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."
Under the plan, astronauts will be sent to the Moon around 2020 to start construction of the base that will be completed by 2030
This reminds me of the timeframes set out by the state construction workers on our highways.
Considering all the reliability concerns of running an extraterrestrial habitat in vacuum, I'm glad they are using JAXA technology rather than AJAX!
that the US faked the moon landings! :)
That's funny, I *also* have plans to build a base on the moon! I wonder how likely it is to go through?
I really hope it does happen. Before I die I have to go to the moon. I hope we start building condos out there in 50 years or so.
Moonbase Alpha was was scheduled for 1999, but EPA studies, the union strikes, and other construction delays caused the new completion date to be 2030.
When will the moon be torn out of orbit?
Fight Spammers!
"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.
You go, Japan. Someone's gotta do it, and ever since we rejected science for religion, all your base are no longer belong to US.
Moon Unit Zappa.
Task Mangler
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.
Didn't Bush reinstate plans to start putting Americans back on the moon shortly after he was elected? If so, maybe there will be a race to see who can build the first moon base just as there was with putting the first man on the moon.
The Japanese are prohibited from engaging in warfare. It's in their Constitution.
"This reminds me of the timeframes set out by the state construction workers on our highways."
However, due to stark environmental realities, the sympathy strike by the oxygen-delivery union will have fatal consequences on the moon construction workers' picket line.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Seeing as how the name of the agency is in English (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) I'd think they pronounce it as close to the way we would as they can. That'd be something like Jahk-shuh, as we'd say jacks-uh.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
You call it moon. We call it "Gitmo II".
Where were you when the voynix came?
I believe you mean "Whalers on the Moon".
please turn in your Geek Card on your way out. :-)
Badass Resumes
You don't need a 100 ton rocket to go to the moon and NASA has already stated that the Constellation is an US-only project. What Japan will probably do is joining Europe and Russia on the ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System), that will be launched using existing Ariane 5 or similar rockets (20-25 ton to LEO, depending on the orbit inclination).
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
The literal definition of Astronaut is Star Sailor...
I hope they televise the progress.
In any case, 24 years seems quite a lot to me, considering that all the technology needed to accomplish this is available.
This is because Jack Bauer is involved in the project.
The following takes place between 2012 and 2013.
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.
Just to prove my infinite superiority, here are the lyrics:
We're whalers on the moon.
we carry a harpoon.
but there ain't no whales,
so we tell tall tales,
and sing our whalin' tune.
Badass Resumes
I bet that 4 acre lot of the moon I bought off the internet for $50,000 is EXACTLY where the Japs are going to build their base... Not sure how I'll evict them....
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
China can't conquer anything without defeating both the US and Russia first. And even if they could, Japan wouldn't be a sensible target - too difficult to convince of cooperation, and too useful in its current state as a market. Mongolia, Nepal and India with their traditional Maoist opposition groups would be the obvious targets if China was aggressive. But it isn't.
blow your mind already
1962 - "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
2006 - "Its too hard and too expensive."
The Earth will be underwater by 2030, so it looks like pretty good timing from the Japanese. I guess the few Japanese people inhabiting the Moon will be the only humans left.
Once you realize that every paragraph of your post is handwaving nonsense - you'll understand why.
and it will probably be safer too.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I'm thinking that China has learned that it can control and rule the world through means other than military might.
While America is strong, its true strength comes from it's economy and how much control it can exert over the world markets. (In fact, I'd argue that America is diluting it's might by constantly trying to express it militarily - an economic and social solution to their problems would be much more effective, imo.)
The Chinese are students of history and have learned from that example and are taking the long view. They'll dominate the world eventually, and we probably won't even notice until it's too late. I don't forsee China invading anyone with their military, but their economy and their culture will one day be the most pervasive in the world
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.
Not to sound like a troll, but if this is the attitude at NASA, I'll be surprised if you manage to launch the next space shuttle. If you said something like that in the sixties, you'd have probably been fired.
They sent men to the moon in the sixties. It should be a matter of simplicity to do it today. The space shuttle is so big it can practically carry a moon landing system into orbit for assembly in one or two missions. Robotics has progressed to an extent where a radio controlled assembly of a base is feasable. Fluid dynamics and mathematical modelling have all advanced so far in the last ten years alone that it's now possible for an undergraduate student to model scenarios and design components on his desktop PC. Materials science has come far enough that spacecraft can be built better, stronger, faster and cheaper that in the sixties.
If your attitude is indicative of the general atmosphere at NASA then there is no american space program. You badly need better management.
May the Maths Be with you!
Of course it will...with less gravity on the moon, you'll easily be able to dodge that big chunk of concrete coming down at you....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
And isn't it curious that the good science is coming from the lesser funded of the two "halves".
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
A Cambridge student working on methods to extract oxygen and metals from lunar soil was recently awarded the first prize in a contest co-organized by the Heinlein trust and Russian aviation/education complex. Maybe his work (and/or derivatives) would have an impact on this promising moonbase?
My sig has been answered.
Everyone knows that the universe ends in 2012...
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 do realize that the SDF has one of the world's highest annual military budgets, right?
Dear Diary...today I was pompous and my sister was crazy.
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".
That has happened a lot over the years in a lot of technoolgy. In particular, the Beoing 747 is more dependant on the workers than all the other Boeing lines combined. Why? Because it was designed in the 60's, but the design was changed at the lines by the workers and engineers. Problem is, that the info never gets back into plans. As it is, the 757,767, and 777 are very similar and took advantage of each earlier design.
With this current work, we will no longer allow loss of knowledge.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Okay let me first say that NASA needs a bigger budget. THAT IS A GIVEN.
:)
I was questioning the use of the term technology. I do not believe much new technology needs to be developed. Just that we need to build the bloody stuff.
I wasn't suggesting that they use the actual heat shield from Stardust. Just that expertise to build it exists. I should also state that I also understand that creating a heat shield like that is a complex task involving hypersonic aerodynamics, thermal dynamics, and a big heaping scoop of material science.
The suit for long term use on the moon is going to take a lot of development. Let's not forget that there are health risks with the dust that I hope that someone is also looking at. Not only is in sharp and could cause lung damage but I wonder just how reactive it is. I am guessing that that there are going to a lot of chemically reactive metals that are free in that dust that we would only see in an oxide form on Earth. Not to mention that the top layer in under constant bombardment with radiation across the spectrum. My limited chemistry has me wondering just how many of the electrons will bet at a much higher energy level than we are used to dealing with. There is a lot of development to do here.
NASA flew a real reactor called SNAP-10a and the Soviets used them to power spysats. Again yes development is needed. I can see all sorts of issues with a moon based reactor. None having to do with the low gravity. I am also not a nuke but I have friends that are. Off the top of their head they think that a light water reactor is not the way to go. They suggest a liquid metal reactor with a long burn core. It seems that if you combine enough enriched uranium along with some burnable poisons you can get a core life of decades.
As I said I think the biggest problem is a lack of will. That lack of will isn't from the people at NASA but the people that write the checks.
I for one HATE the new vehicle. Or as I call it Apollo 2.0. I see it as a step backwards. I would love to see NASA take a two program path a lot like the Air Force did before WWII. Right before the war the USAAF tended to pick two different planes for each mission. One was radical and one was conservative. For fighters you had the P-40 Warhawk as the conservative and the P-39 Airacobra as the radical. For medium bombers you had the B-25 as the conservative and the B-26 as the radical. For Heavy Bombers you had the B-18 as the conservative and the B-17 as the radical. The result was that the at the start of the war they always had one that would at least do okay at the mission and sometimes two really good aircraft.
NASA should be running two programs in parallel programs one should be a tried and true vehicle and one should be a development vehicle. NASA should have kept Apollo/Skylab flying while developing the Shuttle. Once the Shuttle was in service a next development of the Shuttle should have been started followed then by a new big leap development. Of course this would cost a lot of money and people would have to learn that even when you fail, you learn.
I see NASA has having two missions. One is the space science missions but the other mission I feel has been ignored. That mission is vehicle development.
The big flaw with the Shuttle was that they had to sell it as going from the Wright Flyer to a 747 in one step. The truth is we still need to go through the Lockeed Vega, Boeing 247, and DC-3 steps of space travel.
But this is just my opinion.
I am no expert. My job is manly just fixing problems. I guess that it is in my nature to try and find solutions using what I do know, and that fails I learn more
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.