The NASA-SpaceX Partnership Saved NASA Hundreds of Millions

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by DooKey, Nov 18, 2017.

  1. DooKey

    DooKey [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,102
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    According to a research paper published by NASA's Edgar Zapata, the space agency has actually saved a considerable amount of money and resources by choosing to invest in SpaceX. A commercial partnership is now the best option for space exploration. However, I know some of you (I'm one) out there say Musk is a subsidy baby, but this time we are actually getting something out of subsidizing SpaceX. Check out the reason in the video below.

    Watch the video here.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
    psyclist likes this.
  2. DukenukemX

    DukenukemX [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,396
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Americans subsidize a lot of things. The question is, what don't we subsidize?
     
  3. ChefJeff789

    ChefJeff789 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    When it comes to space, things almost have to be subsidized (though for orbital missions/satellite launches, that is not the case). No company could justify spending billions of its own dollars on a mission to Mars to it's board of directors. However, I think the technological - and potential societal - advancements made during such endeavors are totally worth it. It's one of the only fields where I don't mind the government spending large sums on literal moonshots. Now, when you use my tax dollars to pay for everyone else's electric car that I can't afford, than I have a problem...
     
    almalino, Domingow, noko and 3 others like this.
  4. DeathFromBelow

    DeathFromBelow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,251
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    How is subsidizing SpaceX any worse than subsidizing Lockheed Martin Space Systems and Boeing?
     
    Talyrius, The Lamb, almalino and 11 others like this.
  5. jedijeb13

    jedijeb13 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    302
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    At least with SpaceX we are getting more for the money than with LM/Boeing so the subsidy is much easier to justify. The first voyages from Europe to the Americas were government subsidized, but later on businesses found they could make money from the same trips and began to fund the exploration, then fully commercial trips, and in the end private citizens were paying for passage on their own. Let's hope the same will hold true for space :)
     
    DooKey likes this.
  6. EODetroit

    EODetroit [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,485
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Subsidy Baby, what a stupid term, used by stupid people. A government notices that the free market isn't working towards a goal it wishes it would work towards, and morons would have it do nothing? And magically, the free market will provide that product or service? Or, maybe it could encourage development towards that goal. And then you people insult those who take advantage of it? Idiotic.
     
    Talyrius, Powerage, PaulP and 2 others like this.
  7. stephen2002

    stephen2002 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    141
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Instead of subsidizing rockets to blow up our "enemies" that we then subsidize to rebuild I would love to subsidize a Mars colony instead.
     
    jtm55 likes this.
  8. There is one thing I never understood about the design:

    They are really close to the limit on fuel. In fact they have run out of fuel for landings before. So why aren't they using a drogue chute to slow that puppy down to reduce the need for rocket fuel slowing the decent.
     
  9. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,626
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    The chute itself has a weight to it, requiring more fuel and a bigger rocket, requiring more fuel requiring a bigger rocket, requiring more fuel...

    Every single pound matters in rockets.
     
  10. This I'm well aware of. (I took aero in college. ;-) ) But you do know the SRBs on the shuttles have chutes right?
     
  11. ecuador

    ecuador Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    205
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Eh, you took "aero" in college and they have a team of rocket scientists working on the problem, who have successfully developed the most cost-effective launch vehicle, no offence, but what are the chances you might have a clue compared to them? :)
    Parachutes have several other drawbacks apart from the mentioned added weight:
    - They add an unknown variable in the landing sequence - you don't control how parachutes fall.
    - The required explosive release system adds complexity and cost.
    - They are expensive to reuse, testing them and folding them back in is not an easy process for any type of parachute.
    - Parachutes are mostly subsonic, you'd need to slow down anyway to avoid using exotic supersonic (i.e. very expensive) parachutes.
    I think most important is the fact that for Falcon missions, most of the burn after separation is to kill its forward velocity in order to return to the landing pad. A parachute would not help that (not at that altitude and speed), so you'd still need most of the existing system, and then why add a parachute?
    The SRBs where built on a cost plus contract, cost was not even a consideration, and they didn't need them to return to a specific landing pad, they could just fall wherever the parachutes take them. So it was a good solution for them.

    Oh, and back on topic, SpaceX has never got a "subsidy" that I am aware of. They get awarded contracts for launches that NASA/Air Force needs, but they actually get paid LESS than ULA for each launch! Yeah, even though they have a proven track record, ULA who developed most of their tech with unbelievably expensive cost plus contracts, still gets paid more for each launch.
     
    Talyrius, PaulP, EODetroit and 4 others like this.
  12. ChefJeff789

    ChefJeff789 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Chutes are almost impossible to direct, and can get grabbed by gusts very easily. When aiming for such a tiny target from near-orbit, the random trajectory changes from a chute make it a poor choice. You can eject the chute at a high altitude, but again the problem is that it may have already thrown the rocket far enough off course that it can't reach the pad (for reference, I'm an aerospace engineer working in the industry). Like others have noted, every pound matters. You don't want to carry extra fuel - ideally the rocket will run out the instant it's fused to the pad (the Falcon flash-welds its feet to the barge pad, so it doesn't tip over).
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
  13. CombatChrisNC

    CombatChrisNC [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,131
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    The rest of the post makes sense and all, but THAT little tid-bit blew my mind.
     
  14. That makes a lot more sense.

    I remembered most of the fuel used during a decent stage was used to slow the approach as it got close to ground. I thought it would make a reasonable approach to use a drogue for a couple seconds during that stage to save that fuel. The 100 + or so pounds of that chute plus ascent fuel would surely weigh less than the braking fuel without. But now that you pointed out the issues I understand.

    To the previous poster ecquador: I never claimed I was smarter then space x engineers. If I was smarter I wouldn't be asking now would I? Now take the rocket out of your exhaust port. ;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2017
  15. Uncle

    Uncle 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,194
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Did you notice the flock of Geese flying backwards. Now play the video forward from the end. LOL Just Kdg.
     
  16. 0neTwo

    0neTwo Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    347
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Its 100% incorrect. The rocket does no such thing, at all. Men used to board the ship after it has landed to weld the feet down. Now the "roomba" robot comes out and slides under the rocket to secure it.
     
  17. daglesj

    daglesj [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,101
    Joined:
    May 7, 2005

    Yeah parachutes can be as dangerous as...capes!
     
  18. *Whack* NO CAPES!
     
    otherweeb and daglesj like this.
  19. kirbyrj

    kirbyrj [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    24,451
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    <Edit>...I was ranting about EODetroits view of the government and decided it wasn't worth it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
    c_porter likes this.
  20. DeathFromBelow

    DeathFromBelow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,251
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Hey, even Thomas Jefferson had no problem using government money to aquire and explore the Louisiana territory.
     
  21. Mohonri

    Mohonri [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,735
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    ecuador hit most of the good points, but a couple more things are worth pointing out:
    1) The landing burn doesn't use that much fuel, IIRC. It only uses a single engine. The boostback and re-entry burns each use three engines and use a lot more fuel than the terminal burn. Those two also occur at much, much higher altitudes, where parachutes would be less effective anywhere.
    2) The cost of the fuel isn't all that much, relatively speaking. I seem to remember Elon Musk stating that the fuel costs for the first stage are something like $250k per launch. To allow for landing, they need an extra 30% of fuel, compared to a disposable first stage. So let's say the extra fuel costs $80,000. A parachute system for a 25-ton empty first stage could very easily cost that much or more, and would definitely be non-reusable--you'd have to cut the parachutes after slowing down in order to land in the intended location.
     
    PaulP likes this.
  22. workshop35

    workshop35 Gawd

    Messages:
    575
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Pretty sure the reason they get paid less is because they are far less reliable than ULA is for these launches. When's the last time an Atlas rocket blew up on the pad or on launch? You pay for 100% launch success. Too much probably though, but at least you'll know it will work.
     
  23. LMT MFA

    LMT MFA Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    237
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Every time an Elon Musk company gets brought up, subsidies come up. No one ever mentions that the companies he goes up against are subsidized to a higher degree.

    No one ever mentions that Tesla paid back a loan with interest that other big car companies (who got a lot more, mind you), forfeited on.

    Without Tesla, other car companies wouldn't be throwing their weight behind electric, or at least gas-alternatives, there would be zero progress on this front. Self-driving cars would still be a far-fetched future thing, instead of now being right around the corner. Google was working on it longer, but Tesla showed the first real steps and now you see how other car manufacturers have scrambled and are getting with the program.
    Without SpaceX, we'd all still be cradling a broken dream from back when we were kids, about the space exploration we thought would by now be reality. Instead it's now again an exciting part of our near future. Most of us are now likely to see boots on Mars and again on the Moon within our lifetime, and our kids might even go there.
    That solar company is already making an impact in small communities, and I believe helping in getting essential infrastructure back online in hurricane devastated areas.
    Who knows what the Boring company and OpenAI are going to bring to the table, but their plans look cool.

    If this stuff needs subsidies, that is money well spent. Tesla and SpaceX, by competition alone, have already brought "the future" forward by decades, that's already done, even if they'd quit today, the tech and plans from other companies is already well underway.

    You wanna point fingers at subsidies? Point them at United Launch Alliance, see how much funding they're sucking up yearly. Point them at the car companies that default on loans paid from tax-payers funds and get away with it.

    It's like people don't want some real honest to God progress.
     
    Talyrius, EODetroit, hexamon and 3 others like this.
  24. LMT MFA

    LMT MFA Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    237
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Pretty sure they get paid more because they're Lockheed Martin and Boeing and have their fists so far up the government's ass they made it just about impossible to go up against them so they could pretty much dictate how much money they'd get. Things that are nicely under investigation by now IIRC.
     
  25. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,117
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    But but but... Reality can't stand a change against the Elon Musk blind hate of some, that and shorter's have to do their job spreading FUD.
     
    Talyrius and hexamon like this.
  26. PaulP

    PaulP Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    SpaceX has received no subsidies from the government. They bid on a contract to provide cargo launch services to the International Space Station, and they are delivering on that contact; at a lower cost than any other provider, I might add. They also bid on the contract to provide human launches to the ISS, and won a piece of it. But they told NASA that they couldn't do it on the schedule NASA wanted it. The other providers said the same thing. So NASA offered to throw in some development funds to help speed things up. SpaceX got less than the others but will probably be the first one to actually deliver people to the ISS. So no subsidies here, just payment for services rendered.