DailyTech - JAXA Looks Forward to Possible Lunar Landing in the Future

Submit News

Science JAXA Looks Forward to Possible Lunar Landing in the Future
Michael Barkoviak - March 20, 2009 9:02 AM

17 comment(s) - last by ayat101.. on Mar 23 at 8:48 AM

JAXA outlines some of its future space goals

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has officially kicked off an ambitious next phases of space exploration that could lead to Japanese probes on the moon.

JAXA astronaut Koichi Wakata, who flew to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard shuttle Discovery, will begin a three-and-half month deployment aboard the ISS. Wakata is the country's first astronaut to stay aboard the ISS, and has a number of experiments he'll conduct while there.

"My stay is long but I will do my best by making full use of my training so that I can do a good job," Wakata told JAXA after arriving at the ISS.

He will be living with American astronaut Sandra Magnus and Russian cosmonaut Yury Lanchakov. The current ISS crew is limited to three people until a urine recycling system is functioning normally, which allow for up to six people to live aboard the space laboratory.

"His stay in orbit will pave the way for the Japanese human spaceflight program from this first step," JAXA flight official Kuniaki Shiraki recently said.

Japan hopes to use its H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) to help launch supplies from Japan to the ISS, and could transform it in the future to support manned launches. Currently only U.S. space shuttles and Russian Soyuz capsules carry humans to the ISS, with several other nations developing transport/supply capsules.

Japan must try and figure out JAXA's exact role, as several government agencies and the Japanese self-defense force also are involved in space technology.

Although the countries do not openly admit it, there is an unofficial space race under way in Asia. JAXA, China, and India are competing with one another to see which country is going to reach the moon first. Despite being relatively new compared to Russia, U.S. and Japan, both the Chinese and Indian space agencies have racked up numerous accomplishments as of late.

JAXA hopes to launch a robot to the moon by 2020 and have a manned launch to the moon by 2030. NASA, China and Russia each plan to have astronauts explore the moon by 2025, though it's unsure how far along each space program is towards that goal.

Comments

Threshold

Username	Please enter your username
Password	Please enter your password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Incorrect Information in Article

By technoarch on 3/20/2009 9:25:28 AM , Rating: 2

In the portion of the article stating...

"Japan hopes to use its H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) to help launch supplies from Japan to the ISS, and could transform it in the future to support manned launches. Currently only U.S. space shuttles and Russian Soyuz space capsules go to the ISS, with several other nations developing transport capsules."

The ESA has already successfully launched and docked with the ISS.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/08040...

RE: Incorrect Information in Article

By Brandon Hill on 3/20/2009 9:27:44 AM , Rating: 2

I'm sure Michael mean crew capsule, but the story has been updated.

Parent

RE: Incorrect Information in Article

By Brandon Hill on 3/20/2009 9:27:54 AM , Rating: 2

meant

Parent

RE: Incorrect Information in Article

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/20/2009 10:48:21 AM , Rating: 2

no just a mean crew... :)

How long can a human be in space before the body starts to become permanently damage? (Weaker bones, loss of muscle…)

Parent

RE: Incorrect Information in Article

By grath on 3/20/2009 3:48:29 PM , Rating: 3

Considering that "studying the effects of weightlessness on human physiology" is a primary science objective for almost every manned spaceflight in history, youd think that we would have some answers to your question. The problem is that very few humans have stayed in space longer than a few months at a time, the typical stay of an ISS expedition member is barely half the time required for an Earth-Mars transit for example, and every astronaut to my knowledge spends considerable time exercising under mechanically simulated gravitational load on their bodies. The only way to really answer your question is to intentionally risk the permanent damage you speak of, and while certain people might be willing to sacrifice their health to advance science, it is morally and politically too much to ask of a person, at least publically. In any case, the risk of permanent damage from radiation exposure probably far outweighs (pun fully intended) the effects of the weightlessness, on the timescales required to find out.

In my opinion, citing "studying the effects of weightlessness" as a mission objective is an oxymoronical and somewhat insulting excuse for the lack of progress we have seen since the end of the Apollo Program. A much better use of that effort would have been "studying the prolonged effects of LUNAR gravity on humans" since a planetary surface will ultimately be a much more comfortable and productive place to live and work. Developing the capability for a rotating space habitat where full time partial gravity could be adequately simulated would also have been a wise course of action. Instead what we got was 30 years of a crippled program due to its dependance on a jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none, over-engineered, military spaceplane whose ultimate accomplishment was a mildly diverting exercise in international collaboration that produced something that arguably barely exceeds what the Soviets had already done with Mir. I dare say that some of the most useful data pertaining to your question probably came from studying the crews of Mir, which had some very long stays, and due to different management philosophies, perhaps were more prone to being exposed to the risk of permanent damage.

Parent

RE: Incorrect Information in Article

By CityZen on 3/22/2009 4:06:12 AM , Rating: 2

Excellent comment. Thanks for the info.

Parent

RE: Incorrect Information in Article

By Moishe on 3/20/2009 11:08:18 AM , Rating: 2

I think it's kind of lousy that everyone and their brother is coming up with modules like this, but the US doesn't have one. There are two basic things we need: space transport, and manned space transport. The manned portion is certainly more difficult and more crucial, but we need both. The US has the rockets and just needs to design a nice, cheap transport for non-human stuff.

Parent

RE: Incorrect Information in Article

By austinag on 3/20/2009 11:28:00 AM , Rating: 2

Let them spend money on developing tech that the whole world benefits from for a change. Here is our chance to focus on investing in tech that turns a profit.

Parent

RE: Incorrect Information in Article

By grath on 3/20/2009 4:18:06 PM , Rating: 2

The problem once again was over-reliance on the Shuttle. While Russia already had Progress modules, and the ESA, JAXA, and even Brazil had plans for expendable resupply craft, the US chose to go with the reusable Shuttle borne Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules designed for Space Station Freedom. In theory it makes sense to have both expendable and reusable resupply options, but that is based on the somewhat flawed over-emphasis on the capability for "down-mass" that the Shuttle provides, which was originally motivated by the desire to capture Soviet spy satellites and bring them back. So once again we are faced with the fact that its all the Shuttles fault.

Now that we are developing a "new" (coughcough) launch system in the Constellation Program, one would think that it would be a relatively simple and necessary task to design an expendable resupply module to stack atop an Ares booster, yet such a craft seems to be absent from any roadmap I have seen. If we feel that the five-segment SRB and upper stage of the Ares I will be safe to stack a manned Orion capsule on in 2014, we should be be able to use it for expendable ISS resupply at least a year earlier during the man-rating of the booster. Certainly a resupply module could be produced well before a man-rated Orion capsule.

It may well be the case however, that the powers that be are banking on continued Russian and other foreign resupply capability. We all know how stingy they are about funding space programs, and they are prone to forego a capability they view as redundant.

Parent

Cooperation

By AntiM on 3/20/2009 10:25:18 AM , Rating: 3

It seems to me that if all the competing countries would combine resources, we could get a whole lot more done. How many launch facilities does one planet need? How many probes do we need crashing or crawling around on the moon? How much more crap do we need in orbit? I know competition usually drives technological innovation, but space exploration seems to be one area where cooperation would be more productive than competition; even between countries that don't otherwise always get along well.

RE: Cooperation

By Moishe on 3/20/2009 11:03:48 AM , Rating: 2

Not necessarily.

Without competition the funding is usually not there to get things done. The best model is probably several parties in a race but good cooperation and shared funding within each group.

There needs to be an X-prize for a moon base with the reward to be some cash, but more importantly, the winner would get to start their own moon country and actually own property there. Since there are no governmental entities on the moon there is nothing to stop anyone from going up there and claiming a spot as a new country. :)

Parent

RE: Cooperation

By Lexda on 3/21/2009 2:21:19 AM , Rating: 2

That's actually one of the better I've read for a while. Let's re-excite the nationalistic tendencies of the US, Russia, Japan, and Europe, and then we'll get a race. Not sure what the situation is in Europe and Japan, but I'd wager that Russia and the US would heavily back a second space race.

The problem with the space program in general seems to be lack of tangible benefits. Yes, I know all the innovations NASA has given the civilian world (velcro, Tang, etc.), but those types of things don't tend to excite entire populations. Give countries a real, visible reward like before (bragging rights, replaced by new land holdings) and support should skyrocket.

Here's an interesting question: would the same satellite communication system be deployed for the moon? Can moons even support large numbers of satellites?

Parent

RE: Cooperation

By jabber on 3/21/2009 1:02:03 PM , Rating: 2

As a person who has seen firsthand the results of countries coming together to deliver a project like this...it just doesnt work.

Look at a lot of the pan-euro military projects such as Eurofighter.

As a brit and a euro taxpayer I say let some other poor bugger foot the bill. I can live with the dissapointment, really I can.

Parent