3 ms·

Mass production techniques can still apply to low production volumes. Controlling production, vertical integration, driving down cost of manufacturing. Sure if

Mass production techniques can still apply to low production volumes. Controlling production, vertical integration, driving down cost of manufacturing. Sure if you look at the whole rocket you can say "only 2 per week" but zoom in a little bit, Falcon 9s have 9 engines, Starship has what 33? It's still not car volume levels of course, but SpaceX are dreaming of a day where there are 1000 starships making a mars trip at once. 33,000+ raptor engines for a single transfer window. I know this is pie in the sky at this point, but it kind of makes sense.

panick21_ 3y ago
I think you misunderstand your point. I'm not saying it bad to have mass production. Its clearly a benefit and increasingly so as you scale up. I'm saying that if you are a small rocket maker who argues to investors 'our launches are gone be cheap because we will have mass production' is not really credible. And many current small launch vehicle startups still argue this regularly.
- whoknowswhat11 3y ago
  The other issue is these companies aren’t really beating spacex with mass production- rocket engines being a good example - spacex has manufactured well over 700 Merlin engines. So when these companies claim they are going to undercut spacex dramatically with ‘mass production’ (10x spacex) they never get close to that and many struggle with basic reliability
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  As a controls engineer who does a lot of work for the automotive industry, I think you might be missing the long tail of production here. Sure, a few current flagships have production rates of 5,000 per week, with takt times of 45 seconds or less, and really impressive rolling production lines that won't stop for years, which feature a screaming-fast robot at each corner of the car that get featured in documentaries. But while those lines turn out an impressive amount of product, they're a small part of the whole industry. For every billion-dollar line at Ford building one black Model T (or F-150) a minute, there's a few dozen machines at tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers that might be building, say, a brown leather center console trim panel for the special color option for a less popular car. They might run 3 shifts per week while it's in production, and one a month for the next 10 years building service parts for mechanics. But they're still built with mass-production manufacturing techniques: The parts go in a nest sized just for them cut by CNCs, the right amount of glue is applied evenly by automated sprayers, the adhesive is wet out by an automated press that records the force and position to a production database, the completed assembly undergoes 100% inspection in an automated poka yoke station. In contrast, that brown leather trim panel assembly machine is a one-off, hand-built by craftsmen. The nest might be cut by a CNC, but it goes on a rectangular sub-base with a hole pattern cut on a Bridgeport and held in a generic machinist's vise. The weldment that forms the table was cut, welded, and powder-coated by hand. The dowels that locate the nest were pressed using a manual hydraulic press, or maybe using a hammer, into holes reamed by hand. It underwent weeks of debug and run-off, with a handful of last-minute changes, until eventually the manufacturer told the integrator they were happy. Small launch vehicle startups that argue they'll save money by using mass production are not suggesting they'll have TAKT times of 20 seconds per rocket, 3 shifts per day 7 days a week. They're merely saying they won't have individual master craftsmen fitting parts together by hand. There's a lot of room between the two extremes.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    I agree with you there, but they are touting this as a competitive advantage over their competitors. We are gone be cheaper because of mass production. Its not like their competition has a old guy with fill hand grind an aluminum block into a rocket.
    - onethought 3y ago
      I mean… SLS kind of is that.

panick21_ 3y ago

I think you misunderstand your point. I'm not saying it bad to have mass production. Its clearly a benefit and increasingly so as you scale up. I'm saying that if you are a small rocket maker who argues to investors 'our launches are gone be cheap because we will have mass production' is not really credible. And many current small launch vehicle startups still argue this regularly.

whoknowswhat11 3y ago
The other issue is these companies aren’t really beating spacex with mass production- rocket engines being a good example - spacex has manufactured well over 700 Merlin engines. So when these companies claim they are going to undercut spacex dramatically with ‘mass production’ (10x spacex) they never get close to that and many struggle with basic reliability
LeifCarrotson 3y ago
As a controls engineer who does a lot of work for the automotive industry, I think you might be missing the long tail of production here. Sure, a few current flagships have production rates of 5,000 per week, with takt times of 45 seconds or less, and really impressive rolling production lines that won't stop for years, which feature a screaming-fast robot at each corner of the car that get featured in documentaries. But while those lines turn out an impressive amount of product, they're a small part of the whole industry. For every billion-dollar line at Ford building one black Model T (or F-150) a minute, there's a few dozen machines at tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers that might be building, say, a brown leather center console trim panel for the special color option for a less popular car. They might run 3 shifts per week while it's in production, and one a month for the next 10 years building service parts for mechanics. But they're still built with mass-production manufacturing techniques: The parts go in a nest sized just for them cut by CNCs, the right amount of glue is applied evenly by automated sprayers, the adhesive is wet out by an automated press that records the force and position to a production database, the completed assembly undergoes 100% inspection in an automated poka yoke station. In contrast, that brown leather trim panel assembly machine is a one-off, hand-built by craftsmen. The nest might be cut by a CNC, but it goes on a rectangular sub-base with a hole pattern cut on a Bridgeport and held in a generic machinist's vise. The weldment that forms the table was cut, welded, and powder-coated by hand. The dowels that locate the nest were pressed using a manual hydraulic press, or maybe using a hammer, into holes reamed by hand. It underwent weeks of debug and run-off, with a handful of last-minute changes, until eventually the manufacturer told the integrator they were happy. Small launch vehicle startups that argue they'll save money by using mass production are not suggesting they'll have TAKT times of 20 seconds per rocket, 3 shifts per day 7 days a week. They're merely saying they won't have individual master craftsmen fitting parts together by hand. There's a lot of room between the two extremes.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  I agree with you there, but they are touting this as a competitive advantage over their competitors. We are gone be cheaper because of mass production. Its not like their competition has a old guy with fill hand grind an aluminum block into a rocket.
  - onethought 3y ago
    I mean… SLS kind of is that.