When N.A.S.A. build their spaceships, why do they pick functionality over form and not the other way around?

Question

Wouldn't a futuristic streamlined look draw more interest in the space program and maybe even lead to a nice budget infusion?

Answer 1

Because form may run against efficiency, and when getting a single pound in orbit costs $1500, you do try to make things functional.

Honestly, do you think that if NASA's hardware was more "artistic", the budgets would be increased? Would YOU personally donate money to NASA so that they can develop Star Trek uniforms?

When you consider the history of science fiction representation of space gear, the rockets in mags and movies were streamlined until, in 1966, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke--who knew what they were doing--came up with the depiction of the Discovery ship. And it was a shock. Evidently, in space streamlining is pointless as there is no air; but that lead to excess by all the other ones after, who made bumps appear on every possible surfaces to make it look "realistic" (or so they thought) without even having a purpose for those things that stick out. The next step was to make those non-streamlined bumpy crafts even actually fly in atmosphere, where it made no sense whatsoever anymore. So, what is futuristic then? The primitive streamlined Buck Rogers rockets, or the more recent bumpy crafts we see in movies?

Personally, I think that functionality has an aesthetic of its own. But being an aerospace engineer, I may be seen as being biased.

Answer 2

It's not a beauty contest.

Answer 3

There is the soda can problem.  The ratio of fuel to structure for a rocket is about the same as a soda can.  So the container for the fuel has to be nearly exactly strong enough to hold the fuel.  The engines have to be as light as possible.  And so on.  It's still $10,000 per pound or more to get to low Earth orbit.  The engineering constraints are very constraining.

That National AeroSpace Plane was pretty good looking until it was canceled.  But it was to be an air breathing craft before launching into space.  Aerodynamics for high speed can lead to very nice looking vehicles.

Answer 4

obviously you need form over function if you are going into an environment as hostile as space, but in my opinion the rockets ans shuttles we have look pretty bad-***

Answer 5

NASA doesn't build ships.  Subcontractors do.  NASA puts forth a laundry list:  I need a ship that weighs so much, can go this speed, can land on the moon, can carry 3 men, etc...  

And, three or four or five subcontractors give them plans & costs.  

NASA then decides (usually) on the cheapest one.  Imagine, sitting on top of a multi-stage *bomb*, built by the lowest bidder!  

Answer 6

they look exactly as they must to do what they need to do. that's how it works. it's called engineering. i agree: functionality is an aesthetic of its own. you should see my van some time. i carry cameras and telesscopes in it. it's really cool. :-)

i always thought the neatest looking spacecraft was teh apollo lm. if that's not futuristic enough, what is?

Answer 7

I'm afraid most folks here have never designed anything, so you may not understand the process. The design process requires - no, demands - thousands of tradeoffs from differing technical disciplines. Each engineer has perfectly good technical reasons for wanting the design to look a certain way. Style, entertainment value, or glossy budget proposal pamphlets are pretty low on the priority list when every ounce means a mile short on the landing zone and every thousandth of an inch of skin thickness means more or less safety margin in the lives of three men.

These tradeoffs usually get resolved in technical design reviews that may occur on a daily basis as the design evolves from a center line drawn on a blank sheet to a full CAD model, and then to hardware. Several engineers meet in a conference room to plan out the next design steps. The design reviews can get heated when conflicting interests - like crew safety and mission completion - want different configurations. I am sorry, but I can just imagine some stylist standing up in one of these reviews and saying something like:

"I know it will add 47 pounds and result in a re-entry fire hazard, but it would really look cool if we could add some tail fins to the re-entry capsule. What do you guys think?" or ...

"Hey, maybe we can add shoulder pads and antennae to the space suits. They'll only weigh five pounds for each suit, and they may restrict the crew member from opening the hatch, but they'll look great on our next budget proposal!"

Silence fills the conference room.  

Virtually everything that you see on a spacecraft is purely functional and is designed for the absolute minimum in weight and the absolute maximum in reliability. There are always a few minor exceptions in terms of personal crew preferences - Alan Shepard's golf club, pretty mission patches, etc. But those are exceptions and are few and small. They are humans, after all, and not robots. If the shape of an aircraft or spacecraft is visually appealing, I can assure you that it occurred by chance and not by intent. Stealth aircraft, for example, look the way they do because of the behavior of radar signals, not because they will intimidate the enemy or appeal to the crowds at airshows - although these may be additional fringe benefits that certainly were not considered during the design process.      

Answer 8

well, its obvious you would want a space craft to fuction and do all the task its supposed to do

a space craft that looks like star trek but has no useful function would have killed any budget for NASA

Answer 9

I think you are on to something.  It is time to make our spaceships look more like Hollywood spaceships.  The shuttle looks like a truck with wings. A truck covered with ceramic tiles.  Who came up with that silly design?  TILES?   The new space capsule looks a lot like the Apollo capsule.  BORING!!!  If NASA wants public support, it shoud have spaceships that can compete with the best designs from Star Trek.  Functionality be dam*ed.  A starfleet design couldn't kill more people than the shuttle.  It is time for more Buck Rogers and less Alan Shepard.  Who cares if the new s**y designs burned up in re-entry on a semi-regular basis, there are lots of applicants for Astronaut training.  More people would have a chance to go into space.  Personally I would like to go into orbit in a Klingon D7 battlecruiser.  That is one good spaceship design.  Ka-plah!!! Are you listening NASA?  

Answer 10

NASA relies on the U.S. government for its funding.  To justify that funding, it has to deliver the goods.  So function is priority #1.  (I know, NASA says that safety is Priority #1, but based on their track record, safety's probably a little lower on the list.)

If they spent government dollars on fashionable uniforms, or "cool"-looking spacecraft, the media would take them to task, and their funding might be cut.

Answer 11

No, the people who object to money being spent on space programs will certainly not be impressed by a Buck Rogers approach.  In fact, that would give more ammunition to their arguments that money spent on space is wasted.

As for spacecraft form, spacecraft design is a very demanding profession involving several engineering disciplines and providing little margin for error or frivolity.  The shape of a spacecraft is nearly always dictated in harsh terms by requirements of mass, fit to the launch vehicle, dynamic (steering) concerns, structural efficiency, thermal requirements, aerodynamics, and specific mission requirements (e.g., proximity to the sun).  It is difficult enought to design a spacecraft that meets all those criteria.  There is little room left for "cool."