Slashdot Mirror
Launching Frequently Key To NASA Success
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."
I mean, your'r a silicon valley startup, you launch a POS software that crashes, you redo it, no blood no foul; the only problem is some pissed off customers, but hey - it's software, we expect it to not work on ver1.0 (or ver10,0 if your are MS) Just like putting 100,000 gallons of toxic explosive up into the air - the consequences of failure due to rapid product cycle are just the same.
each shuttle was supposed to be able to be readied for launch in 2 weeks, and there were going to be 10+ launches a year
they can't even roll it from the VAB to the pad in 2 weeks it turns out
Jeebus, at least RTFS, please. It's saying that launching *more frequently* than they do now *would make* NASA a success. It does not say that NASA is currently a success.
*Also*, on an *unrelated* note, I *like* asterisks.
Cruise ships depart US ports almost daily, airliners depart from where in the US every second, rail cars by the thousands are in motion day in and day out - and nobody cares. It's all routine. If space travel and access is all routine, then that's usually considered a sign of maturity.
You state that as if not being able to make progress without getting people excited was a fact, as opposed to the opinion it actually is. Research ships leave US ports routinely, and there are probably a thousand or more science teams in the field in the US at any given time. (Well, maybe not this week with the holidays and all.) All of this happens almost completely without public notice, and the lack of such notice impedes progress not at all. (And that doesn't even touch on the [probably] tens of thousands of lab bench bound research projects or researchers toiling away in libraries and archives.)
Which is a long winded way of saying that before you propose expensive stunts to draw public interest, first justify your claim that without interest progress won't occur.
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....
Have you ever seen how much fuel is required for an Abrams Tank? I think if we are worried about energy expenditure we should scale back our military operations before scientific endeavors.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Can we afford such massive expenditures of energy on such a frequent basis?
Can't we? Don't we expend several orders of magnitude more energy every day "launching" millions of cars onto the roads of America? Compared to that, launching one rocket a week is trivial...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
You can't get this kind of funding through just "public interest." Funding for space travel requires the prospect of a profitable return. That is how cruise ship travel matured, this is how air travel matured, and it will be how space travel matures if it ever does.
Where're you going to get coal and oil in space?
If I had to guess I'd say Skylon will probably fail. Your right, its the only viable approach in the long run, and they may well be able to produce an operational vehicle. The trick will be to make an operational vehicle that is cheap, safe, and reliable. I think basically its one of those "pick 2 of the these three" situations.
The fundamental problem with ALL rockets is you're operating at the very most hairy edge of what is possible. Everything has to be feather light, withstand huge aerodynamic stresses, monster vibration, large temperature variations and heat flux. Its a real nightmare. Even simple stuff is hard. All we worked on were avionics packages. Way simpler than structure or power. Still, try to make a piece of electronics that has to be able to work with 100% certainty after sitting on a pad for weeks, survive 180db plus vibration at all modes, temperatures from -20C to 200C. Oh, and weigh next to nothing of course. One tiny box with the simplest function, millions of dollars to develop and maybe $250k a copy. You could build the same thing for $100 if all it had to do was work in a shirtsleeve environment.
Power systems? OMG. An SSME is the size of a VW bus and has the power output of California. Its insane.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson