6 ms·
>Constructing a rocket engine using conventional approaches can take months, followed by extensive qualification testing to ensure it meets the required specifi
by constantcrying 2y ago
>Constructing a rocket engine using conventional approaches can take months, followed by extensive qualification testing to ensure it meets the required specifications. Using a metal 3D printer from German company EOS, Agnikul produced its engine in roughly three days. Agnikul printed the engine out of inconel, a high-performance alloy of nickel and chromium that can withstand high temperatures and mechanical loads. The machine also automatically outputs a report that details any deviations during printing, removing the need for postfabrication qualification.
What amateurs are at work here? This plainly is not true and if you believe this can work you can not be trusted to be anywhere near an engineering project.
Besides, the question I have is why 3D printing? There are innumerable ways to manufacture a rocket, why did they choose 3D printing? If it is because they think you don't need qualification and testing for the produced hardware they should not be allowed to launch anything they make.
- wiseowise 2y ago[flagged]
- filcuk 2y agoThis is a very ignorant comment, as is the one you're replying to. Making engine nozzles used to be extremely manual and involved process, which could take up to a year to make a single nozzle. These need very particular channels within the walls for cooling, and that's impossible to manufacture with simple reductive methods. They used to form wax modls and deposit nanometre layers of metal.
- sa1 2y agoWhat part is not true? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E I'm sure that there are lots of problems with this approach, but it is not as obvious as your comment makes it out to be.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- constantcrying 2y agoThe part which is not true is: "removing the need for postfabrication qualification"
- tonyarkles 2y ago> Besides, the question I have is why 3D printing? My understanding is that there's interesting things in the aerospace industry that are very difficult or sometimes impossible to machine from a single part in a conventional subtractive machining process. GE is doing it as well for the LEAP engines: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/ge-aerospace-to-scale-the-production-3d-printed-jet-engines-with-650-million-investment-228977/ https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/ge-aerospace-to-scale-th... As an easy example, imagine a single-piece rocket nozzle with internal channels for delivering fuel and oxidizer. Pretty much impossible to machine and not that big of a deal* to do with additive manufacturing. * Your mileage may vary, talk to your doctor for details. :)
- OutOfHere 2y ago"When you don't have any real criticism, just make stuff up! Keep people down at all costs." P.S. Nick checks out.
- constantcrying 2y agoHow is gross negligence on QA not a "real criticism"?
- OutOfHere 2y agoYou hardly enough know anything about the project to make an assumption about the absence of QA. If you were an employee there, and you had specific concerns, that would be worth something. You made it up because you had no real point.
- constantcrying 2y ago>You hardly enough know anything about the project to make an assumption about the absence of QA. I take their claims at face value. Either they are for some weird reason lying about not doing QA or they are extremely negligent in their manufacturing. Granted, I can not exclude the first option, but to be honest that might make the company look even worse.
- OutOfHere 2y agoThey're not shipping people into space with this tech yet. As such, even if QA were missing, which we don't really know much about, the need for QA is way less than you make it out to be. It's not a big deal if a cargo rocket blows up, and so far it hasn't even blown up. Together, this is why your line of comments is unqualified.
- constantcrying 2y agoI sincerely hope you are never involved in any aerospace projects.
- stainablesteel 2y agorelativity space does this as well, they have youtube videos on what they do
- constantcrying 2y agoThey don't do qualification of their hardware? Why would you put that on YouTube?
- stainablesteel 2y agoi dont know about that part, but they 3d print i don't honestly believe there's anyone building a rocket like this that isn't concerned about the rockets success
- constantcrying 2y agoWhy are they saying they don't need QA then? Sure, you can use whatever appropriate manufacturing processes you want. But none of them can replace QA.
- stainablesteel 2y agoi dont believe relativity space has said this, and i dont speak on their behalf i have no idea what they do, im not in this industry
- krisoft 2y ago> Besides, the question I have is why 3D printing? Rocket nozzles are heat limited. You could get more trust out of them only if the nozzle would not melt. So you do a lot of tricks to cool it. One of those many tricks is that you circulate your rocket fuel as a coolant in the wall of the nozzle. This requires an intricate web of many tiny pipes which form the wall of the nozzle. Typically these are constructed by hand by brazing together many many pipes. That takes forever. In contrast additive methods seem to perform well in this application. This is standard stuff nowadays. Everyone seems to be doing it. I'm not sure what is your objection. If you don't believe me listen to Tony Bruno: https://youtu.be/Bh7Xf3Ox7K8?si=YVDIDq1bvKeCuvY9&t=1509 https://youtu.be/Bh7Xf3Ox7K8?si=YVDIDq1bvKeCuvY9&t=1509 > This plainly is not true Which particular part are you objecting to?
- 1024core 2y ago> I'm not sure what is your objection. I am. It is that it's an Indian company. How dare these brown people do something cutting-edge in science or engineering!
- jfyi 2y agoMy guess is failing to read between the lines and taking marketing too seriously. "Removing the need for postfabrication qualification" doesn't mean "perfectly detects errors" it means "detects errors within our business specs and we expect it to be profitable within that margin".
- wongarsu 2y agoIn a typical rocket the payload is the most expensive thing, followed by the engines, and then the rest of the rocket and the fuel. Shaving costs off the engines is well worth it, but not if it sacrifices reliability. Maybe they have a model in mind where it works. If you use dozens of engines like SpaceX's Starship you can tolerate more engine issues. Of maybe they want to launch really cheap payloads on inexpensive rockets. But in the parameters of traditional rocket design, QA on your engines is one of the last things you want to save money on.
- hitekker 2y ago
- wongarsu 2y ago3d printing rocket engines makes a lot of sense. The engines of Rocket Lab's Electron rocket are 3d printed, Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR1 engines have 3d printed fuel injectors, SpaceX's SuperDraco thrusters (the ones in the Dragon 2 capsules) are 3d printed. Complex geometries with lots of liquid channels make rocket engines difficult to machine, so overcoming the issues with 3d printing heat-resistant parts is well worth it. But skipping qualification testing is indeed a weird reason. I doubt you can skip test fires.
- mr_toad 2y agoEveryone has a test environment, not everyone has a production environment.
- elteto 2y agoSpaceX has been printing the Draco and Super Draco engines for the Dragon capsule for many years. It’s a proven technology at this point. With 3D printing you can create geometries that are simply not possible with any other manufacturing processes. The issue is not 3D printing. The issue is deluding yourself by thinking that somehow 3D printing is magical and you get to skip qual. You don’t.
- bagels 2y agoIntegrating all the plumbing in to the structure is a lot easier to achieve with 3d printing.
- bufferoverflow 2y agoAt the very least, 3D printing allows nearly full automation without having to create expensive custom production lines.
- Stevvo 2y agoIt worked. The engine flew. Mission success. Is that not qualification enough? As long as nobody is put in danger.