The Chinese Moon Landing

[EEVblog]

I quite frankly think at the time it was a good move to drop them. The real by-product of the action would be a wake up call to the planet.

Whether it was a "good move" or not is probably beside the point. The fact is it was almost certainly inevitable that any new weapon would have been used in war.
But yes, it gave an example to the future generations of what even crude prototypes of these things are capable of.

[EEVblog]

Think how much fun it would be for amateur groups to start a Moon Bot Wars combat show for TV.  The advertising would easily pay for several teams to build the necessary rocketry and landers.

Very likely!
That would be pretty awesome 

[EEVblog]

That reminds me. Whatever happened to the Google Lunar X prize?

[EEVblog]

I have no absolute proof, but:
There are the obviously faked photos "taken" during some of the Apollo missions

*plonk*

[xrunner]

Yea... We be good at printing money. O0

Money is a good product that's easily produced in large quantities and it has inherent value right off the production line. People like it and will use it everyday. What more could you ask for? 

[c4757p]

(For example, shadows in 2 different directions when the only light source is the sun)

Moonlight casts shadows on the Earth; I would suspect that Earthlight casts shadows on the moon...? I mean... am I missing a reason why this is not stupidly obvious?

Riddle me *this* Batman:  If there is no intent to conceal any information, why encrypt the  data from the probes and rovers?

What if somebody discovered something in the data protocol that hinted at a vulnerability in either the receiving system or in the probes and rovers themselves and tried to exploit it? Encryption is a good idea in general whenever data is to be sent through clear space.

[xrunner]

What more could you ask for? 

wealth without money (its not impossible until you prove otherwise)

The modern understanding of Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth

So wealth has to be associated with material things. But of course you are iching to inject some sort of religious interpretation here, as usual. 

[lemmegraphdat]

Gold and silver have almost zero intrinsic value. The value is based on the dollar which is the true measure. You "precious" metal guys live in a fantasy land. We say 10 dollars worth of gold for a reason.

[c4757p]

There is just no plausible reason to do that unless you intend to "sanitize" the data before the public sees it.

You might notice that I gave one.

I think what is happening is that people are suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Rationalization is a psychological sedative for the mental discomfort one feels when long held beliefs are challenged by new factual information that contradicts those long held beliefs.  It's perfectly understandable-- no worries...

"You're suffering from cognitive dissonance. It's perfectly understandable! It's just that your long held beliefs are causing you mental discomfort!"

patronize. v. tr. 2. to adopt an air of condescension toward :  treat haughtily or coolly

Quotes deleted text.

[echen1024]

I have no absolute proof, but:
There are the obviously faked photos "taken" during some of the Apollo missions

*plonk*

Oh right. You have no absolute proof but think that they absolutely are faked. I have no proof that quarks are massive, but they obviously are

You sir, are full of bullshit.

[xrunner]

  Just search for it on the Internet, and you will find it.

Yea, that's all it takes to find the truth. Search for it on the internet. 

[GeoffS]

This thread is about the Chinese moon landing not your own personal conspiracy theories.
Can we get it back on track please?

[c4757p]

I don't think you did.  I think your argument was weak.  Having clear-text responses from a spacecraft, probe, or extraterrestrial rover does *not* make the device easier to hack, if all of the controls *are* encrypted.

Then explain to me how you think encrypted devices get hacked. Usually it has to do with the few unencrypted channels they must expose.

Text deleted by moderator. Please read your PM

[GeoffS]

You have to assume that in any space mission there is probably (almost certainly)  a military component, perhaps more so for the Chinese missions.
Sanitizing the data would make sense in this case - at least to the military mind.

[c4757p]

I don't think you did.  I think your argument was weak.  Having clear-text responses from a spacecraft, probe, or extraterrestrial rover does *not* make the device easier to hack, if all of the controls *are* encrypted.

Then explain to me how you think encrypted devices get hacked. Usually it has to do with the few unencrypted channels they must expose.

Text deleted by moderator. Please read your PM

OK, I will concede that it is a good idea to encrypt the *control* data to/from the probe/rover.  BUT-- there is no conceivable rock-solid good reason [in my view] to encrypt the *DATA* [i.e. the images of the Martian landscape]-- why not let everyone see that in it's "raw" form?

Simple - once you have an encryption scheme, spreading it to more data costs you nothing, whereas the repercussions of forgetting to spread it to one particular thing that happens to be vulnerable cost you a lot. So you use care and encrypt everything just in case.

There is nothing in my bathroom worth stealing, but I don't have a parallel, non-locking door to it from outside my house. I still need my house key to access it.

[chickenHeadKnob]

You have to assume that in any space mission there is probably (almost certainly)  a military component, perhaps more so for the Chinese missions.
Sanitizing the data would make sense in this case - at least to the military mind.

There is an even more basic motivation, self preservation and control of information in a military/space bureaucracy. Control of information = power. I can just barely remember some details of the story from the sixties when a British school teacher who was also a Ham and his students decoded some images from a soviet space probe. These were then published on the front page of some  major daily. That newspaper was then plunked down on the desk of Kruschev, or who ever was in power, who then subsequently threw a conniption fit that english children had the pictures first. The delay through the soviet bureaucracy was typically 10 days for that information chain. I wish some english hams with a better memory would fill out the details.
 

[JohnnyGringo]

  It makes me wonder, "Why?". Why bother going back to the moon? Unless they thought there was something to gain.  Russia and China both received some of the materials that we brought back.  Was this just a display of capability?   

  If so, is this all they were capable of? Why not go for some of the more unexplored regions, like the asteroid belt?

  Even if this was a prelude to a manned moon mission, why bother going back?  They should be reaching further and higher.

[JohnnyGringo]

One of the reasons the US never went back (to the moon), was because it became decidedly "uninteresting" (scientifically)  and rather ho-hum. (culturally)

I think a trip to Titan would be much more interesting:sen.com/News/nasa-s-cassini-spacecraft-reveals-clues-about-saturn-moon

Titan is unique because it has a dense atmosphere and many Earth like characteristics including seas, lagoons, rivers, mountains and rain. However, the liquid that forms the cycle of precipitation and evaporation is not water, but hydrocarbons such as methane and ethane.

[EEVblog]

OK, I will concede that it is a good idea to encrypt the *control* data to/from the probe/rover.  BUT-- there is no conceivable rock-solid good reason [in my view] to encrypt the *DATA* [i.e. the images of the Martian landscape]-- why not let everyone see that in it's "raw" form?

Could be any number of systems engineering reasons.
Perhaps, because the control data must be encrypted, it was just easier to have everything use the same encryption (and likely compression) system. One less system issue to deal with.

[EEVblog]

  It makes me wonder, "Why?". Why bother going back to the moon? Unless they though there was something to gain.

There is plenty to gain.
There is still a LOT to be leaned about the moon. All the Apollo era stuff was pretty crude scientifically.
I think at present we know more about Mars than about the moon.
The main reason however is that the moon is a close target. You get to try out all your long range navigation stuff, comms, propulsion, landing, rovers etc, without having to wait years to get there, you are there in 4 days.

[JohnnyGringo]

From a "news" source: www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/9523988/China-plans-next-space-launch

China said Monday its plan to launch its fifth lunar probe in 2017 with the aim of bringing lunar soil and rock samples to Earth was on track after a successful moon landing of another space probe over the weekend.

[Frenchie]

Russia and China both received some of the materials that we brought back.

It was still interesting enough for the Russians to send probes to bring back more (albiet tiny) samples in 1970, 72 and 76. (Luna 16, 20 & 24 respectively). Even though N1 was a dud and their manned program subsequently never went anywhere the soviet Moon probe program is actually quite interesting. First man made object to leave Earth orbit (by accident) in Luna 1, First man made object on the moon in Luna 2, a full ten years before a human set foot on it.

Actually, the Soviet (and Russian) space program is interesting generally. Every manned launch they've ever conducted has been on a descendant of the R7 ICBM, if it aint broke...

[Stonent]

Russia and China both received some of the materials that we brought back.

It was still interesting enough for the Russians to send probes to bring back more (albiet tiny) samples in 1970, 72 and 76. (Luna 16, 20 & 24 respectively). Even though N1 was a dud and their manned program subsequently never went anywhere the soviet Moon probe program is actually quite interesting. First man made object to leave Earth orbit (by accident) in Luna 1, First man made object on the moon in Luna 2, a full ten years before a human set foot on it.

Actually, the Soviet (and Russian) space program is interesting generally. Every manned launch they've ever conducted has been on a descendant of the R7 ICBM, if it aint broke...

I guess it was because it was Soyuzful?

[rozeh]

Dear EEVblog(Dave) and GeoffS,
I had already said to guys that it's better you don't speak about politics or war or... because it will cause to contention.(I hope my remark don't will upset the guys. I like the all american and aussie and europeans  )

[JohnnyGringo]

It was still interesting enough for the Russians to send probes to bring back more (albiet tiny) samples in 1970, 72 and 76. (Luna 16, 20 & 24 respectively).

Right, that was 37 years ago.  But today, flying to the moon to enrich your rock collection seems a little childish. Time to grow up and reach higher and further! On to Titan I say! (I think Titan is our best chance at finding an extra-terrestrial example of a carbon-based life-form)