Chinese lander heading for far side of Moon

[Usenko]

A friend of mine who is a senior member of the Fire Brigade is fond of pointing out that he'd far rather deal with a nuclear contamination incident than any of several dozen chemicals that are transported over the roads on a typical day!

"OK, we found it. Measure out a mile around it and build a big fence. Get some of those orange and yellow signs and hang them on it. Pay a couple of guys to stand around and tell people to go away. Done! Easy peasy, plutonium squeezy. Remediation is fun!"

Heh! Yes, but he was actually talking about cleaning it up, not merely declaring the area "beyond help, what can we have for lunch?".

I can think of worse ways to die than chemical pneumonia. Granted, it ain't a nice way to go, but at least the skeleton wearing my own flesh wouldn't be trying to kill me. Oxygen scavengers suck, but the plume may not be as fatal for as far as something that liquefies one's lungs. Then, there's the really corrosive stuff, like HF... Hydroflouric Acid sucks. Anyone who manufactures it or with it is a madman. People who deal in HF don't even bother building something that will last for very long, since even the tiniest escaping vapor eats everything - They just build an entirely new building and eventually bulldoze the old one. (Though, some of the high-dollar monkey rigs surely don't do that... Riiight.) And, if you get it on you, well I'm sure you know what happens. Again, something else where your own skeleton eventually kills you if the initial exposure does not.

There is nothing I would fear in the way of "chemical spill" than HF. Even when it's shipped in limited containers, it's friggin deadly stuff that will kill via chemical pneumonia or immediate tissue damage or kill you next week, just when you thought you were going to make it... F that stuff. Give me a good ol' neurotoxin any day. At least that's not on every highway, all the time, just waiting for someone to screw up.

Since we're talking about rockets and the impulse of different engine technologies, it's probably worth mentioning here that Valentin Glushko, the Russian rocket engine genius, was fond of the idea of powering rockets with Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Fluorine. Huge amounts of impulse, but there WAS the problem of the exhaust . . . .

His team eventually convinced him that the world wasn't quite ready for this.

[pjknibbs]

Since we're talking about rockets and the impulse of different engine technologies, it's probably worth mentioning here that Valentin Glushko, the Russian rocket engine genius, was fond of the idea of powering rockets with Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Fluorine. Huge amounts of impulse, but there WAS the problem of the exhaust . . . .

It has to be said that the (fairly standard) rocket fuel combination of unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) ain't all that great in terms of exhaust gases either!

[Morkonan]

..Heh! Yes, but he was actually talking about cleaning it up, not merely declaring the area "beyond help, what can we have for lunch?".

This is standard US "remediation" strategy for certain things.

"Oh, it's crapped up? Better build a fence!"

(A little simplified, but there's little in the way of "remediation" and lots in the way of "Keep Out.")

His team eventually convinced him that the world wasn't quite ready for this.

"Murdering our way to the stars!"

During the Cold War, IIRC, it was estimated that every above-ground nuclear test resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 people around the world. (Last I read, anyway.) For the US, an estimate was 1 million people, give or take, dead due to the effects of above-ground nuclear testing. These numbers are, of course, fast-and-loose, but the implication is real - Doing stuff has consequences.

One of the arguments against everyone's favorite "To the Stars!" project, Project Orion, was that every launch would likely result in thousands of people around the world dying...

For our standard chemical propulsion rockets, there's an argument that they may be contributing to needless deaths as well in much the same way. Or, in a broader sense, to Global Warming. It's a bit of a sobering thought to think that every rocket launch we rejoice at seeing vids of might mean someone, somewhere, could die as a result of it. The issue becomes even more serious now that frequency of launches is likely to dramatically increase. It's not that the "butterfly effect" of unknown effects should be enough to suspend launches, it's that we don't really know the extent of the effects. DO we want to know?

We should just go ahead with Project Orion. We could fit so much stuff in there... Launching something the size of an aircraft carrier into space just HAS to have some kind of advantage. Less people dead than the equivalent payloads of standard chemical rockets?

[Usenko]

Since we're talking about rockets and the impulse of different engine technologies, it's probably worth mentioning here that Valentin Glushko, the Russian rocket engine genius, was fond of the idea of powering rockets with Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Fluorine. Huge amounts of impulse, but there WAS the problem of the exhaust . . . .

It has to be said that the (fairly standard) rocket fuel combination of unsymmetric dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) ain't all that great in terms of exhaust gases either!

Indeed, and it says something that Glushko's team - who didn't blink at UDMH and HNO3 - said "No way man!" to this combination!

[Usenko]

"Murdering our way to the stars!"

During the Cold War, IIRC, it was estimated that every above-ground nuclear test resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 people around the world. (Last I read, anyway.) For the US, an estimate was 1 million people, give or take, dead due to the effects of above-ground nuclear testing. These numbers are, of course, fast-and-loose, but the implication is real - Doing stuff has consequences.

I looked this up. I would suggest that there is something VERY wrong with not only the numbers but the entire concept. One of the few good things to come out of the Chernobyl accident was a re-evaluation of the actual danger level of radiation; bluntly, humans can take a LOT more radiation than previously believed. Of course, we aren't talking about just the pure radiation, but the substances which might be incorporated into the body, but even so I would be VERY sceptical that there are even a measurable number from each test.

That said, accidental deaths are not something we want to accept, even if there are relatively few of them.

One of the arguments against everyone's favorite "To the Stars!" project, Project Orion, was that every launch would likely result in thousands of people around the world dying...

For our standard chemical propulsion rockets, there's an argument that they may be contributing to needless deaths as well in much the same way. Or, in a broader sense, to Global Warming. It's a bit of a sobering thought to think that every rocket launch we rejoice at seeing vids of might mean someone, somewhere, could die as a result of it. The issue becomes even more serious now that frequency of launches is likely to dramatically increase. It's not that the "butterfly effect" of unknown effects should be enough to suspend launches, it's that we don't really know the extent of the effects. DO we want to know?

We should just go ahead with Project Orion. We could fit so much stuff in there... Launching something the size of an aircraft carrier into space just HAS to have some kind of advantage. Less people dead than the equivalent payloads of standard chemical rockets?

I am actually a BIG fan of nuclear rockets, though a spacecraft should be well above the atmosphere before it lets fly.

The trick is actually getting it above the atmosphere, of course. You really want there to be VERY little chance of things going wrong with the rocket. . . .

[Mightysword]

The trick is actually getting it above the atmosphere, of course. You really want there to be VERY little chance of things going wrong with the rocket. . . .

Which once again bring us back to the idea of a space elevator ...

Seriously though, quite a few predicament we currently have on earth would be solves if we can ship large quantities of hazardous material into space with no risk.

[birdtable]

Like a giant Alimentary Canal .....

[Bishop149]

"OK, we found it. Measure out a mile around it and build a big fence. Get some of those orange and yellow signs and hang them on it. Pay a couple of guys to stand around and tell people to go away. Done! Easy peasy, plutonium squeezy. Remediation is fun!"

Heh! Yes, but he was actually talking about cleaning it up, not merely declaring the area "beyond help, what can we have for lunch?".

In a previous job I once worked quite closely with the bomb squad and had the opportunity to discuss bomb disposal techniques.
I was quite surprised to discover that the near universal solution to dispose of any unknown explosive was "Dig a hole, throw it in, blow it up". I did my best to challenge them with scenarios that might require a different approach but generally these only resulted in variations on the depth of the hole dug and the method used to effect the "blow it up" part.
I think the only exception I found was that of an unexploded nuclear bomb which are apparently: "Really easy to disarm" and "Not our job anyway".
They also of the opinion they had the best job in the world, with a typical incident going along the lines of:
- Arrive, everyone is SUPER happy to see you.
- Blow something up and make a big mess
- Bugger off and leave everyone else to clean up said mess.

Efficiencies, for one. Biotech and metallurgy, AFAIK, are the two most promising choices. It may be that other materials sciences could benefit as well. For instance, could we produce carbon nanotubes or graphene more easily in microgravity? Maybe? (Biotech has always been my favorite, high-profit, low-payload, choice there. And, the amount of cash biotech spends on research and development would easily pay for the ISS operating budget every year.

As someone working (tangentially) in Biotech I'd be interested to see what advantages you think a microgravity environment would provide? Because I can't think of many.
Most biotech process involve fluid flow under pressure and as such aren't especially bothered by gravity, some small efficiency saving perhaps but nothing worth the effort.
Many others involve creating much HIGHER pseudogravitational forces . . . i.e. centrifugation.
Hydroponics might work very well, the combinations of no gravity and controlled source of light means you could make plants grow any which way you wanted, it could be really space efficient but that's about it from me.

[Morkonan]

...They also of the opinion they had the best job in the world, with a typical incident going along the lines of:
- Arrive, everyone is SUPER happy to see you.
- Blow something up and make a big mess
- Bugger off and leave everyone else to clean up said mess.

Lol!

As someone working (tangentially) in Biotech I'd be interested to see what advantages you think a microgravity environment would provide? Because I can't think of many.
Most biotech process involve fluid flow under pressure and as such aren't especially bothered by gravity, some small efficiency saving perhaps but nothing worth the effort.
Many others involve creating much HIGHER pseudogravitational forces . . . i.e. centrifugation.
Hydroponics might work very well, the combinations of no gravity and controlled source of light means you could make plants grow any which way you wanted, it could be really space efficient but that's about it from me.

The benefits are pretty varied, from research for developing more effective/efficient drugs to increasing manufacturing efficiency. (A simple search should turn up a lot of different applications, from crystal manufacture, investigative research, manufacturing, etc). Years ago, there was a discussion about this on a space-tech related forum and I sort of jumped into it with both feet. The example I used then, IIRC, for industrial manufacturing (not just research/small batch) was antibiotics, with the initial stage taking place in microgravity developing feedstock cultures. Using experimental results, the increased efficiency for initial manufacture of the culture in the experiment was pretty high. The increased efficiency "paid for" the transport costs of the initial feedstock culture in a simple cost formula. It would, of course, rely on developments in other areas. Nobody, for instance, wants to ship water up to the I.S.S.

But, for research and the relatively small amount of raw materials necessary for benchtop work, even just the I.S.S. itself and what it provides could be used for significant gains just due to the novel approaches that could be exploited. I'm sure that when fire was first discovered, ancient man then started burning as many different things as he could, just to see what happened. Microgravity manufacturing research can be approached the same way.

Things like crytsals used in drug manufacturing, specifics for encapsulation, research, drugs like antibiotics, more efficient diabetes drugs, etc, turn up in a simple "Google" search. ie: microgravity pharmaceutical manufacturing feedstock cultures (etc)

A text search through the list for key terms, like "pharma" and "bio" shows quite a few hits: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... _name.html

[Mercury_57]

Seems like they are taking the New Silk Road to the next level Very exiting news!

[Morkonan]

Seems like they are taking the New Silk Road to the next level Very exiting news!

It's a pretty big deal and is having a huge impact on the regions its passing through. BUT, there's some caveats. For one, there's some disruption going on in far-flung regions, with people barely out of their yurts dealing with rapid-transit and modern economies. Then, there's the absolute fact that China is getting into some questionable economic areas in establishing a practical "New Deal" economy. This is an example of that, but maybe one of the more productive ones if they can make it work quickly enough. There have been some disturbing stories that hint at desperation, in my opinion. Empty construction, developments in remote locations that just sit there, waiting for people that didn't show up, etc.. Infrastructure is great, but you have to get a return from it soon enough that the development costs don't become an increased burden the economy can't sustain. (ie: You don't build a bridge-to-nowhere when you desperately need a real, working, profitable bridge...)

And, this isn't quite the topic for the thread, so I'd imagine it may get split.

For OT Consideration: SciAm: With First-Ever Landing on Moon's Far Side, China Enters Luna Incognita - An interesting short article on some of the geopolitical ramifications of the "Moon Race." For instance, NASA would love to get China to put some laser reflectors on their landers, but they can't even ask since it requires a Congressional vote...

[felter]

Just discovered a video on the landing of the landing and it's from none other than Mr Scott Manley . A very good video and quality.

[Morkonan]

Just discovered a video on the landing of the landing and it's from none other than Mr Scott Manley . A very good video and quality.

Thanks for that! Great vid!

[Bishop149]

Very cool

A Seed Has Sprouted on the Moon for the First Time [Update: It Died]

I did not know the lander contined such an experiment although the following quotes raise some questions

A built-in heat system facilitates growth and prevents the biological material from freezing

Sunday January 13, the Chang’e 4 probe entered into hibernation mode as the lunar night set in. With temperatures as low as minus 170 degrees centigrade, life in the canister “would not survive the lunar night,” according to Xie. The death of the plant, therefore, was not completely unexpected.

So the biosphere is heated but this is presumably powered by solar power, and the available battery power is presumably insufficient to run this system through the lunar night.
This somewhat begs the questions:
a) What was the point?
b) Did they land it at Lunar dawn, to give the experiment as much time as possible (~ 2 weeks)? . . . . . I guess its possible they did, I haven't been keeping track of the mission time.

[Morkonan]

...a) What was the point?...

So they can say "First."

There's some legit reasons, I suppose, but I don't think there's anything much there that couldn't have been accomplished benchtop. When I first saw the headline, I thought they had used lunar soil and almost pooped myself... Unfortunately, that's not the case. (Not that I'm lamenting the fact that I didn't poop myself. )

Sidetrack - PLOS: Mars soil may be better for crop growth. At least Mars has a fairly active atmosphere, even if it is kinda thin. Moon regolith = nasty Mixed with poop/water/additional organics/nutrients/other though, it might serve OK as filler or something.

Anyway, I see little in the benefit other than a PR pic of a cotton-seed sprouting. But, I'm no plant guy, so I'm probably missing something here.

More info: SDC: Plants died Interestingly enough, there are other things in that experiment, including fruit-flies! No news, there, but I'd assume they're dead too. They should have maybe included some arctic frog tadpoles or something?

[Usenko]

The whole thing reminds me a little of the FAST telescope - the urge to make something bigger and more powerful (or firster in this case! ) but without any real substance (in that the FAST telescope, big though it is, is not as practically useful for science as a large array of mobile telescopes).

[Morkonan]

Looked up some stuff on FAST. Wow... Uh, impressive, but not that effective for all its size and likely expense. And, it so far out in the middle of nowhere that nobody seems to want to run the thing. /cringe

"Hey! Anyone want to be the director of this awesome new big dish radio telescope that is really awesome and not quite as sensitive as Arecibo, but it's still pretty cool? It's awesome big, too!"

"Well, I might be interested. So, where is it? Can I go take a look at it?"

"Sure!"

"Uh... Who's that?"

"Oh, that's Chonesh, a Mongolian Mountain Guide, and this is his donkey Mr. Bonaduce Airhumper. They'll be your guides to the telescope!"

"I- I gotta go. I gotta go buy a dog to wash."

"But, it's big! Really big! And it's awesome!"

* In all fairness, there are telescopes located in all sorts of remote locations. But, for some reason, this one is so remote they seem to have issues getting people to work there. Voluntarily, that is. I wouldn't think they'd force people to do that, but it is China, after all, and this is a matter of National Pride.

[Usenko]

* In all fairness, there are telescopes located in all sorts of remote locations. But, for some reason, this one is so remote they seem to have issues getting people to work there. Voluntarily, that is. I wouldn't think they'd force people to do that, but it is China, after all, and this is a matter of National Pride.

This isn't really the biggest problem.

The biggest problem is that it was an attempt to outdo the Aricebo telescope in Puerto Rico. All good so far, except since that telescope was built, developments in computer networking have made it advantageous to network a bunch of smaller antennae together (in fact one of the people at the NASA Deep Space Tracking Centre near Canberra told me that for a lot of jobs networked steerable antennae are FAR BETTER than a similarly-sized large antenna - you can count the distance between them as equivalent to a big dish that size). In fact the funding for Aricebo has been chancy for this reason.

It's kind of like the Chinese trying to get prestige by building the world's most efficient carburettor. . . .

[Morkonan]

...It's kind of like the Chinese trying to get prestige by building the world's most efficient carburettor. . . .

"But, it's YUUUUGE! So big, much science!"

It's still "useful." It's just a bit wasteful, I guess. But, there is a "positive" in projects like that - They encourage related STEM fields and industries and help refine hi-tech manufacturing and the like.

The Chinese build a bunch of railroads. They can build the heck out of railroads! It doesn't mean that the rails won't be made of substandard materials or that the wheels won't crack when stressed or that the railbeds will be improperly laid... But, they can build the heck out of railroads!

I am really happy that their lander actually made it, though. It appears to be working, doing its job, etc. For now, it's not just another piece of litter that a lot of people worked hard to get there.

[pjknibbs]

The biggest problem is that it was an attempt to outdo the Aricebo telescope in Puerto Rico.

Couldn't you do that just by making your telescope steerable? Arecibo is fairly limited in what directions it can point!