|
|
|
|
|
by NortySpock
2458 days ago
|
|
Not your parent commenter, but SpaceXs innovations start with pulling most design and fabrication in-house, rather than NASA relying on (multiple levels of) defense contractors redesigning ICBMs. ICBMs are single-use only and cost is no object when you're fighting WW3. Similarly, cost was no object for launching military spy satellites, so there was no reason to reduce the launch cost of a $1B recon satellite. Here, specifically, with regard to steel rockets? SpaceX stopped optimizing for weight and used thick steel. SpaceX optimized for cost and practicality. Brute force rocket engineering, rather than "the best performance numbers on paper" which is where a lot of rocket designs seemed to get lost in the weeds of some component that ends up being a massive maintenance mess but gives you "the best performance". The steel tanks that collapsed in the sixtys? They were so thin they needed pressurization at all times or they would collapse. SpaceX realized that was a design and maintenance risk, and just built thick tanks. |
|