Japan Committed To Moon Missions As Trump Cuts NASA Budget: JAXA Chief
Tokyo:
Japan is ready to support the United States' lower-cost lunar missions, its space agency chief said on Friday, after the U.S. administration proposed a $6 billion cut to NASA's budget that could upend the Artemis programme to return people to the moon.
U.S.-led Artemis, established during President Donald Trump's first term and joined by partners including Japan, the European Space Agency (ESA) and Canada, has grown into a multibillion-dollar project aiming to return astronauts to the moon for the first time since 1972.
"If the U.S. were considering a better alternative in terms of budget or economics, we must respond to it," Hiroshi Yamakawa, President of Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), told a monthly briefing.
Trump unveiled his 2026 budget proposal for NASA earlier this month. It would almost halve the agency's space science budget and reshape its exploration programmes to focus on Mars with "cost-effective" rockets and spaceships.
Japan signed an agreement with NASA last year to include two Japanese astronauts and a Toyota-made rover in future missions to the lunar surface.
While Trump and Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba reaffirmed a partnership on Artemis missions in February, the budget proposal suggested NASA could cancel the Gateway, an internationally planned space station that was due for initial deployment near the moon in the fourth Artemis mission.
NASA said Gateway components already built could be repurposed for other missions and "international partners will be invited to join these renewed efforts".
JAXA has jointly built a Gateway human habitation module with ESA and intended to use its cargo spacecraft HTV-X to resupply the station.
ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher said in a statement last week that "some questions still remain about the full repercussions" of Trump's budget proposal and ESA was holding follow-up meetings with the U.S. space agency.
JAXA's Yamakawa declined to evaluate the NASA budget proposal and said it and the Japanese government would seek dialogues with the U.S. counterparts to keep strengthening mutually-beneficial space cooperation.
"Even under a name different from 'Gateway', similar infrastructure is needed for lunar activities, and we continue to provide it," Yamakawa said. Japan could offer resupply capabilities, high-precision landing technology, rover or the lunar water data obtained from an upcoming joint mission with India, to the U.S. and other international partners, he added.
The United States and China have become intensifying rivals in space and are courting partner countries and leaning on private companies for their moon exploration, space station and satellite programmes.
"It's hard to imagine the U.S. would deliberately discard its advantage of having partners with space capabilities above a certain level ... which is one of America's biggest assets in the wake of its rivalry against China," said Kota Umeda, Research Fellow at the Institute of Geoeconomics in Tokyo.
"Even if the U.S. were to scale back the Artemis programme, they would likely work together with Japan and Europe to find a solution that allows all parties to save face."
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
NASA captures crash site of Japanese ‘Resilience' lunar lander on the Moon
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has taken a clear image showing the crash site of Japan's Resilience moon lander, built by Tokyo-based company ispace. The lander tried to touch down on June 5, in the Mare Frigoris region of the Moon but lost contact during descent. The image captured by NASA shows a dark spot with a light ring around it, likely caused by the hard impact and moon dust due to the disturbance by the Japanese lander. This is ispace's second failed attempt to land on the Moon. The Resilience spacecraft was trying to land safely in Mare Frigoris, an area of the Moon that has been formed by ancient lava flows. But soon after starting its landing, ispace lost contact with the lander. Later, it was confirmed that the lander had crashed to the surface of the Moon. The image captured by NASA's LRO shows a dark spot (called regolith) where the spacecraft hit the Moon and disturbed its surface. The light ring around the crash site likely came from small particles spread out by the impact. Scientist Mark Robinson confirmed that the crash happened about 2.4 kilometres away from the planned landing spot. A small micro-rover named Tenacious, made by ispace's European team, was also lost in the crash. It also carried a small piece of artwork called 'Moonhouse' created by Swedish artist Mikael Genberg. The artwork was a tiny red-and-white model of a Swedish-style house, meant to represent human creativity and the idea of living on the Moon. This artwork was part of a symbolic mission that blended space exploration with art. Sadly, the rover crashed during its mission, and Moonhouse now lies amidst the wreckage. This was ispace's second failed Moon mission. Its first lander also crashed in April 2023. Despite these failures, ispace is still one of the few private companies working to explore the Moon. The crash shows how hard space travel is, especially on the Moon, where everything must work perfectly. While the crash is a setback, NASA's images of the site provide useful data to ispace to help understand what went wrong with its lunar lander. As both private companies and national space agencies plan more Moon missions, such information could be potentially important for learning, improving, and being prepared for future landings on the lunar surface.
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why Axiom-4 mission keeps getting delayed: Timeline of setbacks, new launch date
US space agency NASA recently announced the delay of the Axiom Mission 4 (or Ax-4) again due to operational concerns. Initially scheduled to launch on June 22, NASA opted to delay the mission yet again. The mission's SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, and Dragon spacecraft, are still on their assigned launchpad, Launch Complex 39A, at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. NASA still hopes to have a new launch date in the next few days. The crew of Commander Peggy Whitson, Pilot Shubhanshu Shukla, and Mission Specialists Sławosz Uznański-Wiśniewski and Tibor Kamu, are set to remain in quarantine in Florida, in case a launch date is finalised. The mission is slated to be India, Hungary, and Poland's first government-sponsored flight in 40 years, and the three nations' second human spaceflight mission in history. The crew is expected to spend up to 14 days docked to the International Space Station (ISS) and carry out various scientific experiments. For India and Shubanshu Shukla, this mission would be the first time in 40 years that an Indian has been to space (after Rakesh Sharma's nearly eight-day voyage aboard a Russian Soyuz in 1984). It would also make him the first Indian to step foot in the ISS, and the first member of the Gaganyaan team to go to space. Here is a look at the delays that have stalled the mission launch and reasons why. The mission was scheduled to launch on May 29, but was delayed to June 8 due to 'observations in an electrical harness in the Crew Dragon Module' (as per ISRO) The Falcon 9 rocket was underprepared for launch, and was subsequently delayed to the next day. Due to unfavourable weather, the launch was delayed by a day again. An oxygen leak in the engine was detected, alongside an issue in one of the engine actuators. ISRO anticipated a swift resolution to the issue. The launch was once again delayed by a day. While on-ground readings were favourable, NASA announced work with the Russian Space Agency. They announced they were evaluating a 'new pressure signature', giving indications of a potential leak in the back section of the ISS Zvezda, one of Russia's modules in the ISS. A further delay in launch was also announced. Following discussions involving teams from ISRO, Poland, Hungary, consultations between Axiom Space, NASA, and SpaceX, and evaluations of factors such as weather and crew health, June 22 was announced as launch day. Two days before the launch date, NASA announced a further delay. 'The space agency needs additional time to continue evaluating International Space Station operations after recent repair work in the aft (back) most segment of the orbital laboratory's Zvezda service module.' NASA said in a press release dated June 19. However, NASA hopes to finalise a new launch date in the coming days. (This article has been curated by Purv Ashar, who is an intern with The Indian Express)
