Chinese Chang'e3+Yutu going to land on the Moon on Saturday December 14th

jumpjack

I can't see any thread about this topic here around, maybe it is somewhere else?!?
This is the first soft-landing mission in almost 40 years, it will also carry a rover, and both lander and rover carry HD 3D cameras, which will probably stream live moon landing! :eek:
It even had HD cameras onboard the launcher, so it was possibile to follow from aboard the launch, the stages separation and the last stage departure to the Moon!

Landing planned for 14:22 UTC December 14th; rover deployment planned for 20:31 UTC same day.




Chang'e3 on the Left, Apollo LM on the right.

Maybe you must subscribe this forum to be able to see the above images: http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/pasa-paper-aeronautical-space-administration/26959-china-change-3-lunar-module-yutu-rover-2.html

Other forum:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26848.180

Bohrio

jumpjack wrote: »

http://bbs.9ifly.cn/data/attachment/forum/201312/06/210658l4l3arr3ylvbbva3.jpg

Wow they are tiny!

Not sure about the quality though, to me they look like they are made of cheap Chinese plastic...

yck016

ya this pair look pretty tiny and filmsy. its a wonder it can withstand the climatic and geography of the moon.

slade_x

Bohrio wrote: »

Wow they are tiny!

Not sure about the quality though, to me they look like they are made of cheap Chinese plastic...

Yes they are tiny, they are 1:22 scale models

The real rover weights over 100kg and is about 1.5 metres tall. The total landing mass including lander is greater than that of a 2014 Toyota Corolla

prototype:






Lander:

http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/tech2302.html

Rhys Essien

Here's how it all works.

http://www.space.com/23855-how-china-change3-moon-rover-works-infographic.html

shedweller

Heres hoping for a successful landing! With hd streaming of the whole thing live of course.

yck016

compare to the apollos in the 70s this indeed is miniscule. have to wish them luck given the aspiration
to set up bases on the moon. its better trying than not doin anything. an leap for mankind:-) ?

2 stroke

The lander has a plutonium-powered nuclear generator. So why does it have solar panels?

Rhys Essien

yck016 wrote: »

compare to the apollos in the 70s this indeed is miniscule. have to wish them luck given the aspiration
to set up bases on the moon. its better trying than not doin anything. an leap for mankind:-) ?

The Chinese are certainly making giant leaps(pardon pun) considering they are relatively new to the whole Space race.

shedweller

2 stroke wrote: »

The lander has a plutonium-powered nuclear generator. So why does it have solar panels?

Its to keep it warm at night. Much smaller than an rtg.

2 stroke

shedweller wrote: »

Its to keep it warm at night. Much smaller than an rtg.

That explains the plutonium-powered nuclear generator. But why also have solar panels? If its got a nuke, surely it would have made sense to make it big enough to power all systems and save weight & fuel getting it there.

shedweller

2 stroke wrote: »

That explains the plutonium-powered nuclear generator. But why also have solar panels? If its got a nuke, surely it would have made sense to make it big enough to power all systems and save weight & fuel getting it there.

They use a pellet of plutonium to provide heat. Theres no other machinery to allow it to make heat. It just radiates heat sitting there. No moving parts no nothing. So its a very lightweight heating solution. Turning that into an rtg requires a good few more parts, not to mention more plutonium to get the required heat output to deliver the required wattage.
Hence the solar panels as they are very light by comparison.
But i agree that an rtg would have allowed the rover to keep truckin 24/7. Costs i suppose?

2 stroke

The lander, which does not move after touchdown, carries a plutonium-powered nuclear generator to provide electricity during the two-week lunar night.

Thanks, I guess I shouldn't believe everything I read on the internet. I thought if it produced enough electricty to keep it warm at night, it wouldnt be too difficult to power a few instruments.

Rhys Essien

Not to long to go.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25356603

Live stream here
http://www.qicknews.de/Monitore/Yutu.php

namloc1980

Such a shame this isn't getting more attention. The first soft lunar landing in nearly 40 years!! This is huge. If it was an American mission no doubt the media would be all over it. Anyway best of luck YuTu! Looking forward to seeing lunar surface images.

caoty

Live broadcast in Chinese, better than nothing. Landing time 1:40pm GMT est.

http://tv.cntv.cn/live/cctv13/

Rhys Essien

Link here in English


http://english.cntv.cn/live/

Rovi

CCTV news is available on satellite TV here in Ireland too:
CCTV NEWS 12.663 H 22000 5/6

Tuning instructions here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520627

caoty

It that available to Free-to-Air?

Rovi wrote: »

CCTV news is available on satellite TV here in Ireland too:
CCTV NEWS 12.663 H 22000 5/6

Tuning instructions here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520627

namloc1980

Rovi wrote: »

CCTV news is available on satellite TV here in Ireland too:
CCTV NEWS 12.663 H 22000 5/6

Tuning instructions here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520627

Channel 510 on Sky

sh__93

jumpjack wrote: »

Chang'e3 on the Left, Apollo LM on the right.

Other forum:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26848.180

WHAT IS THIS, a moon lander for ants?

namloc1980

sh__93 wrote: »

WHAT IS THIS, a moon lander for ants?

It's a scale model!!!

Here's a prototype of the rover during testing

caoty

Wow!

namloc1980

She's landed!

namloc1980

ThatDrGuy

Congratulations china. All seemed to go to plan.

emo72

china needs resources. rare metals for our day to day electronics. probably running short on earth and now thinking of further afield. commerce drives space exploration. who decides who owns what on the moon? in the old days whoever got a flag there first was the owner. so america owns the moon?:D

i wonder will the chinese rover "accidentally" knock the american flag(s) over:pac:

apollo8

Pictures beamed live from the craft as it was landing congrats china:)

Captain Chaos

They need to prove the American flags and footprints are there first though.:D

mickmackey1

It's quite incredible that SkyandTelescope have nothing about this on their home page

caoty

namloc1980

apollo8

Awesome pics guys movie below

shedweller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It's quite incredible that SkyandTelescope have nothing about this on their home page

They're sickened, thats why. Plain and simple sickened.

Well done China though and feck the begrudgers!

apollo8

mickmackey1 wrote: »

It's quite incredible that SkyandTelescope have nothing about this on their home page

They have updated page now:)

caoty

With the LATEST of Mandela's funeral arrangement?:rolleyes:

apollo8 wrote: »

They have updated page now:)

DrGuy

slade_x wrote: »

Yes they are tiny, they are 1:22 scale models

The real rover weights over 100kg and is about 1.5 metres tall. The total landing mass including lander is greater than that of a 2014 Toyota Corolla

Correction: The rover weighs over 980 Newtons (N) on Earth, or over 160 N on the Moon. It has a mass of over 100 kg, which remains constant regardless of the acceleration of gravity.

My apologies for calling this out, but the widespread misuse of g and kg as weight is one of my pet peeves.

DrGuy

I'm hoping maybe the USA and the EU will get a clue and dramatically increase spaceflight, technology, and science budgets.

ThatDrGuy

DrGuy wrote: »

I'm hoping maybe the USA and the EU will get a clue and dramatically increase spaceflight, technology, and science budgets.

Yeah, to hell with those desperately needed social and environmental funds nevermind such lowly concerns as medical research. Lets race dune buggies on the moon!

apollo8

caoty wrote: »

With the LATEST of Mandela's funeral arrangement?:rolleyes:

im sorry i dont know what you re seeing but i clearly see reports on Chang'e3+Yutu

DrGuy

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

Yeah, to hell with those desperately needed social and environmental funds nevermind such lowly concerns as medical research. Lets race dune buggies on the moon!

Medical research is heavily funded in comparison with the space programs or other sciences. I work in the environmental field, and we used spaced-based technology to do our work. Human spaceflight and missions such as these help generate interest in the sciences and technology. Many of the technologies and products developed for spacecraft have real utility down here on Earth, improve the quality of life, and provide needed employment.

ThatDrGuy

DrGuy wrote: »

Medical research is heavily funded in comparison with the space programs or other sciences. I work in the environmental field, and we used spaced-based technology to do our work. Human spaceflight and missions such as these help generate interest in the sciences and technology. Many of the technologies and products developed for spacecraft have real utility down here on Earth, improve the quality of life, and provide needed employment.

Not near heavily funded enough. I assume you use satellites which are cheap as chips in comparison with deep space missions. So does star trek ( it costs about a million times less than a human space flight program). The ESA website had a page devoted to space spin-offs over the last ten years - number one was technology to prevent your crisps getting crushed as they were packed. What a bargain for only 42.8 billion euro in funding. If you want to get research results you don't invest in A & hope it will improve B. You research B. As for employment we could hire people to dig holes and more people to fill them in. It would waste a lot less resources. The ISS cost 100,000,000,000 dollars. Which do you think would have generated more research output - giving a million PHD students a grant of 100,000 dollars or building the ISS? I'll give a hint: The research output of the ISS is a joke.

caoty

the Jade rabbit and the landing craft taking photos of each other

2 stroke

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

The ISS cost 100,000,000,000 dollars. Which do you think would have generated more research output - giving a million PHD students a grant of 100,000 dollars or building the ISS? I'll give a hint:

That $100,000,000,000 isn't floating around in space. It trickles through pockets back into government hands again, to be reallocated, maybe it goes to medical research next. In the meantime, amongst other things, it goes towards the education of workers children, possibly as research scientists.
If every penny on earth was only spent on medical research, we'd all starve to death.

JupiterKid

Congratulations to China on this achievement!

It's also great to see new Moon surface images - the first in almost 40 years.:cool:

DrGuy

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

Not near heavily funded enough. I assume you use satellites which are cheap as chips in comparison with deep space missions.

If you're talking about small satellites, e.g., DMC-2 or Deimos, which are built by Surrey Satellite, or micro-satellites, then yes. But the bulk of my work uses much larger satellites which are spectrally and radiometrically superior, and can cost up to $1 Billion. Earth observation, like the rest of the sciences, is underfunded. Furthermore, simply allocating the money elsewhere isn't going to help anyone in the long run. Those satellites I was talking about are actually used to see where crops are doing well and where they are doing poorly, so we now have a good idea when and where famines are likely to occur.

As for deep space- there are large asteroids and comets out there that can and do impact Earth, and this investment in space technology and research will allow us to protect ourselves against them. Millions could die because we shortsightedly failed to do the research needed to protect our planet.

namloc1980

Full landing video. This is cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaQTSTrbT3w

space2ground1

namloc1980 wrote: »

Full landing video. This is cool.

Crikey it was descending pretty fast!

shedweller

What i'm puzzled at is how sharp the descent went from almost horizontal to nearly vertical. I would have thought it would transition in a smooth curve. Unless the lander held its orientation while the engine gimballed to match the curve??

In any case it is nice to see a new lunar landing video. Maybe we aren't going back to the stone age after all!

Taylor365

The Chinese, a great bunch of lads!

ThatDrGuy

2 stroke wrote: »

That $100,000,000,000 isn't floating around in space. It trickles through pockets back into government hands again, to be reallocated, maybe it goes to medical research next. In the meantime, amongst other things, it goes towards the education of workers children, possibly as research scientists.
If every penny on earth was only spent on medical research, we'd all starve to death.

Ah trickle down economics. Is there any daft idea they can't lend merit to?
While the trickle is trickling, a torrent of research is not being funded. That's marginal cost: The cost of funding one thing over another, the cost of one white elephant space station is the cost of not funding a million PHD students. Most money stays in circulation - whether its wasted or used constructively is a whole different matter...

If we spent every penny on fatuous analogies we would starve too.