Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA China Moon Space Science

Chinese Space Official Seems Unimpressed With NASA's Lunar Gateway (arstechnica.com) 97

Posted by BeauHD from the we'll-see-who-will-get-the-last-laugh dept.
schwit1 shares a report from Behind The Black: At a science workshop in Europe this week, Chinese space officials made it clear that they found the concept of NASA Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway (LOP-G) to be unimpressive and uninteresting. Moreover, they said that while it appears we will be delaying our landings on the Moon for at least a decade because of LOP-G, they will be focused on getting and building a research station on the surface, right off the bat.

[From a report via Ars Technica:] "Overall, [Pei Zhaoyu, who is deputy director of the Lunar Exploration and Space Program Center of the China National Space Administration], does not appear to be a fan of NASA's plan to build a deep space gateway, formally known as the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, at a near-rectilinear halo orbit. Whereas NASA will focus its activities on this gateway away from the Moon, Pei said China will focus on a 'lunar scientific research station.' Another slide from Pei offered some thoughts on the gateway concept, which NASA intends to build out during the 2020s, delaying a human landing on the Moon until the end of the decade at the earliest. Pei does not appear to be certain about the scientific objectives of such a station, and the deputy director concludes that, from a cost-benefit standpoint, the gateway would have 'lost cost-effectiveness.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chinese Space Official Seems Unimpressed With NASA's Lunar Gateway More

Chinese Space Official Seems Unimpressed With NASA's Lunar Gateway

Comments Filter:

  • Their longest manned flight was only 21 hours [wikipedia.org].

    Call me when China puts people on the moon with 1960's rocket tech.

    • Re:Color me unimpressed with their opinion. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Thursday July 19, 2018 @03:40AM (#56972634)

      Actually, their longest so far is 33 days, during the Shenzhou 11 mission in 2916.

      The mission you link to, Shenzhou 5, was their first crewed mission - they have orbited two space station since then, with multiple crewed missions.

      • Re:Color me unimpressed with their opinion. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Thursday July 19, 2018 @03:41AM (#56972640)

        Of course, I spot the time travelling mistake the moment I hit "submit"...

        • The mistake was the typo or reveal to public they can time travel? Maybe this is the reason why they're unimpressed :D

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by SeaFox ( 739806 )

        Actually, their longest so far is 33 days, during the Shenzhou 11 mission in 2016.

        The mission you link to, Shenzhou 5, was their first crewed mission - they have orbited two space station since then, with multiple crewed missions.

        Ah, thank you for the correction. I blame the poor organization of the general Chinese Space Program [wikipedia.org] article on Wikipedia for not listing anything after 2007 in the section titled "History and recent developments" e_e

        But that doesn't change much when these Chinese missions are within the last five years, meanwhile we have Americans and Russians running space stations for over three decades and spending months in space at a time.

    • You'll be waiting a long time if your e petting them to moon land using "1960s technology". They've got a noonlanding with modern tech to get out the way first.

      And don't deluded yourself. Whether the Americans , Russians or Chinese hit lunar soil first, the bulk of that ships gonna be Chinese tech anyway

    • We are in the year 2018, why would they use 1960's rocket tech?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Recycling incentives.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by SeaFox ( 739806 )

        The point being we've done a hell of a lot more with less. They should hold their tongues because there is a (pardon the pun) world of difference between U.S. and Russian space exploration accomplishment and what they've achieved.

        • That's true, but:

          1. You shouldn't underestimate them just based on that, and
          2. What they've accomplished so far has zero bearing on whether or not a lunar base makes more sense than an orbital station.

          I think the Chinese may very well be right as far as cost/benefit is concerned. The thing is, there are a lot of problems to work out with actually living on the moon, whereas space stations are to some degree a "solved problem" at this point ... and NASA is very risk averse these days. For what it's worth

          • I have to agree - I really don't even seen the point of a lunar gateway at all, at least not before there's a thriving lunar outpost getting lots of traffic. Exactly what value does a lunar space station offer? If there's a lunar outpost producing fuel or whatever, then yeah, an orbital station starts to be useful, you don't want to have to land to refuel for an interplanetary flight. But before then?

            It's not going to help with building a lunar outpost - there's precious little to be gained by stopping in

            • I have to agree - I really don't even seen the point of a lunar gateway at all, at least not before there's a thriving lunar outpost getting lots of traffic. Exactly what value does a lunar space station offer? If there's a lunar outpost producing fuel or whatever, then yeah, an orbital station starts to be useful, you don't want to have to land to refuel for an interplanetary flight. But before then?

              It's not going to help with building a lunar outpost - there's precious little to be gained by stopping in orbit on your way to/from the surface. At most you might want a refueling depot for the trip home, or just a BFR tanker ship. But even that's probably overkill - getting to the moon is the hard part, the return trip is almost all down hill.

              A space station isn't that great for surveying - satellites are far superior and far cheaper. And there's no point in keeping supplies in orbit when they're only useful on the ground. And microgravity research doesn't care what it's orbiting, and the ISS has that covered. So what's a lunar gateway for?

              Came here to say essentially the same thing.

              It;s like discovering a brand new unexplored continent and the first step taken to explore this new land is to build a giant Amazon transshipment center offshore decades before anyone is thinking of living there even temporarily .

              This is risk-averse NASA setting 'safe' goals intended mainly to keep the major established aerospace/defense firms in lucrative contracts. All other goals are secondary at best.

              Strat

            • It's not going to help with building a lunar outpost - there's precious little to be gained by stopping in orbit on your way to/from the surface. At most you might want a refueling depot for the trip home, or just a BFR tanker ship.

              That's essentially the idea. NASA doesn't want it as a gateway to the moon, they want it to serve as a gateway to the rest of the solar system. It wouldn't provide much benefit to a lunar colony other than possibly being able to launch quick rescue missions if needed.

              • That's even worse - why would you willingly trap yourself in the Moon's gravitational well if you're planning to leave on an interplanetary voyage? The moon makes a great gravitational slingshot, but you have to slow down considerably to enter orbit, and once you're in orbit you can't use it as a slingshot anymore.

                The only reason to stop at a space station would be to refuel, and you can do that just as easily in a high Earth orbit.

        • Re:Color me unimpressed with their opinion. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by evanh ( 627108 ) on Thursday July 19, 2018 @06:05AM (#56972904)

          There's a world of difference in materials and manufacturing now too. SpaceX has proven that the biggest budgets are no longer needed to enter space ... and, maybe more importantly, that action can be rapid if objectives don't keep changing every 8 years.

        • They started much later.

          So again: what is your point?

          About whom do you want to rant next? India?

          And in ten years you rant about an African nation?

          Start to accept that most nations are far beyond the level the USA have been around 1965 - 1969.

          No one stops an Arabic prince to found an Space X2 and catch up with Elon in 10 years.

      • Re:Color me unimpressed with their opinion. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Thursday July 19, 2018 @09:43AM (#56973582) Journal
        It works. The design can be sold, imported and used. The skilled people at a factory can read and understand the list of materials needed.
        Generations of skilled workers with decades of "working" with the needed materials can understand the design and work flow.
        The steps for any advanced industrial nation is not a generation of skills beyond their industrial education.

        Once a nation gets dependant on another nation for its science, that other nation can say no more.
        China found that out with its early nuclear design work with the Soviet Union. China had to work around when the Soviet Union stopped its support.
        The UK found that with its early space work and its Skynet project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. The UK was forced to buy into an all US rocket system.
        Trying to import new tech from a nation that then says no is not a good policy with the cost of space projects.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by quenda ( 644621 )

        We are in the year 2018, why would they use 1960's rocket tech?

        It works for the Russians.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Though sadly, the 60's tech Proton has recently ceased production, and is being replaced with the Angara.

    • Actually, ORSC engines [wikipedia.org] are NOT "1960's rocket tech" - at least for Americans that still haven't developed theirs. [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        BE-4 is ORSC, but the US has always been more interested in making their engines reliable first and high performance second. The NK33, while impressive, ultimately didn't beat the gas generator F-1's to the moon did they? And how exactly is the YF100 impressive as a first stage engine? The SSME is 2 decades older and has higher ISP at sea level than the YF100 has in vacuum all while having double the thrust and being reusable, is oxidizer rich really intrinsically better? ORSC is also old news, the cool ne

        • The point is, it's not "1960s rocket tech" what the Chinese are developing.

          BE-4 is ORSC, but the US has always been more interested in making their engines reliable first and high performance second.

          Why not have both, like with the RD-180?

          The SSME is 2 decades older and has higher ISP at sea level than the YF100 has in vacuum all while having double the thrust and being reusable, is oxidizer rich really intrinsically better?

          It doesn't really work that well for hydrocarbons. Either ORSC, or, as you note, FFSC is the way to go.

    • This entire 'debate' must be manufactured as there is no gateway and it's just too stupid to have risen organically (personally, I thinktheir 'interdimensional gateway' tech sucks ass; I haven't heard a thing about it). That having been said...

      ...1960's rocket tech

      ... it'll be current tech (but yeah, as our understanding of Newtonian Physics* hasn't changed much, our approach hasn't much, either) but it'll be a mix of their own ideas, those they pilfered from others... and perhaps some guesswork.

      The bad guesses will not be tel

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Dear China,

      First you must learn to pull an oar, only then can you take the helm.

      Sincerely,
      The decadent civilizations that you shamelessly steal technology from.

  • Well... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...they're kinda right, the LOP-G is just ISS in orbit around the moon, the real action is on and below the surface. NASA are looking at the Moon as simply a fuel station for their headlong rush to Mars, which, when you think about it, is simply a larger version of the moon wrapped in a toxic atmosphere of CO2. The Moon is the first stepping stone. We learn how to live there, we can live just about anywhere.

    To pochuye ke inyalowda?

    • Re: Well... (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not really, but somewhat.
      Living on Mars is harder in some ways: deeper gravity well, less sunlight, dust storms, atmosphere that's thick enough to be annoying but mostly too thin to be useful, remoteness of another magnitude.

      • Hmm, my post seems to have self-destructed. To summarize:

        Less sunlight, but days the almost same length as Earths. Solar panels are already lighter and cheaper than the batteries to support an off-grid system on Earth. 2.3x as many panels, to compensate for the dimmer sunlight on Mars, is going to be radically lighter and cheaper than the 29.5x as many batteries needed for the longer nights on the Moon.

        Dust storms would pose a problem though, since the most extreme ones can block out 99% of the sun at th

      • Not really, but somewhat. Living on Mars is harder in some ways: deeper gravity well, less sunlight, dust storms, atmosphere that's thick enough to be annoying but mostly too thin to be useful, remoteness of another magnitude.

        Yes and no, just considering the surface it's better to be on Mars: easier production of oxygen and methane, more interesting science, higher gravity (there are no studies done on this, so hard to say, but better Mars then Moon with regard to gravity), lack of crispy sharp lunar dust, thin but still useful atmosphere, which besides mentioned oxygen and fuel might be used to blow or for green houses (after pressurization).

  • The U.S. is losing its space dominance (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The U.S. Congress and NASA are dragged down by boondoggling and political favoritism, instead of focusing on putting men on the Moon. By the time the Lunar Gateway is finished the Chinese will be walking on the Moon and broadcasting their feats in Digital 4K UHD for all the world to see. This will be a huge blow to western morale and people will openly question our democratic system.

    • Yep, but the US political-scientific cycle is pretty short. I think you could reasonably replace "Chinese" with "NASA" and "Pei" with "NASA scientists" in the summary.

    • Each new president cancel's the previous one's NASA initiatives. This frees up money, but more importantly, obviates the risk of having to stand there like Nixon praising Kennedy's moonshot initiative.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by schnell ( 163007 )

        This frees up money, but more importantly, obviates the risk of having to stand there like Nixon praising Kennedy's moonshot initiative.

        Whatever else Richard M. Nixon may have screwed up, his name and signature are on a plaque that will rest of the moon for (presumably) millions of years. Not Kennedy's. I'd say that's pretty sweet revenge.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ahodgson ( 74077 )

      Why? The US went to the moon almost 50 years ago. There's nothing there. NASA cancelled the last planned missions because there was no point. Our democratic system would rather spend money on welfare and war than pointless grandstanding.

      If we were serious about space we'd be building real habitats in geosync, and we'd capture a small near-earth asteroid so we could start learning how to mine and fab new structures in space with materials that didn't have to be launched from Earth. You get a couple hundred p

  • I say let them build it, then the Donald Trump USA Space Force will take it over.

    • I say let them build it, then the Donald Trump USA Space Force will take it over.

      I would much prefer US to build our own station then declare a war on another nation just because they have something we don't.

  • Based on the way the US has spent the last half century of its manned space program jacking off, it appears that the international language of the High Frontier probably won't be English.

  • Lop-g is a waste of money and time. China calling it what it is, is appreciated. It is no different than the SLS.With the GOP in office and pushing the LOP-G and SLS, NASA has been forced to waste 10s of billions, which would have increased. And I love the touch China put on it, speaking of their plans. Though it is either arrogance on their part, or they are pushing us into a space race. Regardless, this should get the GOP to stop killing our space program and put it back on track.

    • I'm not much of a China fan..

      Anything which doesn't put "boots or bots on the ground" is superfluous unless absolutely needed for transit.

      • i am not a fan of the CHinese gov either.
        However, I think that China has this right and that LOP-G is another boondoggle and is a huge waste of our money.

    • You've got to wonder what the motive is. I mean sure, the SLS is a boondoggle in progress with existing contracts (aka pork flow) that would have to be cut off. And in fairness, it's not actually obsolete until the BFR proves itself - SpaceX has done incredible things, but that's no guarantee of future successes.

      But a "lunar gateway"? A lunar outpost would create at least as much pork, and actually involve doing something useful while they were at it. We've already got a space station, building

      • The purpose of LOP-G is to give SLS a reason to exist. Remember this is the "rocket to nowhere" we are talking about. In my opinion LOP-G can be built with the Falcon Heavy.

  • NASA has to be excessively cautious in planning any manned program because of the political fallout they get after any accident. JFK was canny in making Apollo a quasi-military Cold War effort within which it was possible to take elevated levels of risk. Washington would be totally unable to repeat anything like this in today's political climate.

    If we want a lunar base we will have to call in a certain South African entrepreneur or whichever commercial competitor can take the risks necessary do the job.

    • Where's the profit? That's always the downfall of privatization. Lots of demand for launch services, so it's not surprising we have several private enterprises developing launch capability. But a lunar outpost? That's going to cost billions, and there'll probably be no return on investment whatsoever for decades - not until there's enough space activity to fuel demand for lots of raw materials in orbit, and enough industrial capability is established on the moon to provide it.

      Plus there's not really much

      • Nobody thought there was a large market for launch services either, until the private sector came in and slashed cost below the wildest expectations of economists, as competition tends to do in every line of business. Each lowering of the price level has caused new demand to magically appear.

  • They are Right to be Unimpressed (Score:3)

    by Slicker ( 102588 ) on Thursday July 19, 2018 @01:25PM (#56975320)

    In the United States, we are bogged down by scientists at the expense of engineers. Even too many of our engineers are acting like scientists--telling of why we can't do this or that. If they were acting like engineers, they'd be focused on how we can. Scientists are necessarily skeptical, by profession. Engineers need heed the findings of scientists but remain optimistic, regardless. An engineer will work with what is known and around what is not to achieve objectives. The more time an engineer has, the better the solution he/she can derive.

    There is plenty to criticize China's space program on but they are right that a lunar orbiter does nothing toward establishment of a lunar station. It can be helpful in testing of methods for mining asteroids, as proposed. It is great for miscellaneous NASA science projects. But overall, it's a financial sinkhole..

    On the other hand, the Moon is also going to be a financial sinkhole in most ways. There are very few resources for survival on the Moon, much less exploitable profit. Perhaps, helium 3 if we can develop nuclear reactors for it. That is something China claims to be after. The costs of a Moon base are going to be difficult to justify. The regolith is extremely abrasive, quickly tearing through fabrics in space suites. The lack of dust makes working in the light/dark but no grey in between very difficult. And there is very scant water ice.. There is really nothing on the Moon that could assist man's movement farther into space.

    In contrast, is very rich in water and other resources like CO2, nitrogen, argon, and many easily accessible metals. Kilometers deep fresh water glaciers strip just north and south of the equatorial region. The regolith is soft--not abrasive. There is both wind and solar power available. You can easily make oxygen, work outside, collect iron, nickel, and various other metal ores. You can make methane or pvc plastics (CO2, water, and salts in the regolith). And the salts in the regolith of both plentiful and oxygen rich, useful for welding, explosives, or rocket fuel. Start with an inflatable habitat, cover it with regolith. Then melt out a castle in the kilometers deep glacier below..

    The Moon holds the advantage of being close, so we can provide assistance when necessary. Mars is far but assistance is far less likely to be necessary. The Moon will require everything continuously resupplied. Mars only needs a foothold but resupply of various technologies could be good business. For example, sending rockets into orbit from Mars with various materials would be far easier than from Earth -- metals, plastics, water, even food.

       

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close