4 ms·

“Published 11 May 22” — since then, is there any news of fire tests? I’m sure its cool they’ve been able to design and 3D print a complex structure - however,

“Published 11 May 22” — since then, is there any news of fire tests? I’m sure its cool they’ve been able to design and 3D print a complex structure - however, the company blog appears to only link to additive manufacturing companies: I couldn’t find a subsequent link where this engine has been (even) ground tested, demonstrating basic validation of the design in test / fire conditions: till that happens, this is just (imo) a cool looking untested, unvalidated design and therefore, untested, unvalidated algorithmic design.. None of the reports covering this even mention any testing, or any anticipated testing. Is it an art piece?

flaviut 4y ago
It does not work: https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 This is apparently a demonstration of their geometry software, not something that will ever be fired, since they are an "organic" modeling company, not a rocket company.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  So in a nutshell I can grab the toroidal aerospike model from KSP, print it 1 cm larger and I now have the world's largest 3D printed aerospike.
- moh_maya 4y ago
  That doesn’t make sense to me: why design it if it cannot / will not be tested to validate / demonstrate the value of their ‘algorithmicEngineering’? How can one make any functional claims of value without some functional testing? What am I missing?
  - ghostly_s 4y ago
    You're missing nothing, it's pure PR fluff.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      Perhaps. We don't know if they sold the design and whether it was tested. The design itself is very interesting - in particular the complex heat exchange structures. On it being optimal, or even more efficient, as long as it's cheaper to build than a conventional engine, it's game.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        we know the engine wasn't tested, and we do not yet have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the engine is unsold
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think all of that is basically out of scope. I don't think they are claiming it is a good design. The impressive point is their software can make a design at all. It seems like they want to sell it to people that will use it to try to make designs that are good
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        algorithmic design on its own, with no further qualifiers (like functionality) isn't impressive though, I don't think that's the pitch
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think this level of algorithmic design is impressive, and as far as I know, novel. I certainly haven't seen anything this complex. It is like a computer displaying "hello world". The output isn't particularly exciting, I could do better with an index card. However, the fact that the a computer could take a set of inputs and display something at all shows exciting promise. The same is true here. For a real engine design, you would have to work extensively on the inputs, boundaries, and goals. The impressive part is that this software can handle this complex of a parameter set at all.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Algorithmic design engineering is a fairly mature field that's been around for 20 plus years. Looking at their website, they are simply developing a tool for more integrated algorithms from the park level to system level. With this in mind, the the component integration of the model itself is extremely impressive and a proof of concept. It doesn't matter if it actually works or not, that's not really the point.
- _Adam 4y ago
  I'm skeptical there's any value being generated here then. Who are the customers? How do they know this fancy looking biological design is any good at all? It's fine not to actually test fire it, but in that case prove it with simulations. Demonstrate that it's superior to existing designs, or at the very least that it's functional.
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  What's amazing about the linked blob post is that the headline is "But Does It Work?" and the word "no" only appears once, in the phrase "there’s no looking back." The article asks really tough questions of itself, like "Have you tested it, does it work?" and then very carefully does not say yes or no. Why ask yourself those questions if you don't want to answer them? Imagine a politician who starts a campaign speech "People are asking me, 'Am I a Ghost Wizard?' and here's my answer: ghost wizards are valid concerns. This builds upon the latest in crytozoological knowledge of supernatural studies. The first study of such wizards was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. As I've discussed previously with my constituents, the United Nations has previously looked into ghost wizards. In a way, it seems that..."
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    Reminds me of that classic https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/763075178926596096 https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/763075178926596096
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

flaviut 4y ago

It does not work: https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 This is apparently a demonstration of their geometry software, not something that will ever be fired, since they are an "organic" modeling company, not a rocket company.

moffkalast 4y ago
So in a nutshell I can grab the toroidal aerospike model from KSP, print it 1 cm larger and I now have the world's largest 3D printed aerospike.
moh_maya 4y ago
That doesn’t make sense to me: why design it if it cannot / will not be tested to validate / demonstrate the value of their ‘algorithmicEngineering’? How can one make any functional claims of value without some functional testing? What am I missing?
- ghostly_s 4y ago
  You're missing nothing, it's pure PR fluff.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    Perhaps. We don't know if they sold the design and whether it was tested. The design itself is very interesting - in particular the complex heat exchange structures. On it being optimal, or even more efficient, as long as it's cheaper to build than a conventional engine, it's game.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      we know the engine wasn't tested, and we do not yet have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the engine is unsold
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think all of that is basically out of scope. I don't think they are claiming it is a good design. The impressive point is their software can make a design at all. It seems like they want to sell it to people that will use it to try to make designs that are good
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        algorithmic design on its own, with no further qualifiers (like functionality) isn't impressive though, I don't think that's the pitch
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think this level of algorithmic design is impressive, and as far as I know, novel. I certainly haven't seen anything this complex. It is like a computer displaying "hello world". The output isn't particularly exciting, I could do better with an index card. However, the fact that the a computer could take a set of inputs and display something at all shows exciting promise. The same is true here. For a real engine design, you would have to work extensively on the inputs, boundaries, and goals. The impressive part is that this software can handle this complex of a parameter set at all.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Algorithmic design engineering is a fairly mature field that's been around for 20 plus years. Looking at their website, they are simply developing a tool for more integrated algorithms from the park level to system level. With this in mind, the the component integration of the model itself is extremely impressive and a proof of concept. It doesn't matter if it actually works or not, that's not really the point.
_Adam 4y ago
I'm skeptical there's any value being generated here then. Who are the customers? How do they know this fancy looking biological design is any good at all? It's fine not to actually test fire it, but in that case prove it with simulations. Demonstrate that it's superior to existing designs, or at the very least that it's functional.
CobrastanJorji 4y ago
What's amazing about the linked blob post is that the headline is "But Does It Work?" and the word "no" only appears once, in the phrase "there’s no looking back." The article asks really tough questions of itself, like "Have you tested it, does it work?" and then very carefully does not say yes or no. Why ask yourself those questions if you don't want to answer them? Imagine a politician who starts a campaign speech "People are asking me, 'Am I a Ghost Wizard?' and here's my answer: ghost wizards are valid concerns. This builds upon the latest in crytozoological knowledge of supernatural studies. The first study of such wizards was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. As I've discussed previously with my constituents, the United Nations has previously looked into ghost wizards. In a way, it seems that..."
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Reminds me of that classic https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/763075178926596096 https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/763075178926596096
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]