Japan Plans a Moonbase by 2030 331
Aglassis writes "The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) announced at a conference that they are planning to build a Moonbase by 2030. Since JAXA doesn't currently have a 100 ton-class heavy lift rocket or a human transportation system perhaps now is a good time for JAXA to join in with NASA on the Project Constellation rocket program."
Road Construction (Score:5, Funny)
This reminds me of the timeframes set out by the state construction workers on our highways.
Moon Union Zapped (Score:4, Funny)
However, due to stark environmental realities, the sympathy strike by the oxygen-delivery union will have fatal consequences on the moon construction workers' picket line.
Re:Road Construction (Score:4, Insightful)
They are already off schedule (Score:2)
Re:They are already off schedule (Score:2)
Huh. Well, that's still better than Boston's Big Dig.
Re:They are already off schedule (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They are already off schedule (Score:4, Funny)
Of course it will...with less gravity on the moon, you'll easily be able to dodge that big chunk of concrete coming down at you....
Re:Road Construction (Score:2)
While this is true, it would seem they could get MUCH more done, when traffic was at its lightest. I don't understand why all road work isn't done at night like it is on some projects. Seems you could get a lot more done when there is no traffic on the road...rather than doing it during the middle of the day and rush hours when people are heavily using the roads.
It wouldn't be as hot outside eith
Relability (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Relability (Score:2)
Re:Relability (Score:2, Funny)
I didn't know the Java API for XML Aeronautics [sun.com] was ready yet.
Re:Relability (Score:2)
And when it is, we're all screwed!
Hopefully this will put to rest allegations... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully this will put to rest allegations... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hopefully this will put to rest allegations... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hopefully this will put to rest allegations... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hopefully this will put to rest allegations... (Score:3, Funny)
Faked the moon landings is such pre-9/11 thinking. All the cool kids think that US orchestrated 9/11 now.
But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2)
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, it's possible to create a moon base now, but it's probably not yet cost effective... JAXA doesn't have an unlimited budget, and AFAIK we don't have a definitive solution for the problem of microscopic lunar dust [washingtonpost.com].
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2)
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2, Funny)
I believe you mean "Whalers on the Moon".
please turn in your Geek Card on your way out. :-)
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2)
Still, you busted me fair and square. I am geeky enough to own every Futurama DVD, I'm not geeky enough to have actually read the lyrics to the songs. I'll turn in my card now.
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:3, Funny)
Just to prove my infinite superiority, here are the lyrics:
We're whalers on the moon.
we carry a harpoon.
but there ain't no whales,
so we tell tall tales,
and sing our whalin' tune.
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2)
I still think it's great that I got a joke about gay, west-coast sailors on the moon moderated up to 5: Informative, with help from a link that was discussed on slashdot many moons ago...
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2)
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2)
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:3, Funny)
In any case, 24 years seems quite a lot to me, considering that all the technology needed to accomplish this is available.
This is because Jack Bauer is involved in the project.
The following takes place between 2012 and 2013.
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a "for instance" -- you need a deeply throtleable rocket engine to safely land a vehicle on the Moon. We had one on the LEM in Apollo, but it hasn't been built in 35 years. There are no CAD models of such an engine; the plans have been lost; the manufacturing isn't around; the rocket will be made with different materials, and will need a complete redesign anyway.
Another "for instance" -- space suits have been made for in-space only use. We need to develop a space suit that can walk on the Moon again. There are no plans, the materials are all different, and the suit will need to be designed and tested. As noted by a later post, this is a particularly difficult technology, as it has to deal with lunar dust--basically microscopic shards of volcanic glass that have never had their edges dulled by contact with air. Some of the Apollo astronauts were barely able to move their suits by the end of a 3 day long stay on the surface of the Moon--how would a lunar astronaut survive a six-month stay?
Another "for instance" -- no Saturn 5? how are we supposed to launch something into lunar transit?
Another "for instance" -- the Earth reentry vehicle will be travelling at 10-12 km/s. That's kilometers per second! Even if we had the drawings, the materials used in Apollo's heat shield have been deemed unsafe for the environment. We've got to find and test a replacement.
And those are the critical technologies from off the top of my head, not counting the technologies needed for a human habitat for use on the Moon...which would likely require a nuclear fission power plant to make it through the 14 day lunar night. Besides the technical problems of designing and building a fission power system to operate in 1/6g, can you imagine what would happen if NASA tried to launch a nuclear fission power plant? Cassini had large protests, and it had only radioisotope power, a nuclear power system that has survived a launch failure!
Bottom line is that we do not have the technologies needed for a lunar base, and it will cost a LOT of money and take quite a lot of time to develop them.
Are you kidding? (Score:2)
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:2)
What a difference 44 years makes! (Score:5, Insightful)
2006 - "Its too hard and too expensive."
Re:What a difference 44 years makes! (Score:2)
Re:What a difference 44 years makes! (Score:3, Insightful)
In the 1960s it was a space race, the goal was to get high (so to speak) because it gave military superiority.
In this decade it will be nanotechnology. The goal will be to get small because it gives military superiority.
Or at least, it will be nanotechnology if something like that happens again.
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2)
They did: the Apollo program used reactors for power. SNAP reactors. Basically a subcritical but warm fissionable near a thermocouple.
I can recall the pictures of a astronaut putting the 2nd part of the fissionable into the LEM power plant. I wonder if those generators are still pumping out power.
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:5, Informative)
1. No Saturn V. Correct but we do have engines that are in the same thrust class as the F-1. I also would bet good money that we could convert the drawings to CAD of the F-1 if we haven't already. The new crew launch vehicle is using an improved J-2. Guess when those where used last? Boeing was looking at using the F-1 in a fly-back booster for the the Shuttle years ago so I would guess that they have plans for that some where in CAD. For the rest of the structure a new design would be better and lighter anyway. The Shuttle ET is every bit as technically challenging as the Saturn V first stage so a new Saturn V or replacement would not be a problem.
2. Space suits? NASA has been doing research on those for years. There are many new space suit designs for Mars missions that would work just as well on the Moon.
3. Heat shield. Again not a problem what about the one from Stardust? That probe had a reentry speed higher than a lunar return mission would. It did just fine. The material and aerodynamics are known and proven.
4. The deeply throttleable rocket motors. This would have to a new design but again how to do it is known. This will just be a new motor using proven technology.
5. A lunar reactor. The USSR and the US have both flown reactors in orbit. If they can work in zero G and in one G then 1/6 G shouldn't be an issue. The politics of launching a reactor are just that Politics. A good solution for the protests would be to launch the reactor cold and use Sea Launch for the launch vehicle.
What is left is only the will to do it.
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:5, Informative)
It's important to understand the challenge that NASA is up against: During Apollo, NASA had approximately 2.5% of the national budget. Today, NASA has less than 1%, and they've been asked to do the same job while having to cover the expense of the International Space Station ($4B per year) and the Shuttle (~$2B per year, perhaps more--it depends on whose numbers you believe). That leaves (very approximately) 1/5 the spending power as what was available in Apollo.
I chose to respond to this particular response because I thought it was the most interesting and thoughtful. Here are some more things to think about:
1) You're absolutely correct, and that's why NASA is using as much existing hardware as possible. However, I was in the Air and Space museum the other day and saw folks with NASA badges physically measuring the old Apollo equipment with a 12" ruler. Kind of frightening. 2) Not true. You're forgetting that Mars has an atmosphere and the Moon does not. The Moon's surface is pummeled by asteroids; this liquefies the surface (or so the theory goes) and turns it into something like volcanic glass. The next time that an asteroid strikes the surface, this glass shatters, and the microparticles are very small. They are also very sharp, with edges so sharp that air molecules would break them--but there's no air. So those jagged little crystals get into and on everything. Mars dust isn't nearly as bad, as evidenced by the rovers. There are some excellent resources on the web about the problems of lunar dust. Here's one for your enjoyment. [wired.com]
3) Heat shields are extremely tricky. The center of gravity and the shape of the heatshield determine how large the heatshield can be built. These are lift-producing shapes, so that the capsule can steer a bit while its coming down. No capsule has ever been as large as 5m (Apollo's was 3.9m) and the materials simply don't exist. There are several good candidates, but the best one (far outperforming the others) is made by a small company of ~8 people. Unless that company licenses the material, NASA will never go with it--it would be a real problem if the supplier went out of business. Bottom line is that we can't use the one from Stardust. Not only is it the wrong shape and size, but even if it were, it's not human-rated.
4) I completely agree with you: rocket engine throttling is well known, it's just that a capable has to be developed. That's expensive, and takes time, and NASA has approximately 1/5 the spending power that it did in the Apollo program.
5) I believe that if you check the record, no nuclear *reactor* has ever flown in space. There have been numerous nuclear power generators, such as the ones on Apollo, but they have all been sub-critical. The SP-100 project for having a nuclear reactor in space was cancelled by Clinton in the early 90s, right before they were to build a prototype. Almost all of the development knowledge has been lost from that, unfortunately. Cancelling a project of any sort tends to mean you have to start over (facilities are converted, drawings are lost, people with knowledge and experience go to other fields) but it's very true of technology development. If you stand down a tech development, it's very difficult to start it up again.
That said, I am not a nuke (what nuclear engineers are fond of calling themselves), but I know one, and she tells me that 1/6g is actually the worst case. It's more difficult to get the coolant to flow properly or something, I'm not a nuke. :)
Again, let me stress that I b
Re:But are they sending any salors there? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was questioning the use of the term technology. I do not believe much new technology needs to be developed. Just that we need to build the bloody stuff.
I wasn't suggesting that they use the actual heat shield from Stardust. Just that expertise to build it exists. I should also state that I also understand that creating a heat shield like that is a complex task involving hypersonic aerodynamics, thermal dynamics, and a big heaping scoop
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to sound like a troll, but if this is the attitude at NASA, I'll be surprised if you manage to launch the next space shuttle. If you said something like that i
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:2)
The plans are probably in the same place as the missing Moon landing video tapes. Have you checked with the cleaning staff?
Lost Plans? (Score:3, Informative)
You need not mention that, the contents of your post clearly demonstrate that fact.
the plans have been lost; the manufacturing isn't around; ... There are no plans, the materials are all different, ... Even if we had the drawings, ...
What are you talking about? The Lost Cities of Gold [wikipedia.org]? The plans are kept in several places, you have no idea how many copies of the documentation those aerospace companies keep. But, assume for a moment that the plans didn't exist. It took about t
Re:But are they sending any sailors there? (Score:4, Interesting)
With this current work, we will no longer allow loss of knowledge.
Not really. (Score:2)
Yes, the bits and pieces of the technology exist, but the systems do not. We've
"Plans" (Score:3, Funny)
I really hope it does happen. Before I die I have to go to the moon. I hope we start building condos out there in 50 years or so.
Re:"Plans" (Score:2)
Re:For Centurians, right? In 2030, I will be 74 ye (Score:2)
Obligatory space 1999 refences (Score:2, Funny)
When will the moon be torn out of orbit?
Obligatory Austin Powers response (Score:2)
I'm guessing shortly after the construction of Moon Unit Zappa.
Give me a break (Score:5, Informative)
"The feasibility of the plan is unclear at this point as we need to gain understanding by the government and the Japanese people on our plan, but technologically it would be possible in a few decades," said Satoki Kurokawa, spokesman for JAXA.
Translation: We don't know if it's feasible, we don't know if the government will pay for it, we don't know if the people are for it, but we think it's possible. What a pile-o-poo-poo.
These guys sound like NASA.
Wake me up when Japanese industrialists figure out something they can do on the moon and want to send robots there or something.
Re: (Score:2)
H3? (Score:2)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0006 30.html [space.com]
Not totally practical, but it's there if you want a blue sky reason to invest the capital. Most of the early work would be an excuse to get the japanese government to fund some R&D, later investment can be scaled depending on developments on h3 reactors and other practical returns. With its energy needs and aging popu
Re:Give me a break (Score:2)
Re:Give me a break (Score:2)
Pronunciation? (Score:2)
Re:Pronunciation? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pronunciation? (Score:2)
Re:Pronunciation? (Score:2)
There's probably a Japanese name for the Agency as well, but Verizon has our DSL running at sub dial up speed today, and I don't have the patience to dig the Japanese name out.
Anyway, I reckon you can pronounce JAXA any way you want to.
JAXA (Score:2)
thought we had a new acronym:; Java And XML Asynchronously.
Actually, kind of like that more than AJAX....
Remember the good old days? (Score:3, Insightful)
You go, Japan. Someone's gotta do it, and ever since we rejected science for religion, all your base are no longer belong to US.
Re:Remember the good old days? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Remember the good old days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember the good old days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember the good old days? (Score:2)
Re:Remember the good old days? (Score:2)
Love that game.
Re:Remember the good old days? (Score:2)
Re:Remember the good old days? (Score:2)
Hello, Japan? (Score:2)
As if! As if there's going to be any room left for Japanese Moonbase in 2030. It's gonna be all Starbucks as far as the eye can see. Mare Nostrum will be filled with Americano. Somebody sent us up the chai latte. What you say? Four moonbucks for a cup of Joe? Soylent Latte is People! Well. Person. Named Joe. Damn you john Katz.
Hey, we got dibs on Mars, too, MFers!
-----------
Holy Crap! I had this weird dream that I was a blogger, and went I woke up my K
Re:Ugh (Score:2)
Finally (Score:2, Funny)
US moon base (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:US moon base (Score:3, Informative)
The chances of a race are essentially nil - niether country really has anything to prove by doing so. There is also one huge difference between the two announcements - America's is sponsored by the Head of State, where Japan's is merely hopeful thinking by the head of their
We have another name for it. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:US moon base (Score:3, Informative)
It was Andrew Johnson. He was impeached in 1869, and elected as a Senator for Tennessee in 1875. He didn't serve as senator for very long though - he died a few months later.
It was a tradition before that, which supposedly started when Washington declined to run for a third term. FDR ignored the traditi
Re:US moon base (Score:2)
Ignore seems much more likely. Whats one more siging letter stating that he chooses to ignore one more law?
Re:US moon base (Score:2)
In related News... (Score:2)
Late in June, speaking at the Farnborough aerospace show, the Roskosmos leadership suddenly announced that they were suspending the tender and would instead adopt a multi-stage program of creating a space transport vehicle [the kliper]. Now the main emphasis is on the time-tested orbital workhorse, the Soyuz spacecraft.
From here [en.rian.ru].
It seems that the Russians are having a few problems with their new space program. *shock*
Japan will probably do it with Europe and Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need a 100 ton rocket to go to the moon and NASA has already stated that the Constellation is an US-only project. What Japan will probably do is joining Europe and Russia on the ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System) [wikipedia.org], that will be launched using existing Ariane 5 or similar rockets (20-25 ton to LEO, depending on the orbit inclination).
I'm trying hard... (Score:2)
Unnngggggghhhhh....
Oh... oh... thank you. Thank you....
11,453 yen was it?
The japanese 5th gen (Score:2)
They wasted millions on it in the eighties.
Just my luck.... (Score:2, Funny)
Please no more (Score:2)
JAXA? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Earth is doomed. (Score:2, Interesting)
Crowded moon (Score:2)
Wow! It looks like it will be crowded on the moon with all of these bases:Japan [space.com], Russia [space.com], China [astronautix.com]. But lets face it folks. The only credible plans [space.com] for lunar exploration are coming out of the USA. The rest are just angling to hitch a ride.
Japan should build their own rockets (Score:2)
No, no, please no, a thousand times no.
If there's one thing we should have learned about launch vehicle engineering by now, it's that we do *not* want to decide based on viewgraphs and guesswork that we have now developed the One True Rocket Design which will make all other rockets unnecessary. That way leads to Space Shuttles, to NASP, to X-33, and so far I see no reason to doubt that Project Save-Our-Jobs
They Have No Money For This, And Won't Have (Score:2)
The government has not budgeted for this, and almost certainly will not.
In related news, in situ generation of oxygen? (Score:2, Interesting)
English Acronym? (Score:2)
Re:This is awesome (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Japanese Constitution (Score:2)
Re:The Japanese prohibited from engaging in warfre (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Japanese prohibited from engaging in warfre (Score:2, Interesting)
While America is strong, its true strength comes from it's economy and how much control it can exert over the world markets. (In fact, I'd argue that America is diluting it's might by constantly trying to express it militarily - an economic and social solution to their problems would be much more effective, imo.)
The Chinese are students of history and have learned from that example and are taki
Re:The Japanese prohibited from engaging in warfre (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seems like the wrong choice for a permanent bas (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you realize that every paragraph of your post is handwaving nonsense - you'll understand why.
Why solar? (Score:2)
Once you have power and heat, you have to worry about water and shelter. I'd do it all remotely via robots, mining and building away. The whole thing would be extremely
Re:Seems like the wrong choice for a permanent bas (Score:2)
Why not choose Mars instead?
The moon is a lot closer. Less time to support astronauts in flight (food, water, oxygen). Less radiation exposure. Less fuel required.
Lots of ice on Mars.
OK, I'll give you that one. However, what does it matter? If you have a sealed environment it isn't like the water is going on vacation. You can recycle it. You have to purify/filter it to make it potable again, but with all the nice solar energy you get on the moon (no atmosphere to get in your way)
Re:Arrrr ! (Score:2)
I figure if someone does something pretty bad, the punishment wouldn't be that bad really. We'd just ask them to.. take a walk.
TLF
Re:Arrrr ! (Score:2)
Re:Good for them (Score:3, Insightful)