Yes. The engineering reports are available, if you can read Chinese. It took only a few photos, was planned to hover up to 100 seconds but resolved the task in 20 and landed.

Other than that, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=2013-070A or read the landing coverage in english media.

As to how it was designed, start reading here
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-HKXB201008014.htm

The point about ILOA was that they do receive CE-3 scientific data releases, as do a few European institutions.

There are many other things you could learn about this mission, if you bothered.

As in, Chang’e-3 didn’t crash? Or did it actually negotiate around hazards? Is your research thorough enough to be able to glean that? References, please. No question that hazard avoidance system “flew”. Did it really do anything?

Ask ILOA? Goodness. No, I won’t ask them. Those are the guys who want to put an astronomical telescope on the Moon for doing science, when astronomers have long ago rejected that idea as being a credible plan compared to an in-space observatory. Yes, they have their mini-UV telescope there, on CE-3, which isn’t doing any new science, but is just taking pretty pictures (“exclusive images”, Steve Durst proudly calls them).

No one is saying that CE-3 isn’t a “modern” spacecraft. Just that there are many nations that have the capability to make spacecraft with modern accoutrements.

Yes it did work, well enough. Your research isn’t really thorough. And it was dangerous enough, as CE-3 set down very close to a crater.

China may not have had such confidence for the Chang’e-3 landing site on the Moon, with their rather poor 7m resolution complete imaging,

Chang’e-2 map remains the highest resolution lunar global map to date. LRO narrow angle images are much sharper but do not cover the complete sphere, and CE-3 did high resolution narrow angle imaging of the landing area as well. The data and images have been released, too, ask ILOA.

CE-3 is a “modern” spacecraft in every respect – which is obvious to anyone actually bothering to look.

That’s correct, but I think there are serious rationale barriers as well. Our nation is simply not as motivated to put humans in orbit as it used to be. The dreaded “gap” is upon us, and Congress, which ensured that gap would happen by disincentivizing commercial carriers, is content to be exasperated. Fingers will wag and fists will pound, and voters will see mounds of exasperation. They are mostly exasperated because of what we’re getting charged to put our astronauts in orbit, and less that we can’t do it ourselves. But at some level, Congress has put us in this position because we really can’t see a lot of national value in doing it ourselves. I’m sorry, but it’s up to Congress to be sensitive to national value in establishing priorities, and that’s just the way it’s fallen out. For Congress, our ticket to space is Orion and SLS, and it’s a really pricey ticket. You’d think that, by lofting our own astronauts, the price per astronaut lifted would go down. Ain’t gonna happen with Orion/SLS.

Nice column. But the fact remains the US can’t put humans in orbit while both China and Russia can.

Another fact remains … The U.S. controls the communications, electronics and power on the ISS. Russia can’t come or go without the U.S.

If not for the temporary use of Soyuz for transport, the Russians would have no customers except for celebrities who want a joyride. Their aerospace industry would be all but moribund.

Ten years ago, the U.S. made a deliberate policy decision to take a timeout post-Shuttle to retool for new programs. What those programs would be has morphed over the years, after Constellation fell flat on its face, but commercial crew set it right.

The U.S. had to take one step aside so it could make another giant leap for humanity. I’m cool with it.

I think I just did. Thank you!

“For one, Chang’e-3 flew a visual and radar based autonomous landing hazard detection system, akin to ALHAT that was just ground-tested in US a few weeks ago. Something that NASA eventually wants to integrate on next mars landers, to finally get rid of the big landing ellipse uncertainty and enable new mission capabilities.”

So I’m glad to hear they flew this hazard detection system. Did it work? Did it make the lander avoid hazards? From the LRO imagery and the images that have come back from Chang’e-3, the terrain doesn’t look particularly dangerous.

Now, landing on Mars is quite different than landing on the Moon. Landing targeting on Mars is highly dependent on the circumstances of the atmosphere interface. That’s difficult to predict with precision. It’s not quite yet about recognizing features and going where you want to go. Once you’re under the chute, for example, you pretty much go where the breeze takes you. That’s where the landing ellipse comes from. We pretty much selected the location for that ellipse where our orbital assets gave us some confidence about the lack of hazards. China may not have had such confidence for the Chang’e-3 landing site on the Moon, with their rather poor 7m resolution complete imaging, and that’s probably why they felt they needed to fly a hazard avoidance system. You can get in a lot of trouble in a pixel that big.

Of course, MSL has a nice onboard hazard avoidance system that it has just started using for autonomous roving. This system builds on the successful VTT and GESTALT systems that flew with the MERs. No, it’s not ALHAT, because the “L” in ALHAT is “landing”.

Yes, Chang’e-3 shows that the Chinese are “players”, along with several other nations, but I just don’t see enabling innovations that would make them look like technological contemporaries.

If you are actually interested, why dont you do your research then ? For one, Chang’e-3 flew a visual and radar based autonomous landing hazard detection system, akin to ALHAT that was just ground-tested in US a few weeks ago. Something that NASA eventually wants to integrate on next mars landers, to finally get rid of the big landing ellipse uncertainty and enable new mission capabilities.

There are other examples, start here, which is the best english writeup on CE-3 tech :
http://www.spaceflight101.com/change-3.html