For the first time since 1976, an artificial vehicle has landed on on the Moon. In this case it’s China’s Chang’e-3 mission, carrying a six-wheeled rover called Yutu (“Jade Rabbit”). Emily Lakdawalla at the Planetary Society blog has made some animated gifs from the video broadcast by Chinese TV. (See below the fold.) Note that these were recorded and then played back at high speed; the rover was actually moving more slowly than portrayed here.
When I mentioned this on Twitter, I intentionally just said that “we” had landed a rover on the Moon, rather than “China” did it (although they certainly deserve the credit). That’s because it’s not a competition — achievements like this belong to the whole human race, not just one country or another. I’ll complain when the US drops the scientific ball and lets other countries do all the work, but that’s because the US is a big, rich country that has the resources to be leading the way, and the whole world suffers when it chooses not to shoulder its share of the load. If NASA (or Fermilab or whoever) does something good, the proper response isn’t to be chanting “USA! USA!” It’s just to appreciate what human beings have become capable of — and look forward to what they will do next.
As a planetary scientist in the U.S., I can say without hesitation that NASA has already dropped the ball.
I felt very happy when I saw the “we” in your tweet. Humans should always be on the same team, and science is a great opportunity of doing so.
Congrats to China from Spain.
Pingback: Allgemeines Live-Blog ab dem 13. Dezember 2013 | Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null
These unmanned probes return much more back to us than we would spend on them, it’s utter stupidity for the US not to being doing this, but in the age of Tea Party republicans and Neo Liberal democrats stupidity is at record levels in government.
Cool. Agreed.
Here is something I just wrote about the moon:
Proof of Purpose
Pingback: We Landed on the Moon | Christian Ready
It’s very sad to see people thinking commenting on the “we” and thinking about it as a way to take credit away.
It should be something natural and instinctive to think “we” as the human species (and possibly not just for scientific achievements).
Whether it’s about China, the USA, Humanity or the Biosphere Entire, who exactly are those “We?” Feats like this are always pulled off by an infinitesimal elite minority, albeit payed for (without express approval) by a great, indifferent majority who would rather have the money spent on free Miley Syrus tickets. And some of these payers-for nevertheless believe that the target was created on the Fourth Day some 6000 years ago by a benevolent supreme power so that the We may enjoy pale light at night—and romance.
When the Los Angeles Lakers bit the Boston Celtics, it’s not “we, the Western Conference territory inhabitants,” who have won, it’s the team. Thus, cheers to the Chinese team—scientists, engineers, technicians, craftsman and staff—for a job well done!
Been there, done that…. 40 years ago.
However, a moon base and various asteroid landings should have been added to the resume by now.
But short of bringing back consumer moon rocks or building a base of operations, unmanned missions to the moon shouldn’t embarrass NASA in the least. Don’t forget NASA has 3 of these little go carts on the big red rock.
Humanity #1!
This bothers me actually. Not that I want to take anything away from China. But the Chinese will be having a laugh at all this “we” stuff. See what S Rafkin said in comment1?
“I can say without hesitation that NASA has already dropped the ball”.
That’s exactly how it feels. And some. Like the USA dropped the ball and just isn’t interested in science any more. Like the has-been UK where I live and my daughter doesn’t. And what we get instead (sorry Sean) is the fabulous Higgs boson. What good is that? It’s just a bump on a graph that contradicts E=mc² anyway. Where’s my hover bike? Anybody remember Space 1999?
Sigh. The future ain’t what it used to be.
Pingback: Rabbit moon (Science Advent 15) | Galileo's Pendulum
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/opinion/vertesi-cassini-mission/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2013/12/nasas-planetary-science-shift-rattles-researchers
http://www.nature.com/news/nasa-funding-shuffle-alarms-planetary-scientists-1.14304
NASA has nearly zeroed out the planetary science research budget for this year and next. The entire planetary science community is teetering on the edge of the cliff. Without the ability to apply for research grants for the next two years, the field in the U.S. is going to collapse and it will take decades to recover.
I’m glad to see China growing up to be the superpower that it should be. I wish 2 things would happen now. 1.) clean up your air, China. 2.) lets stop the pissing contest in the South China Sea. This shows that we are all big boys and can work together.
IMHO this cartoon in today’s Telegraph says it all:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02766/ADAMS20131216_2766418a.jpg
While we’re talking about the Chinese, see this about rabbits:
http://news.sky.com/story/1182703/angora-sales-halted-over-rabbit-cruelty-video
When NASA became managed by businessmen instead of visionaries for exploring the outer boundaries of science, it became just another American Walmart. Sad!
To DEL
“We” is still the human species. The Chinese team—scientists, engineers, technicians, craftsman and staff— may have sent the rover on the moon but just because we had back almost 400 years of science. Sending a rover on a moon is not just matter of putting together the pieces, it requires all the mechanics, the dynamics (fluid and thermo-), the electromagnetism, the relativity. It requires the chemistry, the computer technology, the engineering and the will to put together all this.
To compare this with putting a ball in a basket seems a little bit too reductive to me.
Reminds me of Einstein: “If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.”
Congrats to the citizens of the world on the moon : )
Davide:
The question is where to place the boundary between those who deserve credit for the achievement and those who do not. You imply the boundary should be between humans and, say, chimpanzees. But this boundary point is, to a great extent, arbitrary: why not put it further down the evolutionary tree, between apes and other primates, or between mammals and other vertebrates? Why not higher-up, between science-oriented and superstitious humans, or between the literate and the illiterate, or between the Western culture (of which Chinese scientists are surely a part) and the present Islamist culture (in contrast to the medieval Islamic culture)?
In my opinion, any such arbitrary choice is bound to be chauvinistic in some respect—anthropo-chauvinistic in the case of your choice. The only “natural” boundary is that between the actually contributing team and the outsiders. You may, if you wish, include in that team all past scientist and inventor generations on whose shoulders stands the edifice of modern science and technology, but they already had their share of credit.
Though, personally, I belong to the human species, and even to its aerospace scientists (ret.) subset, you may count me out—I have done nothing to promote that project. But so didn’t any of my family or friends or neighbors or Robert Mugabe or 99.9999 of the human species.
I have to say, I find all the NASA put downs kind of odd. I mean, yes, they don’t get enough funding, and yes, they perhaps lack a driving vision. But to talk up a lunar rover when NASA just last year landed a more impressive rover on Mars…seems strange to me.
(This is not to denigrate China’s accomplishment at all, of course – it’s very impressive and I’m happy to see other countries pushing their space programs forward. And space should absolutely be a human endeavour rather than a national spitting contest. But if you are going to compare the two at least be fair about it)
This rover landing is absolutely awesome and is simply not getting enough airtime. Is suspect this is a combination of a) Genuine language barriers, b) traditional media reticence of Chinese state bodies, and c) A decadent and incompetant western executive class desperate to avoid drawing the publics attention to the profound lack of western contribution to Lunar exploration since the 1970s when contrasted with the contributions from socieities which are actually trying.
But on a related note to parts a) and b), is there a website for the Chang’e-3 mission? Bonus if it has a english language version, but I’m just hoping for awesome pictures.
I suppose there are two potential uses that a lunar rover could be put to. One would be to gather additional geological data toward settling the remaining questions on the moon’s origin. The rover has some soil collection functionality, so hopefully it can make a contribution there.
The other is as a test bed for Mars rovers. The problems with unexpected wear on Curiosity’s wheels point to a possible need for better testing of rover designs. The moon’s certainly a shorter, less expensive trip, and much less time lag too — it might be useful for as a test-bed/playground for rover designers.
With all due appreciation of the Chinese accomplishment—and I wrote about it above— the greatest use of the Chinese lunar rover is saying to the world “Yes, we also can!” And the contrasted American absence from the Moon lately, so much lamented by some commentators above, is due to saying “We’ve been there already, let’s go somewhere new.”