Category Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?

Bartholomaeus Pitiscus (1561-1613) was a Polish theologian who first coined the term ‘trigonometry’ which is a branch of mathematics that deals with the relationship between the angles and sides of triangles. This aspect of geometry is of wide-ranging utility to various fields of science and technology. Trigonometry has various applications for measurement of distances. The techniques based on trigonometry are used in astronomy and for navigational systems which use the triangulation method to identify the position of an object.

Navigation is important for the armed forces for various reasons. It helps in locating ground and air targets and aids reconnaissance missions. It can be used in weapon systems like missiles and artillery and aerial platforms like manned and unmanned aircrafts. Such navigation systems have various civilian application uses too.

Navigational systems are assuming increasing importance because of its strategic applications and commercial utility. This chapter analyses the relevance of the Asian investments in navigational systems. There are certain complexities associated with navigational systems. The entire notion of navigation by using satellite means has evolved over decades. Asia is relatively a new entrant in this field. In order to evolve the context of navigation, this chapter begins with a brief overview of the history of navigation and elucidates current global investments in this field.

The basic purpose of a navigation system is the identification of location which requires a minimum of three satellites. A system is employed to calculate its position (basically in terms of distance) by measuring the distance between itself and the three satellites. The distance to each satellite is calculated by measuring the time lag between the transmission and reception of each microwave signal (which travels at a speed of light). Other information like location of the satellites is also necessary. Position identification is done by the technique of triangulation.

Essentially, navigational systems are based on two basic satellite-based positioning systems: the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) and the Regional Navigation Satellite Systems (RNSS). Global systems normally consist

A. Lele, Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality?, DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0733-7_11, © Springer India 2013

of a constellation of satellites (minimum of 24-26 satellites) and ground stations required to control them. The RNSSs also have similar infrastructure may be lesser in quantum. These networks can be termed broadly as GNSS augmentation systems.

The Chang’e-2 mission was launched on Oct 1, 2010, and has finished its all pre-set goals within its designed life span of 6 months by April 1, 2011. This mission is designed to get as close as 15 km above the Moon’s surface and take high – resolution imagery. The basic aim behind this mission was to test key technologies and collect data for future landings. Chang’e-2 has provided close-up pictures of Moon’s Sinus Iridum (Bay of Rainbows[246]), the proposed landing site for Chang’e-3 planned for 2013.[247]

This satellite has been set off from the Moon in remote outer space. Moon exploration involves travelling a distance of about 400,000 km away from the Earth. But, the outer space exploration involves a travel of 1.5 million km. After a travel of approximately 80 days from the region close to the Moon, this craft has arrived at a Lagrangian point (L2)[248] where it is expected to stay till the end of 2012 to conduct scientific observations and test deep space tracking and control capability for future possible explorations of Jupiter and the poles of the Sun. The satellite is also expected to monitor in 2012 the testing of two large antennas being built for deep space exploration.[249] On Feb 6, 2012, China has released a very detailed map of the Moon, marking the best view yet of the lunar surface as seen by a Chinese spacecraft. This map is based on the inputs received from the Chang’e-2 mission.

Prognostication of the future is normally done based on the knowledge of the present. This does not mean that the future will always evolve based on present events. Foretelling the future is an intricate activity even for creative thinkers, and in the past, many of them have gone wrong. Mr. Andrew W. Marshall is one who has few correct predictions to his credit. He is Pentagon’s futurist-in-chief who has been the Director of the Office of Net Assessment since the time of the Nixon Administration and had successfully predicted the end of the Cold War. Mr. Andrew Marshall has once articulated that ‘when it comes to predicting the future, it is better to err on the side of being unimaginative’.[322] [323]

The biggest obstacle for any predictive exercise is to avoid getting trapped into individual biases. Many a times it has been observed that the prevailing circumstances could render the judgment irrelevant. This mostly depends on the choice of variables for the analysis. At times, slight changes in input parameters make the predictive analysis look totally different. This particularly happens in case of statistical analysis because it relies heavily on arresting the connections between the explanatory variables and the predicted variables from past events. Predictions based on regression techniques also take into account relationships between dependent and independent variables. Such techniques play a major role towards finding solutions to scientific or economic problems. There are certain mathematical models and statistical techniques available even for finding solutions to complex problems in social science sphere. However, such techniques have limitations particularly in respect of quantifying certain variables mainly influenced by human behaviour. Hence, forecasting events related to geopolitics wars, political power shifts, community behaviour, failing states, poverty, social unrest, etc. are difficult, if not impossible, to predict entirely based on mathematical formulation. In order to make some sense of such a complex reality, the method of scenario building is perhaps one of the best research techniques available to us to enable the crafting of plausible futures in the realm of policy-making.

As a research technique, scenario building was pioneered by Herman Kahn in the 1950s while working at RAND, the renowned US-based research institution (think tank) on policy matters. This work was followed by Ted Newland, Pierre Wack and also by Jay Ogilvy, Paul Hawken and Peter Schwartz [1]. From a purely definitional point of view, Kahn and Weiner defined scenarios ‘as hypothetical sequences of events constructed for the purpose of focusing attention on causal processes and decision points’ [2]. Scenarios are not so much about predicting the future based on a short-term analysis. Rather, they are about ‘perceiving’ the future based on long-term analyses of an issue with a particular purpose/goal in mind. According to Peter Schwartz, ‘Scenarios provide a context for thinking clearly about the otherwise complex array of factors that affect any decision; give a common language to decision makers for talking about these factors, and encourage them to think about a series of “what if” stories; help lift the “blinkers” that limit creativity and resourcefulness; and lead to organizations thinking strategically and continuously learning about key decisions and priorities’.2

The method of scenario building is one of the most accepted techniques of making some sense of an ever dynamic and complex future. It helps to grasp a whole range of forces, factors and possibilities that are important while planning for the future. It is important to note that scenarios do have a high degree of uncertainty tagged to them. Therefore, studying the future based on the scenario­building method is at times viewed as an activity based on conjectures.

The notion of space power is a universal. However, there is no single definition of space power. Many analysts have attempted to typify, describe and predict the char­acter, connotation and functioning of space power. The term space power is found in writing as early as 1964, but there was no clear attempt to define it. Probably, one of the early attempts to define it was done as late as 1988. Lt Col David Lupton, in his book titled On Space Warfare, A Space Power Doctrine, published by Air University (U. S.) Press, presented the formal definition. Lupton has argued the requirement to derive the definition on the pattern of definitions of land, sea and air power offered by Mahan, Mitchell, Arnold and others. These definitions basically underscore three characteristics: (1) elements of national power, (2) purposes that are military and non-military, and (3) systems that are military and civilian. By contextualising these features, Lupton offered this definition: ‘Space power is the ability of a nation to exploit the space environment in pursuit of national goals and purposes and includes the entire astronautical capabilities of the nation.’ Alternatively, Space Power could also be viewed as an ability to exploit the civil, commercial and national security [8]

space systems (it includes space element, a terrestrial element and a link element) and associated infrastructure in support of national security strategy [16].

Another comprehensive description puts across space power as “the combination of technology, demographic, economic, industrial, military, national will, and other factors that contribute to the coercive and persuasive ability of a country to politically influence the actions of other states and other kinds of players or to otherwise achieve national goals through space activity” [17]. Since space power is viewed in context of national security strategy, it brings the dimension of security dilemma to the fore. The security dilemma spins around the paradox that the measures taken by a state to make it more secure will normally leads to making itself less secure. This is because the actions taken by the state leads to making their adversaries feel more insecure and hence attempts to measures to gain matching capabilities. The Asian region could be viewed as the place which presents the most widespread and exceptional security dilemma in the world. South Asia, Korean Peninsula, Taiwan tangle, Indo-China, Japan-China and Iran-Israel are all the cases of mutual misunderstandings where the concern for security dominates the geopolitical discourse presenting a picture of a region trapped in a security dilemma.

Alliteratively, a major criticism of the security dilemma concept emerges from the question of the validity of the offence-defence balance. Since weapons of offence and that of defence are the same, how can the distinction between the two be connected with a state’s intentions [18]? This is truer in case of space technologies which are inherently dual use in nature. However, particularity in the Asian context very less cooperative space activity is being witnessed. The real challenge in Asia would be whether the powers within the region can overcome the insecurity that drives the security dilemma.

The notion of space power becomes important particularly when space is being viewed as a medium to achieve strategic superiority. Philosophy of air power is found being extended to the idea of space power by some analysts. This has mainly directed the formulation of the concept of ‘high ground of space’. This notion was put into words way back in 1957 by General Thomas White. He had argued that

‘___ in the future it is likely that those who have the capability to control space

will likewise control the earth’s surface’ [19]. It has also been argued that ‘he who can secure control of space, deny an adversary access to space, and defeat weapons moving into or through space may cause an adversary to capitulate before forces act against each other on the earth’ [20].

The often quoted theory from the realm of International Relations, the theory of Balance of Power (BoP) could be used to appreciate the perspective of space security and space race. This is the most basic concept behind international politics and provides a structure for explaining some of the critical principles behind international relations [21]. BoP could be said to exit when there is parity amongst the competing forces. Successful space programmes of some of the Asian states contribute substantially to raise their stature as a dominant political power in Asia. States possessing such capabilities could use them for undertaking healthy interaction in this field and forging a stronger relationship. This could have a positive effect on the BoP.

For various Asian states, the key focus of investment in space arena has been for the purposes of using space applications for the betterment of the society. Asia is also a late starter in making investments into space field. The geopolitics of the region and the military capabilities of Asian states indicate that the development and influences of Asian space capabilities would have a more socioeconomic bias. The security challenges in the region could be viewed as more complex than rest of the world. But, at the same time, none of the Asian states are at the pinnacle of their space accomplishments; hence, it is unlikely that they would be preparing to achieve all out ‘space superiority’ from the warfare perspective. Hence, the notion of space power in Asian ‘wisdom’ appears to be more of a broad concept which includes projection of achievements in space technologies from a holistic sense inclusive of strategic dimension.

The United States Moon craft Apollo 11 reached the Moon in 1969. In the same year, the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) was started in Japan and work on rockets begun in earnest. But, the work towards entering into space arena could be said to have started much earlier during 1950s.

The credit for making Japan ready to entire the space age goes to Professor Hideo Itokawa from Tokyo University. He was instrumental in shaping Japanese governments views in this field. In 1960, he along with his colleague outlined that how a small satellite could be launched into the space. The scientific community under his leadership submitted a report in 1962 titled ‘Tentative plan for a satellite launcher’. The scientific community considered various issues like: Is satellite project feasible? Is there a need for cooperation with the USA? Is it worth making investments despite late start [4, pp. 4-11]? Subsequently, by 1965 a conscious decision was taken in 1965 that Japan should go ahead for a scientific satellite

programme. In the year 1970, Japan joined spacefaring nations by successfully launching ‘Ohsumi’, the first indigenous satellite developed by them.

During 1955 at the University of Tokyo, the Institute of Industrial Science began work with sounding rockets. In the same university in 1964, Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science (ISAS-the word Aeronautical was replaced by Astronautical in 1981), a lead agency overlooking Japan’s space science programmes was established. Subsequently, in 1969, the formation of National Space Development Agency (NASDA) helped Japan to develop programmes in the areas of remote sensing, communication and meteorology. The same agency was responsible for launching and tracking of satellites [5]. Japan had to face the agony of four successive launch failures (1966-1969), and its first successful satellite launch took place only in the fifth attempt. Although NASDA dwelled into various application programmes, one of their main tasks was the development of launch vehicles.

Apart from these agencies, other organisations like National Aerospace Labo­ratory of Japan (NAL-established in 1955) were involved in research on aircraft, rockets and other aeronautical transportation systems, as well as peripheral tech – nology.[111] Almost for three decades, many of the organisations responsible for the developments in space arena were reporting to different ministries in the Japanese government. Naturally, for overall growth of the programme, such diverse reporting channels and different budgeting allocations were hazardous. The period 1996-2003 witnessed a major setback to Japan’s space programme because of series of failures. Unfortunately, these failures never remained restricted to any one sector, and Japan faced losses both with its launchers as well as satellite systems. This made Japanese government to bring in significant reforms in its space architecture.

On the other hand, Japan could be said to be a country with unique distinction of having developed two parallel space programmes with two main organisations ISAS and NASDA having their own fleet of rockets, launch sites, mission control and tracking systems. The organisations had some amount of internal revelries too [4, p. 19]. The Japanese model demonstrates that the multiplicity of assets and formation of different organisations for similar purpose have limited utility and limited life span.

Since October 2003, a single body called Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is responsible for all aerospace activities in the Japan. JAXA is an indepen­dent administrative institution which functions as a principal entity responsible for research and development of Japan in aerospace areas. For this purpose NASDA, ISAS and NAL have been merged into one entity to establish JAXA. Now this organisation boasts a unique status in the country.3

JAXA is put under the administrative control of MEXT: Ministry of Edu­cation, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Inter-ministerial decision body for space, Space Activities Committee (SAC), is responsible for supervising the

space activities within MEXT and JAXA. The national strategy issues for all areas of science and technology including space is being overseen by the Council of Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) which is chaired by the prime minister [6]. Interestingly, Japan has also appointed its first ever minister of space development.[112] This appointment needs to be viewed at the backdrop of Japan scrapping its earlier policy of ban on the use of space programmes for defence.

The predecessors for satellite navigation can be identified from the non-satellite era. Ground-based LORAN (LOng-RAnge Navigation) and Omega systems were used for terrestrial long-wave radio transmitters instead of satellites. The Russian system on lines of the LORAN is the Chayka. The LORAN system became operational in 1958 and was extensively used by the maritime community. The LORAN-C system came to be used for aerial navigation quite widely and during trials in 1963.1 It had its limitations in respect of some aviation requirements particularly with regard to precision approaches.[194] [195] This system also served as a backup for the US global positioning system (GPS). This system was ceased to be used from October 1,2010.

OMEGA was another navigation system developed by the USA with six partner nations for the purposes of military aviation. It was approved for development in 1968 and became operational in 1971 and had 6 km accuracy when fixing a position. With the success of GPS, its usage declined, and it was permanently terminated by September 30, 1997.[196]

The first satellite-based navigation system was Transit a naval navigation satellite system, deployed by the US military in the 1960s and was operational till December 31, 1996. The Transit’s operation was based on the Doppler effect in which the satellites passed through well-known paths and broadcast their signals on a well – known frequency. The frequency shifted between the received frequency and the broadcast frequency because of the movement of the satellite with respect to the receiver. By monitoring this frequency shift over a period of time, it was possible to identify the location. A minimum of four operational satellites were required for this job. The constellation consisted of six satellites in a polar orbit.[197] The first satellite – based radio navigation system developed by the erstwhile USSR was the Tsiklon.[198] Thirty-one satellites were launched for this purpose during 1967 to 1978. Its basic aim was to provide positioning facilities to the ballistic missile submarines.

The Tsiklon series was followed by the fully operational ‘Tsyklon-B’ or ‘Parus’ system. This system was formally inducted into service in 1976, but the full 22 satellite constellation did not become operational until 1980. Parus satellites

continue to be launched till April 2010, and it is believed that it is now exclusively used for military communications. The Parus was followed by the Tsikada—a simplified system for civilian use. In fact, the Parus is sometimes referred to as the ‘Tsikada Military’ or ‘Tsikada-M’. The Tsikada system was put into service in 1979 and acquired its full complement of satellites in 1986. The Tsikada was largely used by the Soviet merchant marine.[199]

Moon was conquered four decades back. Then it was an event of the political one-upmanship. For scientists, it was an act of scientific adventurism, and the major challenge was to take the man to the Moon and bring him back safely to the Earth. The efforts were concentrated towards reaching the Moon than actually studying what is there on the surface of the Moon. Subsequently, also very few unmanned missions took off. Hence, even today, the Moon remains to be the least accurately measured surface for its topography for lack of accurate instrumentation. In short, the information collected during Apollo era was of little significance for understanding the structural characteristics of the Moon. All this prompted to study the Moon afresh in the twenty-first century.

There is very little knowledge about the atmospheric conditions over and around the Moon. Also, no seismic data is available in the post-Apollo era. Probably, the USA was lucky during Apollo era when their human missions had not encountered any significant hazards like solar flares or did not land on an unfriendly surface. In reality, the missions were undertaken with limited knowledge about the Moon’s atmosphere and surface. In fact, much more information is required even to undertake a robotic mission to the Moon. Mapping of Moon’s gravity particularly from the farside, knowledge about its magnetic field and presence of hydrogen in its soil (an indirect method to find the presence of ice/water on the Moon) are important from point of view of planning future human missions. There is a need to develop new data set to navigate on the Moon comfortably [12]. The basic purpose behind these three missions was to fill this data void. Their missions had various state – of-the-art equipment onboard. They undertook the three-dimensional analysis of Moon’s entire surface in real sense for the first time.

Since the basic purpose behind studying the Moon for these three states is similar, there were commonalities in their scientific objectives too. In general, there has been a commonality in the philosophy behind the Moon mission and the benefits it could achieve thereof. Beyond knowledge, the Moon missions also have far-reaching influence on pattern of international relations, economic competition and techno­logical cooperation. As per a Chinese scholar, the exploration of space resources

would help in (1) development of the aerospace industry and demonstrate China’s strength in this field; (2) China will be able to actively participate in competition and collaboration, solving problems concerning lunar resources, domain division and sharing of benefits among different nations; (3) growth of science/manpower within the country; (4) China could become a founding member of an international Moon colonisation club; (5) the manned spaceflight project could help the strategists and policymakers recognise the strategic importance of outer space security to the nations security; and (6) manned Moon landing would help country to reclaim its glory and splendour [13]. More or less the same is true in case of Japan and India also. Such missions would also bring-in direct and indirect economic benefits in the long run mainly because of the technological spin-offs from the entire exercise.

States like India have considerable interests in fields like astronomy, and their dedicated satellite for this purpose called Astrosat is scheduled for launch in near future. To continue with further research in this field, India would like to have its own telescope on the surface of the Moon. This is because this would give astronomers an enormously improved view of the universe. There are some significant advantages for placing telescope on the Moon.[250] First, the Moon has negligible atmosphere. Second, the nights there last for approximately 14 days and lastly the farside of the Moon is the only radio-quiet area in the inner solar system, providing the perfect platform for radio astronomy. It is also possible that the telescope could be built on the Moon itself by using lunar dust (regolith) for manufacture of mirrors. Experts in composite materials regard lunar dust as a prized composite material. A composite using lunar dust could offer an ultra-lightweight material with extraordinary strength [14].

Possibility of building a space platform which can be used for generating power and then beaming it back to the Earth is being debated. As per Mr Madhavan Nair, the then chairman ISRO, India is keen to work on such projects.[251] Moon is considered as the best place to build such platforms. Chinese scientists also believe that the Moon could serve as a new supplier of energy and resources for humankind. For them, lunar development is crucial to sustainable development of human beings on Earth. As per Ouyang Ziyuan, principal scientist of China’s lunar project, ‘Whoever first conquers the Moon will benefit first’ [15].

Apart from space sector, these states are developing various other important sectors of technology too, and biotechnology is one of them. Moon’s surface offers an opportunity to conduct research in this field. Biological experiments could be carried out on plants and animals over here under reduced gravity conditions. It is likely that these states could use the Moon surface for conducting advanced research in newer areas of biotechnology. Their pharmaceutical industry also may benefit from such research.

Overall, the Moon mission offers these states opportunity to develop space – related industries like satellite manufacturing, remote sensing and navigation. It would also indirectly further help them to develop their IT sector, materials industry and Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) research and development. All these efforts are also expected to further boost their science and technology missions and also would bring economic benefits.

It is important to identify the key drivers that will influence space agendas of the states. In principle, various drivers would have sociopolitical, economical, technological and environmental influences on the issue under consideration. These drivers could vary from state to state. Broadly, they could be analysed at structural and domestic levels. At the structural level, they could relate to the changing global balance of power and growing competition and cooperation amongst spacefaring nations. While at the domestic level, the internal political dynamics, the economic factors as well as the technological development aspects would be more relevant. Following paragraphs discuss some of the key drivers in regard to developments and investments in space arena by Asia states.

To understand what the future will unfold in the space arena is respect of Asia, it is important to examine whether Asian states will continue with the present pace of economic and technical growth or lose momentum. For any state, future growth in the technological area would be dictated by various nontechnical factors too. Apart from economics, the bilateral and multilateral arrangements undertaken by the state would play a greater role in the development of the space futures of the countries in the region. From this perspective, it would be important to know about the past and present of the space roadmaps of the states within the region.

To build up a broad scale understanding about the investments and achievements of the Asian states in the space arena, subsequent chapters mention the details about the space programmes of few of the states. In regard to certain states since their space programmes are still in nascent stages, there is nothing much to examine. Mostly this is because they have either hired the satellite services or have total dependence on other states to implement their space agenda. Few other Asian states which do not find mention in the above table (simply because they do not have satellites) are also attempting the develop space programmes. For example, states like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and few others that have established space agencies are in the process of developing the space roadmap for their countries.

The big three in Asia, Japan-China-India are in the business of space almost for four decades now. Their yearly space budgets range from approximately 1,000­2,000 million US$ (India has the lowest). It could even be argued that they view space as an important element of their comprehensive national power. Their investments in space are for the sake of national pride, growth of S&T and for the overall socioeconomic development. The strategic importance of these technologies particularly in the twenty-first century when the states in the region are facing both conventional and asymmetric challenges cannot be overlooked. States in the region are found investing or have plans to invest in space technology for both socioeconomical and geostrategic requirements.

Japan has a history of high level of rocket technology awareness from the time before the end of the Second World War, but it was not put in use by the country after the war. Subsequently, only by 1950s, Japan started taking interest in rocketry technology. A tiny rocket ‘Pencil’ was launched horizontally at Kokubunji near Tokyo in 1955 [7]. This could be said to be the first entry of Japan in the field of rocketry in post-World War II era. Over the years, Japan has been developing its own launch vehicles, mainly based on indigenous research and development.

Based on the research and development initiated by Professor Itokawa during 1954-1956, the Kappa series of sounding rockets were developed at Tokyo Uni­versity. These rockets were named as Pencil and Baby. The most advanced Kappa rocket (1966) could carry an 18-kg scientific package to a height of 746 km. During 1960s scaled-up versions of the solid-propellant Kappa sounding rockets were put in use called Lambda, or L series rockets. Also, Mu series rockets were developed with an aim of putting first Japanese satellite in place. However, subsequently Lambda series L-4S rocket was used to put the first Japanese satellite (Ohsumi) in orbit on Feb. 11, 1970 [8]. Other developments include the M series, the N series, H series andJ-1 series.[113]

M-V rocket also called as Mu-5 or M-5 was from the Mu family of rockets. This satellite launcher was developed to support Japanese scientific missions beyond late 1990s. It is a three-staged solid-propellant rocket with a 1.8-ton launch capability into 250-km LEO. The first two flights were successfully launched in 1997 and 1998, but the third lunch failed in Feb. 2000[114]. Subsequent three launches were successes, and the last launch was undertaken during 2006. This rocket has potential

for being converted to ballistic missile applications.[115] After six successful launches in a span of 9 years, these launchers retired in 2006.

The N series (N-1, N-2) rockets entered in service during mid-1970s and 1980s. The N-2 vehicle was manufactured to place 350 kg load into geostationary orbit. The entire process of development and manufacture of various launchers had US support behind it. Boosters and engines were manufactured in Japan under the US license, and various components and guidance systems were procured from the US firms [9]. Japan’s first remote sensing satellite was launched with the help of the N-2 booster in 1987 which incidentally was the last launch for this series of boosters.

The limited payload capability of N-series launch vehicles forced Japan to develop platforms capable of putting higher payload in to the orbit, and thus during 1980s, it started the development of H series launchers. Also, one of the aims was to achieve indigenous launch capability potential. With the help of H-1 launcher by 1986, Japan succeeded in putting 1,110 kg payload into the geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO). However, they depended on US technology for this launch too.

Subsequently, Japan started the work on H-2 launcher with an aim to put 4,000-kg satellite into GTO. Also, Japan was interested in making its satellite programme commercially viable. Since Japan was concentrating for the production of an indigenous launcher, the project got delayed, and first launch could take place only in 1994. H-2 rocket conducted five successful launches during 1994-1997. Subsequently, it faced two failures, and in December 1999, Japan decided to cancel the last remaining launch. The problem was identified with the indigenous develop­ment of cryogenic engine. Understanding that H-2 cannot become a commercially viable launcher, Japan shifted its focus towards H-2A launchers [5].

H-2A launcher could be said to have reassured the Japanese scientific community about their capabilities. With its first launch in August 2001, this launcher had done 14 successful launches (out of 15) till 2009. This launcher can be in various configurations and is designed to meet diverse launch demands, at lower cost and with a high degree of reliability.[116] The same launcher was used on September 14, 2007, for launching Japan’s Moon orbiter SELENE. The launcher was also put in use to deliver a foreign payload (Australia, 2002). The only setback this launcher had was its failure to put two Japanese spy satellites into the orbit during November 2003. This launcher system has undertaken various successful launches, and in 2010, the Venus Climate Orbiter was also launched using their services. Presently, H-2A launch service operations have been transferred to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Japan has also developed the H-2B launch vehicle. This is an upgraded version of the H-2A launch vehicle. With the help of this launcher, Japan as successfully launched a cargo transporter to the International Space Station during January 2011.[117] Now, with two operational launch systems available, it would

allow Japan to undertake a simultaneous launch of more than one satellite. This would also offer other benefits like reduction in cost and boosting the space industry.