Slashdot Mirror
Japan's 20-Year Plan for Space
rwven writes "Japan has just released information on their new space plan which will take them through the year 2025. Included in their plan are robots and nanotechnology for moon surveys as well as an eventual hydrogen powered mach-5 capable plane, a mach-2 capable passenger airliner and a manned mission to the moon. They will consider missions to mars and other planets after 2025. Space.com is also carrying this story."
The more competition in the arena of space, the more designs get tested out, and the quicker we find what reduces the cost of spaceflight and what makes it more expensive. The only downside is that we'll have to deal with the oversized Hello Kitty decals flying overhead :P
What a crazy random happenstance!
I wonder how much cooperation is going to be forced on the space faring nations over the next couple of years as they vie for more expensive technology with ever shrinking resources.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Over the next decade, JAXA's plan calls for scientists to develop robots and nanotechnology for surveys of the moon
I thought Nanotech was still in its infancy. What are they going to do, dump a bunch of buckyballs in a crater?
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
All this Japanese talk of the moon and beyond is great -- and welcome, but I think Japan should concentrate on simply putting a human above 62.5 miles safely first...without cancelling the program.
They have obviously run out of places to put hidden giant-mecha hangers, and are looking for room to build more.
Robotic moon surveyors, indeed!
my comic
This is one thing that I love about Japanese culture -- the ability to plan long-term. Their companies will develop 5-year plans while here in the US, we're preoccupied with every 3 months...
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
Hey, if Japan just gets me decent sat. imagery for New Hampshire that Google Maps can use, I'd be happy ;-)
Honestly, while they wouldn't say it publicly, they're getting involved because of China. China has been very successful with their space program as of late, and as a strategic foe of Japan, and with some high-profile failures recently, Japan has to play catch up. Not that it's a bad thing, mind you - I'd love to see both of them dump all of their money into spaceflight and related research that they can, so that everyone else will reap the benefits. Research is expensive. Hardware is expensive. Testing new designs out is very expensive. Let the Chinese and Japanese pay for all that they can ;)
What a crazy random happenstance!
Now they can put the robot we saw in action here in space and have them fight the ultimate war of the machines. Imagine you having nuke armed robots on mars attacking flying robots over jupiter... pretty cool
fuvoo: watch something
Why should Asian space efforts go for "manned" space flights?
I love Star Trek as much as anybody but the human body is a very difficult payload to sustain. If Japan is going to do serious planetary exploration (...and I wish them well at this...) then the first step should be to define goals and discard things with a low payoff
Apart from publicity stunts and tourism (... which should be self-funding ...), what goals are served by putting humans on the moon or in cislunar space?
Robots can explore far more cheaply than humans, so for any particular amount of money, we can do more exploration with robots than with humans.
The idea that humans can make on-site decisions better than robots can is simply an artifact of time-scale. That is, while there is some necessary time-lag between a robot noticing a funny rock on Mars or Titan, reporting back to Mission Control on Earth, and then acting on directions ... so what? The robot is patient, doesn't sleep, and if properly powered doesn't have to worry about food supplies.
Like I said, I love Star Trek but until we get really, really serious advances in technology, lunar and cislunar exploration is more sensibly done with robots.
But I'd be interested in contrary views.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
To say we don't have a plan is pretty ignorant. Go look at http://exploration.nasa.gov/ and you'll see it in great detail. I think what you mean to say is that you don't agree with it -- so say that instead. And going to Mars is a very small, far off part of that plan.
Finally, most of your six points are part of that plan -- except for the maglift sci-fi you propose.
Respectfully, it looks like you have some reading to do.
Cost reductions will only happen if there is significant competition from cost consious buyers. The space market will have to change a lot before that happens.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I wonder if the space ship will use 4 rocket boosters mounted sideways, in an innovative space saving design with front rocket Drive.
National prestige. That's why. Not all money spent needs to be justified on a quantifiable physical or economic asset. Somethings just can't be graphed on paper. In the end, the feeling people get seeing their citizens on another planet can arguable have more of an impact on that society than spending the same resources on robot missions.
People are allowed to be people, you know. Naturally curious and sometimes doing dangerous and expensive things that have no obvious economic interest.
Burn Hollywood Burn
If Mars had plaid-skirted schoolgirls living on it they'd have been there twenty years ago. Am I right? Am I right? Is this thing on? Thank you, I'll be here all week.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
"I've had flying cars in my 20 year plan for about 50 years. I think TIME Magazine and National Geographic have as well. So, we'll see this Japanese stuff in 2057 is what they're saying, right?"
Uh. Heh. The problem with flying cars isn't so much the technology, it's the pilots. Higher class people can afford their own planes, but they're not exactly selling like hotcakes. Why? Because it takes a lot of hours to get your pilot's license. In order to make flying cars practical for mass-audiences (like they promise in PopSci), cars have to basically fly on their own. That sort of automation isn't all that practical today. GPS is helping, though...
"Derp de derp."
But for exploring the moon, less than 2 light second away, frankly a remote controlled robot is far more than enough, and all decision making are on earth, without having to take tons of water, food, meatbags, air, and protection against radiation or whatnot. And that was I think the point of the poster. He was not in any respect speaking of implementing any decision making into a robot.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It really strikes me that nobody evaluates the feasibility of things like Mach 2 air travel in the face of the end of cheap oil era on the horizon. Even as anybody can observe the total failure that today's airlines already are -- due to that very factor.
They launch rockets from Tanegashima Island, Japan's answer to Cape Canaveral...
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
If we're ever going to get off this frigging rock, we need man-rated vehicles, we need efficient launch solutions, we need fast turnaround and we need sustainable habitats.
NASA has one man rated vehicle that is grossly expensive to launch, has a turnaround that is at best seasonal, and is currently used to service a barely sustainable habitat that is essentially a badly under-crewed garbage barge orbiting too low to avoid reentry without constant readjustment.
NASA, assuming they have ANY interest in the future of manned spaceflight, just isn't getting the job done. Competition is good. It took getting our ass handed to us by the Russians with Sputnik, etc. for us to even start giving a shit about space- if China or Japan puts a man on the moon, you can bet we'll be busting ass to beat them to mars.
500 years ago you probably would have been insisting on a land route to china, since it's Safe And Proven and Doesn't Risk Equipment Or Lives, etc, etc.
It's not really limited to higher class or that much time. You can get your PPL in as little as 40 hours (though that's rare. I'd plan for around 60) and an older Cessna 150 or 152 can be had for around $18,000. If you're willing to build a kit airplane you can have a very high performance brand-new aircraft for as little as $10k for some models, with darn-nice models (like the Mustang II or Zodiac 601XL) coming in at around $25-35k to build. That's cheap but it's not exactly higher class either.
:).
What seems to keep most people out of the air is that they're downright terrified of flying. My family completely flipped out when I told them I'd be taking pilot's lessons, and no ammount of statistics would convince them that GA is safe. To them they truly belive that flying a private plane is a question of when you crash and die, not if. Most of the general public seem to share in this ignorance. Oh well. Their loss
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Some *real* space launch systems (not low delta-V joyrides like SS1) actually do get launched from aircraft - Pegasus, for example. The problem is that once you get over a certain size (a size that the shuttle is far, far beyond), you need to scale aircraft to sizes that we haven't even approached. Carrying an empty shuttle is nothing like carrying a filled shuttle with an external tank.
Also, there's the issue of "what type of carry"? Carrying on the underbelly may seem attractive, but it requires a custom-designed plane with a huge degree of ground clearance - it's not a nice shape to work with. There can be problems on deployment as well. A basic tow-launch system seems attractive (minimal aircraft modifications), until you consider the landing gear and structural penalties needed for supporting the weight of the fuel during takeoff. A better option is either tow to altitude and then fuel from the towing craft (fuelling lines attached the whole time), or take off with minimal fuel and dock like a fighter. One additional effectively demonstrated method is to stow your spacecraft inside the body of the aircraft, and then launch it out the back with a drouge chute to maintain stability. While this gives clear size constraints, it requires almost no aircraft modifications, no extra drag during ascent, it can be pre-fueled, and it doesn't have significant landing gear/structural penalties.
What a crazy random happenstance!
Seriously, though, it's weird because 2025AD used to seem like THE FUTURE!!! Whereas it's actually now only 20 years away, which isn't really all that long. Computer tech aside, was 1985 all that different from today?
[Activates DeLorean, goes back to 1985] ... ...
Me: Hi! I'm you, from THE FUTURE!!! 2005, to be exact!
1985 Me: Wow, the 21st Century! So, did we get our flying cars?
Me: Um, no.
1985 Me: Jetpacks? Bionic implants? AIs? Robot servants? Semiballistic airliners allowing us to reach anywhere in the world in two hours? Space holidays? No more poverty or hunger? A cure for cancer? World peace? No more self-serving shitwicks in high political office?
Me: Sorry, no, none of that. But on the plus side, our videogames kick ass, there'll be a new Star Trek TV series and there's this thing called 'the internet'.
1985 Me: What, like William Gibson's cyberspace?
Me: Again, no, not really.
1985 Me: Wow. The future sounds really shitty. At least tell me I get rich in the next 20 years.
Me:
1985 Me: Laid on a regular basis?
Me:
1985 Me: Okay, find me a bottle of whiskey and some pills. I'm going to create a time paradox.
You must think in Russian.
Fuel costs can vary tremendously. Some aircraft can be run on high-grade automotive gasoline, and some require aviation grade gasoline (well, jets don't run on gasoline at all, but most private pilots are going to fly with a piston engine).
:). Until I get my plane built though I'll just be taking joy rides in the rentals (which range from $40 to $100 per hour for a single engine, depending on the model. That includes all fuel).
Naturally the automotive gasoline will be cheaper, but you'll need to look at the fuel consumption of your plane which is usually measured in gallons per hour. In general many of the kit aicraft burn 5-6 gallons per hour, though I've seen as low as 3 gallons per hour (some of the small Rotax engine planes) to as high as 33 gallons per hour (the Lancair Sentry, though that plane will cost about $400k anyways, so it is in the upper class bracket). You'd be hard pressed to find a kit-craft that burns more than 10 gph though.
As to hangar costs, it's something that I haven't looked into myself. I'm a county employee and we have a county airport so hopefully by the time I get done building whichever kit I decide on I'll get a discount on a hangar
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain