More seriously, I'm excited to see more countries, and more people in general, involved in space exploration.
I also think that instead of pointing to the rover's failure, we shout point to its success: Launching a rover to the moon and getting it to work in any way, shape, or form, is a pretty amazing triumph. Sure, the US did it several decades ago, but not all NASA missions were successful, and it's to be expected that you need a few iterations to get the bugs out.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2014-02/13/c_133111283...
Also consider that, because of the specifics of the Moon's orbit, a given area stays shaded for just over 14 days each month. That's a long time at a very low temperature. Unless a spacecraft has a way to heat itself during the long lunar night, its electronics will self-destruct.
That doesn't give me a good sense because I have no idea how Pluto's average surface temperature compares to typical on-Earth temperatures that I have experienced. This gives me a better sense:
26 K = -247.2 C
But speaking of that: how long is too long to spend at 26K in a vacuum? Are there any good articles/videos that talk about what happens to various materials at such extreme temperatures in a vacuum?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/as...
It's got 100,000 watts of solar power, so that combined with good insulation means it won't freeze as long as the panels keep working...
What about the temperature in Pluto's shaded regions (if there are any)?
• The RTG in Yutu (the rover already up) will last that long
• Yutu does not move, get struck by a meteor, or other normal events in space that will damage it further
• The team who understands Yutu is still around in 5 years
Then China could, in theory:
• Assemble a rover with the repair parts on board
• Launch it to the moon
• Land on the moon intact
• Locate Yutu
• Do a remotely-operated repair
There's a lot of risk in each of those steps. It might be an interesting mission to push the boundaries of tele-operated robotics etc. Realistically it seems less expensive to launch a second rover that has been improved based on the lessons learned from Yutu. Hopefully China can think of lots of things to improve the second time.
Interesting thought experiment, though.
Source: http://www.dvice.com/2014-2-12/chinas-jade-rabbit-lunar-rove...
They had capability to produce required material decades ago.
They also have sufficient nuclear arsenal to warrant maintaining stockpiles of the stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
Do countries typically share what they learn about these failures?
I believe that after Challenger, NASA has even published technical reports regarding all aspects of the cause of failure and the steps to prevent it.
I'm not news hound, but I do spend too much time on tech sites (HN/Reddit) that would report this. I remember years ago mention of China (and India) moon missions. But, really first man mad object to land in 37 years should have been blasted over most news sources.
After shock... "Kick ass, we're (finally) getting back on the moon!"
Many comments thereof lamented the lack of coverage by the mainstream media.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-4-2014/who-fr...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6904717
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7128978
Yes, ISRO (India's space agency) sent an orbiter and impactor to Moon called Chandrayaan-1, back in 2008. NASA and ISRO's instruments on-board Chandrayaan-1 had detected water on Moon.
It's good to see rekindled interest in science missions to satellites and planets. I'm eagerly waiting for ISRO's next Moon mission, Chandrayaan-2, which will have a soft lander and a rover. Probably in 2016 :)
Is anyone here a big follower of the Chinese space programme? I follow "western" space efforts pretty closely, but with heavy military involvement, a preoccupation with face-saving, and the language barrier, I find the Chinese programme nigh on impossible to track. Do they have the same sort of spending split that NASA has with respect to the manned v. unmanned programmes? Or does their unmanned programme get substantially more than a pittance? As things stand, I'm not even able to tell if they are actually serious about space outside of military use, or if it's all just a prestige play. Anyone care to fill in some detail?
I tried to google it with key words like "Chang'e budget", but found nothing useful. However, I did found an article about the history[0]. Here is some fact: Back to 90s, there were Chinese scientists suggesting for lunar exploration. But the projects requires a budget around 1.5B, which was declined by the prime minister LI Peng (Family name first.)
0. http://www.baike.com/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%8E%A2%E6%9C%...
2 NEST to send man to space. Not too bad IMO.
Lunar dust is notoriously abrasive, having formed in a non-erosive setting. It's a well known problem for lunar exploration, and NASA's done a lot of work on it. Not a lot of recent practical experience, of course.
The Chang'e designers must have known about the problem. Apparently they underestimated it, or just missed. Hopefully there's some good lessons learned for future missions. Getting there and working for a lunar day is a pretty good job in itself.
http://gbtimes.com/opinion/jade-rabbit-still-fighting-despit...
Well I mean you can go out and buy ice cream if you're at mission control and not dead. And I guess you can eat some astronaut ice cream as your air runs out or you freeze to death if you are in space.
But this isn't some deserve type thing.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2014-02/13/c_133111283...
Xinhua is adding new info on Twitter:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/9448077/China-sending-jade-ra...
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-26/chinas-jade-...
http://imarstore.blogspot.com/2013/11/technology-china-going...
The question is, why is Europe being nuked in the background? Note how the images are from at least 3 different angles, so it's not like some reporter got a Photoshopped picture ...
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1t37gn/wtf_is_a_mushroo...
0. http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/simp/china/2014/02/140213_yutu...
Jade Rabbit is a figure in Chinese legend, companion of a fairy named Chang'e.
Both of them have nuclear power though (but only PRC has nuclear weapons) and radioactive material in sufficient quantities.
Now it even sounds more like a dildo name.
Actually, it's the other way around. Under a clear sky at the surface of the earth, radiation is much more efficient than convection and conduction to air. This is why objects at the surface readily cool below air temperature at night.
Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/coobod.htm...
The linked example is a person losing heat energy under normal circumstances (23 C ambient, body temperature of 34 C). The example shows that a body loses 17 watts to perspiration, 11 watts to conduction (to the air and environment), and 133 watts to radiation.
Contrary to what many people think, a planet without an atmosphere loses heat to space very efficiently, solely by radiation -- indeed, that mechanism is more efficient in the absence of an atmosphere. But even with an atmosphere, radiation is the major heat loss mechanism, most more efficient than convection.
SpaceX is doing quite well thusfar.
When immersed in a vacuum the conduction and convection heat transfer paths are sharply reduced, so the question then becomes how fast do you cool off via radiation alone?
I'm not a physicist so I don't know, but it's certainly nowhere near as fast as conduction/convection (in fact I believe heat dissipation was actually problematic for many spacecraft designs).
NASA, despite its huge budget cuts, in the last decade has operated three rovers on Mars, landed one new one (via spectacular jet crane awesomeness). They've built new types of rockets, taken pictures of the universe, continued to do valuable research in science and space. Continued to be a major contributor to the ISS. And much much more.
I think the real question here is, where have you been for the last decade?
Well, this is a bit subjective, in my book selective reporting that focuses on negativity is bashing.
I am all for more budgets for NASA. Quite frankly, I don't follow NASA's missions very often. For the past decade I did hear from time to time that NASA sent rovers to some planets. Meanwhile, I kept hearing the flip-flop stories about the water on Mars. It gave me impression that NASA either went hugely under-budget on their Mars' missions or they spread themselves too thin. That was my point (admittedly I may need to soften my tone in my comment). Not sure if NASA had a vision problem, in my opinion, it may have made more impact and (hopefully) got more funding if they narrowed down their scope of missions and obtained more decisive results.
this paints a really extreme (go figure) picture of china. some people think it's the most amazing place on earth and some people think it's some kind of post apocalyptic hellscape.
as always, the truth can be found by actually going there, something most people with very strong opinions about china have never done and probably never will do, in all likelihood
> either went hugely under-budget on their Mars' missions or they spread themselves too thin
I think that is a misread of the situation; the lack of a consistent narrative and publicity across NASA and its missions has more to do with the organizational structure of the PR and public education/outreach within NASA than the science or the mission management itself.