Moon landing 2013 (Chang'e 3)

[John FX]

Looks like a Mystery Goo^TM canister on the left there.

I would have put it on the rover instead.

I can see some of the flat antenna there as well. They look like the largest design of landing leg so it may be larger than we think.

I`ve just realised I want a part. It`s the extending camera that pops up on most rovers these days. I want to be able to send pictures back to KSC (browser) to see if my lander has worked if I only monitor it with Telemachus...

Edited December 16, 2013 by John FX

[lajoswinkler]

I'm going to assume that the images that are being released through the Chinese news outlets aren't the actual, raw images/videos, but rather rescaled and compressed JPEGs. It doesn't seem like the Chinese have set up a website to release raw images as they get them like the Americans do for Curiosity or the MERs. I could be wrong though.

With regards to why the Apollo 'video' and images look so good, it's because the video was recorded on 16mm film and the still images were also recorded on film. The resolution of film is REALLY good. The TV video from Apollo, on the other hand doesn't look nearly as good to the 16mm video.

Comparison:

vs

They do have this:

https://www.facebook.com/ChinaSpace

It's something...

Oh and don't forget that the Apollo pictures were analogic. The video pictures that were transmitted back live were pretty bad really. The good still pictures came from the Hasselblad medium format cameras for which the film cartridges were brought back and processed on Earth. In terms of resolution, analog is always better than hi-res digital. In terms of bandwidth though, it took 3 days to bring them back and several weeks to process them

I wouldn't agree with this. Analogue videos have either scanlines if they're made with an electronic device, or grain, if they're on a chemical film. They don't have defined elementary units so you could, in theory, magnify them to the extremes. But that won't offer any more meaningful data.

The best high resolution digital image capture devices are vastly superior over the best 70 mm chemical films both in the means of details and even channel distribution, something that the best silver-based black&white films were superior at up until the most recent years.

There are original scanned Apollo films available online and you can see the limits of magnification arise as grain.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a13/AS13-62-8909HR.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5846HR.jpg

[PTNLemay]

((dem words))

((Lot's a words))

I see.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that, much appreciated.

[Lohan2008]

BEIJING, Dec. 16 (Xinhua) -- Five of the eight pieces of scientific equipment aboard Chang'e-3 lunar probe have started to observe space, the Earth and the Moon. They have entered working mode and telescopes and cameras have produced clear images, Zou Yongliao, a scientist with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said at a press conference.

Looking good China! Job well done !!

[czokletmuss]

Fantastic! Expecting images of Earth in HD

[-Velocity-]

Good Job China!

There is something that always strikes me as weird about these landing videos. On Earth, if you look out the window of an airplane, you can usually easily estimate your rough altitude above the ground. There are geographical, biological, and atmospheric clues (trees, hills, haze/clouds, etc) that all come in a certain size range or occur at certain densities or altitudes. They let you gauge your rough altitude even without instruments.

On the Moon, if you look out your window, you CAN'T tell how high you are. There is no atmosphere to give haze or clouds. With no atmosphere, there is nothing to stop even microscopic meteoroids from hitting the surface, so the most prominent geological feature on the Moon- the impact crater- comes in ALL sizes, from craters hundreds of miles across to craters so small they can only be seen under a microscope. So, looking out the window, you can't tell if an impact crater is a kilometer across or just 10 meters across. You can't tell if the hills you see on the horizon are only 500 meters away, or are in fact huge mountains 50 kilometers away. There is also very little erosion to whittle huge boulders down to small rocks (the only erosion being from the impact of meteoroids).

So what always surprises me about these videos is that, when I think that the lander is still like over 1 km in altitude, the descent engine is suddenly kicking up dust from the ground, and the next thing I know, the lander that I thought was 1+ km in altitude has touched down.

Wasn't there an Apollo mission where one of the astronauts decided to drive (or maybe walk?) to a "nearby" boulder they thought was like, a meter across, but it ended up being like 10X further away than he initially thought and like 10X bigger? I thought I heard this tale once, but if so, I totally forgot which Apollo mission it was. Can anyone tell me if I am in fact correct, on on which mission this was?

[maccollo]

Can't wait to see the full resolution images

The funny thing tho. When the next MSL rover lands on mars in 2020 and sends back the first images, people will say the exact same thing about those images as they said about these. They will then point to the high quality pictures sent back by chang'e and say something like "This is what China did 7 years ago, look how the once mighty US has fallen"

[KASASpace]

This will wake up NASA for once..

Well, for one thing, NASA has no money, they're broke. They only have enough for software and planning. Not enough for hardware. Just wait til SpaceX starts doing cool stuff.

[rodion_herrera]

Wasn't there an Apollo mission where one of the astronauts decided to drive (or maybe walk?) to a "nearby" boulder they thought was like, a meter across, but it ended up being like 10X further away than he initially thought and like 10X bigger? I thought I heard this tale once, but if so, I totally forgot which Apollo mission it was. Can anyone tell me if I am in fact correct, on on which mission this was?

It actually happened in several Apollo missions, but the one I can distinctly recall off my head was in Apollo 16 when Charlie Duke and John Young were approaching "House Rock". They had a hard time estimating when they will arrive beside it, and Houston constantly asked them how much time will it take for them to reach it, conscious of their itinerary and keeping close tabs with oxygen supply.

Then of course, the Apollo 14 issue with trying to find the rim of Cone Crater--they never really knew if they were already there or not, Houston just decided they were ALREADY on the rim, and that it was time to go back, owing to issues with fatigue and oxygen supply.

[-Velocity-]

Well, for one thing, NASA has no money, they're broke. They only have enough for software and planning. Not enough for hardware. Just wait til SpaceX starts doing cool stuff.

Yea, it's not NASA that needs to wake up, it's the American taxpayers and our congressional representatives. IMO, NASA should be funded at at least $30B a year, and we need to try cutting down on the bureaucracy. Easier said than done though... entrenched bureaucracies are some of the hardest infestations to eradicate. They only get bigger and more incompetent.

Remember when the government used to develop hardware ITSELF? NASA designed the Saturn V; the US Army, the USAF, the Navy used to develop some of their weapon systems themselves, even systems complex as guided missiles, in-house. This rarely happens today. It's all done by outside contractors, while the government beaurocracy just gets bigger, hungrier, and ever more wasteful. We could do so much more in space if NASA were just managed better. But it's nearly impossible to force the government to become more efficient, so realistically, the only thing we can do to get more out of NASA is to give them more money.

[rodion_herrera]

Anyone else notice these things about Chang'e 3?

a) The main spacecraft looks roughly like the Apollo LM descent stage (octagonal layout), even the positioning of the legs (and the design of the legs themselves) and "quads".

The RCS are also in roughly the same positions. Also, note the "pallets" on the sides.

c) Based on images of the spacecraft in clean rooms, it seems roughly smaller than the Apollo LM. Which means, if you create an ASCENT STAGE for it, then it would seem okay for a one-man can.

Just playing in my head, but I feel that the spacecraft superstructure could actually be a testbed for a manned lander.

Edited December 16, 2013 by rodion_herrera

[astropapi1]

I was impressed by how much it looks like the LM descent stage. Kinda big for their first Moon lander, huh?

[TimMartland]

Looking back at it, your right! How weird, I didn't notice the similarities at first.

[check]

Good Job China!

There is something that always strikes me as weird about these landing videos. On Earth, if you look out the window of an airplane, you can usually easily estimate your rough altitude above the ground. There are geographical, biological, and atmospheric clues (trees, hills, haze/clouds, etc) that all come in a certain size range or occur at certain densities or altitudes. They let you gauge your rough altitude even without instruments.

Happens on Earth sometimes too. I've worked in the arctic doing low altitude airborne geophysical surveys and up there, flying at 1000ft looks almost identical as flying at 50 feet. Thank science for radar altimeters.

[Nibb31]

Actually, a lot of that "bureaucracy" is because of the outsourcing. People often preset outsourcing as a way to save money, but it's usually the opposite. You need tons of regulations and procedures to control how public money is spent and how procurement contracts are handled. Because people don't want the government to waste taxpayer money on useless projects, they introduce commissions and studies to make sure that the rules are properly followed. Then you need people to do all the paperwork that is required to ensure that the regulations are enforced and that the commissions are properly informed.

In the end, the actual work still needs to be done by the same people, only now they work for a private company, which charges more than the government would have spent by doing the work in-house, because the stockholders need to take their share.

So the best way for the government to save money would be to actually hire more government employees to do the work instead of pay the private sector for juicy outsourcing contracts that only make the stockholders richer.

[rodion_herrera]

Just took a glance again, and I was wrong, the RCS are located "off seq" per leg, not aligned with the legs like the AP LM.

[-Velocity-]

Happens on Earth sometimes too. I've worked in the arctic doing low altitude airborne geophysical surveys and up there, flying at 1000ft looks almost identical as flying at 50 feet. Thank science for radar altimeters.

Yup, it sure does. My post mainly refers to flying over land that has vegetation on it. As you say, ice-covered regions are tough to judge. I'm betting that over certain, very dry, desert regions, it might also be very tough to judge your altitude. At least you have haze/dust over deserts though.

[Specialist290]

Anyone else notice these things about Chang'e 3?

a) The main spacecraft looks roughly like the Apollo LM descent stage (octagonal layout), even the positioning of the legs (and the design of the legs themselves) and "quads".

The RCS are also in roughly the same positions. Also, note the "pallets" on the sides.

c) Based on images of the spacecraft in clean rooms, it seems roughly smaller than the Apollo LM. Which means, if you create an ASCENT STAGE for it, then it would seem okay for a one-man can.

Just playing in my head, but I feel that the spacecraft superstructure could actually be a testbed for a manned lander.

I've taken the liberty of merging your thread into the main discussion, rodion_hererra.

That being said, it is an interesting thing to speculate on. At the very least, the Chinese have announced plans for an unmanned sample return for Chang'e 5, so it wouldn't surprise me if they plan on basing the composite lander / return vehicle on their current lander hardware.

[-Velocity-]

Actually, a lot of that "bureaucracy" is because of the outsourcing. People often preset outsourcing as a way to save money, but it's usually the opposite. You need tons of regulations and procedures to control how public money is spent and how procurement contracts are handled. Because people don't want the government to waste taxpayer money on useless projects, they introduce commissions and studies to make sure that the rules are properly followed. Then you need people to do all the paperwork that is required to ensure that the regulations are enforced and that the commissions are properly informed.

In the end, the actual work still needs to be done by the same people, only now they work for a private company, which charges more than the government would have spent by doing the work in-house, because the stockholders need to take their share.

So the best way for the government to save money would be to actually hire more government employees to do the work instead of pay the private sector for juicy outsourcing contracts that only make the stockholders richer.

An interesting take. How do you manage the government employees and make them reasonably efficient though? Inefficient private corporations go bankrupt or are out-competed if they are not successful. The government doesn't have to worry about that.

[rodion_herrera]

I've taken the liberty of merging your thread into the main discussion, rodion_hererra.

That being said, it is an interesting thing to speculate on. At the very least, the Chinese have announced plans for an unmanned sample return for Chang'e 5, so it wouldn't surprise me if they plan on basing the composite lander / return vehicle on their current lander hardware.

Yes thanks! Point taken, I guess the jump from something like this to a manned one would be too abrupt--if for a testbed, most likely for the sample-return mission.

[Superluminaut]

Anyone else notice these things about Chang'e 3?

a) The main spacecraft looks roughly like the Apollo LM descent stage (octagonal layout), even the positioning of the legs (and the design of the legs themselves) and "quads".

The RCS are also in roughly the same positions. Also, note the "pallets" on the sides.

c) Based on images of the spacecraft in clean rooms, it seems roughly smaller than the Apollo LM. Which means, if you create an ASCENT STAGE for it, then it would seem okay for a one-man can.

Just playing in my head, but I feel that the spacecraft superstructure could actually be a testbed for a manned lander.

It could probably be converted into a 1 man lander if you add a 3rd stage like the LK lander.

Some size comparisons.

[rodion_herrera]

It could probably be converted into a 1 man lander if you add a 3rd stage like the LK lander.

Precisely my line of thinking, although I don't really think a brakeblock is needed--why not do it purely AS/DS?

[Lohan2008]

Interesting observation about the Chang'e lander being a test bed for future missions.

As an Australian I wish you Americans would stop whining about being left out of the space race, it is your own fault that you did NOTHING over the last 40 years

[Camacha]

I felt the configuration was a little odd with the rover being on top and having to be hoisted down, but I did not come to any conclusions. It makes perfect sense that this is a test for further manned development though. It explains why the thing is shaped the way it is and it seems in line with Chinese aspirations.

[Brotoro]

Interesting observation about the Chang'e lander being a test bed for future missions.

As an Australian I wish you Americans would stop whining about being left out of the space race, it is your own fault that you did NOTHING over the last 40 years

I doubt that it's the fault of anybody here (who you describe as 'whining') that the U.S is not doing more in space. Do you not think most of us here WANT the U.S. to do more in space? But we only have so much influence.

I comfort myself with the thought that it is my consumer dollars spent on a lot of products manufactured in China that are, in a small way, contributing to the prosperity of the Chinese that allow them to have a space program.