SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
China's Moon mission sees first seeds sprout
Seeds taken up to the Moon by China's Chang'e-4 mission have sprouted, says China National Space Administration. It marks the first time any biological matter has grown on the Moon, and is being seen as a significant step towards long-term space exploration. [...] Plants have been grown on the International Space Station before but never on the Moon.
[...] The Chinese Moon lander was carrying among its cargo soil containing cotton and potato seeds, yeast and fruit fly eggs. The plants are in a sealed container on board the lander. The crops will try to form a mini biosphere - an artificial, self-sustaining environment.
[...] On Tuesday, Chinese state media said the cotton seeds had now grown buds. The ruling Communist Party's official mouthpiece the People's Daily tweeted an image of the sprouted seed, saying it marked "the completion of humankind's first biological experiment on the Moon".
Fred Watson, Australian Astronomical Observatory's astronomer-at-large, told the BBC the development was "good news". "It suggests that there might not be insurmountable problems for astronauts in future trying to grow their own crops on the moon in a controlled environment."
According to SCMP, a similar biosphere experiment will be conducted on Earth for comparison.
A Chang'e-5 lunar exploration vehicle could be launched by the end of 2019, and would include a 2 kg sample return. At least 3 more Chang'e missions are planned.
Previously: China's Chang'e 4 Spacecraft Lands on the Far Side of the Moon
Chang'e Lander Sends Back Far Side Panorama
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 15 2019, @07:42PM (2 children)
No, I think your example is far better. Ignore the previous post and dump an ad hominem. That's willfully bad reading comprehension.
Indeed, but not on my side. In my defense, there was a lot of blather of how lethal the Moon was to an unprotected human while ignoring that's not what's going to be on the Moon followed by the implied assumption of living on the Moon for months (meaning those problems which make life dead fast have been resolved). On Earth, most of the Earth is lethal to unprotected humans who try to live in the environment for months. Sure, the degree of lethality is far less for most parts of Earth than on the Moon, but that's it. You need substantial infrastructure or survivalist skills to survive in the deserts east of Los Angeles or in the high Himalayas. Same is true for the Moon. We'll need a certain level of infrastructure and knowledge to make it. And as I noted, if you can live for a few months on the Moon, then you've figured out that hard stuff.
Sorry, didn't happen that way. And as I noted, a huge number of people live in places that suck. But we are to expect that the Moon will be different and people will not live there (whether or not they "want" to)? That somehow got missed in your straw man argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @02:53AM (1 child)
The OP clearly meant the moon is simply a harsh environment with little to no upside. I disagree with them and think we should make a moon colony, but my response to you was simply about you being too literal with the different paragraphs in order to be insulting. Just calling that out, and it appeared to be massive comprehension failure. In reality you were intentionally misunderstanding the post.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:51AM
Again, I disagree. In that litany of dangers no thought was given to what happens when they're solved as they would be when someone lives in a place for a few months or longer. The author also choose for no particular reason to declare that the idea of lunar colonization was "ridiculous and insane". The last paragraph does not absolve the sins of the first. And I still believe that going from declaring such things "ridiculous and insane" with a discussion of the dangers facing one who isn't protected by sensible and well-engineered infrastructure, to admitting that several months of settlement is feasible (but we wouldn't like it because even more irrelevant emotional factors like it's purposeless, etc) a glaring sign of cognitive dissonance not an .
And what is the problem with that? Should we not be at least mildly insulting to those who clearly have thought about the subject enough to come up with a relatively accurate litany of details of the lunar environment and then pull out a sophomoric (and might I add, insulting!) argument that clearly wasn't thought through a bit. There's a point to discussing the value of would be colonization of the Moon, particularly the present weakness of economic arguments. But blithe and contradictory arguments about the impossibility of colonization are a waste of everyone's time.
Politeness is wasted on such.