XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.economics

Victor Rameau
Commercial Pilot. Travelled to 23 countries so far (1999–present)Fri

Why doesn't SpaceX design their rockets to open a parachute during
landing? Why don't they just design a metal shape, like a flower, in the
middle of it?

You mean like the retired Space Shuttle boosters?

Sounded like such a good, simple idea. Parachute back down, refurbish &
reuse. Well, actually…

-Has to come down in the ocean for not-so-soft landing.

-Ocean water is corrosive. Especially to electronics, heated metal and
O-rings.

-Boats needed to tow it back.

-Loaded on to a train to send it to the factory in Utah (2000 miles away
from the launch center) for cleaning, repairing, refurbishment for re-use.

Ditto for the parachutes. Then ship it 2000 miles back to the space
center. The loss rate (“too dinged/melted/waterlogged/corroded to fly again”) was absurdly high.

To summarize: it was more expensive and time-consuming than just
building a new one. NASA did it because it signed contracts, backed up
with deep taxpayer bucks. Efficiency or profitability were never the
highest priorities.

In comparison, Space X (and other private space businesses) are
profit-driven, as you may have heard. They are VERY concerned about the
bottom dollar. Their current method boils down to “land it at the same
spot it took off from using less fuel than a large parachute weighs, inspect/repair on site, refuel to go again within days. TRUE reusability
means delivering at 1/10th the cost and still making a profit!”
Everything the Space Shuttle had promised, yet failed spectacularly to
deliver.

Cheaper, faster, better in every metric.

108.2K viewsView 1,813 upvotesView 7 shares
56 comments from
Paul Dwyer
and more

Paul Dwyer
· Sat
On the face of it, reusable rockets make so much sense you’d wonder why
they didn’t always do it. It took 2 things. First, advances in computing power to make control systems to fine-control a semi autonomous landing. Second, the will to change the economics and efficiency of space flight.
It feels like the right thing at the right time.

Gary McInturff
· Sat
As an engineer one of my pet peeves is folks who come along much after something has been invented and then disparage whatever that thing is.
“That was stupid why didn’t they just do it this way….” things get designed the way they did is primarily because of what was
technologically available at the time. Sure cost is always a factor but
more often it’s not having the tools yesterday that are available at the
time the nay sayers are complaining that the original was “dumb”. It’s analogous to complaining that the inventor of the abacus should have
just invented a electronic calculator. Generally speaking engineers do
cutting edge things with cutting edge technology available at the time.
Time very quickly outpaces bleeding edge technology but 20/20 hindsight apparently moves forward in the time stream seamlessly

Profile photo for T Michael Lutas
T Michael Lutas
· 20h ago
The problem with NASA isn’t their technology. It’s their budget cycle
and their management. Had they gone through the same process that SpaceX
did in the 2000’s in the 1970–1990 period, they’d have come up with better rockets that were reusable whether or not they also developed the
Space Shuttle. At some point the now reusable rockets would have
eclipsed the Shuttle and NASA would have freed up budget by putting the
Shuttle to bed but have had an immediately improved experience in terms
of turnaround speed, cost per lb launched, and ability to launch bigger
stuff.

They didn’t. They couldn’t do it not because they were dumb but because every time something blew up with a NASA label it was a big negative for
next year’s budget. If you’ve got a way to fix that, I’d love to hear it.

By contrast, look at the Falcon launch records:
List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters - Wikipedia

I quickly counted 15 failures where they tried to reuse and it failed.
That did not have any negative effect on the company because the
development part of the mission came after the paid part was done
successfully. Management very clearly said that a lot of stuff was going
to crash and burn and that it was all good. That worked and it’s a
difference that is very little remarked on.

They succeeded where NASA failed and it wasn’t because their engineers
were smarter.

Thor Johnson
· Mon
I just view Saturn and the STS (shuttle) as mark 1 -
When you’re not sure it can be done, you build an expensive prototype to prove that it can be done.

If you want to build a business… now you build it to take the costs down
as much as possible.

Problem is… since NASA was an agency instead of a business, to get
funding, they committed to various bribes (parachute district says that
you gotta use their parachutes), and those won’t ever go away…

available switch technology. it made keyboard input slow, difficult and inaccurate. But that was poor selection of currently available
technology rather than looking backwards in time to condemn what was the
best technology of its time.
Profile photo for Jeff B. Kurland
Jeff B. Kurland
· Sun
Sometimes you do wonder why it took so long to come up with something
that now seems so obvious. The “upside down” ketchup bottle comes to mind.

Gary McInturff
· Sun
i completely agree. Wish i had a better example but why did it take so
long to put wheels on luggage? Pretty obvious invention once you see one.

Les Mikesell
· Sun
USB connectors that can go in upside down…

Peter D. Tietjen
· Sat
NASA had no incentive to consider costs. The taxpayers would always be
on the hook no matter what it cost. SpaceX answers to its shareholders
and the marketplace!


Bryan Robertson
· Sun
Not exactly, as NASA budget was dependent on Congress and that was tied
to the mood of the public - NASA had to jump through hoops to get
anything done as administrations changed.


Wayne Driscoll
· Sun
Ah yes, the budget was dependent upon Congress, but most in Congress
cared more about their donors than the taxpayers. Take the SRB’s for
example. NASA preferred a Florida based contractor who had the ability
to build a one piece booster and float it to Merritt Island on barges.
The Utah delegation…
(more)

Ronald Pottol
· Sun
My dad was at UTC, the other bidder, who would have transported them by
barg on the intercostal waterway, no joints, so no o-rings. The belief
was that it was a political choice that was going to end in disaster.


Jay Levine
· Sun
I will just remind you that SpaceX is not a publicly traded company. It
is privately held, and Elon Musk is the majority shareholder.

SpaceX answers to Musk only.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)