I would assume the consumable nature of the drones is to add a decision element to the game. If the drones were not consumed they would become a "no brainer" and become essential rather than a choice.
If life followed that logic, everybody would exclusively still use sword fighting instead of guns.
Logically, cargo-scooping should be a viable skill in something small, agile and fast (although, considering even a Sidewinder is the size of a house and would dwarf the space shuttles we have now, it could be said we have yet to have a 'small' craft in the game). But when you get into the range of medium or, especially, large ships, it becomes nonsensical for them to be wasting fuel and fighting against all that inertia, just for the sake of tiny pieces of cargo. The space-going equivalent of a one-man submersible would be fine zipping around and collecting stuff, but can you imagine a massive nuclear-powered hunter-killer doing likewise? No. It's the same here, if you're comparing, say, a Hauler/Adder against a Type-9 or Anaconda. Imagine the Titanic trying to steer around a fleet of ice bergs... Exactly.
Reusable drones make sense because they're a
practical automated asset.
Anything less? Effectively forces people to treat
every type of ship essentially the same, except just keeping in mind they have the statistics shifted around. Massive transports
should have automated advantages, such as collection drones, because they need that to counter the massive problems of size and mass. Much smaller ships wouldn't, which means drones aren't cost-effective for them, because they could simply grab ahold of cargo in the same amount of time and free up the drone module for some extra cargo space.
Have larger 'drone hanger' modules hold drones of increasing numbers and complexity (drones able to use shields, point defences and countermeasures, for example, while also increasing their levels of evasion tactics). Increase those variables by way of class and rating: Eventually, buying one or more drones should then essentially be like buying a 'mini-Sidewinder'. Imagine the additional layer of diversity you could have by outfitting your internal miniature fleet of drones, individually, then assigning each a particular category and sorting the results into different 'firing groups' (which, in itself, is a further argument for giving us a specialised tabbed 'weapons management' screen).
Another optional mechanic would be to say that you need X numbers of drones to speed along cargo of a specific mass. Look at the fun comedy games of the '
Overlord' series: You have to steer your swarm of minions over to operate or destroy things. Certain pieces of equipment need a certain number of minions to lift or operate. Why not have drones be similar? Cost becomes both a prohibitive and cost-effective variable.
And, yes, if we eventually get 'combat drones', that would mean a Type-9 might essentially gain its own 'mini-CAP' of defensive reusable drones it could unleash if under attack. But really... In what possible way is that a
bad thing? It would force pirates to think creatively and always be aware they might not necessarily be picking on an easy target. It would also increase a need for more powerful scanners which could potentially tell if their target had hidden drone defences. All of that is a
good thing and very much in keeping with the competitive and Capitalist way in which this continuity is presented! Combat-related supply/demand.
Honestly who cares about reusable drones, I'd rather have cheap, disposable drones by the truck load, than a few, more expensive, reusable ones, that if they break you have to dock to resupply.
So, what's the problem of having the option of both?
You want disposable assets you're forced to restock on? You can have them for a cheaper price. Most people would see the advantage of reusable machines, however.
Perhaps, just perhaps, FD have looked at the idea of having permanent drones Vs disposable drones and decided that the latter is the better solution. Personally I couldn't care less but can see that disposable drones have a lot of potential benefits that would require a lot of time and effort to replicate with permanent drones and frankly I don't see any actual downsides outside of peoples' aversion to a disposable item.
The problem is that disposable drones don't make much practical sense. It'd be like if we had to buy new undercarriage every time we landed. Yeah, you
could, but what's the point?
Most people, including myself, also have issues with trying to understand what's literally meant to be happening, spaceship-wise. Your ship "consumes" them? Does that means it reclaims the material used to create them? If so, why not have an option
not to do that?
