Launching Frequently Key To NASA Success 145
teeks99 writes "Even NASA could benefit from the 'Launch Often' idea that is frequently referred to in the software development community. However, in NASA's case, the 'launch' is a bit more literal. Edward Lu, writing in the New York Times, points out that by lowering the consequences of launch failure, and making frequent launches available to engineers, NASA could open up a new wave of innovation in space exploration. If there were weekly launches of a rocket, there would be many opportunities for new ideas to be tried out in communications, remote sensing, orbital debris mitigation, robotic exploration, and even in developing technology for human spaceflight. Another benefit would be that the rockets would be well understood, which would improve reliability."
Re:But in the big picture (Score:3, Informative)
Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis? And for how long? Is this limitless or what? I mean, I love sci-fi too but unfortunately have become aware of the fact that resources are not limitless....
A lot of the costs of maintaining the launch system go by the day and hour anyway, not per launch.
Re:But in the big picture (Score:4, Informative)
How about the megatons of fuel used per launch? Where does that come from, btw? & is it limitless?
Pretty much. Its just hydrogen and oxygen. Viewed differently its just water and electricity. With the right plant you can make megatons of the stuff quite cheaply.
Re:A rocket launch is just like a software launch (Score:2, Informative)
The exhaust from APCP solid rocket motors contain mostly water, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and a metal oxide. The hydrogen chloride can easily dissociate into water and create corrosive hydrochloric acid, damaging launch equipment and biasing the pH of local water and rainfall.
I don't know were you come from, but were i come from, hydrochloric acid and acid rain are bad.
Re:Not impressed. (Score:3, Informative)
When are the engineers and scientists supposed to learn from all of this; on the weekend?
Root cause analysis takes months on complex systems. If you have to stop your launches due to an unknown issue then you do that.
Re:A rocket launch is just like a software launch (Score:3, Informative)
Or we could give NASA's current budget to Space-X.
Transistor was 1947 (Score:3, Informative)
You kids these days.
Re:But in the big picture (Score:5, Informative)
I recall reading that an Abrams Tank gets 1 mile/gallon and has a 60 gallon tank.
But then reading a bit into it, I'm wrong [globalsecurity.org]. (I'm probably thinking of a different tank.) The M1 Abrams gets 0.6 miles/gallon and has a fuel capacity of either 498 gallons or 505 gallons.
Re:But in the big picture (Score:3, Informative)
You probably meant kilotons here. Though even Saturn V didn't use as much as three kilotons of fuel per launch.
Seriously, the amount of fuel required for a rocket launch, even a very large rocket launch, isn't all that much. Remember that the USS Iowa carried 2.1 million gallons of fuel, which translates to about seven kilotons of fuel, no more than a month's supply.
Re:We are not rocket scientists, obviously. (Score:2, Informative)
You may not be a rocket scientist, but I am, so let me clarify a few things here.
You seem to be confusing ULA and NASA launch efforts here. The Atlas V and Delta IV EELVs are commercial designs. Titan is retired, never to be launched again, and the future (and ultimate feasibility) of Ares I or V remains uncertain. Also, under point 6, Atlas and Atlas-Centaur are the same thing. Atlas refers to the first stage booster and Centaur is the second stage.
Drastically increasing the launch schedule of EELVs would be a tall order, necessitating a great deal of infrastructure development. Where all the money for this, and all these extra payloads you'd like to launch, will come from I have no idea. Right now the gov't is up to its eyeballs in debt, and is rapidly increasing that debt bailing out automakers, banks, and lining congressional districts with cash for votes. I'd love you see the increase in launches just as much as you would (it'd keep me employed), but it's certainly not realistic.
But I have to take issue with the basic premise that seemingly underlies your post here, which is that NASA (or the gov't in general) needs to be the one designing, building, and launching these rockets. Why? Why limit the launch industry to one or two designs with the NASA-approved stamp on them? (Which may or may not be the best vehicles for putting things and/or people into orbit.) Why not promote competition and increase the demand for vehicles in the launch industry by getting NASA out of the launch business altogether. Make NASA a purchaser of rides, not a supplier. The launch industry can then build and fly the designs it wants and let a multitude of designs compete. My dream would be to see another few Space-Xs pop up in the next few years. Thankfully we're actually starting to see a little bit of what I want with the ISS resupply contracts to Space-X and Orbital. I would be even happier, though, if NASA were out of the launch business altogether.