Slashdot Mirror
Japan Plans a Moonbase by 2030
Aglassis writes "The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) announced at a conference that they are planning to build a Moonbase by 2030. Since JAXA doesn't currently have a 100 ton-class heavy lift rocket or a human transportation system perhaps now is a good time for JAXA to join in with NASA on the Project Constellation rocket program."
"The feasibility of the plan is unclear at this point as we need to gain understanding by the government and the Japanese people on our plan, but technologically it would be possible in a few decades," said Satoki Kurokawa, spokesman for JAXA.
Translation: We don't know if it's feasible, we don't know if the government will pay for it, we don't know if the people are for it, but we think it's possible. What a pile-o-poo-poo.
These guys sound like NASA.
Wake me up when Japanese industrialists figure out something they can do on the moon and want to send robots there or something.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
First of all, this is Japan not San Francisco, so I doubt they are sending any "sailors" there.
Secondly, it's possible to create a moon base now, but it's probably not yet cost effective... JAXA doesn't have an unlimited budget, and AFAIK we don't have a definitive solution for the problem of microscopic lunar dust.
For one thing, the first moon landings weren't the last. Second, the benefits of a moonbase are a tad dubious. Third, the Japanese are merely drawing up plans to build a moonbase. I seem to recall Bush being ridiculed for calling for a trip to Mars a while back... so don't blame this on the ignorant Bible Belters (as per usual).
The Japanese are prohibited from engaging in warfare. It's in their Constitution.
The literal definition of Astronaut is Star Sailor...
Here's a "for instance" -- you need a deeply throtleable rocket engine to safely land a vehicle on the Moon. We had one on the LEM in Apollo, but it hasn't been built in 35 years. There are no CAD models of such an engine; the plans have been lost; the manufacturing isn't around; the rocket will be made with different materials, and will need a complete redesign anyway.
Another "for instance" -- space suits have been made for in-space only use. We need to develop a space suit that can walk on the Moon again. There are no plans, the materials are all different, and the suit will need to be designed and tested. As noted by a later post, this is a particularly difficult technology, as it has to deal with lunar dust--basically microscopic shards of volcanic glass that have never had their edges dulled by contact with air. Some of the Apollo astronauts were barely able to move their suits by the end of a 3 day long stay on the surface of the Moon--how would a lunar astronaut survive a six-month stay?
Another "for instance" -- no Saturn 5? how are we supposed to launch something into lunar transit?
Another "for instance" -- the Earth reentry vehicle will be travelling at 10-12 km/s. That's kilometers per second! Even if we had the drawings, the materials used in Apollo's heat shield have been deemed unsafe for the environment. We've got to find and test a replacement.
And those are the critical technologies from off the top of my head, not counting the technologies needed for a human habitat for use on the Moon...which would likely require a nuclear fission power plant to make it through the 14 day lunar night. Besides the technical problems of designing and building a fission power system to operate in 1/6g, can you imagine what would happen if NASA tried to launch a nuclear fission power plant? Cassini had large protests, and it had only radioisotope power, a nuclear power system that has survived a launch failure!
Bottom line is that we do not have the technologies needed for a lunar base, and it will cost a LOT of money and take quite a lot of time to develop them.
It was Andrew Johnson. He was impeached in 1869, and elected as a Senator for Tennessee in 1875. He didn't serve as senator for very long though - he died a few months later.
It was a tradition before that, which supposedly started when Washington declined to run for a third term. FDR ignored the tradition and got elected for four terms. As you said, after FDR died, a law was passed making two terms the legal maximum. Although I wouldn't put it past Bush to try changing that law, or to simply ignore it and run again anyway.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
The chances of a race are essentially nil - niether country really has anything to prove by doing so. There is also one huge difference between the two announcements - America's is sponsored by the Head of State, where Japan's is merely hopeful thinking by the head of their space agency. (I.E. the headline of this story is somewhat incorrect as 'Japan' isn't announcing anything - the plans don't actually have goverment or public support.)
The story poster suggests that Japan could replace it's lack of capability by joining the Constellation project - but Japan doesn't really have anything to bring to the table that the US cannot do. Nor are there any indications that the US is looking for partners. (It's not unlikely that may change - going 'international' may be the only way the program survives the Bush Administration.)
One we do have the technology to go to the moon. We do not have the actual hardware.
1. No Saturn V. Correct but we do have engines that are in the same thrust class as the F-1. I also would bet good money that we could convert the drawings to CAD of the F-1 if we haven't already. The new crew launch vehicle is using an improved J-2. Guess when those where used last? Boeing was looking at using the F-1 in a fly-back booster for the the Shuttle years ago so I would guess that they have plans for that some where in CAD. For the rest of the structure a new design would be better and lighter anyway. The Shuttle ET is every bit as technically challenging as the Saturn V first stage so a new Saturn V or replacement would not be a problem.
2. Space suits? NASA has been doing research on those for years. There are many new space suit designs for Mars missions that would work just as well on the Moon.
3. Heat shield. Again not a problem what about the one from Stardust? That probe had a reentry speed higher than a lunar return mission would. It did just fine. The material and aerodynamics are known and proven.
4. The deeply throttleable rocket motors. This would have to a new design but again how to do it is known. This will just be a new motor using proven technology.
5. A lunar reactor. The USSR and the US have both flown reactors in orbit. If they can work in zero G and in one G then 1/6 G shouldn't be an issue. The politics of launching a reactor are just that Politics. A good solution for the protests would be to launch the reactor cold and use Sea Launch for the launch vehicle.
What is left is only the will to do it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It's important to understand the challenge that NASA is up against: During Apollo, NASA had approximately 2.5% of the national budget. Today, NASA has less than 1%, and they've been asked to do the same job while having to cover the expense of the International Space Station ($4B per year) and the Shuttle (~$2B per year, perhaps more--it depends on whose numbers you believe). That leaves (very approximately) 1/5 the spending power as what was available in Apollo.
I chose to respond to this particular response because I thought it was the most interesting and thoughtful. Here are some more things to think about:
1) You're absolutely correct, and that's why NASA is using as much existing hardware as possible. However, I was in the Air and Space museum the other day and saw folks with NASA badges physically measuring the old Apollo equipment with a 12" ruler. Kind of frightening. 2) Not true. You're forgetting that Mars has an atmosphere and the Moon does not. The Moon's surface is pummeled by asteroids; this liquefies the surface (or so the theory goes) and turns it into something like volcanic glass. The next time that an asteroid strikes the surface, this glass shatters, and the microparticles are very small. They are also very sharp, with edges so sharp that air molecules would break them--but there's no air. So those jagged little crystals get into and on everything. Mars dust isn't nearly as bad, as evidenced by the rovers. There are some excellent resources on the web about the problems of lunar dust. Here's one for your enjoyment.
3) Heat shields are extremely tricky. The center of gravity and the shape of the heatshield determine how large the heatshield can be built. These are lift-producing shapes, so that the capsule can steer a bit while its coming down. No capsule has ever been as large as 5m (Apollo's was 3.9m) and the materials simply don't exist. There are several good candidates, but the best one (far outperforming the others) is made by a small company of ~8 people. Unless that company licenses the material, NASA will never go with it--it would be a real problem if the supplier went out of business. Bottom line is that we can't use the one from Stardust. Not only is it the wrong shape and size, but even if it were, it's not human-rated.
4) I completely agree with you: rocket engine throttling is well known, it's just that a capable has to be developed. That's expensive, and takes time, and NASA has approximately 1/5 the spending power that it did in the Apollo program.
5) I believe that if you check the record, no nuclear *reactor* has ever flown in space. There have been numerous nuclear power generators, such as the ones on Apollo, but they have all been sub-critical. The SP-100 project for having a nuclear reactor in space was cancelled by Clinton in the early 90s, right before they were to build a prototype. Almost all of the development knowledge has been lost from that, unfortunately. Cancelling a project of any sort tends to mean you have to start over (facilities are converted, drawings are lost, people with knowledge and experience go to other fields) but it's very true of technology development. If you stand down a tech development, it's very difficult to start it up again.
That said, I am not a nuke (what nuclear engineers are fond of calling themselves), but I know one, and she tells me that 1/6g is actually the worst case. It's more difficult to get the coolant to flow properly or something, I'm not a nuke. :)
Again, let me stress that I b
You need not mention that, the contents of your post clearly demonstrate that fact.
the plans have been lost; the manufacturing isn't around;
What are you talking about? The Lost Cities of Gold? The plans are kept in several places, you have no idea how many copies of the documentation those aerospace companies keep. But, assume for a moment that the plans didn't exist. It took about ten years from the founding of NASA (or, at least, its renaming from NACA) to the first Apollo landing on the moon. Do you think our resources for developing new technologies are less now than in the 1960s?
Back in those times engineers had to draw things with pencils on paper and draftsmen redid the final drawing in ink. They had to build scale models for any non-trivial machine, because they didn't have computers for implementing models realistic enough to derive design data. They didn't have many of the more advanced materials we have today, like graphite fiber, for instance. The engineers did most of the calculations to two or three significant digits on slide rules, the decimal point position had to be calculated in the head.
You claim to be "an engineer who specializes in technology development at NASA". That certainly you are *NOT*. It may be the title of your job, perhaps, but it's certainly not what you are. Your post reminds me of an anecdote I once read. A poet was sitting in a bench in the park when inspiration came to him. He took a pad and pencil from his pocket and started writing. A guy was passing by and came to ask: "Hey, that's cool! Can you write poetry just like that?" The poet answered, "No, I have this memorized".