3 ms·

Too bad they don't mention the competition that is also using 3D printing, and is in fact quite far ahead of them. Rocket Lab has been flying 3D-printed engines

by roca 7y ago

Too bad they don't mention the competition that is also using 3D printing, and is in fact quite far ahead of them. Rocket Lab has been flying 3D-printed engines for years. I understand why a regular PR piece wouldn't mention the competition, but this is IEEE Spectrum which is supposed to be better than that.

jkilpatr 7y ago
> is in fact quite far ahead of them This is like saying that AWS doesn't matter because people have been hosting servers for decades. It's technically correct but misses the entire point. SpaceX and RocketLab do print parts, but they still need assembly lines with hard to source machines and skilled labor. RocketLab is working on reusability not because of cost savings but because they are assembly line constrained. https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-announces-reusability-plans-for-electron-rocket/ https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-announc... > we’re now establishing the reusability program to further increase launch frequency,” says Mr. Beck. That's a jaw-dropping statement, it's easier and faster to develop reusability as a way to get more cores than to build a new assembly line. Relativity is printing out entire rockets, only stacking required. New assembly line is entirely contained in a new printer, constrained on upper stages? Just retask a printer no multi-year long lead time to build up a new set of traditional tools. Don't need any more rockets right now? Print planes instead. The list of advantages goes on. I'll suggest this interview with Relativity space. https://www.wemartians.com/episode062/ https://www.wemartians.com/episode062/ You may also be interested in this one about another company looking to print solar panel arrays on orbit. https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/131 https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/131
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- disordinary 7y ago
  Rocket lab though uses less metal and has carbon fibre chassis, fuel tanks, etc. They 3d print their engines which is the main metal part of the ship. The constraint may be in autoclaves as carbon fibre is a more intensive product to make than just 3d printing or bending metal.
- roca 7y ago
  Those are good points. It's unfortunate that an article supposedly for a technical audience didn't make any of them. The "related work" section is a longstanding tradition.
salimmadjd 7y ago
I’m guessing that’s what you mean by “PR piece” ? About the Author Bryce Salmi is the lead avionics hardware engineer for the Los Angeles aerospace startup Relativity Space.
- roca 7y ago
  It is possible to work for a company and still describe clearly and fairly the differences between that company's approach and their competitors --- i.e., do better than a purely self-aggrandizing press release. I assume Salmi probably could, and it's just that the IEEE Spectrum editors didn't ask him to, which is disappointing.
  - cbanek 7y ago
    He definitely could have - he worked at SpaceX as well. But saying things about what other companies are doing is a big no-no in the launch industry, and I doubt they would give permission. It's the kind of thing that can get you put in jail due to ITAR.
Faark 7y ago
In contrast, here [0] is ULA doing it the more traditional way for their prototype. Don't think it can be compared 1to1, since small sat launcher play in a different league. But it certainly highlights the massive rooms involved. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8QkORA3HA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8QkORA3HA

by roca 7y ago

jkilpatr 7y ago

> is in fact quite far ahead of them This is like saying that AWS doesn't matter because people have been hosting servers for decades. It's technically correct but misses the entire point. SpaceX and RocketLab do print parts, but they still need assembly lines with hard to source machines and skilled labor. RocketLab is working on reusability not because of cost savings but because they are assembly line constrained. https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-announces-reusability-plans-for-electron-rocket/ https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/rocket-lab-announc... > we’re now establishing the reusability program to further increase launch frequency,” says Mr. Beck. That's a jaw-dropping statement, it's easier and faster to develop reusability as a way to get more cores than to build a new assembly line. Relativity is printing out entire rockets, only stacking required. New assembly line is entirely contained in a new printer, constrained on upper stages? Just retask a printer no multi-year long lead time to build up a new set of traditional tools. Don't need any more rockets right now? Print planes instead. The list of advantages goes on. I'll suggest this interview with Relativity space. https://www.wemartians.com/episode062/ https://www.wemartians.com/episode062/ You may also be interested in this one about another company looking to print solar panel arrays on orbit. https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/131 https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/131

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
disordinary 7y ago
Rocket lab though uses less metal and has carbon fibre chassis, fuel tanks, etc. They 3d print their engines which is the main metal part of the ship. The constraint may be in autoclaves as carbon fibre is a more intensive product to make than just 3d printing or bending metal.
roca 7y ago
Those are good points. It's unfortunate that an article supposedly for a technical audience didn't make any of them. The "related work" section is a longstanding tradition.

salimmadjd 7y ago

I’m guessing that’s what you mean by “PR piece” ? About the Author Bryce Salmi is the lead avionics hardware engineer for the Los Angeles aerospace startup Relativity Space.

roca 7y ago
It is possible to work for a company and still describe clearly and fairly the differences between that company's approach and their competitors --- i.e., do better than a purely self-aggrandizing press release. I assume Salmi probably could, and it's just that the IEEE Spectrum editors didn't ask him to, which is disappointing.
- cbanek 7y ago
  He definitely could have - he worked at SpaceX as well. But saying things about what other companies are doing is a big no-no in the launch industry, and I doubt they would give permission. It's the kind of thing that can get you put in jail due to ITAR.

Faark 7y ago

In contrast, here [0] is ULA doing it the more traditional way for their prototype. Don't think it can be compared 1to1, since small sat launcher play in a different league. But it certainly highlights the massive rooms involved. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8QkORA3HA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8QkORA3HA