NASA May Hire Japanese Spacecraft For ISS Service Mission

schliz writes "NASA is talking to Japan's space agency about using one of its spacecraft for servicing missions to the International Space Station, according to Japanese media reports. NASA has been considering various options to maintain its commitment to the Space Station after the Space Shuttle is retired from service in 2010. According to Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun, 'unofficial negotiations' between NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (Jaxa) began in February."

Forward-thinking rocket design

I bet the damn thing will be a hybrid that gets great fuel mileage, has an onboard dancing robot, and ends up outselling all the American rocket companies within 10 years.

Re:Forward-thinking rocket design

I bet the damn thing will be a hybrid that gets great fuel mileage, has an onboard dancing robot, and ends up outselling all the American rocket companies within 10 years.

And don't forget it comes with a standard 100,000,000 mile warrenty.

Bad Idea

Every time a Japanese spacecraft gets involved, it ends up bringing back space-spores that grow unnoticed behind the repair shed and then turn into those stop-action monster-thingies that level whole cities.

Unless we hire and train a Space Patrol [tesco.net] before the thing ever takes off, I think we should nix the whole idea.

This is not true, according to NASA

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/22/content_8742715.htm [xinhuanet.com]

I suspect

that NASA is playing all sides at this time. EU and Russia have solutions, but both are trying to charge arm/leg. SpaceX is unknown as to whether it will be ready in time. I suspect that if this week's falcon fails, then NASA will cut deals quickly with all the above. But if it works, then they are going to feel better. The one issue is that NASA is feeling very threatened by SpaceX. Congress will have a difficult time seeing that constellation really is a different beast than the falcon9/dragon. Of course, if Spacex really does pursue the BFR, then it will be difficult to see any differences.

Re:This is not true, according to NASA

From my email yesterday:

From: NASA News ([e-mail])
Sent: Mon 7/21/08 4:00 PM
To: NASA News ([e-mail])

July 21, 2008

John Yembrick
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-0602
[e-mail]

RELEASE: 08-181

STATEMENT ON INACCURATE REPORTS ABOUT JAPANESE CARGO SERVICES

WASHINGTON -- Contrary to news reports, NASA has not officially or
unofficially been discussing the purchase of H-II Transfer Vehicles
(HTV) -- uninhabited resupply cargo ships for the space station --
from the Japanese Space Agency, or JAXA.

NASA is committed to domestic commercial cargo resupply to the space
station and does not plan to procure cargo delivery services from
Japan. As part of our original agreements as compensation for common
system operating costs NASA has limited cargo capability on the
Japanese and European cargo vehicles. NASA has recently issued a
request for proposal for the cargo needs of International Space
Station beyond those supplied by our current international
agreements. NASA has chosen to depend on commercial resupply of cargo
delivery to the station.

-end-

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
[e-mail]
To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
[e-mail]

Re:This is not true, according to NASA

It is on NASA's site, though. Searching Google for some text from the press release yielded this link. [nasa.gov]

Denied by NASA

Apparently, NASA has already issued a statement [google.com] denying this rumor. I couldn't find a press release on NASA's own website, though.

NASA Statement

Statement from nasa.gov [nasa.gov]

That's odd.

Probably the more interesting thing to note here is that JAXA even *has* a spacecraft for something of that sort. They aren't really known for that, more so for their satellites. At any rate, NASA has a lot more resources for these kind of missions under their belt.

You can see their current (and future planned) rockets [www.jaxa.jp] and spacecrafts [www.jaxa.jp] on their site. The spacecraft in question, H-II, was only announced recently in 2008, and I guess that's why I couldn't find any other similar ships on wiki, etc.

And what happened to Russia? I thought they were a huge part of the ISS, and just recently the RSA received a lot more interest from their government if I recall correctly, so why aren't we poking sticks at them?

Re:That's odd.

And what happened to Russia? I thought they were a huge part of the ISS, and just recently the RSA received a lot more interest from their government if I recall correctly, so why aren't we poking sticks at them?

Russia's Progress supply ships have been keeping the ISS running for years. When the Shuttle was grounded after Columbia, it was the Russians who kept the project alive.

It was a close-run thing, though; the Shuttle's cargo capacity dwarfs Progress, and it was a major loss. Hence the development of independent cargo ships by ESA and Japan. These are much bigger than Soyuz, and also divide the labour three ways instead of relying on Russia alone to produce enough rockets.

Re:That's odd.

When the Shuttle was grounded after Columbia, it was the Russians who kept the project alive. It was a close-run thing, though; the Shuttle's cargo capacity dwarfs Progress, and it was a major loss. Hence the development of independent cargo ships by ESA and Japan.

That's only 'mostly correct'. The ATV (ESA) and HTV (JAXA) cargo craft predate the loss of Columbia by years - they've been on the drawing boards since the early/mid 1990's. ATV was supposed to have first flown in, IIRC, 2003. HTV was supposed to first fly in 2001.
 

These are much bigger than Soyuz, and also divide the labour three ways instead of relying on Russia alone to produce enough rockets.

Again, only mostly correct. While ATV/HTV can carry far more cargo that Soyuz, they can't ferry passengers. For that matter, your average Mini Cooper [wikipedia.org] has a higher cargo capacity than Soyuz. (OK, I exaggerate. But not by much.)

Uhm...think again...

Actually, NASA has said they're not going to use Japan. http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/tariqmalik/ [livescience.com]

Re:

Money, duh! The same thing the Russians got when they were the sole suppliers to the ISS for a couple of years.

It is a good deal for NASA. The most wasteful Space Shuttle missions are the resupply missions. It is idiotic to spend $1 billion per Space Shuttle flight when two of these spacecraft can do the same for about $250 million.

Guts and Glory

Japan could get in return valuable space operations experience, and first rate publicity for their space program which should help them get more of their own domestic funding.

Just like NASA gets.

This is the International Space Station. All the science is published. All the different nations get to develop and test their space tech in (and orbiting) the real world. They get to test interop with the global space industry. They get the glory of high profile missions featured on US, and then international, TV.

The US already takes the risk of leading this project. It already is the guarantor of funding, and pays most of the bills. Why should Japan get paid to get the same benefits the US has to pay to get?

Re:Guts and Glory

Yeah, Japan's decision to get paid to do what America is giving to the world for free is indeed rational. Nice work if you can get it.

But that has nothing to do with how the US uses NASA for other political agendas. Even if those agendas, at US expense, keep Russian rocket scientists in space exploration rather than weapons development, pointing missiles at Japan across the Japan Sea. Why not? The US pays for most of Japan's domestic defense anyway, not to mention the rest of the global security that protects Japan's export empire and the sources of the imports that keep Japan alive.

But like I said, that has nothing to do with whether Japan should pay its own way in the ISS mission. Japan's not being asked to pay for the rest of the US' agenda, whether that other agenda benefits Japan or not.

What I'm saying is that Japan's participation in the ISS program benefits Japan the way that the US' participation benefits the US. Which is why the US pays its way. Sure, the US also pays the way of some countries, like Russia, because Russia can't even feed its own people (while its oilocracy is diverting the economy to Putin's cronies), and Russia is of course a security threat to the rest of the world unless its idle hands are kept at constructive work. But that shouldn't stop Japan, which would be investing in its own domestic space industry here. Why should the US pay for that?

I suppose that since the US would have to spend money borrowed from Japan (and others) on top of the $400B the US already borrowed from Japan, it's "rational" of Japan to demand payment that will also become something like 150% bigger once fully paid off as US Treasury Bonds. But there's nothing rational at all in the US deciding to do something foolhardy like that.

Re:In return?

What is Japan going to want in return for this?

They'll probably want Irrigation and Iron Working in return. Possibly 40 gold pieces and a Defensive Pact. I'm sorry... I've been playing a lot of civ lately.

Re:In return?

Well, we tried that, but all the Japanese ambassador would say is "That's not going to happen."

Re:

The benevolent Americans demand that you give us Space Flight and Atomic Theory or else we will have to crush your puny civilization!

Re:

more like genetic engineering or stealth ... if they need iron working I doubt they would have rocketry !!

Re:In return?

Haha this is one of the things I love about Slashdot, no matter how obscure the thing your referencing is, there are always people around to tell you you're wrong.

Re:

it's called money. JAXA would get cold, hard cash in return for HTV (which still hasn't flown)

These rumors of a NASA/JAXA deal have been discounted, which probably means they are true. Mike Griffin is trying to slay the various US commercial spaceflight providers by going offshore to another government agency.

Re:

Nope, the Air Force and Congress are pretty adamant about not selling the F-22 to anyone. They are willing to sell the F-35 JSF however which in many ways is a detuned F-22.

Re:In return?

They are willing to sell the F-35 JSF however which in many ways is a detuned F-22.

Other than a generally similar body shape, the F-22 and F-35 have little in common. The F-35 is a clean sheet design by a Lockheed / Northrop / BAES team focused on strike and close air support missions, vertical take-off and landing, and carrier operations. The F-22 preceded it by 10 years, was designed by a Lockheed / Boeing team, and focuses on air dominance.

Different missions, different designs. The F-35 is far more versatile and affordable than its predecessor, and unlike the F-22 was designed from the ground up as an export product. It's not as good at the mission for which the F-22 was designed (of course!), but it's hardly "detuned".

Re:In return?

They need advanced weaponry for the next time Godzilla attacks.