China has made history by landing on the far side of the Moon

Now China, Earth’s biggest commune
Has reached the dark side of the moon
Though in the space race
They’ve missed out on first place
It’s still something one shouldn’t lampoon

John Moynes

Pic: EPA/EPA/China National Space Administration

85 thoughts on “A Limerick A Day

  1. Cian

    There isn’t a “dark side” of the moon. There is a far side, but it gets the same amount of sunlight as the near side.

  2. Eoin

    50 years after the Americans say they landed men on the moon, the Chinese manage to produce a photograph (taken by who exactly??????) showing some shopping-trolley-sized jalopy on the “dark side of the moon” (with a shadow on the right suggesting a light source on the left, not so “dark” huh?).

    V slow clap.

    1. pedeyw

      I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but here goes:

      “(with a shadow on the right suggesting a light source on the left, not so “dark” huh?)”-
      Putting aside the fact the BS have published the Artist’s impression and not the actual photograph, the name “Dark side of the moon” is an unfortunate misnomer. It’s only “the Dark Side” because we aren’t able to see it from earth due to the moons rotation being locked to the earth.
      The main reason there hasn’t been a lot of exploration is due to the problem with communication and line of sight (there’s a big lump of rock called the moon in the way).The Chinese have overcome this by communicating via a satellite.

      “(taken by who exactly??????)”- That’s an artist’s impression, not the actual photograph.

      Also its 50 since the Americans absolutely did land on the moon, not just since they said they did. Any “evidence” against it has been soundly debunked.

      1. Eoin

        Yeah, well, 50 years after the Americans say they landed men on the near side of the moon, it’s hardly very impressive that the Chinese have just managed to launch two craft, a satellite with lines of sight to both China and the landing point on the other side of the moon, and the second craft, the miserable jalopy whose impression is rendered above. In the same 50 years, we’ve all got computers in our pockets that would have occupied air-conditioned rooms back in 1969, with communication abilities that were undreamed of 50 years ago (the Jetsons might have had mobile phones and skype but even they didn’t have Facebook).

        It’s quite pathetic progress really, especially if you accept what the Americans told you in 1969.

          1. rotide

            He’s made magnificent strides in boring everyone to tears on every papers post in fairness to him

        1. Spaghetti Hoop

          The Americans landed a craft on Mars last year – that impressive enough for you? They also have the ISS plus an impressive infra-red telescope buzzing around the earth on a Boeing747 picking up all sorts of new data on starbirth and black holes. It’s good that the Chinese are now more involved in pioneering research and investing in some missions. Can’t wait for Apollo Eoin though to blow us all away ;)

          1. Eoin

            Wait, what, 60 years after the Russians sent a craft to the moon, we’ve managed to send a craft 200 times further? Wow. That learned me. And a Boeing 747, you say? In 2018? That’s just fantastic. Sorry for the earlier cynicism.

          2. Nigel

            The last decade has seen a massive amount of exploration throughout the solar system. They also landed a probe on a comet. Manned space exploration is pretty much dead at the moment but we know more about our neighbouring bodies than ever before.

        2. pedeyw

          It’s not just taking the US government on their word, you know. Any “evidence” I’ve seen that it was faked is pretty pathetic and easily debunked vs. an overwhelming mountain of documentary evidence that it happened. In fact arguably it would have been harder to fake the moon landing to the level than they did in 1969, given the level of tv technology and sfx then actually do it.

          The computers used (not to mention actual people “computers”) to compute trajectories / orbits etc. were very primitive but they were designed and built specifically for that purpose with known formulas.

          I’d imagine Nasa would have done a lot more if it had had any kind of funding increase in the last 30 years. It’s pretty miraculous what they have pulled off, tbh. The cold war ending sure took the wind out of things.

        1. rotide

          Seeing as you are incapable of reading the articles you linnk as ‘proof’ , there’s not much point talking to you

          1. Nigel

            He can’t read very well his yes are still crossed fro when Buzz Aldrin punched him that time.

          2. jusayinlike

            try and keep control of your thumbs when you’re frothing at the mouth Nigel, do us a favour and wipe the spittle from the screen babe

    2. david

      I have been banned and have been asked politely by Broadsheet to stop posting but I am a rude and ignorant bully.

  3. Eoin

    I don’t believe anything outta China, the US or Russia when it comes to landing stuff on the moon. The US went to the moon in 1969 (and several more times in the early 70s), yet they cannot return because they’ve destroyed all the tech, they’ve erased the thousands of tapes of telemetry data and they’ve lost the original films taken on the moon. The most important event in human history and the custodians of the material relating to it have accidentally destroyed it all? Hmmmmm. Also, check the Chinese space walk footage and you will see air bubbles…in space. Chinese are as full of it as NASA.

    1. rotide

      You can verify that the moon landings happened quite easily. I’ll leave it up to yourself to research how. Might keep you occupied for a bit.

          1. pedeyw

            The conspiracist line of thinking which goes”we can’t trust anything a government says but the lad who runs this website (and selling stuff) has the all the answers.” It would be funny if it wasn’t depressing.

    2. pedeyw

      The telemetry data were mostly used for real time adjustments etc. The full mission reports are available on Nasa’s webiste.
      The Saturn 5 rockets were designed and built using 1960s parts which are no longer available and the launch pads were modified for Space Shuttle use. Soyuz and SpaceX are still available to use so what would be the point in rebuilding the Saturn 5? Despite what you may have read the blueprints do still exist, they’re not much use though.

      1. Cian

        NASA’s budget peaked in 1966 at $5.9bn this was 4.41% of US GDP. This was to fund the Apollo project and get at least one first in the space race. The Saturn V was the most complex machine ever created (with 1.5 million parts).

        Today they get $20bn or 0.5% of US GDP.

      2. jusayinlike

        Thanks pedeyw, unfortunately you don’t know what you’re talking about so I’ll go with someone who does..

        It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

        Wernher von Braun, Father of Nazi V-2 Rockets, Father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

        1. ReproBertie

          “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers”, said Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM.

          Sometimes people are wrong, even in their own field.

          1. jusayinlike

            Great, that doesn’t disprove or prove anything, it’s also a very poor comparative example.

          2. ReproBertie

            It illustrates that people can be proven wrong, just as Von Braun’s ideas based on the science of the 1950’s were proven incorrect by the science of the 1960’s.

          3. jusayinlike

            If he was wrong why did the US team have to buy the Czech rocket technology from Tito’ Yugoslavia in the mid 1960’s?

            The technology turned out to be inferior and Tito ended up trying to repay the cash all through the 70’s and 80’s leading right up to the war.

            But you know all this already right Bertie?

        2. ReproBertie

          Also, von Braun was talking about a single stage rocket to go from earth to the moon whereas the Apollo missions used a three stage rocket. Selective quoting like that just highlights your denial of the basic facts.

          1. ReproBertie

            Von Braun was talking about the unfeasibility of a single stage rocket launching from earth to the moon, instead of his preferred approach of a two stage journey with the second stage being launched from a space station. Neither of these options were pursued for the Apollo missions.

          2. jusayinlike

            You’re getting yourself in a twist now Bertie..

            WVB was addressing a scenario of a single ascent, the rocket type is immaterial, his conclusion clearly states that the fuel necessities and lead shielding required for a single ascent wasn’t/isn’t possible using rocket technology.

            That’s why Bezos, Musk and the most industrialized nation on the planet, China, still can’t put a manned rocket on the moon 50 years after it was allegedly done on the first attempt with primitive technology inferior to Android smart phones.

          3. ReproBertie

            His rocket type is far from immaterial! He was talking about a single rocket, based on the heavy V2 structure he was familiar with, going from earth to the moon. The Saturn V didn’t do that as most of it was jettisoned in earth orbit.

            You don’t really know what you’re talking about if you think the type of rocket is immaterial. Bottom line is that WVB’s 1950’s theories were proven wrong by the advances made through the Mercury, Gemini and finally Apollo programmes.

          4. ReproBertie

            Also Apollo 11 landed on the moon. That was the 11th Apollo mission, building on the 9 Mercury and 12 Gemini missions, with each of the preceding 10 Apollo missions taking them a step closer to the moon landing. To try and dismiss it as a first attempt is just another display of your lack of understanding of the 1960’s space programme.

          5. jusayinlike

            I don’t care how many unmanned missions the US sent up previous to Apollo. That is also immaterial given the massive requirements on a craft for a manned mission. There simply is no comparison.

            I’m curious to know why you think this is relative and where you conclude that I am ignoring those missions?

          6. ReproBertie

            You’re ignoring them when you say Apollo 11 was a first attempt. It clearly wasn’t. It was the next step after all the other manned and unmanned missions that went before.

          7. jusayinlike

            I never said Apollo 11 was the first attempt, I talk in general about Apollo missions and the program, I never once mentioned an exact mission.

            I’m not sure if you saw my comment above stating that the US had to buy the Czech rocket technology from Tito in the mid 60’s. If their previous programs which you mention bettered their situation, why did they require it, and afterwards hunt Tito for repayment, which clearly shows they were conned?

            In 1967 NASA were unable to maintain comms with a craft in earth’s atmosphere, yet somehow 2 years later they sent a rocket up on a single ascent and completed it first time, all the while being unable to maintain comms link with the humble telescope.

          8. jusayinlike

            The rocket type is immaterial Bertie, the scenario he described, and you erred in translation, referred to a single ascent, ie any rocket type, going directly to the moon on a single mission.

            What you’re describing is a single ascent rocket with a booster pack which drops off after exiting the atmosphere, the problem with this setup is that the extra fuel cells render the craft to heavy and the mission economically unviable. This is clearly described snobby WVB.

          9. ReproBertie

            The rocket type is not immaterial because WMB’s calculations were based on a different rocket type, to be built using outdated technology, designed for a different mission than the rockets used in the Apollo programme. You might as well argue that a 747 can’t exist because a plane built using the Wright brothers’ design couldn’t carry that many passengers.

          10. jusayinlike

            The rocket type is immaterial Bertie, that’s why they were forced to buy the Czech tech from Tito. If they had advanced the rocket tech why did they need to buy the ropey Czech stuff in the mid 60’s?

            Propeller technology advancements and rocket propulsion advancements can’t be compared Bertie.

          11. ReproBertie

            You keep insisting the rocket type is immaterial because you know that comparing the rockets WVB was talking about to the rockets used by the Apollo missions makes your quote meaningless. I do find it hilarious that your conspiracy hangs on a quote from a 1952 magazine puff piece which spoke about a space station with several hundred crew by 1963, a 50 man expedition to the moon by 1964 and a manned mission to Mars soon afterwards.

            “The moon is just a commuter flight. Unmanned probes will pass Mars on July 28 and Aug. 5 to show before the end of the month more than we have ever known about the surface of that planet. If the pictures are interesting enough, I believe there will be a commitment for a manned flight to Mars in a year.” – WVB after Apollo 11 returned to earth in 1969.

            Yes, there was an issue with the radio in the prelaunch testing of Apollo 1 but the radios had worked fine during the Mercury and Gemini missions. You’re relying on cherry picked incidents to make your theory stand up but it falls apart when the bigger picture is looked at.

          12. jusayinlike

            You ignore the secret foraging of Czech rocket tech in the mid 60’s and accuse me of cherry picking data..

            If the previous were so enhancing why did NASA require the Czech tech? and if they weren’t conned by Tito why did they pursue him for the following two decades?

            You’re downplaying the comms issues, in 1967 NASA couldn’t even communicate with the Hubble telescope let alone fly a craft directly to the moon.

            The weight of the craft with a booster pack and required shielding and fuel necessities rendered the craft too heavy for exiting earth’s atmosphere and orbit, if anything is being ignored it is by you Bertie.. single ascent, Tito rocket tech, lead shielding for radiation..

            The rest of what you mention is immaterial, as in the publication and his comments prior to Apollo, as none of it came to fruition.

          13. ReproBertie

            “In 1967 NASA couldn’t even communicate with the Hubble telescope”
            The Hubble telescope was only launched in 1990.

            Once again, the rocket WVB spoke about in 1952 was a single rocket to go from Earth to the moon, a direct ascent mission. The Apollo missions were not direct ascent missions. Do you understand the difference between Direct Ascent and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous?

            The Saturn rockets, used by the Apollo missions and developed by WVB and his team, were designed to launch satellites into earth orbit. Are you saying WVB was right in 1952 and wrong every moment from then on? What’s the cut off point for believing WVB about rocket tech?

            You wave Czech rocket tech around like you think its some sort of smoking gun but the US never had all their eggs in one basket on rocket development. The Army, Air Force and Navy all had their own rocket development programmes running through the 50’s. If someone had a better rocket it made sense to acquire it and if it wasn’t a better rocket, to continue working with what they had.

          14. jusayinlike

            Firstly, my apologies about the Hubble, I genuinely mixed up satellites, if I’ve time I’ll find out the name of the satellite which dropped off line.

            “Once again, the rocket WVB spoke about in 1952 was a single rocket to go from Earth to the moon, a direct ascent mission. The Apollo missions were not direct ascent missions. Do you understand the difference between Direct Ascent and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous?”

            I do indeed, unfortunately for you the craft can’t make it out of earth’s orbit, due to the exorbitant weight in lead shielding required to protect from the radiation outside the initial Van Allen belt which exists a 1000 miles up, that’s why 50 years later the Chinese are still only at the point where they can send unmanned probes up. The difference with this program is the Chinese put a docking station in the moons orbit to enable the lunar rendezvous. The Apollo program apparently didn’t need it.

            “The Saturn rockets, used by the Apollo missions and developed by WVB and his team, were designed to launch satellites into earth orbit. Are you saying WVB was right in 1952 and wrong every moment from then on? What’s the cut off point for believing WVB about rocket tech?”

            I’ve no idea about his prior quotes in relation to Apollo, it should be noted that he was a Nazi scientist, a war criminal, who was paper clipped to the USA, he was in essence an asset of the state department so I’d imagine he owed them a significant debt. The previous quote I cited was spoken in a much more innocent context well before Apollo was launched.

            “You wave Czech rocket tech around like you think its some sort of smoking gun but the US never had all their eggs in one basket on rocket development. The Army, Air Force and Navy all had their own rocket development programmes running through the 50’s. If someone had a better rocket it made sense to acquire it and if it wasn’t a better rocket, to continue working with what they had.”

            That’s all great, however it’s completely irrelevant. NASA bought the bogus Czech rocket tech on the advice of Nazi scientist WVB, your assertion that this was somehow shared amongst state department agencies. NASA sought out the tech to enhance their insipid rocket program which at that stage was killing their scientists with failed lift offs..

          15. jusayinlike

            I said earth’s orbit and the van Allen belts, the lead shielding required rendered the craft too heavy, and when I say craft, I mean any manned mission to the moon. Alas if only they had launched a docking station ahead of time with enough fuel to get them home, like the Chinese who will successfully land people on the moon.

          16. ReproBertie

            The radiation in the Van Allen belt doesn’t need much more than aluminium shielding to make it safe. You know the ISS, which is not lead lined, passes through the Van Allen belt on every orbit, right?

          17. jusayinlike

            No it doesn’t it sits safely in earth’s atmosphere where it’s useless for fuelling capabilities.

          18. f_lawless

            the biggest problem I have with faked moon landings is that the missions were apparently tracked by radar to the moon and back by several countries, Russia included. That there would have been a collective agreement to silence back in 1969 and ever since by all those countries, particularly Russia, without ever a hint of information getting out, seems to be stretching it

          19. jusayinlike


            Given that the telemetry being fed to Houston was from a successful satellite sent to the moon it’s feasible that the radar readings could also be from said satellite.

            But your correct in that the Russians would have known. They had only sent unmanned probes and animals beyond earth’s atmosphere and the VA belts. The animals all dying of radiation poisoning, the Russians knew how perilous it was to attempt without heavy lead shielding so never risked the venture.

            But NASA did on their first attempt with a craft stapled together with tin foil and technology inferior to an Android smart phone.

          20. ReproBertie

            The ISS doesn’t pass through the VA belt on every orbit. I was exaggerating, just as you were when you said that NASA made it to the moon “on their first attempt with a craft stapled together with tin foil”.

            The truth is that the ISS does pass through the lower VA belt when storms expand the belt into the ISS’s orbit. The dangers posed by this are countered by the brief time the ISS is in the belt and the 6 month limit on Astronauts’ time in space. None of the Apollo missions were in the belt for very long so there was no need to line the entire craft with lead. Even probes that sit in the VA belt to allow scientists study it are not lead lined. In March of 2017 one of those probes found that the radiation levels in the inner belt are lower than had previously been believed.

            You keep referring to NASA using “technology inferior to an Android smart phone” which is true but misses the point. The Apollo missions used computers to calculate trajectories and little else so the computing power of an Android smart phone would only have helped them complete the calculations quicker. The Astronauts were pilots and it was them, not a computer, doing the flying.

            The other side to improved technology is obvious in the Mars rovers and the Chinese moon landing. It’s easier and cheaper to dump a drone on another planet, moon or asteroid than it is to send humans. Drones don’t need food or water and, crucially, drones don’t need to be brought back.

          21. jusayinlike

            I’m not exaggerating Bertie..

            And I disagree with your assertion that the Van Allen belts are not perilous to pass through. It is this Van Allen belt that nearly fatally wounded the astronauts in 1998 when the Space Shuttle attempted a mission above its normal 350 mile range. The Shuttle reached an altitude of 425 miles when the astronauts on board reported feeling ill and the ability to see shooting stars with their eyes closed. This was direct radiation from the belts penetrating the hull of the Shuttle, then their suits, then their skulls. Keep in mind that the Van Allen belts aren’t theorized to hit maximum strength until 1,000 miles up. In the simplest terms, they were only 42.5% the distance to the entry point of massive radiation exposure, and they were losing much of their physical abilities. To enter the Van Allen belts without massive shielding would be certain death.

          22. rotide

            I have no idea why you bother replying to him bertie.

            There is literally NO point.

            Althjough this thread is useful as it shows again that Bodger thinks the moon landings were faked.

          23. jusayinlike

            Sneering little editor, trying to shut down conversation.. what’s new..

            Bertie please feel free to answer..

          24. Johnny

            What’s your point Ro-more sneers and snide remarks,all you do is play the man,hiding behind sarcasm and smarmy comments,is your self esteem really that low ?
            You contribute nothing.

          25. rotide

            There’s a difference between ‘trying to shut down conversation’ and telling you that you are wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt you silly little man.

            Go tell Buzz Aldrin your theory and see what happens,.

          26. rotide

            Just came across this today:

            “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen

            Recognise that name?

            Something tells me he knows a little more about the belts than a guy who pretends to have 4 degrees

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *