Japan Considering Moon Base, Shuttle Projects

ScentCone writes "A brief article at Newsday mentions a Monday report that JAXA, Japan's counterpart to NASA, is looking at robotic probes on the moon by 2015, and construction on a solar-powered manned research base starting there by 2025. The (very) big bump in the agency's budget will also get spent on tsunami warning technology and other terrestrial communications technology development."

Comments

Good

[Prophetic_Truth]

The more the merrier. Man Spaceflight is sorta like Chess, its no fun playing by yourself. This will foster competition and everyone wins!

Re:Good

[sydres]

actualy its more like masturbation its fun by yourself till someone comes along to help you

Re:Good

[redcircle]

This will foster competition and everyone wins!

I'd love to see the bumper stickers on the shuttles.

"My robot beat-up your robot"

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

"The more the merrier. Man Spaceflight is sorta like Chess, its no fun playing by yourself. This will foster competition and everyone wins! "

I think most, if not all, adolescent boys would disagree. But I digress...

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Google beat 'em to it.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most, if not all, adolescent boys would disagree

Not once they've played with someone else...

Re:Good

[Eberlin]

Competition for the moon is a good thing? At first, yes, this will be a great thing since "competition encourages innovation" but in the end we're talking about a land-mass here. We all KNOW what competing over a land-mass has done to the human race throughout history.

Re:Good

[Rei]

57 billion is no small sum... but 57 billion every how often? I'm guessing that's a one-time increase to be phased in over the next 15 years or so.

I'm most interested in the new craft, because we need to get costs down, Before people start bashing the notion of a "shuttle-like craft", please remember that the shuttle wasn't supposed to be this way. The original shuttle would have been a titanium frame design without external boosters; however, most of the way through the design process, its budget was almost halved without a decrease in its capability requirements. A titanium frame, while more expensive up front, gives a significant payload boost (I've seen numbers at around 30-40%) and decreases maintainence costs (you need a much simpler TPS, and it doesn't fatigue like aluminum). And, of course, we know the problems that they've had with the boosters.

When it comes down to it, fuel is incredibly cheap. If a low-maintainence reusable is developed, it will clean the market up. The problem is maintainence. Some people argue instead for mass-produced disposables, but just the amount of raw materials needed and the difficulty in producing engines seems to make it unlikely that mass production costs (if you could convince governments/companies to mass produce rockets when there's not a market) could, in the long run, compete with reusable launch costs. If your costs end up being little more than your fuel costs, space travel will be incredibly cheap.

The shuttle has really been a research project (one that was forced to take an essential role, unfortunately). Many people don't realize that the cost for operating the shuttle is calculated by looking at its annualized operating costs and dividing by the number of launches; however, the operating costs of the shuttle not only include administrative overhead, but a lot of research on ways to improve reusable craft. Whoever designs the next generation will not only have the benefit of hindsight, they'll also be standing on the shoulders of giants, technologically.

Besides... if some of the new titanium manufacturing costs come online, not only will titanium be much cheaper than it is now (which is cheaper than it was in the 60s/70s), but could approach aluminum in costs. One interesting one is that they've discovered that they can do direct electrolysis on titanium oxide without having to dissolve it in a solution first.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on exactly who comes along to help. I'm always happy to have a hot chick help me...

Re:Good

[sydres]

well of course make mine a redhead

Re:Good

[forkazoo]

Zubrin (Guy who wrote case for Mars), who is a bit of a nut, but knows a lot about rocket engines, has suggested that while a reusable system is a good idea, the shuttle is basically built backwards. What we need is a system that has a disposable top, TPS if applicable, etc. But, a reusable first stage booster assembly. The first stage won't be subjected to the same level of thermal stress as the last stage, and so needs much less in the way of protection to be made reusable.

In many cases, there may not even be a reason to bring the last stage back, such as satellite deployment, etc, and the last stage mission requirements will vary so widely that it may not make sense to reuse it even if it is free.

Re:Good

[cmowire]

Titanium sounds like a super-metal.... until you try to work it.

It has it's own set of stress-fractures, although these are brought out mostly by impurities. It reacts to all kinds of stuff that Aluminum doesn't, and, even better loses structural integrity after being splashed by a variety of useful chemicals.

We've come a long way, but it's still a pain. For the same quality of weld, you are going to spend a lot more time welding.

So, yeah, we could have built a much lighter shuttle with Titanium. But that wouldn't have fixed most of the other problems, most notably the cost problem.... and given that they probably should have spent between 2 and 4 times as much money, even with standard Aluminum.....

Re:Good

[Rei]

Yes, titanium sponge is a lot harder to work with than aluminum. It pushes the difficulty to the initial costs. You still get the lower maintainence and greater payload, however. Plus, the new method of direct electrolysis can easily produce titanium metal powder for powder metallurgy.

Good quality titanium welds are doable; you just need people properly trained and with proper equipment - you need to weld in very pure argon (applied both front and back), you need to clean the area with good solvents beforehand, you need to keep the argon flowing until the metal is relatively cool, etc. Plus, at all times, you want to use gloves when handling the titanium to be worked (to prevent chlorine corrosion from perspiration) and avoid contamininating it by using aluminum tool surfaces (frictional heat from working with tools can cause localized alloying). In short, you need to use clean conditions and use good tools - something NASA excells at.

Also, a nice thing about titanium is that impurities produced marked discolorations, making a poor weld or corrosion easy to spot. This is a whole lot better than aluminum fatigue, which you need specialized equipment to determine.

T

Re:Good

[Hentai]

It'll be interesting to see how wars are conducted when both populations exist in an inhospitable wasteland that can't support their existance for more than 30 seconds without critical and easily-targeted infrastructure.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Wars seem to be conducted easily enough in Iraq.

Re:Good

[Nefarious Wheel]

We all KNOW what competing over a land-mass has done to the human race throughout history.

Yep, it's grown as a result. Umm lessee, says His Holiness. This half of the moon belongs to Spain, this half to Portugal...

Re:Good

[LWATCDR]

A lot of the cost problems can be reduced. Fly back Liquid fueled boosters are a good start. The thermal protection system that was developed for the X-33 would also be a step in the right direction. Replace the RCS propellants with alcohol and lox. Finally replacing the APUs with an all electric system.
I would also build unmanned versions of the next shuttle as well as manned. All of these could be ready very soon with very little effort.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is a system that has a disposable top, But, a reusable first stage booster assembly. This sounds a lot like the Falcon V[spacex.com], the rocket Bigelow's booked for the launch of his Genesis Pathfinder module.

Re:Good

[justins]

you need a much simpler TPS, and it doesn't fatigue like aluminum

That sounds pretty interesting. Could you report on that? And remember, we're putting the coversheets on the TPS reports before they go out now.

So, if you could just remember to do that from now on that'd be great.

Re:Good

[justins]

It'll be interesting to see how wars are conducted when both populations exist in an inhospitable wasteland that can't support their existance for more than 30 seconds without critical and easily-targeted infrastructure.

Briefly?

Re:Good

[eraserewind]

It'll be interesting to see how wars are conducted when both populations exist in an inhospitable wasteland that can't support their existance for more than 30 seconds without critical and easily-targeted infrastructure.

My guess is "quickly".

Re:Good

[ShadeEagle]

I'll betcha a buck it'd last about 30 seconds.

Re:Good

[monkeymanatwork]

Unfortunately, there is currently a titanium shortage which has been variously attributed to either increased demand from China (JapanMetalBulletin - your source for today's breaking non-ferrous metal news!) or the Iraq War (IIRC Car & Driver Jan '05 dead tree version reported Chevrolet discontinued use of Titanium in '06 Corvette mufflers due to Iraq War-induced shortages).

Let's hope the shortage doesn't return Nixon's head to office.

Re:Good

[cmowire]

You are painting tits on a boar.

You have to remember that the thermal protection system from the X-33 wouldn't work with a shuttle -- it's too dense and, therefore, too hot. Developing a Alchohol and Lox RCS would have increased the development cost because you'd need to develop entirely new thruster designs to work. And the reason why they have the APU is because when they developed the shuttle that was the best they could do. And they did design an unmanned version of the shuttle, but nobody wanted to foot the development cost. All of these sound really simple, but they really aren't very simple for NASA to do and certify for manned use. And, given the budgetary problems and everything that the shuttle was going through back then, it would have just made things worse.

The problem is that they could have used LFFBs, a more robust TPS, non-toxic propellants, a better APU, and many others, and the shuttle would STILL be really expensive, simply because there is no margin for error. Even if there wasn't anybody inside of the shuttle, the spaceframe needs to last for long enough to recoup the added costs over expendable boosters. There are too many things that must be exactly right or else it blows up.

Everybody has all of these arguments about how if .... was done, the shuttle would have been fine. I used to, too. But, in the end, I realized something. The shuttle shouldn't have been built. Not to say that it brought a tear to the eye when Columbia ended up strewn across Texas instead of being given dignified retirement in the Smithsonian, but had we stuck with expendable boosters, we'd probably have gotten more done in these past 30 years. And that doesn't even count making the Saturn V or II designs reusable from either the top down or the bottom up.

Re:Good

[rob_squared]

"(you need a much simpler TPS"

Just make sure you put on the new coversheet when you report on it.

Re:Good

[Rei]

True, although this comes on top of a significant all-time low that's been in place ever since the Soviet Union's ore and refined titanium hit the market.

However, if this process or others hits the market, the price should become far cheaper.

Re:Good

[Rei]

The problem with disposable boosters is that there's not much potential for further cost reductions. A properly build reusable could theoretically launch hundreds of times and have to pay little more. The problem thusfar is maintenance; if maintenance can be reduced, you get a huge increase in efficiency.

Furthermore, disposables can't use superalloys nearly so extensively because they're tossing the contents away. Superalloys can give major boosts to payload and safety/reliability.

In short, disposable boosters means giving up on drastic price reductions for access to space. I, personally, hope for more than that. Things like colonization or "affordable" space tourism (among many other things) will not be commonplace until we can get major price reductions.

As to your specific criticisms, I'd like a cite of X33 TPS panels. I've only read summaries, but they've made it sound like the X33's very low maintenance panels, combined with the rest of the TPS, was ligher than the shuttle's TPS comparatively. Could you provide a cite?

Yes, alcohol-LOX would have cost more. So? Even if you were to cut 1% of the costs per flight, it would justify ~300 million dollars worth of research on them. I seriously doubt you'd claim that developing a TPS would cost anywhere close to that. That's the beauty of reusable systems: your capital costs get *greatly* distributed.

As for the APU, it *was* the best they could do. It's not any more. With an all-electric system, you can make another serious cut in the maintenance and reliability of a next generation reusable craft. And, if you distribute your batteries around the craft, you could, say, have a piece of debris slice right through the power line to a wing and still have a degree of access to control surfaces and whatnot.

In short, I agree wholeheartedly with the parent: There are a *lot* of things that can be done with a next-generation reusable to dramatically lower costs. Seriously: in the following situation (yes, high capital costs, but they get spread out over a hundred or more launches):

* Titanium frame, designed to run hot
* +30-40% payload
* Simpler TPS
* Greatly reduced TPS maintenance
* Greater reliability
* Reduced fatigue
* Longer craft life, reduced part maintenance
* Lower operating costs
* Electric APU
* No hydraulics (pumps, fluid, temperature sensors, heaters, etc)
* Lower maintenance
* Greater reliability
Etc.

You'd be left with a tiny fraction of the maintenance, and maintenance is your only serious cost. What's not to like?

Of course, take it *another* generation down the line and use a scramjet, and then you can use a much smaller craft and SSTO it while still keeping a nice payload fraction. It would be another order of magnitude payload cost reduction.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It has it's own set of stress-fractures

"its".

Re:Good

[X0563511]

Ever read Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War"?

Re:Good

[GeckoX]

Mods please mark things appropriately.
This, while slightly OT, is not a Troll.
It's actually rather insightful in a way, but certainly not a troll.

Be nice :)

Re:Good

[LWATCDR]

Liquid fueled fly back boosters, lox alcohol rcs, and all electric replacements for the APUs have all be studied and a prototype of the new rcs has been built. Boeing did the research years ago. The lffbs would have used the F-1 from the Saturn program and the the F-100 turbine from the f15/16 for the fly back. Yes the apus where the best we could do in the 70s guess what it isn't the 70s. The argument that we should go back to the Saturn reminds me of the British Comet. It was the first jet airliner. They made a mistake and a few of them fell from the sky. I can see it now. We should go back to props because they are cheaper and safer than jets. The aircraft industry "learned" from the Comet and the next jet airliner the 707 and the later Comets changed the way people traveled.

Re:Good

[LWATCDR]

Not batteries. Fuel Cells. Batteries are too heavy. And You would need to keep the hydraulics unless you went for a linear airspike motor. Electric actuators just do not have the power to gimbals the SSMEs. You still have have an all electrical system just use electric motors to power the hydraulic pumps. That is a proven low risk technology. It is used all the time in Cessna light planes.
Yes going for a hot soakable airframe would be a good idea. Ti constructions is much more common now than in the 70s. There are even homebuilt aircraft that use Ti landing gear legs.

Re:Good

[Rei]

"Not batteries. Fuel cells"

Primary power should of course be from fuel cells because of the great energy density (and the fact that you can generate power easily from your main propellants if you set it up that way - even LOX/Propane will work in some fuel cells, just not as efficiently as LOX/LH), but you need at least some batteries to help even out the load, provide more power in peak power situations (fuel cells have high Wh/kg, but low W/kg), and allow you to avoid having to keep oxidizer and fuel going to the cells during low-drain times. Plus, they provide emergency control if kept in the proper locations. :)

And You would need to keep the hydraulics unless you went for a linear airspike motor

It depends. Gimballing isn't even necessary if you have sufficient control surfaces and put in a better RCS. For example, look at SpaceShipOne - as far as I know, it's engine wasn't gimballed (yes, SS1 wasn't an orbital craft, but the principle is the same). It all depends on your configuration and what tradeoffs you're willing to accept (a heavier RCS in exchange for simpler and lighter main engines, for example). If you have to do gimballing (certainly you'd want to on, for example non-flyback boosters), there are some very high power electric actuators on the market - I read about a Navy ship retrofit that used >70,000lb force electric actuators in steering, and I'm sure you could get more if there was need for it. NASA has already tested some electric for control surfaces (not gimballing, mind you) and were quite impressed with the results. Plus, as I think you were referring to, there are self-contained hydraulic actuators that have been tested by NASA - they contain their own resevoir, lightweight pump, and heater, so there are no lines to sever/clog/heat/etc. I have little doubt that we'll see a lot more pure-electric and self-contained hydraulic actuators on future NASA craft - several of the cancelled craft were to use both.

Re:Good

[cmowire]

No, I'm not saying that we should go back to the Saturn. I'm saying that we shouldn't have bothered with the shuttle until we were able to do it right. Now, with our current technologies, it's entirely plausable to start with a clean sheet of paper and do a reusable booster that would work. The resulting booster would look nothing like the current shuttle, however.

One of the main reasons why the shuttle upgrades never made sense was that most of them were shuttle-specific and wouldn't have carried over to the shuttle-successor that was always a decade away and has continued to be a decade away for the past 20 years.

I'm saying that the shuttle should be viewed as something like a supersonic seaplane or a afterburning turboprop. We thought that both of those made sense at one point. The Navy built a supersonic seaplane and the Air Force built an afterburning turboprop and also a part-jet, part-turboprop. The thing is, we also built all-jet fighters and non-seaplane naval aircraft and increases in some areas of technology meant that a lot of the weird wrinkles they needed to put into the other designs weren't necessary anymore. Wheras, the only time we've tried to build a reusable booster so far was the shuttle (and the Russian-clone Buran, which only had minor increases in functionality) so we really have no idea what would have happened were the Chrysler version or the Lochkeed version or the DC-3 version or the Delta Clipper of more recent times, or the Venturestar, or any number of others were to be tried. About the only data points we have of shuttle alternatives is the DC-X and the SpaceShipOne. We know that the aerodynamics of SS1 weren't quite right and we know that DC-X was far more feasable than most of the shuttle folk would like to admit. We've never tried any aerospike engines in flight.

The problem with your analogy is that the Comet didn't have anything wrong with it. Sure, the engines burried in the wings was a feature not carried into later aircraft, but the only problem was that they didn't quite grasp metal fatigue. The Comet airframe, just like the 707 airframe, is still flying regularly.

Re:Good

[cmowire]

Ahh, but you forget about SpaceX.

The Falcon I is currently assumed to be expendable -- they are able to get low launch costs simply by reducing complexity and R&D expenses. But there's a parachute on the side of the first stage and it is going to be active on every flight, to parachute the first stage back to ground. Worst case scenerio, they've got a bunch of scrap metal. But best case scenerio, they will be able to push the launch prices down further.

In other words, SpaceX is doing what they should have done instead of the shuttle.... Building something that's cheap and potentially reusable now, but leaving room down the road for incremental improvements.

The thing to remember about the X-33 is that it's signifigantly less dense than the shuttle. As a general rule-of-thumb, the less dense your vehicle, the less thermal load it needs to deal with. It doesn't make sense at first glance, but if you think about it, it does. If you have two craft, the same weight, but one larger than the other, they are both going to have the same amount of orbital energy to dissapate, but the larger one is going to have more area to work with, therefore the localized heating is less. You'd have to check the sci.space.* archives to be sure about the exact details. And, yeah, even the Russians did a better job on their TPS by changing how the tiles were structured to prevent the tiles from zippering off, but it's still refractory ceramics.

Basicly, there is no way to "upgrade" the shuttle or anything even mildly similar to the shuttle with a better TPS at this point.

The list of things that must be fixed in order to give the shuttle a signifigantly lowered maintenence cost is far too long. Not only do you need to add non-toxic propellants and a more robust TPS, but you also need to build an LFFB in order to save money on the SRB refurbishment, you need to stop removing all of the replacable parts from the shuttle after each flight for maintenence, etc. Remember, they remove the engines, tear 'em down, and put 'em back together. Airliners have this too, but they do it after a large number of flights, not after each flight.

Part of the reason why we are in a pickle right now is that everybody realized that the LFFB and most of the other shuttle upgrades would be useless for any future vehicles. And, at the same time, NASA was unable to even launch a scaled test prototype of a potential shuttle replacement.

The problem is that you are going on and on about a properly built reusable. I'm not trying to say that it's impossible to build a reusable booster. I'm merely saying that, in the 70s and 80s, we didn't have the sort of technology to do it with the budget NASA has. We might have been able to do it with several times the budget and fewer restrictions on features that must be all included in one single vehicle. I'm also trying to say that you can't just tweak the design of the shuttle and fix the problems.

Don't get me started with scramjet boosters. We haven't tested them yet as a full-fledged concept, but the trade-offs for orbital launch don't look so good. By the time you add in all of the heat-dissapating structures necessary for a sustained flight through the atmosphere (Remember, rockets have the luxury of going above the atmosphere immediately), the structural modifications to shape and gulp that much air in, etc. using rockets and carying your own supply of oxygen starts to look awful good.

The problem is that we're so obscessed with building a revolutionary booster that will solve all of the problems of current space travel, we're ignoring reality. Change is not necessarily to be metered out in bursts of revolution. Even revolutionary change comes as a continuous stream of minor changes and improvements until it finally hits critical mass.

Take, for example, the Internet. TCP/IP was made decades ago. We added SMTP, FTP, etc. Then we added Gopher. Then the Web beat Gopher. We added stuff to the web like graphics and better f

Re:Good

[multiplexo]

I never thought that I'd be posting something to agree with Rei but he's right about titanium, and the capacity to manufacture airframes with this material was developed long before the Shuttle program started when Lockheed developed the SR-71. There's another cool feature about some titanium alloys, the more you anneal them, the stronger they get. There was a study of the SR-71s done in the late 80s that discovered that the airframe was actually stronger than it had been on construction due to repeated heating/cooling cycles during operation which effectively annealed the material.

Looking over the lessons learned from building and flying the SR-71 would be a good start for building the airframe for a winged orbital vehicle.

Re:Good

[Rei]

Ahh, but you forget about SpaceX.

?? Even their promotional price of 6m$ amounts to 9,000$/kg - hardly ubercheap. That's just a tad cheaper per kg than an Ariane per kg, and a lot more than a Soyuz, Long March, or Delta IV heavy per kg. It's not a bad price for small payloads, but bulk? Nope, not at all.

The thing to remember about the X-33 is that it's signifigantly less dense than the shuttle. As a general rule-of-thumb, the less dense your vehicle, the less thermal load it needs to deal with.

Quite true, and I'm already quite familiar with this. Nonetheless, that's not the same as saying that the TPS is heavier, as the parent did.

Basicly, there is no way to "upgrade" the shuttle or anything even mildly similar to the shuttle with a better TPS at this point.

And I haven't advocated that. If you'll check my posts, I've been consistantly saying that the shuttle should have been treated as a research craft, and that it's time to build a new craft with proper budget in the design/construction phase (since the cost per launch in design/construction becomes trivial). There are many things that we know now (discussed earlier) that can *drastically* reduce maintenance - and since maintenance is the vast majority of of reusable craft operating costs...

NASA was unable to even launch a scaled test prototype of a potential shuttle replacement.

Are you talking about the X33? The X33 was a pretty radical design; I'm not surprised that they ran into some serious problems with the tank. The difficulties had nothing to do with A) reducing hydraulics as much as possible, B) using a titanium hot-frame to reduce TPS cost and maintenance and to increase payload, and C) using our knowlege of engines (which has really advanced a lot since SSME design) to produce similar performance but much lower maintenence engines. I'd be surprised if this wouldn't at least halve maintanence costs, and probably reduce it far further than that.

I'm merely saying that, in the 70s and 80s, we didn't have the sort of technology to do it with the budget NASA has.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm disagreeing with you on that. I only contend that the Shuttle *could* have been a lot cheaper than it is now if the original design plans (more expensive up-front cost, but lower maintanence) had been used - i.e., a titanium frame, no SRBs, a flyback external tank, etc. However, that a new craft using modern tech is needed in the present day, and that only reusable has the potential to get us to the needed range to make colonization, etc a reality.

I'm also trying to say that you can't just tweak the design of the shuttle and fix the problems.

Once again, I completely agree with you on that.

Don't get me started with scramjet boosters. We haven't tested them yet as a full-fledged concept, but the trade-offs for orbital launch don't look so good.

Are you *kidding*? We've tested them up to the sorts of speed a full scale design would be using, and the tradeoffs for scramjets are truly incredible.

By the time you add in all of the heat-dissapating structures

They're already there, because you need them for reentry. You'd need a different distribution, though - more of a focus on leading edges.

the structural modifications to shape and gulp that much air in, etc. using rockets and carying your own supply of oxygen starts to look awful good.

"Gulp in that much air"? Modern scramjet designs are "waveriders" - they don't "gulp in" anything, but use their shockwave as the lower end of a virtual "nozzle" for compression. And how can you possibly claim that a *fourfold* reduction in propellant mass (which translates to a many times greater improvement in payload fraction) that comes with a simpler engine design (yes, scramjets are far simpler than conventional rocket engines - the tough part is getting the design right) isn't worth it?

Re:Good

[changcho]

I agree, but it has nothing to do with competition, except Japan trying to improve on its space outlook. Overall, a good situation...

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, a nice thing about titanium is that impurities produced marked discolorations, making a poor weld or corrosion easy to spot. This is a whole lot better than aluminum fatigue, which you need specialized equipment to determine.

Since the banning of smoking on site aluminum fatigue is much harder to spot. The bad thing about smoking is it stains everything. The good thing about smoking is it stains aluminum in such a way you can easily spot microcracks.

Re:Good

[xott]

Are you suggesting that Japan should withdraw, the ESA stop flights and the rest of the world should leave the moon to those who first set foot upon it??

I hope not.

Re:Good

[whitis]

The original shuttle design also included a detachable crew cabin that would have saved the Challenger crew. Plus it probably would have been less prone to blowing up in the first place.

Classic case of mismanagement. When engineers tell someone it costs X to build something and you tell them to build it for 1/2X, what usually ends up happening is that you ultimately spend 2X for half the product.

Re:Good

[cmowire]

Oh yes, we did kinda learn a LOT about Titanium fabrication because of the SR-71.

I'm not going to deny that.

And yes, we know more about it and are better able to produce it now than we were before. Cheap inverter-based TIG welders and easy supply of the right gasses means that the equipment to do it right is much more frequently observed than before.

My point is and continues to be that if you are going to do something like a reusable launch vehicle, where most projects die because they ran out of money too fast, that you need to view Titanium as more of a last resort. Even though it's not THAT hard to work with, it's still signifigantly more challenging than Alumium or steel. It adds risk, which, given how most reusable launch vehicle projects have failed, is the last thing you need.

Also, Titanium is not the only material like that. Crystal growth does interesting things. Remember, the Saturn V pulled a few tricks like chosing an alloy that gets stronger (for the purpose at hand -- strength of materials is weirder than you'd like to think it is) as it chills to working temperature. It's just that if you don't think of those sorts of things, you have hot-shortened Aluminum or you lose a carefully obtained and preserved tempering.

Re:Good

[cmowire]

Scramjets only look good under certain assumptions.

They are good if you want to go within a certain range of speeds within the atmosphere. The problem is, they still need air to function, so you'd still need to carry oxidizer and you'd still need to carry a rocket engine.

The scramjet program doesn't get killed repeatedly because of ill-timed plans. It gets killed because we haven't been able to do a good set of tests on them... until last year. And they are the sort of thing where if you get 'em wrong, you've just wasted a LOT of money. So every time we've tried to do any sort of air-breathing engine -- scramjet, ramjet, turborocket, or intercooler -- it ends up getting pushed off because it increases the design risk too much. The problem is that the scramjet partisans make it sound so good that you forget that they are so far from production that they could be totally wrong and not realize it. And, yeah, scramjet money is money well spent in the same way as money on FTL travel research, teleportation, cryonics, fusion, and other far-out stuff. It may very well be money down the drain, much like trying to transmute lead into gold was in days gone by, but it would be so useful to have that it's dumb to not at least take a good solid scientific look at it.

The Falcon I is memorable because it's the lowest cost, per launch, so far. The Falcon V will be the lowest cost, per pound, so far. With the decided potential to lower the costs further over time, as they realize the economies of scale and also the advantages of partial reusability and (hopefully) improved reliability.

The problem with any air-breathing vehicle is that you change your trajectory in such a way as to create more drag. Remember, a conventional expendable booster can be aluminum, which gets soft and melts at astonishingly low temperatures, as space-age materials go. Why? Because it goes up first, to get out of the atmosphere, and then starts to accelerate.

Air-breathing vehicles require a longer time in the atmosphere, or else you are wasting the weight and whatnot involved in making it airbreathing. Now, this helps because your thrust-to-weight ratio doesn't need to be so high because you can use wings to create lift and whatnot. But this still creates drag and heating. This makes the heating worse, in fact, because you are accumulating far more energy. This also means that you need to output more energy to overcome the drag.

The problem is we have way too little information to really make a good determination as to weather a scramjet is going to work or not. I'm not trying to say that scramjets won't work... I'm just trying to say that they are not a sure bet.

The interesting part about our knowlege of engines since the SSME is that the main thing we've learned since then is that the SSME is too complicated. The real tragedy of the X-33 is that nobody's EVER flown an aerospike engine. We know that there is the potential for trouble... theory dictates that in certain mach ranges, it will have inefficencies. Like scramjets, folks THINK that it won't be a problem, but only flight testing is going to tell. And because NASA picked the most experimental design and Lockheed Martin tried to snow-job NASA into believing that they could make some of the experimental things work that bit them in the butt....

I think what we really have to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

is the impending string of JAXA's resemblence to JAVA jokes.

At last!

[GMFTatsujin]

Now there will be an agency who can take up the awesome reposinibility of communicating to us the dangers of tsunamis from the moon!

Moon tsunami, I fear you no longer!

Re:At last!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jan 25th, 2028 slashdot.org

"Moonbase destroyed by big lizard"

GOZILLA!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:At last!

[triso]

Moon tsunami, I fear you no longer!

That would be the tide, no?

Me too

[Anonymous Coward]

I am also considering a moonbase, but I don't get a front page story.

Re:Me too

[iced_773]

I have a moon base. I'll pull down my pants and show you.

Re:Me too

[njcoder]

Didn't we (the US) already claim the moon? Let them go find their own moon. I hear saturn keeps popping up new ones we didn't know of before.

Re:Me too

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't. No one wants to see how many craters there are or how many moon landings you've had.

Re:Me too

[pilgrim23]

Yeah but yours doesn't include a Sushi Bar...

Re:Me too

[Dabido]

I was going to stick a giant laser on the moon. I call it a "Death Star". And as a Cambridge scientist named Parsons designed the laser, I am calling the Project the "Alan Parsons Project". Wonder if I'll get a Billion Trillion Dollars from the President not to use it?

Re:Me too

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you call it a Death Star if it's a moon, not a star?

Oh wait...

"That's no moon..."

Re:Me too

[fourlugas]

I don't think the US minds Japan getting a foothold on the moon first. US will just name the next Shuttle, 'Enola Gay 2' and pay a little visit.

Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[elasticwings]

Now that Japan is trying to do stuff on the moon, I am sure that old GW will stop at nothing to claim the entire moon in the name of USA and freedom fries.

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[Aqua OS X]

Well, if the Japanese find oil up there, we may be forced to liberate the moon in the name of freedom.

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[susano_otter]

Technically, the Moon-Japanese would have to find oil, then establish a dictatorship, kill off a bunch of their own moon-people, invade a neighboring moon-country, and possibly conduct activities rumored to be leading up to moon-nukes that could be dropped on the Earth at some later date (after they were actually developed). Presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils in a regional conflict with the Moon-Koreans might postpone the U.S. invasion by a few years, but that's about it.

Other than that, yeah, I'm sure the U.S. will be invading Moon-Japan the very instant moon-oil is discovered up there.

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[macdaddy357]

In case anyone is interested, the Japanese ambassador to the U.N. has issued a statement about why Japan wants a moon base.

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[uncoveror]

Speaking of Bush, He went into a tizzy when China said they wanted to go to the moon; an obvious plot to control the lucrative green cheese market. Japan wanting to do the same will certainly get his panties in a bunch!

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing all the good parts. First the Moon-Japanese would have to find oil. Then the US would install a minority warlord dictator to bid it's will with the Moon-CIA (which is now part of the space segment of the DOD cause the 200x CIA was too far removed from the executive). Atrocities would follow (the only way to hold this sort of despotism in check nowadays - just take a look at what is going on with US and UN backing in Haiti right now). We wouldn't care. But when the Moon-Japanese warlord dictator got a better deal from someone else and didn't do what we said, then we could bomb the shit out of them, starve the Moon-Japanese for 10 years, and then finally invade and kill off the rest. That would be closer to reality than any WMD threat that was blown out of GW's ass to the corporate media for our nicely packaged consumption.

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[Darby]

Technically, the Moon-Japanese would have to find oil, then establish a dictatorship, kill off a bunch of their own moon-people, invade a neighboring moon-country

Yeah, but don't forget that they would have to do all of that with full US support.

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[first.last]

Yeah, but only Japan can stop LUNAR GODZILLA!!!

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[susano_otter]

Oh, shit! When you put it that way, it's obvious that deposing Saddam Hussein was totally wrong!

Thanks for clearing up all my confusion about mass murder and love, too!

Seriously, though: Have you ever thought to yourself, "you know, if things are actually better in the Middle East in three years, I'd have to admit that maybe W was right"? Or is your cutoff 5 years? Or two years? Or is your reconsideration threshold based on a particular event or series of events?

See, I've had my doubts about the Iraq war all along. If the Iraqis had overwhelmingly repudiated the recent elections, or if they'd voted overwhelmingly for a totalitarian theocracy, or if the Sunni Baathists had succeeded in nullifying the elections with their boycotts, I would have had to seriously reconsider my support for the endeavor.

Are there similar points of reconsideration, for you?

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[Darby]

Seriously, though: Have you ever thought to yourself, "you know, if things are actually better in the Middle East in three years, I'd have to admit that maybe W was right"? Or is your cutoff 5 years? Or two years? Or is your reconsideration threshold based on a particular event or series of events

Nope.
It doesn't matter in the least whether the situation improves or declines because that is totally irrelevant to our reasons for being there.

For me, it is entirely a question of integrity. Bush has none.

We went in because they pose an imminent threat to the US. because they have massive quantities of WMDs which we know exactly where are.
Because within 45 minutes they can wipe us off the face of the earth.

Those are the resons Bush gave for the invasion.
We know now, and anybody who actually pays attention knew then, that these were bald faced lies.
So whatever the outcome matters not in the least.
We still have no idea why we went in there, although enriching Bush's buddies seems to be the major result so far.

So the fact that you are throwing irrelevant potential side effects out as if they had anything to do with the situation completely destroys your credibility.

If you were confused about the mass murder/love thing in my sig, then you're just not paying attention either.
Go check out the exit polls from the last election.
The majority of people who voted *for* Bush disagree with his economic policies. They disagree with the war and his complete destruction of American integrity by his completely dishonest selling of it.
The agree with him only because they hate fags.
They hate them so much that they chose Bush even though the only difference between him and Kerry on that issue was that Kerry supported state's rights (one of the primary republican planks) while Bush pissed right in the face of it.

These really are pretty simple concepts.

Re:Yay, can't wait till we colonize the Moon

[susano_otter]

Yawn.

Okay, so the actual "imminent" argument was that Saddam's regime did not have significant stockpiles of WMDs, but rather desired such stockpiles, and was actively working towards acquiring them. The preemption doctrine specified that an attack on the Hussein regime should take place before the threat was imminent, not because it was imminent. This assessment was supported by the majority of the world's intelligence communities and governments at the time. Obviously, the conclusion--that preemption was the proper solution--wasn't quite so universally accepted. And, obviously, the issue was further confused by repeated blurring of the imminent/not imminent issue. The "45 minutes" assessment was totally retarded, and, not surprisingly, dropped pretty quickly.

Meanwhile, Bush made the "freedom" case (for liberating the Iraqi people) in a speech to the U.N. in 2002 (prior to invading Iraq). And it's been a recurring theme in his speeches all along. It was one of the arguments I considered, in the run-up to the invasion.

I find it amazing that Bush can hide his shenanigans with the National Guard, the Hussein regime was somehow totally incapable of hiding its WMDs (say, for example, in Syria) Like somehow Bush is a better conspirator and dirty trickster than Saddam Hussein or Bashar Assad.

In any case, the moral argument for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein predates the invasion itelf. Personally, the WMD argument never resonated with me, during the month or so that I spent going back and forth on the issue before making my decision. The geostrategic and humanitarian cases always seemed much more compelling and worthwhile.

Not that any of this matters you you, I suppose.

You seem to think we have no idea why we went in there. The truth is, a long list of reasons, some stronger than others, some emphasized more than others, was given before the invasion began. And the humanitarian reasons were part of that list.

If I showed you the transcript of the speech Bush made to the U.N., which included the humanitarian case, would that change your mind?

Generally speaking, is there any piece of evidence which, if presented to you by a trustworthy source, that would change your mind? What evidence would that be (if any), and what source(s) would you find trustworthy (if any)?

First thing that came to mind...

[turboflux]

"Gentlemen, allow me to demonstrate the awesome lethality of the Alan Parsons Project. Fire the laser!"

Re:First thing that came to mind...

[nacturation]

First thing that came to my mind was, why is the site using the Sun Microsystems logo as their favorites icon?

Re:First thing that came to mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

What goes up, must come down...

I'm considering annexing my neighbors house

[Anonymous Coward]

They can 'consider' it all they want. Money/resources and willpower to make it happen are something completely different.

THATS NO MOON!

[Neck_of_the_Woods]

Honestly, I can see it now..

Here come the star wars quotes, followed by the Anime crowd, then followed by SkyNet.

Re:THATS NO MOON!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the "That will make the Japanese the first to get to the moon!!11!one!!1!" crowd.

Re:THATS NO MOON!

[Tackhead]

> Here come the star wars quotes, followed by the Anime crowd, then followed by SkyNet.

Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational tentacle station upon the quivering form of a miniskirt-wearing Sarah Connor!

Never underestimate the power of the otaku side.

Re:THATS NO MOON!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational tentacle station upon the quivering form of a miniskirt-wearing Sarah Connor!

Make that a naked and petrified Sarah Connor and I might be interested. Got any grits?

Re:THATS NO MOON!

[Anonymous Coward]

"All your moonbase are belong to us."

Re:THATS NO MOON!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational tentacle station upon the quivering form of a miniskirt-wearing Sarah Connor!

And there's tonight's fantasy! Thanks!

Typo in headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Headline should read "Robotic probes build moonbase... in Japan."

Re:Typo in headline

[Anonymous Coward]

But if it was a real moonbase it wouldn't be "in Japan". The controlers would be "... in Japan" but not the probes or base.

Launch explosion?

[randyest]

Asia's leading spacefaring nation, Japan has been struggling to get out from under the shadow of China, which put its first astronaut into orbit in October 2003. Beijing has since announced it is aiming for the moon.

One month after China's breakthrough, a Japanese H-2A rocket carrying two spy satellites malfunctioned after liftoff, forcing controllers to end its mission in a spectacular fireball.

Well first, go Japan. This should make things interesting (competition spurring innvovation and all that.)

Second, did anyone else miss the story about the failed Japanese launch? I'd imagine the video clips must be pretty spectacular -- anyone see them or know where one might find a link? Torrent? :)

Re:Launch explosion?

[Anonymous Coward]

PRO TIP: having a browser window open does not necessarily demand 100% of one's concentration.

Shhh! Let's just keep that secret between us, OK?

Re:Launch explosion?

[tokyopimpdaddy]

I'm a Tokyo resident, and yes, have been watching the JAXA programmes for a while, as well as some of the national pride (and nationalism) which surrounds them. Infamous Tokyo mayor, Shintaro Ishihara mocked the Chinese for using old technology just days before the Japanese rocket exploded. Hmm. I guess old is OK as long as it works right? (The nicer irony was that that rocket was due to launch 2 spy satellites over North Korea).

I wish JAXA all the best, but I don't think it takes a lot to figure out that this is more symbolic than anything else, and certainly isn't business driven which is a shame, because the X Prize etc., seems to have made more people get interested in space again, on a commercial, private level. Japan is feeling the Fear with a rising China right now, and is desperately trying to flex itself again, but you only have to look at stories like the Livedoor vs. Fuji TV to see the internal conflict Japan's industry has.

Also, the word 'tsunami' seems to get bolted onto everything now in an attempt to get funding. I just hope some of it gets spend on the tsunami victims.

Re:Launch explosion?

[elasticwings]

Hmm, I wonder how that works on your taxes. Do you think it would be worth the payoff? If they go under, do you still have to file?

Re:Launch explosion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a neighbour like North Korea is also a covenient excuse for launching spy satellites ...

Re:Launch explosion?

[ckaminski]

Yes you do. You must pay taxes on any earned income, whether the company folded or not.

Re:Launch explosion?

[elasticwings]

Damn, that sucks. I don't think it would really be worth it. I mean if you really make some decent money from it. You will get killed at the end of the year when you claim all that money that you didn't pay any tax on.

Re:Launch explosion?

[ckaminski]

Well, for the majority of us who fall below the 33% tax bracket, at most we could be asked to pony up ~40% of that income to state and federal governments (I have no local municipal taxes so I cannot comment).

Which would you rather have:

60% of $1,000 or 100% of $0.

What's the propertie status of the moon?

[erikharrison]

Is there an "official" body for sectioning off the moon? How does all that work?

Sure, any country with enough balls and explosives can stick a flag there, but, unlike terrestrial land, I doubt that other countries take that as a solid stake of ownership.

If there isn't an official body, what happens when, say, Japan decides to plant themselves in some choice piece of real estate, like the lunar equator, or wherever in lunar geography is best for launching rockets for Earth? That's a pretty easy to imagine situation, and it would put the Japanese (or the Russians, or the US, or whoever) in a pretty solid dominating position.

This not been thought of before?

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[stratjakt]

Noone owns the moon, theres some UN law that makes it an international property.

Japan can't set up anything on the moon without other nations approval.

Not that anyone outside of the US gives a flying fuck about UN resolutions.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Ed_Moyse]

Not that anyone outside of the US gives a flying fuck about UN resolutions.

PLEASE tell me you're joking!?!?! Somehow the concept of the US being the only defender of the UN (or its resolutions) is making me giggle and wince at the same time.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean inside the US?

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[greyhoundpoe]

The property status of the moon is determined by whomever puts military bases in place first.

It's not a new phenomenon--at the start of the last century, the border between the United States and Canada was very vaguely defined in the area of the valuable seaports in Southeast Alaska and British Columbia. How was the situation resolved? The United States Army built Fort William H. Seward in the disputed territory and trained its guns on the narrow waterways. Now, 105 years later, the US controls all the port cities in Southeast Alaska and the Canadian border is 40 miles away from the ocean most of the way down.

See? No politics required. It's called "staking a claim".

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[twostar]

According to international treaties, no country can claim land outside of the Earth. But who's going to stop them? Basically it's going to come down to who can get there and put people there.

IIRC they can put research facilites and whatnot there, and they own the facilities but not the ground they're on.

The other side is that international law makes no mention of nongovernment agencies (ie Corporations) claiming parts.

Basically it's going to all come down to ability to claim and hold an area. We've got crazy people all over the earth who "buy" plots of land from compainies who purport that they can claim parts of the moon even though they've sent no one there and have no intentions to.

Mining resources is also going to bring up interesting implications, since countries can't claim the land and minerals, how can one make money from the sale of it?

This whole thing has been the subject of countless SciFi books and will probably come to the fore front soon as we approach the capabilities to actually use extra-planetary sites.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[russint]

Not that anyone outside of the US gives a flying fuck about UN resolutions.

hahaha, are you serious?

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant anyone

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[novalogic]

Why to show them cannuks...err...friends to the north

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Junior J. Junior III]

This has happened a lot throughout history. Usually, it gets settled through war.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Up until several months ago the company I work for maintained the website of a guy who makes a living from selling moon-deeds.

The expected outcome happened, he went down in the fires of taxation.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Gauchito]

Wow, if the US really cares so much about UN resolutions that it will go to war for them, these countries are therefore, most definitely, next on the list. Who wants to remind them what happens to countries that violate UN resolutions when the US is still around?

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, the truth is that no one gives a flying fuck about UN resolutions unless it's convenient for them at the time.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[owlclownish]

Is there an "official" body for sectioning off the moon? How does all that work? There's the Moon Treaty, which reads in part:

Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this article.

And:

The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on the moon shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration and use of the moon shall also not be prohibited.

And:

The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. Due regard shall be paid to interests of present and future generations as well as to the need to promote higher standards of living conditions of economic and social progress and development in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Obligitory Old Skool Geek Reference) Robert Heinlein had something to say about this...
Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" sometime.

Personally, I think Gauss weapons on that scale would r0X0rZ my b0X0rZ. :)

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[aussie_a]

Not that anyone inside the US gives a flying fuck about UN resolutions.

I fixed your typo for you :)

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Teancum]

Like anybody will really take the Moon treaty seriously when major natural resources are in production for extraction from the Moon's surface.

Read the section on withdrawl from the treaty, and you will see just how much weight current space law really has from the 1960's idealism. Basically, not much. These treaties are just a speed bump to a full militarization and nationalization of space. Sorry to be pessimistic.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[owlclownish]

These treaties are just a speed bump to a full militarization and nationalization of space. Sorry to be pessimistic.

I wouldn't disagree at all. The Moon Treaty will be withdrawn from faster than you can say "Kyoto".

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't sound like the history of the fort according to www.fortwilliamhseward.com/ and http://alaska.alaskan.com/docs/thepost.html

Check your 'facts', it wasn't about seaports, it was location of the border at a certain mile post. They didn't have their guns trained on the waterways either, because they're not that narrow! I've been through Lynn Canal too. In the Haines area of Ft. Seward guns would be useless firing from beaches because they'd be out of range shooting out on to the waterway. Here's a short description of Fort Seward:
"The Fort housed around 400 officers and enlisted men whose main duties were taking care of the grounds, beautifying and keeping up the rifle range. The military presence is thought to have been a strategic move while the U.S. and Canada were disputing the border. Canada wanted Mile 25 while the US was set on Mile 42."

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it China or Japan that supposedly had a base "On the Dark Side"?

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[greyhoundpoe]

I misspoke slightly when I mentioned seaports--it wasn't just the water access that was important, it was the natural resources *around* the seaports. Putting the border at Mile 25 on the Haines Highway would put Canada in control of the upper Chilkat River Valley, an important watershed rich with forestry, mining and fishing resources. Mile 42 puts the Chilkat River Valley almost entirely on United States soil.

Also, you're right that the fort's guns were essentially symbolic and wouldn't have been much use in an actual conflict with Canada--but that doesn't mean that they're not still there. Ironically, now they point toward the cruise ship dock.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[macdaddy357]

If no one owns the moon, how can these guys sell plots of land on it? Former California Governor Jerry Brown owns some.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[baker_tony]

> Not that anyone outside of the US gives a flying fuck about UN resolutions.

What, are you living on the Moon or something?! :-)

Perhaps you should consider the UN Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Lets see, who's the world biggest polluter and who decided not to join? Hmmm...

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[natedubbya]

That's funny, history tells us that Seward bought Alaska from Russia (Seward's Folly). So by funny, I mean incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seward's_Folly

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[CommieOverlord]

Your point? It's not incorrect.

Alaska was bought in 1867. The fort (William H. Seward) was built in 1902, because the Alaska/BC border was disputed by the US and Canada. It prevented Canada from laying claim to some valuable territory.

Re:What's the propertie status of the moon?

[FurryFeet]

So, the moon is GPLed?

It's getting crowded up therre...

[gmajor]

Israel and India also have a pact to reach the moon by 2008 with an unmanned probe (and for a mere $83 million US dollars!) . Maybe reaching the moon is becoming the new "it" thing to do for goverments, much like becoming a nuclear power once was (or is)?

Re:It's getting crowded up therre...

[philkerr]

To an extent a moon shot is an extension of a ballistic missile programme. The space race of the 50's and 60's between the USSR and USA was partly a PR excersice to cover the massive developments needed for intercontinental missle technologies needed to maintain the status in the arms race.

It would be great if all this interest was purely for scientific and discovery purposes, but under the surface of any programme will be a significant component for the development of millitary technology.

Re:It's getting crowded up therre...

[iced_773]

At least everyone is trying to reach the moon instead of finding better ways to make mushroom clouds (except Iran and N Korea).

Re:It's getting crowded up therre...

[Anonymous Coward]

and the United States... we always need more nukes!!

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=279107491ab e7 ab8

Re:It's getting crowded up therre...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or course we've got nuclear arms development, i mean we've got nukes meand to bunker busting (rather than the previouus city/small country destroying types) which requires a warhead capable of burrowing into the earth, and then detonate, and to make the warehead effective, the only option is to make it nuclear... In fact, the bomb we dropped on hiroshima is a baby compared to the detonation force of our current generation bombs... we could level a city the size of tokyo by detonating the bomb 2 miles off the surface of the earth with our strongest warheads... just the shockwave from the blast would severe enough to level most buildings... and if the bomb actually made it all the way to the altitude the hiroshima bomb was detonated at*, well, the bank vaults that survived that blast would be rendered into a radioactive glass by today's nukes..

*= I think it was 10,000 feet Remember, we tested near ground level in a desert, and it was determined, that the A-bomb could be detonated in mid-air for maximum effectiveness in city destruction.

Re:It's getting crowded up therre...

[DerekLyons]

To an extent a moon shot is an extension of a ballistic missile programme. The space race of the 50's and 60's between the USSR and USA was partly a PR excersice to cover the massive developments needed for intercontinental missle technologies needed to maintain the status in the arms race.

The problem with this thesis is this; even before the Race began, space launcher and ICBM technolgy had begun to diverge. The divergence has continued ever since. It looks like they are connected because the early launcher were based on the early IC/IRBM's. But those early IC/IRBM's had been abandoned and replaced with quite different designs - designs having little if anything in common with space launchers.

Re:It's getting crowded up therre...

[khallow]

That's not quite correct. As I recall, there were attempts to adapt the MX missile to commercial space flight. It had a really cool stabalization system and of course could place things to within meters of a target. No idea why the attempt failed, but it wasn't crazy (or at least unusually crazy) to try.

Re:It's getting crowded up therre...

[ckaminski]

Please understand that in at least ONE of those cases mentioned, that research is ,at least partially, being conducted to insure said country doesn't turn into a sea of glass because of someone elses mushroom clouds.

Lol

[Primal_theory]

They could just make a human paramyd(sp) up there, they have enough damn people!

Re:Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

If they could somehow stack 'em up, there are enough people in China (assuming an average height of 1.219m [4 ft.]) to reach the moon and back... more than 2 times!

For the math :

1.219m = avg height (4 ft.) * approx 1.3 billion people = 1,584,700,000 meters of people (mop)

1,584,700,000 mop / 1000 m/km = 1,584,700 km of people (kop)

approx 363,258 km to the moon (perigee) / 1,584,700 kop = 4.36 (ratio of units traversed)

4.36 / 2 = 2.18 times to the moon and back!

The real sucky part would be being the guy at the bottom...

Moonu Basu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:Moonu Basu?

[NaruVonWilkins]

The "n" alone is its own character in Japanese, so it'd be "Moon Basu."

Re:Moonu Basu?

[sploo22]

All your moon are belong to us.

Re:Moonu Basu?

[bladx]

it would probably be "mu-n beisu" or something

Re:Moonu Basu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly, "tsuki no kichi". Or something. My japanese sucks.

Re:Moonu Basu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basu is a 'bus'. Beesu is 'base'.

Hope they have really good batteries...

[Caduceus1]

They do know that the "light" side of the moon spends 14 days out of 28 in darkness, right?

Re:Hope they have really good batteries...

[Rei]

Not on the Peak of Eternal Light.

Re:Hope they have really good batteries...

[Chordonblue]

Maybe that's what the Helium3 will be useful for...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_00 06 30.html

Re:Hope they have really good batteries...

[Tango42]

I think they probably noticed, yes. Most plans for solar powered moon bases do feature very large batteries. Some have nuclear power plants too to help out during the night.

Re:Hope they have really good batteries...

[Rei]

The thing is... we can make helium-3 here on Earth. Just bombard lithium in a reactor core to produce tritium, and capture the decay products of the tritium. Besides, we don't have a use for helium-3 *yet*, although research is progressing on that front.

Re:Hope they have really good batteries...

[aussie_a]

They do know that the "light" side of the moon spends 14 days out of 28 in darkness, right?

Duh, they're going to build train-tracks around the moon and have the base on top of those. That way it always moves with the sunlight.

James Bond

[elrick_the_brave]

I wish I knew which James Bond movie would be appropriate right now... anyone?

Re:James Bond

[AceCaseOR]

That's a toughie. "Diamonds Are Forever" had a plot involving a satellite with a heat-ray (same with "Die Another Day"), "You Only Live Twice" had SPECTRE stealing both the Russian and the US's space-ships to spark World War III, and "The Man With The Golden Gun" had, as a lower-teir baddy, a corrupt Japanese businessman who was working with Scaramanga (although "You Only Live Twice" had that too).

Re:James Bond

[Strontium-90]

Moonraker

Re:James Bond

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Holly Goodhead .... goooood!
Cheezy space battle .... bad!

Re:James Bond

[elrick_the_brave]

Cool.. thanks for the info. One thing of note for James Bond fans.. they are doing Casino Royale the way it should have been done as the next movie. Should be interesting.

Oblig Family Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

"I call it... Petoria. I was going to call it Peterland, but that gay bar by the airport took it."

hrm

[Sase]

Suddenly I'm reminded of an old cartoon with Marvin the Martian and Bugs Bunny. Interestingly, all i can remember is enough planet for just one of them to stand on..

In other news...

[n.e.watson]

In other news, the JAXA robotic space probe seems to have taken great interest in the American flag on the moon. Aparently the Japanese have figured out how to use spray paint effectivly in space...

Re:In other news...

[Primal_theory]

it wouldnt work....the vaccum of space!... they could possibly make it like a compressor, like where its the paint being shot off by (excess c02 from us?)...either way it would be funny.....

and the japs have an advantage over americans...THEY ARE SOO GODAMN SMALL!!! they save money on everything! food, clothes, waste disposal, and overall size of everything!!!

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

it wouldnt work....the vaccum of space!... they could possibly make it like a compressor, like where its the paint being shot off by (excess c02 from us?)...either way it would be funny.....


Let me just see if I follow your logic:

An implement which works by a differential in pressure caused by additional material being injected, compressed if you will, into a smaller vessel will fail when you increase the pressure differential by 1 atmosphere?

Re:In other news...

[Primal_theory]

I was saying make it like those blow marker things...you know the informercial of the year for 2003?

but it would be one way... i guess it could work...

the moon treaty

[wfmcwalter]

There's the 1979 Moon Treaty - see wikipedia.

Re:the moon treaty

[ikkonoishi]

Which just says that no government currently lays claims to the moon. As soon as a colony is started that all goes out the window.

Re:the moon treaty

[DerekLyons]

There's the 1979 Moon Treaty - see wikipedia.

Yes, but typically of Wikipedia, and article that *looks* complete and expert - is anything but.

For example, the article doesn't tell you that the Moon Treaty is regarded as meanigless by most experts. (While it is technically in force - the only signatories are minor nations. Not one major or spacefaring nation has signed it. The experts thus by-and-large regard the Moon Treaty as a non-issue.)

And no, I'm not going to fix the Wikipedia article. I'm tired of fixing the Wikipedia.

The Moon belongs to America!

[sizzzzlerz]

The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men. Will you be among them?

OK, maybe I do watch The Simpsons way too often.

Re:The Moon belongs to America!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so fast Tubby, you're not on the moon yet!

Re:The Moon belongs to America!

[ceeam]

I guess we could have a little "Cold-war of Independence" when there are enough men living on the Moon. US used to belong to Brits and other Europeans, you know. Could be the same thing with Selenia.

Tsunami research and Lunar Bases?

[CrazyJim1]

This can mean only one thing. Japan wants to use the moon to control the tides.

....and with their giant "Laser Beam"....

[Polarism]

they will demand eleventy billion dollars.

Nerd Point

[Stanistani]

Pierre Boulle, the chap who wrote "Planet of The Apes," wrote a novel called "The Garden On The Moon," in which the Japanese competed against the other "powers" to land on the moon.

It was a poignant read.

So does that mean

[Chris Kamel]

that in 2025 you can expect to be able to buy ur own space shuttle that's cheap as hell and reliable enough to live longer than you do But it'll probably be called NakuYamazuka or something

somebodies got to do

[peter303]

We know NASA wont, whose p*ss*ng half its funds into a $100 billion dollar space station that has trouble keeping two astronauts alive.

Re:somebodies got to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes punky, that's exactly what they're doing. Ahh, the joys of Slashdot.

Re:somebodies got to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, the Japanese are also contributing billons of dollars (well the equivalent amount of Yen really) to the ISS as well. In fact if you go by the monetary value of the contributions (both cash and hardware) of the various ISS parterns, Japan is third.

Japan will win

[StikyPad]

They require far less raw materials to create their miniature structures.

Anyone who thinks I'm kidding has never been to Japan, or is not tall enough to notice.

Re:Japan will win

[aussie_a]

Unless you're 8 foot, you're talking out your ass (I'm 5'9").

Re:Japan will win

[rasz]

me sooo small penis, see ?

Re:Japan will win

[StikyPad]

Grow 3 inches and you'll wish you'd brought a helmet. I can't count the number of doorways that have tried their best to scalp me. They look big enough, when you see other people walking in and out just fine, and the top of the door is above eye level, you just assume.. We won't even talk about seating in most places.

Japan is all about economy of space and design.. if you didn't notice that, you must've had your eyes closed.

... how delightful ...

[ninjagin]

I think it's a marvelous thing. Given the wild and futuristic Japanese design aesthetic, I can't wait to see what it will look like.

My only question, and it's a question that crops up every time I hear about nations/people hollering for moon missions, is "What do you do once you get there?"

I've heard about mining and spaceship fabrication, but both of those have very high transportation costs involved. Just getting a habitable structure for the lunies (or is it "loonies"?) to stay in for weeks/months at a time is going to be a fantastic challenge -- do you use inflatables? -- do you burrow bug tunnels into the moon?

Back when I had an interest in tokamaks (those plasma-fusion-toroid-shaped doohickeys), I'd heard that the moon has a fairly rich quantity of Helium-3, a good fuel for tokamak-style fusion reactors. One shuttle bay full of moondust could power the whole earth for a year, supposedly. How much would it cost to get a shuttle to the moon, fill it with dirt and send it back? It must be a lot of moolah. Would it be worth it? I dunno.

Somehow, though, I'll bet the Chinese and the Japanese could work it out.

Still, my inner skeptic holds sway -- I don't believe it when the President says it, and I have a feeling that China and Japan will reconsider when the costs of such far-flung plans become real.

Re:... how delightful ...

[anakin876]

I've heard similar things. Once someone goes there and proves that it is possible, then there will be a rush to get there. Until then, who knows?

I wonder if it would be cheaper to send the energy in microwave form from the moon to one of several orbitting sattelites (so as to not lose the power as the moon rotates) and then beam it to fixed locations on the Earth. I have never seen it done on the earth but for awhile it was a very popular Science Fiction topic.

The reason I mention it is because you KNOW that someone will hear the word nuclear and freak out - even though the Helium 3 won't do much by itself besides evapoarate. What kind of waste do Tokamaks generate? I didn't think it was much.

Re:... how delightful ...

[Anonymous Coward]

well the main waste product is the unradioactive reaction product (in the case of a hydrogen reactor this will usually be some from of helium)

reasctor components can pick up radioactivity though.

Re:... how delightful ...

[ckaminski]

Even if it cost $20billion to make the round trip, if you could indeed power the earth for a year with a shuttle-full of He-3 then I imagine it'd be worth it.

Re:... how delightful ...

[j_cavera]

Currently, purified He-3 can cost up to about $1M per kg (depending on the level of refinement). Some studies were done at Univ. of Wisc. Madison regarding lunar He-3 resource utilization. With our current level of technology, lunar He-3 can be mined, refined and returned to earth for about .... (wait for it) .... $1M per kg.

- Jim

Re:... how delightful ...

[ninjagin]

Wow. I was hoping someone would have more information about that. Thanks.

I seem to recall some figure like US$22,000 per kg to put something into orbit. Given how much further the moon is than orbit, the one million bucks per kg makes me think that a considerable percentage of that (maybe half) would be accounted for by transport.

What I'm wondering now is, if it is a million bucks per kg, how much energy could you get out of it in something like a fusion reactor? What would be the value of that energy?

What I'm driving at is -- if it costs a million smackeroos to get a kg of that stuff from the moon, and you can get, say, 20 million greenbacks for the energy, it'd seen like a viable industry.

Of course, I realize that I'm considering it in the most simple terms. It's thought-provoking nonetheless.

whatever does the trick

[Kris Magnusson]

if japan allocates nearly 4x what the us spends on nasa to build a shuttle and a moon base, and we combine the threat to our national prestige with what china is up to, we've got ourselves another space race on our hands. that can only be good for us space geeks.

........ kris

Re:whatever does the trick

[Grishnakh]

But it'll only be a race between China and Japan (and maybe India). If we're lucky, the EU will finally decide to get serious about space too.

The US can't afford a race like this. We're too busy spending all our money on preemptive wars to do anything productive with it.

Re:whatever does the trick

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be mistaken, but I do believe the US already went to the moon, and so has won the race.

Re:whatever does the trick

[zach_d]

sure, they went, but didnt do anything usefull, just played a bit of golf...

Re:whatever does the trick

[Anonymous Coward]

What is on the moon for us Americans? Jesus didn't go to the moon! Leave the moon for those God-less heathen nations.

Re:whatever does the trick

[Teancum]

America is a very competitive country, and one of the problems about the "race for the moon" in the 1960's was that Russia wimped out. Russia didn't follow on to the moon dispite having a lunar lander and cosmonauts that could have duplicated the American effort.

This time there is more than merely two different nations going into space. I would count on China, Japan, India, and possibly Iran and Brazil as a couple of dark horse candidates. If the EU gets involved, somehow I think it will be more of a private industry effort, more along the lines of Boeing vs. Airbus. The EU has the financial resources, but generally there is a lack of decent launch facilities in Europe due mainly to geography. This is primarily why the ESA has their launch facilities in South America (really not that far from Florida for that matter).

Re:whatever does the trick

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny you say that, becasue I suspect the space race in the east is because of china.

Re:whatever does the trick

[Grishnakh]

Whoopie. After the Chinese or someone else have gone back to the moon, and set up a permanent base, a large solar power generation array, and a large-scale mining operation, and vastly improved their economy in the process, while we're still on earth sitting on our butts and turning into a fascist theocratic backwater, come back here and let me know who you think has "won".

I'm not so sure . .

[Leroy_Brown242]

. . . I'm ready to look up at the moon and see a man made object.

Re:I'm not so sure . .

[aelbric]

I, however, am certain that I am. This is long overdue IMHO.

Re:I'm not so sure . .

[Anonymous Coward]

But with Hello Kitty's face burned into the surface it'll be cuuuuute!

Re: Re:I'm not so sure . .

[JandarShadowstar]

I second that.

Because JAXA is powered by Java

[GoClick]

Duh, Because JAXA is powered by Java.

Interesting look into the future

[archen]

So we set up a colony on the moon, then we set up one on mars. Then the moon decides they want to be independent, so there is a bloody war that is swept under the rugs and the survivors from the moon escape past Jupiter where they find an alien weapons factory, and later attack us using giant robots.

Leave it to Japan to start something like this =)

Re:Interesting look into the future

[anakin876]

is this a book plot? can I steal it from you if it is not? It sounds like a fun read whether it is Hard SF or Humorous SF

Re:Interesting look into the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Martian Successor Nadesico

Re:Interesting look into the future

[iced_773]

Make it a TV series. It could be 10 times better than BSG and 100 times better than Enterprise.

Re:Interesting look into the future

[Rycross]

Sounds like Martian Successor Nadesico

The coolest part about this

[eagl]

The coolest part is that their rocket ship will be nuclear powered and turns into a really big robot when attacked or befriended by a child.

Re:The coolest part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, The coolest part is when the moonbase starts mass producing Giant robots to take over the world. I mean what's the fun of building a moonbase, unless you're going to crank out the giant robots there!

All your *moon* base belong to us ?

[swid]

Hey, maybe this is what NASA needs to convince the gov't we need another moon mission.

Re:All your *moon* base belong to us ?

[martysdomain]

NASA wont be doing too much convincing with the amount of money they have now, and plus the moon is worthless, build a real space ship.

*sound of high speed camera shutter action*

[Anonymous Coward]

Great... first Hawaii, now the moon.

Better to build rockets than unnecessary dams

[Tom Womack]

Well, it's probably a better use of $57 billion a year than the standard Japanese economy-boosting habit of building enormous public works; seven billion 1988-dollars for the Honshu to Hokkaido undersea tunnel (longer than the Chunnel), for example.

With all the current focus on China, people forget that Japan has (in dollar terms; the CIA World Factbook figures use slightly dubious purchasing-power-adjusted figures) the second largest economy in the world. It's an economy in a deep recession, but huge government spending is a traditional way out of those.

Re:Better to build rockets than unnecessary dams

[stratjakt]

Hows it a better use? People will actually use and benefit from the tunnel. What's in a moonbase for the population, speaking practically (no philosophical crap about mankinds understanding of blah blah)?

Re:Better to build rockets than unnecessary dams

[Silburn_Luke]

Off the top of my head:

Aerospace contracts
Research into advanced materials, minaturisation techniques, comms, cybernetics, fuels etc
Manufacturing/engineering know-how in above fields
Remote sensing platforms
Sale of launch services/payload mass to foreigners

Whether its a cost-effective use of Japanese tax yen is a tricky question, but given the standard Japanese pork-barrel projects are running out of places/ways to be spent (there are only so many rivers to dam and roads to build after all) maybe diversifying the pork is starting to look like a good idea.

Regards
Luke

Re:Can I Come ?!?!?!!!111!1!one

[WormholeFiend]

I want a wing on back of my lunar rover!

Oh wait, no atmosphere...

I guess a Type R sticker will have to do.

Re:That was Daffy Duck

[ChibiOne]

Are you refering to the one about the conquest of Planet X, to re-supply Earth's shaving cream supplies? If so, that was "Duck Dodgers in the 24th 1/2 Century", starring Daffy, Marvin and Porky... But not Bugs.

FWIW, the one with Marvin and Bugs was where Bugs mistakenly hops aboard a rocket bound for Mars; there, he finds Marvin getting ready to destroy Earth using a new explosive cannon.

Tsunami Ringtone?

[V4Victory]

The plans also include...alerts to cell phones in the event of major emergencies like a tsunami

Having just read the previous story, now I can't help but wonder 'what ringtone would best signify the impending doom of a tsunami?'

Re:Tsunami Ringtone?

[Rei]

"Wave of Destruction" by Ann Beretta? "Tsunami" by Prozzak? "Flood" by Tool (or by Jars of Clay, or a couple other groups)? "Tidal Wave" by (John Dillon&Steve Cash, Fly, Skye Sweetnam, or others)? Anything by the band "Wave" or "Tsunami Bomb"?

Lots of good options :) If you wanted to be mean, you could have it be something like "It's the end of the world as we know it" or "Komm, Susser Todd" (sp?).

Re:Tsunami Ringtone?

[cbrocious]

> "Flood" by Tool

Actually, I'm pretty sure Aenima by Tool would be better.

Some say a comet will fall from the sky
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still
Followed by billions of dumbfounded dipshits.

Re:Tsunami Ringtone?

[Anonymous Coward]

'High Water' by Rush

Re:Tsunami Ringtone?

[iced_773]

How about Yanni?

Re:Tsunami Ringtone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Yanni?

That'd make me run!

Realestate

[Slavinski]

I guess this is a bad time to jump on the realestate wagon?

Things don't always go as planned

[MonkeyCookie]

I remember that back in the 1980's it was said that the United States was planning to have a moon base by the year 2000.

Look where that ended up.

So, as for the Japan's plan for a moon base, I'll have to see the thing actually under construction before I believe it. I find the robotic probe plan to be much more realistic. I think they have a pretty good chance of succeeding there.

Re:Things don't always go as planned

[Anonymous Coward]

A Holy War in the Middle East meets with better public approval than your godless moonbase idea. 51% of Americans think they're going to be raptured Real Soon Now and a Holy War is only going to improve their chances, or so they think!

Re:Things don't always go as planned

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember that back in the 1980's it was said that the United States was planning to have a moon base by the year 2000.

Look where that ended up.

I don't keep up with the news, so I really don't know how this ended up, but I'm assuming we have a really cool moon base by now. Right?

Re:Things don't always go as planned

[DerekLyons]

I remember that back in the 1980's it was said that the United States was planning to have a moon base by the year 2000. Look where that ended up.

Certainly. But you have to understand why it ended up like it did.

Bush (41) proposed a rather modest space vision and asked NASA to come up with a program to execute that vision. NASA responded with a multi-trillion laundry list of every grandiose scheme they'd ever examined... and the President and Congress (rightly) concluded that NASA was insane and rejected the program. (NASA has never really reconciled itself completely to the fact that the all-but-blank-check era of the early 1970's is gone forever.)

This horrid miscalculation created a deep suspicion of NASA in the Congress and has had far reaching effects - The bastardization of Freedom into ISS, cancellation of the Shuttle-C, cancellation of several Shuttle upgrades, cancellation of the acquisition of structural spares to replace those used to build Endeavour (OV-105), and a steady hostility of Congress towards any NASA program which looked like it was aimed at manned Lunar or Mars exploration. (This last resulted in the cancellation of Transhab BTW.)

Moonraker

[corngrower]

I think there's a Bond movie by that name. I can't remember the details of the plot.

Re:Moonraker

[zoloto]

some whackjob tries to kill everyone on the earth with a super virus that kills only humans and leaves the plants/animals alone and repopulate with "arien" race style looking people. they were going to send these devices containing the viral agent from space to kill everyone then come down and repopulate.

it was one of the better movies IMNSHO

Oh dear

[Platinum Dragon]

In other news, the Japanese government has proposed to raise the sunken WWII-era battleship Yamato...

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the Americans would insist on calling it the Argo. ...hey, maybe _you_ might know. Back in college I read one of those "what if" fanfics that had a Yamato vs. Macross battle, a la those Star Wars vs. Star Trek textfiles. Yamato won, I think, thanks to the BFG. Ever read it, or know where I might be able to re-download a copy of it? This was pre-1999, most likely originally from the early 90s.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. The wave motion gun is obviously badass, but its range is about 1000ish miles. The main cannons on Macross can't destroy planets, but they obliterate enemy ships at a million miles away. And we haven't even counted the fighter squadrons yet.

Japan is also considering...

[Anonymous Coward]

construction of mechanized battle suits, known as "mobile suits." However, critics are concerned that these suits are more for show than for fulfillment of any particular military requirement.

"Despite the incredibly advanced mobile suit research that is under way," says lead engineer Fukatsu Misukutu, "these suits will be equipped with solid projectile weapons systems, in lieu of laser beams, and other seizure-inducing weaponry." According to Misukutu, "it is our opinion that bullets are still cooler than lasers, and will remain so for the forseeable future. Our mobile suits will also be equipped with onboard cartridge production systems. Therefore, you will never see a mobile suit crewman change a clip"

Military brass seem upset with the decision to continue using outmoded weapons systems in these futuristic weapons platforms. Their concerns have largely gone unanswered, possibly due to the Japanese' tendancy to prever frivolous features over functionality. Many mobile suit developers have claimed that "laser beams are so '80s."

Scientists also have planned a flight-capable model of the mobile suit. Although not equipped with wings, the mobile suits exhibit mysteriously effective flight characteristics. "We believe that the key to the mobile suit's excellent flyability lies in the outrageous number of fins and otherwise useless protrusions in the suit's design. Besides making the suit look fucking cool, it makes the suit fly."

Scientists also have planned a special combined weapons platform feature. This will allow multiple mobile suits to link together, splitting piloting and targetting duties between each suit's crewman. "We are considering a morphing capability that will allow multiple suits to rotate and resize appendages, to allow the suit to take on alternate physical appearances, such as a tiger, a triceratops, or a T-rex. Such capability will undoubtedly demoralize any enemy combattants that attempt to resist the mobile suit weapons platform," Misukutu said.

Ultimately, only the future will tell how the mobile suit fares in combat situations. Many within the Japanese military believe that development should continue on conventional ground armor and aviation weapons systems. If we know anything about Japan, however, it's that tried and true tactics and equipment is just too boring if it doesn't have wings, rockets, useless wings, and lots of pokey-things.

-Associated Press

Re:Japan is also considering...

[Anonymous Coward]

I also hear that these mobile suits will only be pilotable by metrosexual teenage boys with girlish builds and spikey hair.

Well yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do your plans include 20 meter tall robots piloted by metal-bikini clad girls who moonlight as pop idols? I think not.

Where's the money?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The USA is in the hole for nearly $8 trillion. WTF will the USA find the cash to buy some skyrockets for 4 July, let alone fund a moon program? "My parents' generation went to the moon and all I got was this lousy federal debt."

Re:Where's the money?

[f0dder]

Do as we always do.. we'll charge it.

ob. heinlein

[Kris Magnusson]

i remember in his "expanded universe" that he wrote if the u.s. didn't get off its ass and develop a real space program, japan would, and we would end up having our visas stamped by japanese customs officers when we space tourists arrived at the moon.

seems to me the real space race has started.

..... kris

Then shouldn't...

[hobbesx]

Duh, Because JAXA is powered by Java.

So shouldn't the icon be like a sandcrawler or something?

Wait- Java? Oh!

Re:Then shouldn't...

[Anonymous Coward]

A slug would be appropriate for Java.

The NASA of today....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

is just a big admin operation. They will get to the moon by stacking paper up in a big mountain until you can touch the moon.

Following in corporate footsteps, they'd probably outsource a program to India.

Yay Japan

[Lord_Dweomer]

As an American, all I have to say is, "leave it to the Japanese to take massive steps towards furthering the human race while the rest of us are stuck here fighting amongst ourselves."

Re:Yay Japan

[ScentCone]

As an American, all I have to say is, "leave it to the Japanese to take massive steps towards furthering the human race while the rest of us are stuck here fighting amongst ourselves."

Please be sure to pass that along to the Japanese troops that are in Iraq right now. Because they, like us, know that things like space exploration, and liberating places like Iraq from corrupt regimes are not mutually exclusive. Read the damn news, why don't you? The Japanese are still embarassed by the last war they started, but they understand the need to get involved the "fighting amongst ourselves" so that it can be stopped. Doing so, just as ending the Soviet rule of Eastern Europe, brings huge peace dividends: which we can spend in space (I hope!). Less turmoil, and fewer crazy tyrants with pet oilfields in the world is crucial if we want to really focus on things like space. But we can work on both at the same time.

Re:Yay Japan

[offensiveweapon]

As an American, all I have to say is, "leave it to the Japanese to take massive steps towards furthering the human race while the rest of us are stuck here fighting amongst ourselves." I think one way that can be interpreted is that the Japanese are focusing on productive things for mankind rather than fighting amongst themselves in their own country. They don't have red and blue states in Japan (and yes, Japan has prefectures, which are similar to states).

Re:Yay Japan

[justins]

The Japanese are still embarassed by the last war they started, but they understand the need to get involved the "fighting amongst ourselves" so that it can be stopped.

I can't speak to the embarassment part, but until our fearless leader convinced them to send troops to Iraq postwar Japan was content to be a very pacifist nation with a self-defense military. I predict that will have some entertaining side-effects in the decades to come, although I can't judge its future ranking on the "Dubya, Gosh THAT Was Stupid" historical chart.

Re:Yay Japan

[ScentCone]

can't speak to the embarassment part, but until our fearless leader convinced them to send troops to Iraq postwar Japan was content to be a very pacifist nation with a self-defense military

The Japanese forces in Iraq are there in a self-defense capacity. Making the world a more peaceful place, and less of a haven for murderous tyrants is self defense. For all of us.

If Japan has "pacifist" sensibilities, it is only in their over-reaction to having started a war. Deeper, more culturally, they are not a people to tolerate threats, and certainly they have the sensibility to know that keeping the peace can mean going out and doing something about those that would violate the peace. There's nothing "turn the other cheek" about the way that Japanese law enforcement deals with threatening people, and there's nothing philosophically different between that and stepping out with other countries to reduce larger threats.

Re:Yay Japan

[eraserewind]

The Japanese forces in Iraq are there in a self-defense capacity.

Talk about redefinition of language. What did Iraq ever do to Japan that could possibly provoke them to send troops in "self defence".

The Japanese could be there for any number of reasons "enforcing the UN resolution", "George Bush asked us to go there, and we do whatever he asks", "the militarists want to get past the whole 'self defence force' sham and have a real army", etc..., but "self defense" is not one of the reasons for them being there.

Re:Yay Japan

[justins]

So they're in Iraq... why? You make it sound as though Iraq were a threat to someone other than Iran, Israel, or Kuwait, which is complete nonsense.

Re:Yay Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese forces in Iraq are there in a self-defense capacity. Making the world a more peaceful place, and less of a haven for murderous tyrants is self defense. For all of us.

Really? What has Iraq done to you or the US? They taunted us a little, rattled their cage, and tried to look dangerous -- but failed. I'm surprised GWB fell for it -- but I guess only 1500 dead Americans and 15000 dead Iraqis isn't a big price to pay for such a "small" mistake.

And before you bring up 9-11, look what's been reported by the news media (other than the administrtions repetitive and content-free statements), the 9-11 Comissin report, and just about everything else. Iraq was harmless to us, and, after 1991, to everyone except their own people. Sending in the US military clearly isn't the way to resolve an internal dispute inside foreign, sovereign country.

I considered myself a Republican before January 2002. George Bush's War has turned me so sour on the Republican party that it will probably be decades before I can vote for a Replublican again. Too bad Kerry was a "me too" candidate and I really wish Badnarik had made a better showing.

Re:Yay Japan

[ScentCone]

Talk about redefinition of language. What did Iraq ever do to Japan that could possibly provoke them to send troops in "self defence".

Wrong question. You should be asking what Saddam Hussein and his regime was doing to the stability of one of the most volatile regions in the world, and how that would impact countries like Japan, that have a vested interest in keeping that kind of mayhem at bay. The indirect impact of guys like Saddam are very, very familiar to the Japanese (they're still living down their reputation around the Pacific rim for being pretty much the same way 60 years ago).

It is self defense when you remove tyrants like that. Japan, and the rest of the world, will face less grief from here on out because of what's happening there now. Ask the folks in Lebanon (read the news today?) or the folks who just voted in Iraq (remember) if the long-term safety of the free world is helped or hindered by the peacekeepers working in Iraq, Japanese troops included.

To the extent that democratic, free people anywhere are expressly threatened by the acts of extremists in a multi-country, oil-fueled, arms-laden, hatred-powered region, it's self defense to pitch in and help deal with it.

Re:Yay Japan

[Idou]

"liberating places like Iraq from corrupt regimes" How does it feel to be winning abroad but losing at home? "The Japanese are still embarassed by the last war they started" And you, being the enlightened American, are not embarrassed by the firebombing of innocent civilians in Tokyo or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or by the fact that the U.S. has waged many wars since . . . oh, all in the "name of freedom," of course? "they understand the need to get involved" Btw, the Japanese are there to rebuild the bridges and roads that the U.S. destroyed and require other countries, like Australia, for protection, since the only legal (under the Japanese constitution) way they can be there is if they are not involved in combat (or in a "combat zone" for that matter!). This is just Koizumi and the Jiminto doing a nice, nice for the most powerful/dangerous man on this planet. This is the most unpopular decision Koizumi has ever made in his career. "Less turmoil, and fewer crazy tyrants with pet oilfields in the world is crucial" Hmm, we agree on something . . .

Re:Yay Japan

[ScentCone]

How does it feel to be winning abroad but losing at home?

Hmmm. Can't imagine what you mean. Losing to whom, by what standard?

And you, being the enlightened American, are not embarrassed by the firebombing of innocent civilians in Tokyo or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Actually, no, I'm not. Because we didn't start the conflict, and because even as they knew their abject aggression throughout the Pacific was a lost cause, the Japanese refused to cease hostilities. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put a stop to the war, and saved both the allies and the Japanese from the bloody grind of an invasion. Why would we be embarrassed about ending a war that the Japanese started by raiding througout the Pacific, enslaving people in Korea, China, and throughout the South Pacific, and then (just to make sure that we might not get in the way), attacking the US Navy in Hawaii?

Japanese are there to rebuild the bridges and roads

Right. And they are armed and trained to shoot to defend themselves, and coordinate with other forces to call in air strikes or whatever else they need to suppress the insurgents that seek to deprive the Iraqi people of things like their bridges, their police, and their vote. And their mission there is to help stabilize a place that Saddam completely sacrificed to his own military and political ambitions. Remember how he started a war with Iran (over a million dead), or invaded Kuwait? Or, even after being kicked out of Kuwait, agreed to sell his oil to the world in exchange for things like food... but then turned those sales instead into military hardware, palaces, and tangible financial support for nice folks like Hamas, Hezbollah... you get the idea.

Hmm, we agree on something

If, by that clumsy bit of sarcasm, you're implying that the US is some sort of imperial force, why not ask the very same Japanese you're talking about, and ask how imperial we've been there? Or in Germany? Or in Kuwait? Or Croatia? Honestly, sometimes it would be easier if our purposes were as evil as you'd like to pretend they were. But no, we get to do the dirty work, and most of the rest of the world just gets to complain about not getting enough opportunities to tell us how to put our resources, people, and productivity to work on other people's behalf.

Ask the people in Iraq how they felt leaving the voting polls last month, or ask the people in Lebanon where they got the inspiration to finally speak up and stop being puppets to Syria... it's the actions we've taken in Iraq that have changed the direction in that part of the world. Please note that Lybia gave up their nuke ambitions, and are going to find their way back into the legitimate world - and not a shot fired or a US soldier on the ground. Why? Because we did indeed act in the name of freedom. That you feel the need to put quotes around that word says a lot about you.

Re:Yay Japan

[bluGill]

It is in Japan's best interest it have some military experience. China is known for their abuses, and they have 1 billion people. If China decides to start a war Japan is a likely target. (After Taiwan, though China wants Taiwan, while they are just historical enemies with Japan)

Now in the case of China, they show all the signs of being peaceful. I tend to take a trust but verify stand with them. They are not our friend, and cannot be until they clean up their Human rights record. However there is no real evidence they really will fight, though they clearly can.

There is one more country Japan has to watch though: North Korea. North Korea has a large army, and has a ruler that is insane by any standards. Anyone predicting what North Korea will do had better have proof that God is using them as a prophet. (Only God can perdict what North Korea will do)

Re:Yay Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan and the USA have had a powerful security alliance in effect for five decades now. This alliance has been one of the key factors in shaping the current pacific rim political climate - there's a reason why forty thousand American troops are in Japan at any given time. Japanese efforts in Iraq can best be understood as a gesture of goodwill aimed at maintaining the alliance.

Re:Yay Japan

[Teancum]

The North Korean army is a joke. Oh, they have a lot of manpower, which is useful for keeping domestic peace (you won't see large unarmed civilian uprisings in North Korea), but that hardly says anything about how capable it would be in fighting any of its neighbors.

Japan is in the top five spenders for military budgets in the world... in absolute terms, not per capita. They also have three major military powers that they have to deal with as neighbors: China, Russia, and the USA (Alaska really isn't that far from Japan, nor is there much besides water between Hawaii and Japan). In trying to avoid getting overwhelmed economically, culturally, or militarily against these countries, North Korea is just a very small fry.

In short, if North Korea decided to make a move right now, it is likely that they would get squashed by several military powers simultaneously... with a very strange Sino-Japanese alliance putting it down along with a very powerful South Korean army in its own right. That is the main thing that is keeping North Korea from getting out of hand. I just don't see a North Korean invasion of Russia happening either, for much of the same reason.

Re:Yay Japan

[reifchen]

Less turmoil, and fewer crazy tyrants with pet oilfields in the world is crucial if we want to really focus on things like space.

Now if we could just stop the crazy tyrants from collecting more oil fields, we'd be happy.

Re:Yay Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

but they understand the need to get involved the "fighting amongst ourselves" so that it can be stopped.

Oh my god, I think I'm gonna bust a gut. It's absolutely hilarious seeing all you white boys lecturing about Japan's intentions and national identity.

Ask any Japanese person living in Japan -- not those weirdos who live abroad -- and see what they think about Japan's involvement in Iraq. If you can get them drunk enough to tell you their true opinion, most of them will say that Koizumi sent the self-defense forces to Iraq because Bush asked him to, and Japan's economy and national defense are dependent on the US. Everyone knows how Dubya treats the countries who defy him.

Furthermore, with the exception of Hiroshima prefecture, Japan doesn't give a shit about promoting peace in the world: as long as it's not on Japanese soil it's "not our business." Backwards and foolhardy? Sure, but if you think it's unbelivable, you don't know Japan. At all.

Re:Yay Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can't speak to the embarassment part, but until our fearless leader convinced them to send troops to Iraq postwar Japan was content to be a very pacifist nation with a self-defense military."

This is too much. North Korea violated their 1994 agreement within about 45 minutes, and liberals try to claim that Pyongyang didn't develop nuclear weapons until the "Axis of Evil" speech.

Likewise, Japan's military has been on a steady buildup since the mid 90s, and now we're told that Bush "tricked" them into building up the military as recently as 2003. See Japan Strengthing Its Forces (date 1999), or Japan Flexing Military Muscle (tracking the buildup to at least 1992).

This is more paranoid anti-Bush lies. No news here.

Re:Yay Japan

[justins]

The North Korean army is a joke. Oh, they have a lot of manpower, which is useful for keeping domestic peace (you won't see large unarmed civilian uprisings in North Korea), but that hardly says anything about how capable it would be in fighting any of its neighbors.

That is a pretty gross oversimplification of the situation. First, it's important to recognize that North Korea's military is set up to be a primarily defensive force, meant to put an enemy opponent through a meatgrinder if they attempt an invasion. Nobody wants to send troops into North Korea. Second, the key to their situation is that they can flatten Seoul in about an hour with their conventional artillary. That has been their "mutually assured destruction" equivalent for a long time. With a nuke and a delivery system they'd have a similar deterrant capability with regard to Japan.

They aren't setup to invade anybody, really, that is true. Although South Korea looks like a pretty soft target if the US decides not to protect it, or is incapable of protecting it because they are fully engaged elsewhere.

In short, if North Korea decided to make a move right now, it is likely that they would get squashed by several military powers simultaneously...

That would be a lot more comforting if the people running that country were rational actors.

with a very strange Sino-Japanese alliance putting it down along with a very powerful South Korean army in its own right.

Wouldn't China love to see the whole peninsula communist?

Re:Yay Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Less turmoil, and fewer crazy tyrants with pet oilfields in the world is crucial if we want to really focus on things like space.

Should be rephrased as 'fewer crazy tyrants invading other countries to get their pet oilfields'.

Re:Yay Japan

[Theaetetus]

Wrong question. You should be asking what Saddam Hussein and his regime was doing to the stability of one of the most volatile regions in the world, and how that would impact countries like Japan, that have a vested interest in keeping that kind of mayhem at bay.

Hussein's regime, unlike many in the region, was a stable one, whether you agree with its methods or not. Cuba is also a very stable region, though once Castro dies that'll change quick. Aside from oppressing his own people, Hussein was also doing a great job keeping third party terrorists and religious extremists out of Iraq (both were a threat to his power, so he was crushing them as soon as they appeared).
Moreover, if keeping a region stable is a good reason for Japan's being there, why aren't they in North Korea?

It is self defense when you remove tyrants like that. Japan, and the rest of the world, will face less grief from here on out because of what's happening there now.

Proof? The region is currently facing quite a bit more grief than they were three years ago. Al Queda's membership is on the rise, as is religious extremism. Prior to this invasion, moderate ideas were taking hold (look at the PM of Iran, for instance). If the US invades Iran (the likely next step), those moderates will turn into hardline fundamentalists quicker than you can say 'jihad'.

To the extent that democratic, free people anywhere are expressly threatened by the acts of extremists in a multi-country, oil-fueled, arms-laden, hatred-powered region, it's self defense to pitch in and help deal with it.

And doesn't that just swell up your heart with thoughts of Mom and apple pie?
Are democratic people free? Not necessarily. Is democracy even the best system? Not necessarily. We practice a democratic republic here, and it seems relatively stable, but not for the past 5 years, which have been more decisive than any since the Civil War. For stable systems, the Roman Empire can't be beat, nor can the theocracy of ancient Egypt or the feudal systems of China and Japan.

Also, why are they the extremists, and we aren't? With all of Bush's remarks about "us or them" and "crusades", couldn't he be viewed as a religious extremist? (the answer is yes, he could be, whether you agree with that observation or not).

And finally, 'hatred-powered'? Do you actually believe the "they hate freedom" rhetoric? If they truly hated freedom, how come they aren't marching up to us to surrender, get placed in jail and get their freedom taken away? No, they love freedom too - just that their idea of freedom isn't necessarily the same as our idea of freedom. They want freedom to have their theocracy, freedom to have their sovereign nation intact, freedom to have the technical advances that the western countries have (nuclear power, nuclear weapons, etc.) We disagree with those freedoms - so, to their eyes, we hate their freedom. But to say that they're freedom-hating, or that the region is 'hatred-powered' is just stupid.

-T

Re:Yay Japan

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

the firebombing of innocent civilians in Tokyo or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

...and I'm sure the people of China might have a thing or two to say about Nanking...

not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[NoizeyMike]

I guess if I intended not to do what the subject says i wouldn't post this. None the less I suppose it has to be mentioned.

The UN has estimated that for 81 billion dollars a year everyone on Earth could be fed. .. ...

Now nevermind the US military budget ..

Err.. space travel is cool. but someone has to say it. Priorities?

I guess the real point is that we could have space travel and no world hunger (and hense no terrorists and far less wars) but..

err.. interested to see if anyone has any thoughts (always surprised by the depth of insite and depths of cynacism on here)

Mike

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[drinkypoo]

For 81 billion dollars a year, you could feed everyone? What would it cost to make it so they could feed themselves? Anyway no hunger does not equal no terrorism. Most terrorism is not related to starvation, except of the mind.

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[Game_Ender]

I hate when people bring up this kind of moral argument. By this logic instead of paying for the internet connection you are using, shouldn't you just feed the poor around you? Or give it to the local homeless shelter?

Why you're at you should probally just take every cent you don't spend on rent on food and send it to the UN. After all that last food program they had worked out real well didn't it...

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[Teancum]

The issues of world hunger are primarily divided into two issues: Logistics (distributing the food) and Politics.

Logistical issues are indeed huge, and trying to get food from where it is abundant to where it is needed can often be a huge problem. In many of the "traditional" areas of the world that seem to have a perpetual food shortage, it is also where you find the transportation infrastructure almost non-existant. That is no reliable paved highways, railroads, or seaports. In order to be able to feed a major populations (even in a 1st world country like London, Paris, or New York City), you have to have an incredible bulk goods transportation infrastructure just to get the food to the people that need it. Often famine relief efforts are able to get litterally a mountain of food donated to help out, but that mountain gets stopped at a transportation hub because it simply can't get any further.

Much of this lack of transportation is in part due to poverty, and even more a result of politics as I'll explain below.

The other major issue is pure political issues. Many areas of the world that have famine are also in war or war-like situations. Eastern Africa in particular has had a series of wars that have ravaged the landscape, and there are competing factions that are deliberately trying to keep food and other basic "humanitarian" supplies from getting to their "enemy". Also, relief convoys have to spend unnecessary resources trying to "bribe" the officials to get the supplies through, often so bad that only a very small faction, if any, even gets through.

And with this political upheaval and war-like actions, supply lines get cut. While you can point to some embargo efforts of many nations, there are also deliberate attempts to destroy infrastructure, including derailing railroads and removing track, blowing up bridges, and tearing up roads. In addition, roving "gangs" of "protection guards" cover many highways, asking for their own "toll" along the way. In short, even if you had all the money in the world, you would never be able to get some food to some people.

None of these issues are unsolvable, and it is surprising that some previously very unstable areas of the world are now rejoining the rest of humanity where the food is plentiful. And not all of these regions are necessarily 1st world nations either, yet have an abundance of food for their people.

Money won't solve world hunger, but being spent on the development of space will not only help resolve some of the resource management issues (where mineral and energy resources can be obtained from extra-terrestrial sources), but it also offers a way to expand the realm of human experience. Wouldn't it be amazing if relief convoys of food came not only from North America and Europe, but also from Mars and Ceres? In other words, even more resources could be used to help solve these problems, not less.

Development of space can be an enabler of these resources, and experiences like the Indian Ocean Tsuami Relief efforts would be typical rather than the exception. Relief efforts would have more resources than they comfortably know what to do with it.

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[be-fan]

A balance has to be struck between aid and investment. You can't just spend all your available money on aid, for the simple reason that your money sources will stay constant while the need for aid will grow. Japan, until it hit economic troubles in the 1990s, was the single biggest donor of aid in the entire world. It's still the second biggest. To the extent that this sort of investment can help Japan's economy on the future, it's ultimately better for those who need aid that Japan strikes this balance.

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[NoizeyMike]

Osama Bin Laden listed the starvation of the Iraqi children under US sanctions as one of the top 5 motivations for persuing terrorism. I agree some violence is beyond a question of subsistence. Yes many terrorists come from wealthy backgrounds too I guess. The only point I'm trying make on this note is that frequently if life doesn't seem like its an expendable commodity then its a lot harder to convince someone to perhaps give that up through any number of ways. Please read the next thread as I don't want to post more (volume) off topic as I realize I've already taken this thread. :) Mike

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[NoizeyMike]

I'm sorry I'm not trying to put that level of morale argument across since it wouldn't be fair to expect others to follow that position even I was capable of it myself. I'm merely pointing out that sometimes (already forgot 1st year economics word for this) relative value of things doesn't get considered in in the discussion. damnit i'm going to bring up another US example but it serves my point http://www.costofwar.com/ there are a lot of ways to slice this, but, just really that there are often far better ways to spend money to get a result I guess. Regards, Mike

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to be able to feed a major populations (even in a 1st world country like London, Paris, or New York City), you have to have an incredible bulk goods transportation infrastructure just to get the food to the people that need it.

London, Paris and New York City are countries?

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[NoizeyMike]

I didn't say I believed it unquestioningly. I take your point for sure. I will say that its very hard to judge such factors against each other, much more for economists. Like everyone they have there own agenda though and are probably not always thinking about other factors. I'm afraid I've taken this thread hopelessly off topic. but, I appreciate all the ideas as it only helps to expand my understanding of the issue. Cheers, Mike

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[FleaPlus]

The UN has estimated that for 81 billion dollars a year everyone on Earth could be fed. .. ...

And how much would it cost the year after that? How about a decade later?

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[NoizeyMike]

Thanks for taking the time to put more thought into your post then I did. ;) Sorry if the tone of that post was soap box like. What I posted was an oversimplification. What i think I was getting at is why there is rarely a discourse of how a more stable world is a potentially economically valuable thing (among others). Which I guess to reiterate your points requires both monetary initiatives but also political leadership. Cheers, tonights soap box king Mike

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[RM6f9]

World population estimated at, what, 4 billion people? lessee, divide 81 by 4, and you honestly expect anybody to believe you can sustain healthy human diet, hell, even subsistence diet, at US$20.25/person/year? Where do they buy *their* groceries?
Nevermind that, where do these "estimators" buy their *drugs*?

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't answer his question. Why don't you give all of your "extra" money to feed others? Hypocrite.

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[Bob_Robertson]

There is plenty of food produced on earth to feed everyone. The 81 billion is just the price that it would take to move it.

But would it get there? Food supplies rotted on the docks in Ethiopia because the petty warlords wouldn't let it move to the interior where people were starving.

Stalin and Mao used transportation (or I should say BLOCKED transportation) of food in order to starve many millions of their own citizens.

The problem is not food, it's government. In an environment of actual freedom, entrepreneurs would gladly step in and find innovative and inexpensive ways to move food to where it is needed. And it wouldn't cost you a dime, much less 81 billion dollars.

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[NoizeyMike]

That's a really good point! The profit motive that can be the cause of greedy questionable behavior in this world would definitely work to food distributions advantage. I guess that the market would find a balance between charging the most they could for the food, but, assuming that entrepaneurs could make some money, the cost would be at level of that people could afford food. Never mind really innovative ideas that would be sympathetic to local situations (i.e. would benefit people and entrepaneurs without westernizing the areas)! Just theorizing. I did mediocre in first year economics.. :) Mike

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[Bob_Robertson]

Mike, you're absolutely right. I marvel every time I go into the grocery store to see the variety and prices. Strawberries, grapes, good citrus, in February, at affordable, if still higher than when-in-season-locally, prices.

And that's the fresh food that is time sensitive in transportation. Someone is making a profit moving fruit from Chile to Kentucky quickly at a price even I can afford.

The comment that "Greed is good" was addressing exactly what you're talking about. In order to make a profit, someone will step into ANY available business, even if it's as seemingly mundane as transporting food to where no one else is doing it right now.

And there will always be some shmuck in the wings watching for where the profits are high, ready to undercut the price and still make a profit without having to do all the leg-work of discovering the market in the first place.

If that shmuck is, as you say, some really nasty person like Sam Walton, he'll undercut everybody he can to make his buck, so that the products are delivered not only where they have never been delivered before, but at as low a price as possible to keep out competition. The lowly consumer makes out like a bandit!

That is, unfortunately, until Government steps in and "levels the playing field", thereby punishing only the people at the bottom of the economic scale who cannot afford to pay the tariffs.

Bob-

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[NoizeyMike]

I'm not sure where the balance between culture versus survival comes into the discussion. I suppose in an ideal world what ever culture that is to be affected will have to make said choice.

Walmart is a good example. In a more developed country the balance between a completely uniform inexpensive (free market) cultural landscape versus a cultural landscape that has more diversity and local charm is a more difficult decision to work with (as a societal discussion).

I suppose the problem is that in say South Sudan its very hard to "just say no!" ;) when its the difference between life and death. I suppose that is the magic of globalization for better and for worse. As well it would be fool hearty to try to lock human society in one state forever (i.e cultures have risen and fallin through out history)

I personally don't have any answers. I'm pretty sure cultural-diversity is a good thing (even if it can lead to conflict). I suppose the only answer that I can see to preserving said cultures/culture is an "enlightened company" persuing said markets. Though there are certainly less companies that market on their (i'm going to use this word for lack of a better one) "altruistic" policies, there certainly are some. These companies can and do do well for themselves but, there must be some method whereby such concerns aren't just left to chance (yet not heavily interferring in the market). Again I don't really know what the solution is, I'm just throwing this out.

Cheers,
Mike

Re:not to take the wind out of everyone's sails

[Bob_Robertson]

Once survival is taken care of, culture can happen. By lowering the cost of such things as food and clothing, more money is left over for "culture".

I love Japanese culture. The art, architecture, style. But did the poor shmuck who only owned one pair of shoes in his life care about that?

Bob-

You've been paying too much attention in school

[UnrefinedLayman]

You've been paying too much attention in school. Despite what the prophets of capitalism will say, competition does not mean everyone wins. In fact, by definition, competition means that someone will win and someone will lose.

While there may be tangible benefits from competition by nations in space exploration, there are certainly benefits from cooperation as some recent explorations have shown, particularly Cassini/Huygens. Two nations with $10 billion each can do projects together that are impossible alone.

Part of the problem with your thinking is that you seem to think that nations aren't driven to innovate in the field of space research. The main problem right now is that there isn't enough money to do what they imagine they can do; we're not short on ideas by any means, but we're short on means to be sure.

My belief is that we're not going to see significant care shown to the space programs here in America any time soon, as most politicians are too busy solidifying their power bases by exploiting whatever hot-ticket item they can. Space exploration isn't going to win over Nascar dads, but being pro-life and imprisoning American citizens without hearings because they are suspected of terror ties that cannot be proven seems to work.

Re:You've been paying too much attention in school

[FireFury03]

While there may be tangible benefits from competition by nations in space exploration, there are certainly benefits from cooperation as some recent explorations have shown, particularly Cassini/Huygens. Two nations with $10 billion each can do projects together that are impossible alone.

Yes, until you throw politics into the mix. The politicians make themselves look much better to the masses when they say "we're going to do X before " rather than "We're going to spend a lump of money helping to do X".

Given a fixed amount of money then cooperation is better, but if you're in competition with your enemies then the politicians are more inclined to throw masses of money at the project. What's better? a couple of nations throwing $10m each into a common project, or both those nations throwing $30m each into doing the same thing as eachother?

Austin Powers

[codecracker007]

i was thinking more on the line of Austin Powers IV: MoonShagger, co-starring Fook-Me and Fook-Yu the japanese twins

redefining the term

[btnheazy03]

now the moon will become it's literal term-- a satellite.

My question is...

[DJ Haruko]

So how long before we can expect to see bi-pedal Gundam-like mechs on this moonbase?

at a cost of 57bil

[Ghouki]

TNSTAAFL

Japanese!

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to start learnign Japanese!!!

Re:Japanese!

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to start learnign Japanese!!!

Not until you finish English first.

Re:Can I Come ?!?!?!!!111!1!one

[Anonymous Coward]

But will you feel the power of having your engine wind to 9000000 RPM to compensate for no torque? Can you hear the coffee can exaust in space?

It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no moon......

Project to be led by Dr. No...

[LordByronStyrofoam]

...and mission control will be set up in an extinct volcanic crater near Mount Fuji.

Mod Parent funny

[zach_d]

damn, i spilt my coffee... thats awesome.

Re:Mod Parent funny

[9Nails]

Hilarious! What's next? Painting the upper half of the moon red like a Pokeman ball?! The moon could be more of a source of entertainment and not just surfing at the beach!

Silly Japanese

[AvantLegion]

In Korea, only old people want moonbases.

Re:Silly Japanese

[krumms]

In Soviet Russia, bases moon you?

Implications

[randall_burns]

I can easily imagine that Japan may be able to seriously leverage the commercial use of space the way the current corrupt leadership in the US cannot. What mean if the Japanese seriously started space based businesses while the US did not?

Re:Implications

[ScentCone]

current corrupt leadership in the US

somebody please just mod this idiot out of his misery

Re:Implications

[cranos]

Whoa way to refute his statement with well thought out arguments and examples dude !

Re:Implications

[ScentCone]

Sigh. OK, he said:

I can easily imagine that Japan may be able to seriously leverage the commercial use of space the way the current corrupt leadership in the US cannot. What mean if the Japanese seriously started space based businesses while the US did not?

What country has even come close to what the U.S. has done to further the world's commercial use of space? Our telecommunications pioneering alone lead the world into a new age. Of course Europe (and to a certain extent now, Asia) are catching up. But as country with an industrial focus in this area, it's no contest. Is the US focus in space spread around too awkwardly of late? Yes. I'm glad to see Bush's recent directives to NASA to focus some more riveting projects. Can't wait for more of the same.

Now, will Europe use an arrangement not unlike Airbus to actually get those governments directly into the business? Will the Japanese government become a bigger part of their country's corporate space business? Probably.

But: is some "corruption" (as the twit poster put it) keeping the US out of a healthy commercial role in space? Please. And, to your point: I didn't "refute" the post because it was so non-specific (non-meaningful, really) that there's nothing but anti-Americanism to refute. As nothing more than a cranky-sounding excuse to say that America is corrupt, I called that troll a troll.

Re:Implications

[cranos]

Nice, sorry about the post but I get tired of seeing threads that basically run like a couple of six year olds.

Re:Implications

[SewersOfRivendell]

Yes. I'm glad to see Bush's recent directives to NASA to focus some more riveting projects. Can't wait for more of the same.

Can't wait for what, more senseless political grandstanding (let's go to Mars and make Shrub look like a visionary! like anybody cares about Mars! "what is that, a planet or something?"), or more underfunded and useless "science" initiatives? Hey, maybe we can search for images of Jesus in space -- or figure out how to flatten the Earth and fill the universe with toxic waste so that it matches the one-planet conception of the universe that you have if you take the Bible literally -- that'd make the fundies who vote for Bush happy.

Bush doesn't care about space any more than he cares about human life.

Go ahead and troll-rate me, mods -- I've got Karma, and you know it's true. Whoo-hoo!

Re:Implications

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it how you say "we" and "our" like you had contributed anything. In reality you're a loser posting from a trailer park...

Re:Implications

[randall_burns]

The issues with the corruption of the current administration are _many_ going back to the appointment of Bush by the Supreme Court. I didn't say the US is corrupt-but its leadership is. Stuff that relates to space here:

Nasa consistently promised more than they could deliver with the shuttle-and actively discouraged investment in private alternatives. Given how badly things turned out, I consider that corruption. The organization of space efforts in the US has _serious_ problems. There need to be solid incentives that apply not just to folks with the right political connections-or ability to maneuver in a goverment bureacracy, but those simply able to produce results. If Nasa had funded something like the X-Prize 15 years ago, where would we be today?--and there were folks around DC proposing similar policies. Why aren't those folks getting seriously listened to?

For all its many flaws, I suspect Japan may have more results oriented leadership than the US does today. The test here will be to see how the US does vs. Japan--those if Japan beats the US, it will be doing so with one hand tied behind its back because it has fewer natural resources and a much smaller population.

I'm _not_ an America basher-but the present elite has _nothing_ to do with the revolution fought in 1776. I think men like Franklin and Jefferson would be utterly disgusted by men like Bush-and for that matter Clinton.

Re:Implications

[randall_burns]

Omitting the world corruption(see my explaination elsewhere), what are the implications if Japan does what the US couldn't(despite being a 'superpower' with vast natural resources, enormous ability to borrow and a much larger population)?

Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

But feed them what? Not so much saying feeding the planet is necessarily a bad idea, but what? Hot dogs and Coke? There's no one size fits all meal plan, cultural tastes, religious restrictions, not to mention allergies some may present. You could try to vary it depending on the culture, but someone inevitably will look at another's plate and ask why that person got something more expensive

Would you be happy with taro, fish, pork, sugar cane and coconuts? That diet sustained a Hawaiian population of anywhere from 300,000 to a million prior to Western contact. (And that's isolated population at that. Today, when there's a dockworker strike, people rush to the stores to hoard toilet paper.) Many people look at poi (taro) with horror, some don't eat pork on religious grounds, others simply don't like coconuts.

Re:Diet

[NoizeyMike]

:) I remember hearing about the miracle bagel attempted in El Salvador during the civil war as an all in one nutrients thing. It was a total flop. No lack of good intent though, I guess. Mike

Re:That was Daffy Duck

[Anonymous Coward]

Marvin was using the "Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator" and bugs was messing up his plans.

Moon base....

[Mad Russkie]

Hey, I'm also considering one! Not like its going to happen tho :D

Re:That was Daffy Duck

[cranos]

There was also the one where Marvin kidnaps Bugs and makes him a plaything for his alien Sasquatch thing.

Best quote: "I shall love him, and pet him and I shall call him George"

And I'm considering getting Nicole Kidman

[melted]

to be my second wife. Come on, we can "consider" all kinds of shit. Guess what, nobody cares what you "consider" until you actually make it.

If they put their base on the moon, that will be news. Their "considering" is not news.

Re:And I'm considering getting Nicole Kidman

[stuffisgood]

According to a couple of the latest Slashdot headlines, "considering" is big news over here...

Will there be any Japanese left?

[PHAEDRU5]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp /20050223/lf_afp/afplifestylejapan_050223162956/

Zubrin is a monomaniac

[Goonie]

Have any of you guys ever met Zubrin? He's a monomaniac about Mars in the same way that Stallman is a monomaniac about free software (though Zubrin's political and diplomatic skills are considerably better than Stallman's).

This is not a criticism of either person; to achieve great things, you often need an obsessive, forceful advocate for them. I think his advocacy has contributed significantly to keeping a manned Mars mission on the long-term agenda for the space program. But, as you say, he does come across as a little strange.

I wonder, to take perhaps the most famous historical parallel, whether Spanish aristocrats who funded Columbus regarded him as a bit of a nutter?

Re:Zubrin is a monomaniac

[bluGill]

There is a reason's Columbus' home country of Portugal refused to fund his voyage. (Portugal was a major power at the time, they had the money, perhaps more than Spain) In fact, it is the same reason Spain's King refused to fund the mission until his wife got interested.[1]

The kings were well aware that the earth was round, and they knew how big the earth was. This was calculated about 200BC(IIRC). Columbus calculated the earth's size at about 1/4th the correct size. With the correct size it isn't worth sailing around the world to get to Asia, with Columbus' size it was.

When Spain finally gave Columbus sponsorship they gave him junk ships and essentially prisoners as crew. As they watched him leave they were fully expecting that he would starve to death on the trip. (And if you read the accounts it is clear they came close) Spain was surprised when he came back reporting he found land.

[1]Those who are married can understand why you would pay for a stupid mission if you wife was interested.

Re:Zubrin is a monomaniac

[Anonymous Coward]

"The kings were well aware that the earth was round, and they knew how big the earth was. This was calculated about 200BC(IIRC). Columbus calculated the earth's size at about 1/4th the correct size. With the correct size it isn't worth sailing around the world to get to Asia, with Columbus' size it was."

Which is why my History of Technology prof blows a head gasket whenever he reads that Columbus "proved the earth was round". Everybody KNEW the Earth was round, there was simply disagreement over the size of it. He also doesn't like the concept because even if the earth WAS flat, Columbus still would have found America.

Re:Zubrin is a monomaniac

[Anonymous Coward]

> Those who are married can understand why you would pay for a stupid mission if you wife was interested.

Columbus offered to take the Queen with him?

Re:Zubrin is a monomaniac

[toriver]

Which is why my History of Technology prof blows a head gasket whenever he reads that Columbus "proved the earth was round".

Not to mention, Columbus sailed to the Gulf and then back again. Magellan actually sailed around it, and should receive more credit than that slick salesman Columbus.

Re:Zubrin is a monomaniac

[J05H]

On Columbus (actually "Colon" - he was not Italian), he had been part of Prince Henry's navigation school (an evolution of the Portugeuse Templars - the Order of Christ), Colon learned the new sailing skills and also saw maps that the prince collected. Colon also took part in a 1477 trip from Norway (royalty linked to Portugal), to Iceland and probably beyond. Colon probably heard northern seamen's tales of vast land beyond the "land of cod" that we now call the Grand Banks. The Vikings and later Scandinavians had been travelling the whole northern arc of the Atlantic from at least 800AD onward, with fishermen from Bristol, the Shetlands and Orkneys, Norway, Bremen and Basque following from at least the 1300s. Supposedly the permission letter from Ferdinand and Isabella granted him to go claim the lands he had already discovered (past/present tenses being important in Spanish). Colon's calculation of the size of the Earth and his brother's maps were largley political, IMHO - they were trying to sell this trip any way they could.

Colon wasn't the only southern European traveller to the Americas in the late 1400s, either. The whole Atlantic had been a Portugeuse pond from the 1450s onward. The settlement of the Azores and Madieras spawned plenty of journeys that included possible settlement in Puerto Rico and the discovery in the 1470s of "Lavrador" by Juan Corte Real, sailing a privately funded mission. Maps from the 1400s (based on Ptolemy even) show the Americas as a third peninsula hanging off China - the oldest sometimes just show Mexico and isthmus of Panama, the later ones (1448 Walsperger, IIRC) have complete maps of S. America rivers and coastal N. America labelled as "India Meridionalis".

What Columbus/Colon did was not original but part of a spectrum of trips that were taking place at the time. The Portugeuse contibution is obscured because of the Lisbon earthquake and the fact that much of the School of Navigation's work was a state secret. An argument could be made that the only thing Columbus did was commit an act of supreme treason against the Portugeuse Crown.

ObSpace: we can draw VERY important lessons from exploration and frontiers of the past - but the new situation is equally different in nature. "Space" still needs to pay for any of us to be able to go - so NASA, JAXA, ESA are only going to be bit-players in a truly space-faring future.

Josh

Re:Zubrin is a monomaniac

[Guppy06]

"Magellan actually sailed around it,"

No, a few of his ships and a handful of their crewmembers did. Most everybody on the journey, including Magellan, died nasty, horrible deaths.

OTOH, Columbus survived, and even did his trip more than once.

Re:Zubrin is a monomaniac

[werfele]

Columbus calculated the earth's size at about 1/4th the correct size.

Actually, Columbus estimated the earth's circumference at about 18,000 miles, rather than the correct 25,000 miles, and so underestimated by about 25%. That's very different from estimating the size at 1/4 the correct size. As the link indicates, he didn't pull the number out of the air, either, but was obviously going with numbers that were most favorable to his proposal. He may have thought of it as fudging the numbers a bit. The real figures would have suggested that the plan was commercially impractical (because Asia would be closer going east), but would not made quite as dramatic difference to the risks involved that you imply.

Re:Zubrin is a monomaniac

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misread your history books. The name Colón you refer to is his name in Spanish. And in French it's Colomb. That does not mean he is French, went to France or can speak French. We can argue until the cows come home as to where he came from but the general consensus was that he was Italian. But that doesn't matter because you and I will never know for sure. It's probably a very good guess based on historical facts. It could be right, it could be wrong. My point is you and I don't KNOW and probably will never KNOW for sure. So if that's the case, let's not talk as if we KNOW for sure where he was born or try to insunate that we know something others do not. Even if it's from some cool historical paper "du jour".

Genoa is in Italy btw.

From WikiPedia...

It has generally been accepted that he was Genoese, although doubts have persistently been voiced regarding this. His name in Spanish is Cristóbal Colón, in Portuguese Cristóvão Colombo and in Italian Cristoforo Colombo. Columbus is a Latinate form of his surname. The Latin roots of his name can be translated "Christ-bearer, Dove". Columbus' signature reads Xpo ferens ("Bearing Christ")

Bang Zoom!

[fizban]

"One of these days, Alice! One of these days..."

dammit. Lunar city of Von Brawn?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I just got done watching the entire series of Zeta Gundam. My first thought was, "IS the first lunar city going to be named "Von Brawn? and is there going to be a park commemorating the Armstrong landing spot?"

I for one welcome our Japanese overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, i could not help myself.

Resolution

[MistabewM]

I think they should award territory to the group that occupies it, and only like 100 km sqared.America wants a chunk of the moon they should have to squat there for 6 months or 1 year...

Japan's cybernetic research paying off?

[cgenman]

I could see this very quickly becoming the number one challenge for Asimo, and for that matter all of Japan's advanced robot research divisions that the rest of the world has laughed at. While it may take a lot more fuel, it would probably be worthwile to send a few semi atonomous, largely general purpose remote controlled tools to that terrain to setup equipment and begin digging / processing. And their physical requirements would mimmoc those of the humans to come, allowing for re-use of equipment and shelter.

I'd bet the low gravity of the moon would even let them play better soccer.

This is wrong, economies grow

[Ars-Fartsica]

Your statement is only true in the very short term zero-sum analysis. Economies grow, and over time even the number 2 competitor can be profitable.

Also please avoid the use of the phrase "by definition".

Easy enough to stop / prevent

[Anonymous Coward]

How to stop Japanese from building moon base:
For the USA populace to quit buying new Japanese cars.
Then the Japanese would not have the money to surpass US space supremacy.

Hegemony!
Alimony!
Toyotamoney!

Is residence on the moon wise?

[KlaymenDK]

You may remember, a few years ago a certain scientist up and died, and wanted his ashes to be broucht to the moon.

There was some commotion; in part due to the novelty of his idea, but in part also because various cultures for obvious reasons credit the moon with religious powers. I myself am not a cient of any religion, but I do see sense in respecting the varying (and sometimes dilligent) opinions of others.

So it was with some sympathetic relief that I noted that this particular scientist in the end received an earthly burial.

- - -

Now, I also believe that the population of other planets and moons is inevitable---indeed, it is desired to achieve this milestone before we are wiped out---by meteor or by human hand---but I firmly believe that the moon (as the Antarctic) ought to remain nationless. Not only that, I suspect that it is imperative that any permanent establishment should be representative of the world as a whole (or an appreciable fraction thereof, as is the case with the ISS) and not a single nation.

Should a single nation undertake this, I fear that it may well be an unwary one, not heeding the sentiments of the rest of the home world, or even the long-term effects on the moon. But then, what country would I trust to do such a thing sensibly---Nepal? Sweden? Switzerland? In any case, Japan wouln not be wy primary choice---though I do not doubt their capacity to realize this project.

I do hope that this will be a wake-up call for ESA and NASA to join forces with JAXA.

Re:Is residence on the moon wise?

[FleaPlus]

So it was with some sympathetic relief that I noted that this particular scientist in the end received an earthly burial.

If you're referring to Eugene Shoemaker, his ashes were deposited on the moon in 1998 by the Lunar Prospector probe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_burial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Shoemaker

Re:Is residence on the moon wise?

[KlaymenDK]

D'oh! >_<

And here I thought ... o sigh.

Nevertheless, thank you for pointing that out to me.

When fish people attack! on the moon!

[Anonymous Coward]

asian = fish people!

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

he's funnier than you'll ever be.

hurry! hurry!

[Anonymous Coward]

anyway, we should rename "vaporware" to
"maned-base-on-the-moon-in-20-years"-projects.
or "mbotmi2ky" projects.

going to mars also seems to be a mbotmi2ky
project ...

Considering it's asians we're talking about..

[Anonymous Coward]

cat, dog, fish, and tiger dick.

Solar System will speak Japanese

[Anonymous Coward]

competition is good...

English, French and Spanish competition lead to the colonization of America.

Earth may speak English for trade, but maybe the rest of the solar system will speak Japanese?
(or Chinese?)

Come on Americans! Make it English, put money into hypersonics and space planes. (current funding for Long-Term space-flight has been cancelled by Bush!)

This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Poland has announced that they intend to trump China and Japan by being the first country to land a human being on the sun.

Re:dammit. Lunar city of Von Brawn?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize that in Gundam mythology there was a lunar city named after an Autobot. Or is it a reference to the paper towel?

Oh. Von Braun. Got it.

Mis-spelled "inside"

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks he just mis-spelled "inside", no?

Quibbling detail...

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan is not embarrassed about the last war they started per se. They are just embarrassed about loosing it.

Note that Japanese people still consider the main war crimes of that era to have been Okinawa and Hiroshima. Only Americans remember Pearl Harbor, just like only Chinese remember Nanjing. None of these three nations seems to even be aware of what the others consider the war to have been about. Japan's school history books--just like the rest of us--are [re-]written by nationalists. That's something MacArthur didn't change.

"Reading the damn news" is a nice idea. But what would be even better is if more people had some clue about what other countries' damn news is saying. How different it is.

For What It's Worth...

[HopeOS]

For what it's worth, few Japanese people will argue with your statement about Pearl Harbor, even if it would make them uncomfortable to discuss it. However, what you have stated is not fully correct in the sense that the Japanese did not simply bomb the United States one Sunday morning without provocation -- many, many political and military events preclude Pearl Harbor. In particular, the United States was blocking fuel shipments from the Phillipines to Japan at the time. This was one of many "acts of war" that the Japanese claimed as pretense for initiating all-out conflict in the Pacific. The political situation in China was also a major factor, but that is less direct.

History is written by the winners. Had the United State's aircraft carriers been in port, the outcome of the pacific war may have been less certain, in which case December 7th would have been marked in the Japanese history books as a decisive response to the oil embargo, or some such. As it is, major portions of the war and the time preceding it are hardly mentioned in Japanese history texts at all. Some call it revisionism; I call it shame. In the end, war is a very inefficient means to resolve conflicts; however, any time someone dictates another's actions by force, the situation ultimately devolves into warfare of one type or another. Neither the Japanese or the United States can absolve themselves of that responsibility.

In my experience listening to dozens of Japanese WWII vets through-out Japan talk about their experience, I've come to the conclusion that they are very similar to American war vets. The principal difference is that they lost and that they felt betrayed by their leaders for endangering their country. I suspect that the successful U.S. occupation helped with that opinion as many of the Japanese vets I talked to seemed grateful that the U.S. provided them a means to retain their pride. General MacArthur was spot on in that, and many other regards.

-Hope

test #1

[ratsnapple tea]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Internet bloggers should enjoy traditional press freedoms and not face regulation as political groups, lawmakers and online journalists said Friday.

test #4

[ratsnapple tea]

Fourteen members of the House of Representatives said blogs foster a welcome diversity of viewpoints.

test #3

[ratsnapple tea]

"Curtailing blogs and other online publications will dampen the impact of new voices in the political process and will do a disservice to the millions of voters who rely on the Web for original, insightful political commentary," said the Online Coalition, a group of bloggers and online activists.

test #6

[ratsnapple tea]

The FEC ruled in 2002 that Internet activities do not count as "coordinated political activity" and thus don't have to comply with laws that regulate money in politics.

test #5

[ratsnapple tea]

"This 'democratization' of the media is a welcome development in this era of media consolidation and a corresponding lack of diversity of views in traditional media outlets," said the group, which consists of thirteen Democrats and one Republican.