4 ms·
Summarizing and adding some points: - Relativity Space was founded in 2016. Just to compare, Blue Origin was founded in 2000. It serves as a stark example of h
by jmyeet 4y ago
Summarizing and adding some points:
- Relativity Space was founded in 2016. Just to compare, Blue Origin was founded in 2000. It serves as a stark example of how throwing money at something doesn't necessarily solve problems. Who would've thought in 2000 that 23 years later Blue Origin still wouldn't have reached orbit?
- SpaceX's Falcon rockets use oxygen and RP-1 (ie pure kerosene) as fuel. Starship (like the RS Terran rockets) are attempting to use methane instead of RP-1. This is incredibly complicated because RP-1 is liquid as normal temperatures and methane isn't. So instead of chilling one fuel, you have to chill both. A big reason to do this is relevant to rocket reuse. RP-1 leaves behind a soot-like residue all over the inside of the engines. This process has a name that I can't recall. Methane does not have this problem so should reduce reuse cost and turnaround time;
- The company claims they will be hopefully flying the Terran R (reusable and larger version of the Terran 1) as early as next year. I am extremely skeptical. RS hit some important milestones with this launch but ultimately did fail to reach orbit. To argue we're 12-18 months away from a newer, larger and reusable version seems beyond optimistic at best. Landing a first stage is nontrivial. I think 2-3 years is more realistic and still aggressive;
- Falcon 9 can carry ~22,000kg to LEO. The Terran-1 has a projected payload of 1250kg so even with the low launch cost, the cost per kg is uncompetitive. Remember a rocket can carry multiple payloads (eg the Starlink launches a bunch of satellites at once). Still, there might be a market for this;
- RS seems to be putting all their eggs in the Terran-R bucket, which aims to be a reusable vehicle. I don't have details on this but I assume like Falcon it'll be a reusable stage 1 that lands. I'm not sure what the projected payload and cost of this is;
- 3D printing is mentioned all the time in RS news. I'm honestly not sure why. Is this really an advantage? Rockets are big. They're made of very large components. The usual advantage of 3D printing is not in cost but in your ability to produce things that cannot be made with traditional methods. For example, newer planes like 787 do this for key components in the engines. Ultimately i don't think people care how it's made, just what the payload cost, launch lead time and potential launch volume is.
Personally I'd like to see more competition in this space so I wish them well.
- airstrike 4y ago> - Relativity Space was founded in 2016. Just to compare, Blue Origin was founded in 2000. It serves as a stark example of how throwing money at something doesn't necessarily solve problems. Who would've thought in 2000 that 23 years later Blue Origin still wouldn't have reached orbit? I'm as unimpressed by Blue Origin's (non-results) as the next person, but at the same time from the article it sounds like both co-founders came from Blue Origin...
- 0xffff2 4y agoI read both founders Wikipedia articles this morning. As far as I can tell, they bother interned at BO, and one had a job at SpaceX for a few years. I definitely wouldn't say they "came from" BO. They seem to have (successfully!!) started a rocket company straight out of college.
- byteware 4y agodid 3D printing help them iterate on some component design maybe? also they need to differentiate themselves, so they aren't just another spacex, so being the "3D printed rocket company" sounds better for getting investment I guess
- ragebol 4y ago- 3D printing is mentioned all the time in RS news. I'm honestly not sure why. Is this really an advantage? You can print some shapes that are very hard to make otherwise, or even generatively designed and optimized. Integrate a bunch of parts into one, saving weight on bolts etc. Iterate on the design faster, as there's no need to make custom tooling and fixtures etc. 'Just' a ginormous printer.
- Symmetry 4y agoRelatively reproducible builds of physical objects without having to get a full robotic assembly line going seems sort of interesting.
- outworlder 4y agoSimpler logistics (including inventory) too.
- peterfirefly 4y ago> So instead of chilling one fuel, you have to chill both. The current Falcon 9 version "chills" its RP-1 as well (so they can fit more in the same tank volume). It's not far below 0 degrees Celcius, though. What's more interesting is that the oxygen is also cooled below its boiling point to make it denser (so they can fit more in the same tank volume). (PS: there are two propellants but only one of them is called "fuel". The other one is the oxidizer.)
- pmayrgundter 4y agoRe: why 3d printing. Generally agree with your points, tho for early stages the iteration benefits outweigh the economies of scale. BUT! Rocket manufacture in space.. that's where it shines. If you're a small Mars, Lunar or asteroid base and depends on rocket transit, you'll want full reproducibility on your side and complex economy-of-scale factories are not going to be feasible for a long meanwhile.
- MattGrommes 4y agoThey talk a lot about the benefits of 3d printing in this Veritasium video from a year or so ago. https://youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E https://youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E
- apendleton 4y ago> RP-1 leaves behind a soot-like residue all over the inside of the engines. This process has a name that I can't recall. "coking"
- panick21_ 4y ago> I don't have details on this but I assume like Falcon it'll be a reusable stage 1 that lands. They are aiming for both stage re-usability.