Japan tries to launch satellite on rocket the size of a telegraph pole From plants to pocket-sized radios, Japan has a long history of miniaturisation, but its first attempt to shrink a satellite-launching rocket has ended with the launcher ditching into the sea. The 2.6-tonne SS-520-4, about the size of a power pole, is a sounding rocket platform JAXA had hoped would set the record for the …
Yes! It's certainly more interesting than the boring "utility pole".
Besides, I believe that the one SR71 pilot who actually saw a Russian SAM come up to his flight level (plenty were launched but the crews rarely saw them with their own eyes) described that as looking like a telegraph pole. So I think small rockets have been similarly dubbed ever since.
The idea of a small cheap orbital launcher is very attractive. And this nearly worked. I do wonder though, a few million to launch this sounds expensive in comparison to hitching a cheaper ride on the back of a bigger satellite's launch (typically that costs a few tens of thousands of pounds). That is how cube sats have been launched to date.
Is Everything As It Seems?
This was intended as a launcher to get some about 4kg into an orbit about 2000km up. So it could put something a bit heavier into low earth orbit. Or something even heavier into a sub orbital hop. Or something heavier again a few hundred miles.
If that something were a small nuke, they'd have a pretty handy little intercontinental nuclear armed missile, or (bigger again) a good short range tactical weapon. It could also probably serve as the booster for an interception weapon to take out other missiles.
There's a lot of concern in Japan about North Korea's military capabilities and sanity. There's also some worry that a Trump administration in the US won't stick to its treaty obligations to guarantee Japanese security in return for billions hard earned dollars. In his campaigning Trump essentially threatened to withdraw US forces from the western Pacific because he was fed up of Japan getting it's security for free. On being told that, actually, Japan pays a huge sum of cash annually for hosting US forces, he said that it wasn't enough.
Understandably this has caused some consternation in Japan, with plenty of people pointing out that without US forces (especially a few choice anti-missile systems) Japan is adjacent to and undefended from the world's craziest nuclear armed regime, and a power vacuum would also allow the Chinese to move into the Western Pacific in a bigger way.
So the unpredictable Trump (aren't they always?) actually gets elected, and the Japanese launch this thing, but they have a good excuse for not lighting up the second stage and completing the flight (which would betray its true capability). It may not be entirely coincidental. I think that we may be seeing something of this again, possibly painted green, on a mobile launch platform. And with the way things are going, that'd probably be a good thing.
You seem to forget that, having had nuclear weapons used on them, the Japanese have an absolute horror of them. Without the declared threat (which the Japanese people wouldn't stand for) atom bombs aren't any use defensively, so why would they bother, especially given that the rocket isn't any use in lofting anything but the smallest battlefield weapons?
"You seem to forget that, having had nuclear weapons used on them, the Japanese have an absolute horror of them."
And they're pretty determined that no one will ever use them again on Japan. They've not had to do anything about it since WWII on account of the treaty arrangements between Japan and the USA, which Trump has threatened to break.
"Without the declared threat (which the Japanese people wouldn't stand for) atom bombs aren't any use defensively, so why would they bother, especially given that the rocket isn't any use in lofting anything but the smallest battlefield weapons?"
Er, have you seen the kind of guff that North Korea puts out daily? Besides, it's no good whinging about undeclared threats if the mini-ICBM is already on its way over from the peninsular.
That kind of thinking led to the policy of appeasement leading up to WWII, which nearly lost us (the UK) the war. The exact same arguments we had then are going in Japanese society even now.
With the two countries so close together you don't need massive range. North Korea has been launching quite small rockets over the top of Japan for years, gives them the collie wobbles every time.
As for why bother, that's a question that can be equally applied to the USA, UK and France. At least two of those countries have been using nuclear weapons for defensive purposes only. Answer: mutually assured destruction is no comfort (not really), but you'd rather have the option of bringing it about than not. Especially when the other country already has a bomb, nearly has a warhead, has a missile, has stated an intent to inflict harm on its neighbours and the USA if it can reach it, and a political insanity that does not encourage belief in their self-restraint. Faced with that, it would immensely surprising that Japan and South Korea (and even China!) didn't take substantive steps to ensure that such a threat (theoretical or not) was neutralised, at least to some extent. Japan can develop a nuclear warhead of its own if it wants to, it has the underlying nuclear industry required to produce the plutonium.
Historically countries faced with a nuclear threat have gone on to do so (India & Pakistan, Russia & West, China & West, Israel & Syria / Iraq / Iran / Libya). I don't see why Japan would necessarily be any different if the USA walks out on its treaty obligations.
Besides, as I've already written, a small nuke is not the only strategically useful payload that can be lofted on something of this size. It's far more likely that they'd concentrate on an interception capability first (something that the USA already fields on their behalf, but seemingly now might not be counted on). An interception capability is less "aggressive", and stands a good chance of succeeding. North Korea almost certainly doesn't have the industrial capability to produce large numbers of missiles and warheads. Shooting down one or two missiles is far easier than shooting down several hundred. Japan hasn't had a vehicle of this size available to them previously. Arguably, they do now (failed launch or not).
If the USA walks out of the Pacific, the countries that are traditional allies of the USA (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines [though their current president seems to be taking leave of his senses], Malaysia, Thailand, even Vietnam these days) will feel immense pressure to tool up. Japan already is, it's built some aircraft carriers in recent years, lots of pretty good submarines too. Everyone knows that China is tooling up fast, has been for years and already has nuclear weapons.
Understandably this has caused some consternation in Japan, with plenty of people pointing out that without US forces (especially a few choice anti-missile systems) Japan is adjacent to and undefended from the world's craziest nuclear armed regime, and a power vacuum would also allow the Chinese to move into the Western Pacific in a bigger way.
Sounds like something from the Hillary/Neocon prayer book.
Japan has to deal with its regional problems on its own terms. The US forces (and the US for that matter) won't be around forever.
"Japan has to deal with its regional problems on its own terms. The US forces (and the US for that matter) won't be around forever."
Why not? It's "Defence as a Service" and if the customer keeps paying, why remove the profitable service? That's capitalism and business. Something Trump claims to understand.
"Sounds like something from the Hillary/Neocon prayer book."
Hmm, you don't pay attention to the goings on in North Korea and the Western Pacific much, do you. Are you some kinda commie China stooge?
"Japan has to deal with its regional problems on its own terms. The US forces (and the US for that matter) won't be around forever."
Except that Japan pays a vast fortune to host US forces. Unlike NATO, where there's no membership fee as such, the Japan US mutual security treaty involves a very large payment. That's something Trump was unaware of, and when made aware declared the sum inadequate. The treaty does allow one party to terminate it with 1 year's notice.
However there's been some recent adjustments related to moving Kadena, for which the Japanese have also agreed to pay, and this may have included an alteration to the termination clauses.
Cancelling all that now would be very poor form indeed so far as diplomatic codes of conduct are concerned. It also doesn't fit with Trump's apparent pro-Taiwan stance; he cannot support them without military bases being close at hand, and they're all in Japan.
Trump is generally making noises about withdrawing from all sorts of treaties. That's not going to do the USA any good. It'll make doing business with the US more hassle than its worth. And it's not like the USA has any money these days.
If Jaxa don't go for this, my money's on Compenhagen Suborbitals having a go at it, once they've achieved their ambition of launching someone on a sub-orbital hop. Although I wouldn't be at all surprised if India attempted a 'smallest rocket to orbit' launch sometime.
And it's orbital velocity that this had to achieve.
BTW Japan has a history of launching small sats into orbit on small(ish) solid fuel rockets dating back to the 60's.
A few $m for a few cubesats to orbit is about the target of the NZ "Electron" LV as well.
The Japanese tend to take a long view of things and I think they will try again.
I wish them better luck next time.
Is the telegraph pole a recognised unit for use on here, is it's use restricted to rockets?
There seems to some abiguitry in dimensions, so they seem a fine candidate for inclusion.
"How big are telegraph poles ?
No hard and fast answer. But 30ft (9m) would be a good average pole.
They are classed for width as (L) Light, (M) Medium, (H) Heavy or the less commonly used Stout."
(http://www.telegraphpoleappreciationsociety.org/faq)
This post has been deleted by its author
I agreee no orbital claims of 800/2000km . It just seemed very high for a small rocket on a straight up and down flight. I'll cheerfully admit if I'm wrong and Hats off to the team that launched it whatever the numbers.
As I've often said "Rocket Science = Easy", "Rocket Engineering = Tricky"
"set the record for the smallest rocket to carry a satellite to space"
I am assuming there would be a minimum weight requirement, as well as something like a "successful orbit of x" distance requirement for this "record"? Otherwise I'm sure any interested vulture could accomplish something that vague...
Personally, I'd be far more impressed if Japan (or anyone!) were to design a Terrestrial Electromagnetic Cubesat Coilgun. TECC is greener and more practical.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
