Report: Japan eyes manned base on moon

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/11013931.htm

Associated Press

TOKYO - Japan plans to start building a manned base on the moon and a space shuttle within the next 20 years, a newspaper report said Monday.

Japan's space agency, JAXA, hopes to develop a robot to conduct probes on the moon by 2015, then begin constructing a solar-powered manned research base on the moon and designing a reusable manned space vessel like the U.S. space shuttle by 2025, the Mainichi Shimbun said.

The space agency's budget could be boosted six-fold to $57 billion to finance those plans, the Mainichi said.

The plans also include using satellites to send evacuation routes, locators on people's whereabouts and alerts to cell phones in the event of major emergencies like a tsunami, the daily said.

our moon rover will be a Toyota and will have right hand drive.

It was the worst mistake in the world to pull the plug on NASA right after the moon landings...we'd probably have a working moonbase if we'd stuck with the Apollo program...

We would have lost a crew once near the moon had the solar flare been timed differently. Imagine that gruesome scene.

A few of meters of lunar dirt will provide all the protection from energetic particles you need for a lunar base. With good space weather prediction you can warn anyone outside to get inside and be protected.

O.o

down that bottomless money pit in vietnam.

It appears that the Japenese have had moon bases for quite some time.

I can't wait to see which companies will put the logos in space.

Who needs to look up and see the boring old moon & stars, when you can see the clever and attractive corporate logo satellites, spinning around in the sky.

when the corporations sent space crews out in order to super nova certain stars simultaneously so that when the Earth would have it's evening sky upon it would read 'Drink Coke'?

:silly:

I think a manned base on the moon would be cool. Worthless, a huge drain on resources, but cool. So let the Japanese go ahead and do it, I'd love to see something like that. As long as the US isn't pouring money into it.

Personally I would rather the money be spent on space research.

Man will go to the moon and make a base someday regardless. It's just a matter of sooner or later.

bringing economic justice to the USA. Or a whole host of other things right here on this lump of mud, there is plenty of time for future gens to go into space.

for Japanese companies. The government knows that the only way for Japan to remain competitive is to spend more on research. High value-added products are the current and future best means for Japan to preserve its export-driven economy.

Whether or not this culminates in a moon base is probably far from the minds of the septuagenarian politicians who green-light this project. It is a functional means to garner public support for handing over public funds to corporate R&D budgets.

We might as well let our space program die. So what if the Chinese militarize space? I can't possibly see a downside!

It would probably be one of the best things that could happen.

I get really mad when some people try to justify manned exploration of space by the dubious benefits it will bring in some other areas. Manned exploration is the benefit IN ITSELF. It is obvious that the push to move out into space will increase. Somebody has to try the different technologies that are needed. That's why the X Prize is so important and so are the space station and a hypothetical base on the moon. They are all platforms to test technologies.

I say if we want to go to Mars, let's do it. I'm glad we went to the moon. But how can a continual presence of a manned base on the moon be considered space exploration? You may live in some ideal world where money means nothing and there's enough to spend on anything we can dream of but the fact is we live in the *real* world. Yes, Things cost money. They really really do. We have the technology to send sophisticated probes to Europa, burrow into the ice and search the seas for life, even return samples to Earth. There's a LOT of things that we have the technology to do--and I'd argue are far more scientifically valuable than a manned moonbase--but at some point you have to consider the cost.

I think people get excited about the 2001 Space Odyssey-ish idea of a gee whilikers just like the movies moonbase but don't really have a clue what use it might have. Even our international space station has become a white elephant. Turns out nobody can figure out what it's good for and the US is looking about for ways to shut it down. Who would have thought? We went to the moon: fine. We still send an occasional probe there to look for intersting things: great! It *seems* to people like a national disgrace that after the 70's we never sent a man back: who cares? It's not a national disgrace, no matter what the space junky L5 types say. We simply have better ways to spend our money.

them there minerals and them there ore resources.

MY GOD! WHAT IF THERE'S OIL!!! WHAT WILL WE TELL THE CHILDREN?

lets milk the good old earth for every last drop until they are completely gone. screw any future generations.

THEN

do everything we can to get there to mine those resources, at ten times the cost, because we HAVE to.

i mean, like, you know, it's the closest we got. :crazy: mars would be SOOOOO much cheaper. DUH!

this falls under the "what on earth were you thinking" kind of statement.

I want EVERYTHING. I want unmanned probes, I want a base on the moon. I want a trip to Mars.

The budget dedicated to space exploration (in all its areas) is just a tiny portion to the one dedicated to create weapons and maintain a military apparatus.

I want all that money to go to worthy causes like the ones I mention above plus other types of scientific research and social development.

Call me a dreamer if you want.

The budget dedicated to space exploration (in all its areas) is just a tiny portion to the one dedicated to create weapons and maintain a military apparatus.

That military apparatus drives a large part of our economy. For good or bad its economic benefit (let alone its strategic benefit in keeping our country secure) is very tangible and immediate. The economic benefits of the exploitation of space are far less immediate and intangible. Let's not even talk about using all that money to end world hunger or the like.

The reason why the benefits of the exploration (and exploitation) of space seem "far less immediate and intangible" than those from the military complex stems from the fact that very little has been done to truly support exploration.

Until quite recently, privately owned vehicles could not be return to earth. Moreover, most of the money that private companies could use to boost their exploration comes from the already limited NASA budget. So, from a practical standpoint, we don't really know how beneficial the exploration of space could be.

From an ethical perspective, peaceful development is far more desirable than anything that goes into the military. But of course, this comes from a pacifist lefty that would like every military dismantled.. :-)

Anyway, I think we are too far apart on this to agree.

Cheers.

Tritium is H3, an isotope of hydrogen, and is vital for the most of our tritium is synthetic, being produced in tiny quantities in nuclear reactors. There is probably not even 200 lbs of the stuff on the entire planet, which is enough to power only one medium-sized fusion reactor for a year. If we are ever going to develop fusion as a power source, we need more tritium.

Enter the Moon. It's surface is highly enriched with tritium, formed as solar winds bombard it's surface. A manned station on the moon could mine enough tritium to replace all of our fossil fuel power sources with fusion reactors.

Far from worthless, lunar colonization may be the most important thing we could do to stave off the crash when we run out of oil.

Tritium does not occur in nature. Not on the moon, not on Mars, not even on Earth.

I suspect you're talking about Helium 3. He3 is MUCH harder to fuse than plain old Deuterium and we haven't even figured out how to fuse THAT yet. Let's actually get fusion power working, build a plant or two, then demonstrate break-even He3 fusion in the lab, THEN we can talk about going to the moon for fuel. Don't put the cart before the horse.

the planets...mind you the public is paying for the explorations with our tax dollars, etc., but once they set up bases it will then go privatized...who will rake in all that $$$$?

Also, who will choose to be the miners for these planets...will that be prisoners put off into worker camps because they have no choice or will people volunteer to live in the middle of nowhere with a very real possibility of death before getting back to Mother Earth?

Once there are mining bases...who will decide if they are union or not and if they represent the people and how will we ever truly know the conditions there and if people are slaves or truly independent, IF they are not prisoners sent there to do slave labor for their time?

What kind of diseases, bacteria or whatever will we be bringing back with all these various resources?

Then you get the whole thing about prostitutes being flown up there to give the guys some entertainment...

LOTS of things to think about besides just fun and exploration and being the first, IMO.

I don't know if they have 50 years left though.

Back to when science was the devil's work and creationism was a fact. The rest of the world is more than happen to invest in applied science and not get entangled with religious constraints. America will become the Christianized version of the ME where education and industry must be subserviant to the religious interpretations of the ignorant. Like stem cell research, for example.

But our kids will be learnin' reeding, riting, and rithmatic...and doing a lot of praying to the saviour.

I think a manned mission to Mars would be more interesting.

Then they would replay George Beating around the Bush's lunatic statement about how we have been great allies with Japan for a century and a half.

-Remember Pearl Harbor!
-Don't have to. I'm George W.

How can we expect to do anything in space if we can't make any real plans beyond the next five or ten years? Something truly ambitious requires thinking 25 or even 50 years into the future. But there's so much money involved, so many special interests and so many political machinations and fluctuations that it's just not something this country can do. You can get a bunch of scientists to sit down and agree on a strategy but all they see is the grant money pouring in. Talk about a base on the moon and their eyes light up with dollar signs. You can see the Rube Goldberg contortions twisting around their heads coming up with weird, convoluted reasons why a manned moonbase is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY before we can go to Mars.

Bush can say in some speech it's a priority but all that moron cares about is what Karl Rove tells him to say, to distract the country from his latest scandal, or because the aerospace contractors are polling too low at the moment.

The space station is a great example. They thought just far enough into the future to get the money to build the thing, but not far enough to figure out what it would be good for.

Super Conducting Super Collider: another object lesson. The scientists and contractors deliberately and vastly underestimated the cost just to get the money to build the thing. An increasingly annoyed congress kept funding it because, well, in for a penny... Finally they'd had enough and killed the project (and, sadly, they were right to do so). All we have to show for our money and trouble is a huge ring shaped hole in the ground out in Texas. Today's generation of young scientists is distraught but the contractors who built it just continue to rub their hands in glee. But the alternative was to give a true cost estimate and risk not having the thing built.

Scientists and contractors want their money NOW. They don't want to lay out a realistic strategy that doesn't give them their payoff for 10 or more years. But that's just what a true, committed national strategy would require.

That's a big reason why we no longer manufacture anything here. 20 years ago, capital investments were based on 5 year payback models. Today, you have to justify it on 2 years or less. That logic helped to outsource lots of manufacturing jobs.

We can invest billions upon billions over 20 years on a Space Defense Initiative they doesn't work and doesn't real threats like address low flying aircraft...but we can't invest in education for our kids. Go figure.

It's all about the tritium fuel, IMO.

It wouldn't be economic to mine.

A mere $57 billion, which wouldn't cover Iraq occupation for a year.

Great piece of work.

Bigger picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun



Edit: Wrong picture address

Wonder if I could make a buck if I buy property now?

http://www.lunarregistry.com/

Those are our choices as a species. If we don't fully commit to space exploration, we're going to go extinct on this rock and be a curious discovery for alien travelers.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!