5 ms·
The article hints that this design may be less complex. > The engine is extremely low cost to produce, as it is completely additively manufactured (metallic 3D
by isaiahg 5y ago
The article hints that this design may be less complex.
> The engine is extremely low cost to produce, as it is completely additively manufactured (metallic 3D printing) in only two pieces.
- baybal2 5y ago3D printing is likely not to do a single thing about the cost.
- Valgrim 5y agoWhy? Even if a additive manufacturing is slower than traditional manufacturing, 3d printers can be mass-produced (unlike assembly lines and skilled engineers).
- kabdib 5y agoI assume that all of the support gear (turbopumps, etc.) are not 3D printed. I'd be super impressed if the fuel and oxidizer injectors were printed. Anyway, there's a bunch of stuff they're not including in this statement; it's like "we can print your car's engine block" but glosses over the additional whirly-sparky stuff that turns a lump of metal -- even if it is in the right shape -- into a functional engine.
- NikolaeVarius 5y agowut. 3D printing allows extremely complex geometries that doesn't require a 30 year experience machinist to manufacture. The F9 and Electron both aggressively drove down costs using 3D printing
- switchbak 5y agoAnd there are designs that are simply impossible to build with traditional machining. This is most certainly a valuable technology.
- baybal2 5y ago3D printing is expensive
- NikolaeVarius 5y agoA master machinist is also expensive and probably doesn't like working 24/7 Also 3D printing has the advantage of not throwing out 75%+ of the metal stock
- baybal2 5y agoEven without a machinist, 3D printing is still very expensive, which makes it even worse comparatively.
- wolfram74 5y agoI am with you on 3D printing being over hyped often. But keep in mind you are arguing that COST_3D-(COST_CONVENTIONAL+SALARY_MACHINIST) = SAVINGS is more than the literally unreproducible parts 3D printing can achieve. These are not comparable quantities.
- baybal2 5y agoYou don't need these unreproducible parts for a rocket
- yazaddaruvala 5y agoUmm, could you help educate us. How do you know/state this so confidently? The way I see it, there are roughly infinite previously non-constructible parts that by definition we as a society couldn't test. Now that we can construct these new parts, shouldn't we test them and then use them if they are better/cheaper?
- baybal2 5y agoBecause, if such parts were really needed, people would've gone to any length to make them for things like missiles. High performance heat exchangers for applications where every gram counts for example were hand made like a jewelry work at a huge expense. I spent 10 years working in electronics, and not only manufacturing.