3 ms·

I don't doubt NASA's will or the connection between this and SpaceX. What I do doubt is that any of the conventional big aerospace contractors would ever have a

by api 9y ago

I don't doubt NASA's will or the connection between this and SpaceX. What I do doubt is that any of the conventional big aerospace contractors would ever have attempted anything like landing F9 first stages. They'd do a paper analysis, conclude it's either impossible or (by some twisted logic) not economical, and double down on disposable rockets. I mean... they are still arguing that reusability is not economically viable. I get the sense that they didn't think it was going to work and now they're in shock and it's slowly sinking in just how far behind they are.

colechristensen 9y ago
This might just be lacking knowledge of how the aerospace industry works. NASA wanted reusable commercial rockets, it got what it wanted. They create contracts to design things, contracts to develop demonstrators, contracts to fly blocks of missions. It's not very likely for any aerospace contractor to turn down work because it's structured in a way that avoids risks. The NASA contract isn't for only the final results, they pay the R&D costs. The first round might be a competition to design a reusable launch system. You get paid for designing, it's NASA's ambition, you're just implementing it (and trying to implement it better than the other guy). ULA might not have ever taken the initiative itself, but if NASA wants to pay them to design a flying pig, they'll be happy to do it. This is how government programs work contracting to the public sector, the motivation for cheaper reusable launches has existed for a very long time. Reusability was a primary design motivation that led to the space shuttle. Lessons learned pointed in a different direction than a space plane for the next iterations and difficulties developing things in house led to the commercial motivation.

3 ms·

I don't doubt NASA's will or the connection between this and SpaceX. What I do doubt is that any of the conventional big aerospace contractors would ever have a

by api 9y ago

colechristensen 9y ago
This might just be lacking knowledge of how the aerospace industry works. NASA wanted reusable commercial rockets, it got what it wanted. They create contracts to design things, contracts to develop demonstrators, contracts to fly blocks of missions. It's not very likely for any aerospace contractor to turn down work because it's structured in a way that avoids risks. The NASA contract isn't for only the final results, they pay the R&D costs. The first round might be a competition to design a reusable launch system. You get paid for designing, it's NASA's ambition, you're just implementing it (and trying to implement it better than the other guy). ULA might not have ever taken the initiative itself, but if NASA wants to pay them to design a flying pig, they'll be happy to do it. This is how government programs work contracting to the public sector, the motivation for cheaper reusable launches has existed for a very long time. Reusability was a primary design motivation that led to the space shuttle. Lessons learned pointed in a different direction than a space plane for the next iterations and difficulties developing things in house led to the commercial motivation.