age-old question of whether it is evil to torture a few to death when the results could potentially save hundreds, if not thousands? I myself don't have any answers to that.)
How much "data" was obtained at Hiroshima? -
The obvious question now is: did the Chinese land on the dark side of the moon for real?
They went to the dark side and stole all the cookies. -
While the Nazi experiments probably did contribute, there was a huge body of knowledge created by explorers, both government supported and private. Google "Wiley Post", one of the guys who developed pressure suits. Or look into the test pilots who rode rocket sleds with their faces in the wind. Or Google "Orville Anderson and Albert Stevens", then Dr. John Paul Strap and finally David Simmons 1957 flight.
People since the end of WWII have expressed ethical concerns about using the Nazi data, and in many cases didn't - either because it violated their ethical standards, or was deemed untrustworthy. Many of the experiments were more in the nature of torture than controlled scientific experiments. Also the question of whether data coming from a starved, beaten and totally demoralized human being is representative of normal human responses. -
How much "data" was obtained at Hiroshima?
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.While the Nazi experiments probably did contribute, there was a huge body of knowledge created by explorers, both government supported and private.
The survivability results were essential for two reasons: it gave spacecraft designers and mission planners known absolute limits (acceleration, pressure change rates, radiation doses) they had to avoid, but probably even more importantly, they could present their plans with real-world numbers that show the astronauts had good odds of surviving, to those holding the purse strings. (As you know, politicians are loathe to associate with anything that could end up a public disaster, because that would hurt their careers).Also the question of whether data coming from a starved, beaten and totally demoralized human being is representative of normal human responses.
For survivability (LD50 equivalent), you could argue their results were conservative; that their estimates were valid baselines, with healthy humans having even better odds. I do believe the Paperclip scientists did.
You would be surprised to find out how many of the known lethality limits can be traced to Nazi human experiments. In particular, I wonder how big an impact they had on 1969 Evaluation on Drug Activities, pharmacometrics, by Paget and Burns et al.; not as a source for their numbers, but as a confirmation of the validity of their model. As I understand it, it is still cited as the source for the scaling coefficients between LD50 doses in different species, including humans.
-
Have faith
Without engineering details, that's what's left for us. I hope that one day we will be allowed to discuss it openly and even reenact the deed.The obvious question now is: did the Chinese land on the dark side of the moon for real?
The not so obvious question is: given the amount of precautions the Chinese took to land an unmanned rover on the moon having the state-of-the-art technology of 2019, is it reasonable to think that the US landed two PEOPLE on the moon 50 years ago?
It's just a question. As Richard Feynman used to say: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
Or, in another memorable quote of his: “We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.” -
I think Richard Feynman was trying to build human nature into his statements of fact.
-
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
Oh I thought you were intrigued to discuss this. I guess I was wrong. -
Does it matter whether it was the Nazis or the Americans? In the aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing the survivors were treated abysmally, trying to extract information about the effects of radiation on human bodies.How much "data" was obtained at Hiroshima?
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
-
Well, to nitpick, Apollo 11 wasn't quite 50 years ago!Have faith
Without engineering details, that's what's left for us. I hope that one day we will be allowed to discuss it openly and even reenact the deed.The obvious question now is: did the Chinese land on the dark side of the moon for real?
The not so obvious question is: given the amount of precautions the Chinese took to land an unmanned rover on the moon having the state-of-the-art technology of 2019, is it reasonable to think that the US landed two PEOPLE on the moon 50 years ago?
The Soviets landed two unmanned rovers on the Moon, in 1970 & 1973 respectively.
Of course, those rovers didn't have anything like the capabilities the Chinese ones have, so it seems likely that much of the effort in the modern ones went towards making sure those enhanced functions were delivered safely----- no lives, but a lot of money & national prestige at stake.
1960s technology did a lot of amazing stuff, like simultaneously threatening us with, & protecting us from, nuclear annihilation.
International airlines managed to navigate effectively & safely over many millions of km in total, over that time.
Nuclear submarines could circumnavigate the world submerged, the first heart transplants had been done.
Does that really sound like a society suffering under the burden of "primitive" technology?QuoteIt's just a question. As Richard Feynman used to say: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
Or, in another memorable quote of his: “We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.” -
The Soviets landed two unmanned rovers on the Moon, in 1970 & 1973 respectively.
Of course, those rovers didn't have anything like the capabilities the Chinese ones have, so it seems likely that much of the effort in the modern ones went towards making sure those enhanced functions were delivered safely----- no lives, but a lot of money & national prestige at stake.
Oh, the Chinese one will send a lunar sample back too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16 -
The moon landing conspiracy believers have released a faked NASA film that they claim shows how the landing was all done in a studio.
-
I was talking about human experimentation, not war.I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
Oh I thought you were intrigued to discuss this. I guess I was wrong.
Torture, mutilation, rape, and in general, violence towards noncombatants, are usually used as a weapon in war. That is a completely separate topic.
Some of the experiments Nazis did, did have at least a partial scientific purpose. You can argue whether the experiments were done as a weapon of war, or how (un)important the scientific aspect was to those doing the experiments. I am not interested in that discussion, because after three quarters of a century later, it is difficult to see what insight or value that kind of discussion would yield: we do not know their thoughts.
Some of those experiments established the envelope of human survivability/statistical lethal limits; the basis of LCt50.
What intrigues me, is how one should approach those results. On one hand, they were obtained by unforgivable horrible experiments on innocents. On other hand, the results did advance human science, especially the understanding of what humans could and could not endure. On the gripping hand, those results could not be obtained by any other way but lethal experimentation. Would the results be more acceptable if they had experimented on criminals sentenced to death? Volunteers to such do not exist.
Many people have big problems to relate at all to those results. Their contribution to human science is often minimized, probably because the idea of having important results due to what essentially was torturing innocents to death, is so abhorrent. That in my opinion is a healthy response -- but it does not change the facts. The few things I know about lethality in humans (like human-animal LD50 coefficients; i.e. how to map lethality in mice to lethality in humans), all seem to be partially based on those results. Is the correct response to hide those roots? Does that not insult the memory of those innocents that were murdered? Is that not intellectual dishonesty, not acknowledging that to get to where we are now, quite a few innocents have been killed?
Insurance companies, and even governments do the same kind of calculations every day. Pollution limits are typically not those that ensure no deaths; they are based on acceptable risk. How is that "acceptable risk" different from killing innocents in order to obtain valid results? (If we omit unnecessary torture and degradation, that is.)
All this ties in to the original topic, because of the key arguments why some believe US astronauts did not land on the moon; that the landings were faked. In essence, the arguments boil down to "they would not have risked the lifes of the astronauts", or "the astronauts would not have survived". (Anyone who thinks they didn't have the technology (delta-V, to be specific) to do it, only needs to check: they really did.) My belief and understanding is that they very well did risk it, knowingly, and the top politicians even had a hidden backup plan of faking it if the Apollo program failed.
Which, if you think about it, is rather more cold than just faking it.
I didn't know that!
Does it matter whether it was the Nazis or the Americans? In the aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing the survivors were treated abysmally, trying to extract information about the effects of radiation on human bodies.How much "data" was obtained at Hiroshima?
I didn't know Nazis did human experiments at Hiroshima.
I do think it is a bit different, because the bombs were dropped for war reasons, not to get those results.
(Some do believe that most Nazi experiments were just a cover to enjoy torturing innocents to death; I do not agree. I think that the scientists involved really were looking for data, and that the torture and denigration and abysmal treatment was "incidental" -- a result of having dehumanised and demonised the victims at the ideological level. The post-war history of the Paperclip scientists seems to support that view. I know this opinion is offensive to some, but in my opinion, the Nazis were evil because of their ideology; not the other way around. It is the ideology that gets people to do evil things, not evil people who twist "a good ideology like socialism" into evil purposes.)
However, I do agree that discussion regarding the knowledge of the effects of radiation on humans as found from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims is also intriguing. Were they treated badly intentionally, or just because they were in a hurry (as they knew the information obtained could possibly save other lives)? Especially when you have lots of casualties, correctly triaging the patients -- no matter how cruel or unjust -- is key in ensuring maximum survival rate. Or was it because dehumanising the victims is the typical way a normal human being psychologically handles such horrible situations? I'd like to know, but it is kind of a different discussion.