5 ms·
NASA Moves Closer to Building a 3-D Printed Rocket Engine
- paulsutter 11y agoThis is bigger news for asteroid mining than it is for Mars (why return the ingredients to earth when you can 3D print end products at the source). But kudos to Elon for getting the world talking about Mars again.
- serge2k 11y agoKudos to our holy savior. Can we rename Christmas to Christmusk and change the date to the 21st?
- afshin 11y agoSpaceX has been 3-D printing injectors with a titanium printer for a few years. I wonder how much information is shared.
- krasin 11y agoSpaceX also prints its SuperDraco engines ([1]) using Inconel superalloy ([2]) powder, which is even harder to process with a mill than titanium. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDraco#Manufacturing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDraco#Manufacturing 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel
- burger_moon 11y agoI hadn't heard that iconel was worse to machine than titanium, but machining titanium was a much bigger pain in the ass. You have to be very careful about your metal chips when machining titanium because they can ignite.
- krasin 11y agoAccording to the machinability ratings [1], Inconel 700 is rated at 0.09 (less is harder) and Inconel 702 at 0.11, while most of the Titanium alloys are above 0.15. There's a single Titanium alloy family (MST) in the table that is just as hard to machine as Inconel 700. So, you're technically correct: generally, they are on the same scale. And your argument about ignitability is certainly true. 1. http://www.quakerchem.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/skill_builders/no10_machinability_ratings.pdf http://www.quakerchem.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/skill_build...
- nether 11y agoRocket Lab is 3D printing most of their engines: http://fortune.com/2015/04/17/rocket-lab-satellites-space/ http://fortune.com/2015/04/17/rocket-lab-satellites-space/
- gjmulhol 11y agoOne cool part about this is that once they prove that current engine designs can be replicated using additive manufacturing, then totally new engine designs, different from anything possible with traditional manufacturing techniques, can be developed. It would likely mean higher thrust per unit fuel and generally more efficient systems.
- sandworm101 11y agoHigher thrust per unit fuel isn't limited by manufacturing technique. Per-unit cost isn't really a limiting factor for rocket engine development. These things cost tens of millions of dollars and they push things worth perhaps a billion. Governments have been throwing billions, defence billions, at the technology for over a half-century. The physics of ISP is well-understood and current engines are near what is physically possible, regardless of who/what builds the engines. 3d printing could certainly make engines more affordable and/or lighter, but it isn't going to allow an engine to be any more fuel efficient. Anyone who builds an engine with significantly increased ISP using standard fuels (ie without going nuclear) will probably win a few nobel prizes. 3d printing is about improved manufacturing, not new physics.
- bcook 11y agoI really wish that we could replace the phrase "3-D printing" with "additive manufacturing" when referring to metals and/or serious, low-tolerance manufacturing. "3-D printing" should be used when referring to hobbyists making semi-useless, plastic trinkets. No disrespect to plastics or hobbyists, it's just that the phrase lost some dignity when it became a over-generalizing buzzword.
- bottled_poe 11y agoI wish people would stop referring to Toyota vehicles as cars. Only Ferrari make real cars.
- jacquesm 11y agoThere is a whole range of machines that can be classed as 3D printers, from a simple reprap like setup all the way to SLS and DMP printers. Yes, they're all 'additive', but additive manufacturing is a concept that is a lot wider than 3D printing. For instance metal vapor deposition is also additive manufacturing and definitely not 3D printing.
- jeffwass 11y agoOne nitpick - metal vapour deposition, when done in-situ through a moveable shadow mask, certainly is 3D printing. One can dynamically "draw" out structures having controlled variable-height profiles inside the vacuum chamber during the evaporation process by altering the position (and thus speed) of the moving shadow mask. This method is quite different from the "ordinary" metallic vapour deposition process you're referring to that uses a simple fixed-position mask, usually photoresist that is baked right onto the silicon wafer. Eg, here is my research paper from 8 yrs ago demonstrating nanoscale-level dynamic stencil deposition using a nanopore in a suspended silicon nitride membrane shadow mask. We controlled the mask's position using a piezo actuator inside the deposition chamber during the evaporation process to 3D print nanowires and other nanostructures with programmable height profiles. Eg, we created nanoramps, and nanowires with one or more "valleys" to simulate quantum wells or metallic grains. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/79/7/10.1063/1.2960573 http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/79/7/10.106... Arxiv link : http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.1848.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.1848.pdf
- maaku 11y agoHasn't SpaceX been doing this for a few years?
- nickff 11y agoYes, they have.[1] [1] http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/27/spacex-completes-qualification-testing-superdraco-thruster http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/27/spacex-completes-qual...
- Animats 11y agoThis makes sense for rocket engines, which are mostly rigid objects with a lot of internal plumbing. 3D printing is good at objects with complex internal voids. The rigid parts can be made up as one piece, rather than welding or bolting a large number of parts together. The surface finish of the plumbing usually isn't critical, so there's no need for finish machining. It's the right tool for the job. Here's Space-X's 3D printed engine.[1] Watch the video of the test firing. The engine is being throttled up and down, at higher and higher rates. Those guys like aggressive control strategies, as seen with the Falcon booster landing, and an engine which can keep up helps. [1] http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/spacexs-superdraco-engine/ http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-explor...
- sandworm101 11y agoSo which 'parts' are actually printed? I cannot believe that the turbopump blades could possibly be printed additively as they would lack proper crystal structure. Piping can be printed, but given the stresses at attachment points, I cannot see that printing pipes would save many man-hours. The turbopump casings could certainly be printed, but not in "one piece". Someone needs them open to insert the bearings and blades. So two pieces at best ... exactly as if they had been milled rather than built additively. So what's left? The combustion chamber and bell might do well. They have some internal voids/plumbing that probably suits such printing. But the stresses?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]