SpaceX press release on 3D printed valve flown on F9

[FutureSpaceTourist]

http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/07/31/spacex-launches-3d-printed-part-space-creates-printed-engine-chamber-crewed

Release begins:

Through 3D printing, or additive manufacturing, robust and high-performing rocket parts can be created and offer improvements over traditional manufacturing methods. SpaceX is pushing the boundaries of what additive manufacturing can do in the 21st century, ultimately making the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft more reliable, robust and efficient than ever before.

On January 6, 2014, SpaceX launched its Falcon 9 rocket with a 3D-printed Main Oxidizer Valve (MOV) body in one of the nine Merlin 1D engines. The mission marked the first time SpaceX had ever flown a 3D-printed part, with the valve operating successfully with high pressure liquid oxygen, under cryogenic temperatures and high vibration.

Compared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower variability in materials properties. The MOV body was printed in less than two days, compared with a typical castings cycle measured in months. The valve’s extensive test program – including a rigorous series of engine firings, component level qualification testing and materials testing – has since qualified the printed MOV body to fly interchangeably with cast parts on all Falcon 9 flights going forward.

There's also info on the SuperDraco 3D printing.

Edit: changed title

[SpunkyEnigma]

.... with a 3D-printed Main Oxidizer Valve (MOV) body in one of the nine Merlin 1D engines. The mission marked the first time SpaceX had ever flown a 3D-printed part....

Interesting use of engine out capability as a somewhat low-risk way of trying out slight variations on a single M1D

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Interesting use of engine out capability as a somewhat low-risk way of trying out slight variations on a single M1D

Yes and yet more evidence that SpaceX are constantly tweaking and evolving. The Jan flight was also the third qualification flight for USAF. Clearly SpaceX don't let anything stop them trying new things, although that can cause issues (such as some of the Orbcomm delays).

What really impresses me though is that 3D printing has already reached the point where it can produce space qualified engines that aren't possible in any other way (SuperDraco) and so much quicker.

I assume the quicker time means less development costs; also cheaper to manufacture? How long do 3D printers last, do they lose accuracy/calibration over time?

[TrevorMonty]

Looks like SpaceX are going to gradually apply 3D printing to Merlin 1D. Long term I'm guessing it will more than half manufacturing costs, plus allow them to increase their production rate.
Reusability of boosters shouldn't effect the development program as engines can still be modified or swapped between missions.

[SoulWager]

I assume the quicker time means less development costs; also cheaper to manufacture? How long do 3D printers last, do they lose accuracy/calibration over time?

Some parts might be cheaper to manufacture, others would be more expensive, it depends how difficult it is to make with more traditional methods, and on the size of the part. Big simple parts are cheaper with traditional methods, small complicated ones may be cheaper with 3d printing. Development costs may be lower, but the biggest development advantage is time. in that you can make a change in the design, print it, test it, and get the data in days, instead of weeks.

I don't think 3d printers will "go bad" any quicker than other industrial equipment, like laser cutters and milling machines.

[dante2308]

They may be attempting to vertical integrate engine parts that they have been sourcing so the cost savings may be greater than the fact of 3d printing alone.

[Dudely]

I'd like to point out that, over the long term, it is cheaper to form a mold of something and cast it many times than it is to additively print it every single time. It also takes a LOT of time to print something, and you can only print one thing per printer at a time with the printers themselves costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This will be a boon to their development cycles and will makes it much cheaper and faster to modify and test something, and it will allow for more creative part shapes. However, over the long run I think any parts they think won't change for hundreds of flights will be casted.

[SoulWager]

I'd like to point out that, over the long term, it is cheaper to form a mold of something and cast it many times than it is to additively print it every single time. It also takes a LOT of time to print something, and you can only print one thing per printer at a time with the printers themselves costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This will be a boon to their development cycles and will makes it much cheaper and faster to modify and test something, and it will allow for more creative part shapes. However, over the long run I think any parts they think won't change for hundreds of flights will be casted.

Some parts are difficult to cast, consider how difficult it would be to make a mold for a superdraco combustion chamber with regenerative cooling passages. You'd have to make a new mold every time you cast it, and you'd have a hell of a time maintaining the correct wall thicknesses.

[TrevorMonty]

One of the big costs savings with 3D printing is reduced parts count with associated reduction in labour costs for final assembly. NASA stated a reduction in parts on 3D printed engine in the order x10-100. There is also the theory that less parts less to go wrong.

[Scylla]

I'd like to point out that, over the long term, it is cheaper to form a mold of something and cast it many times than it is to additively print it every single time. It also takes a LOT of time to print something, and you can only print one thing per printer at a time with the printers themselves costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This will be a boon to their development cycles and will makes it much cheaper and faster to modify and test something, and it will allow for more creative part shapes. However, over the long run I think any parts they think won't change for hundreds of flights will be casted.

Some parts are difficult to cast, consider how difficult it would be to make a mold for a superdraco combustion chamber with regenerative cooling passages. You'd have to make a new mold every time you cast it, and you'd have a hell of a time maintaining the correct wall thicknesses.

From the SpaceX article..

Compared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower variability in materials properties. The MOV body was printed in less than two days, compared with a typical castings cycle measured in months.

[mmeijeri]

I had been wondering about that. Don't they mean that a new test valve can now be produced two days after a design change rather than months later?

[rpapo]

I had been wondering about that. Don't they mean that a new test valve can now be produced two days after a design change rather than months later?

Not to be too blunt about it, but it's almost as easy as hitting the <PRINT> button.  Except you had better be very sure you've run your spell-checker, dotted all your 'i's and crossed all your 't's, and all the three-dimensional equivalents, because that print operation will take a long time and cost a lot more than printing something on paper.

[Prober]

Interesting use of engine out capability as a somewhat low-risk way of trying out slight variations on a single M1D

I assume the quicker time means less development costs; also cheaper to manufacture? How long do 3D printers last, do they lose accuracy/calibration over time?

all equipment is subject to wear.

3D Printer thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.0

Edit: add link

[TrevorMonty]

Here is one scenario to show another advantage to 3d printing. Assume they have an engine failure traced to cast part. To create a new mold and cast replacement parts could take weeks, delaying all next launches. With 3D printing they could produce the new part in days for next F9.

[Scylla]

I had been wondering about that. Don't they mean that a new test valve can now be produced two days after a design change rather than months later?

Not to be too blunt about it, but it's almost as easy as hitting the <PRINT> button.  Except you had better be very sure you've run your spell-checker, dotted all your 'i's and crossed all your 't's, and all the three-dimensional equivalents, because that print operation will take a long time and cost a lot more than printing something on paper.

Wouldn't printing it first as cheap plastic prototype first be a good, fast way, to check all that?

[Jet Black]

I had been wondering about that. Don't they mean that a new test valve can now be produced two days after a design change rather than months later?

yes, but a new design will still have to undergo a lot of testing. Construction bottlenecks are always going to be the bit that it takes longest to make (unless you can make hundreds in one go) or the bits you can only make one at a time (when you need large numbers of them). I think the main benefit of 3D printing is going to be the ability to make shapes that are difficult and also increased material efficiency. A lot of weight in casted items is just deadweight anyway - take the mirror blanks for the JWST as an example. They made a great big thick blank and then carved the honeycomb out of the back of it. That's not too hard in what is essentially a 2D stucture, but removing weight from complex 3D shapes is nowhere near as easy.

[rpapo]

Wouldn't printing it first as cheap plastic prototype first be a good, fast way, to check all that?

Only for fit.  A 3D printed part, especially the kind we're talking about at SpaceX, is more than just a shape.

[RubberToe]

I would love to see a time lapse video of that valve being printed...

RT

[Coastal Ron]

I had been wondering about that. Don't they mean that a new test valve can now be produced two days after a design change rather than months later?

The valve component can be 3D printed in two days, but then there are still secondary operations that have to be done to the part such as milling, polishing, drilling/threading, and assembling it with other components into a sub-assembly.

In the picture with the SpaceX article you can see that the assembly they show is not a raw component, but has had some machining done and parts added.  Typically that sub-assembly would be tested and then moved to the next level of assembly, which could be the final product like the Draco engine.  Then the engine has to go thru testing before the entire assembly is approved for use.

Reducing the lead time for a complex component, especially one that is still being tweaked in it's design, dramatically lowers the amount of time to takes to validate designs, and ensures that you are more likely to be flying with the most up to date designs.

[abaddon]

The PR is frustratingly vague about their intentions with regards to 3D printing this part or not as a matter of course for future manufacturing:

The valve’s extensive test program – including a rigorous series of engine firings, component level qualification testing and materials testing – has since qualified the printed MOV body to fly interchangeably with cast parts on all Falcon 9 flights going forward.

This clearly indicates that they can choose to use 3D printed versions of this part moving forward.  But it doesn't say if they will or not.  It's hard to imagine they would spend all of the effort of qualfying the part, and the risk of flying it on a real mission, if they didn't intend to use it, given the resulting part is apparently better.

Compared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower variability in materials properties.

[rcoppola]

The PR is frustratingly vague about their intentions with regards to 3D printing this part or not as a matter of course for future manufacturing:

The valve’s extensive test program – including a rigorous series of engine firings, component level qualification testing and materials testing – has since qualified the printed MOV body to fly interchangeably with cast parts on all Falcon 9 flights going forward.

This clearly indicates that they can choose to use 3D printed versions of this part moving forward.  But it doesn't say if they will or not.  It's hard to imagine they would spend all of the effort of qualfying the part, and the risk of flying it on a real mission, if they didn't intend to use it, given the resulting part is apparently better.

Compared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower variability in materials properties.

I'm sure they intend to use it and begin other tests for other parts. But it takes time to integrate a new manufacturing process into an established design & production flow. There are also personnel/training and manufacturing equipment level issues that need to be considered as well.

Their mention of interchangeability points to being able to slowly integrate 3D parts into the overall production flow, without having to worry about any disruptions as they ramp up their launch rates. It's these kinds of continuous, efficient, iterative improvements that will keep them exceedingly competitive.

[AncientU]

Great timing for this technology to be applied to Raptor engine components... if that engine's powerpack is using additive manufacturing parts from the beginning, then it could be predominately 3D printed.  I know they recently had great difficulty/delay with a pintle injector casting -- seems this could be a place to start.

[abaddon]

I'm sure they intend to use it

I'm pretty sure that is the case too, it's just mildly annoying that they didn't come out and say it .

But it takes time to integrate a new manufacturing process into an established design & production flow. There are also personnel/training and manufacturing equipment level issues that need to be considered as well.

These are good points, and probably sufficient reason for the noncommittal wording in the PR.

[AncientU]

On January 6, 2014, SpaceX launched its Falcon 9 rocket with a 3D-printed Main Oxidizer Valve (MOV) body in one of the nine Merlin 1D engines. The mission marked the first time SpaceX had ever flown a 3D-printed part, with the valve operating successfully with high pressure liquid oxygen, under cryogenic temperatures and high vibration.

Is this the first time anyone has flown a 3D-printed power component?

[Coastal Ron]

I'm sure they intend to use it and begin other tests for other parts. But it takes time to integrate a new manufacturing process into an established design & production flow. There are also personnel/training and manufacturing equipment level issues that need to be considered as well.

One of the advantages of a 3D printed part is that it eliminates additional components and assembly processes, so if anything it's simplifying their assembly process.  There would be a new workflow for the new assembly, since it would need different steps to make it into the standard sub-assembly that it is replacing, but those steps should be similar to what they would be doing anyways.  Not sure if I'm being completely clear on this, but I have done manufacturing scheduling in the past so I appreciate how this can simplify things.

Their mention of interchangeability points to being able to slowly integrate 3D parts into the overall production flow, without having to worry about any disruptions as they ramp up their launch rates. It's these kinds of continuous, efficient, iterative improvements that will keep them exceedingly competitive.

If the part is a one-for-one replacement then it greatly simplifies their lead time challenges, regardless if it's made in-house or by a contractor.  And with reduced lead times you can incorporate the most recent changes quicker.  It a virtuous cycle since it improves costs and safety.

Do we know if they were making this part in-house?  Seems to me I remember hearing that they were contracting the work out, which at this early point would make sense until they have validated their need - the machines are pretty expensive.

[Manabu]

There was also previous discussion on 3D printing in this topic: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33150.30

[sdsds]

The payload aboard the January 6, 2014 flight of F9 was Thaicom 6, which went to GTO.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/spacex-falcon-9-v1-1-launch-thaicom-6/

I believe this flight did relight the first stage after stage separation, but no attempt was made at recovery, so they knew they weren't going to be able to do post flight analysis of the 3d printed part. Still one has to hope they have an unflown twin part, also 3d printed, that has spent lots of time in engines running on a test stand.

I'm curious, though. In a normal flight (or normal engine test burn), how many open/close cycles does the MOV see? Or is it a valve that is continuously adjusted through a range of flow settings?

[Nomadd]

 It's going to be interesting if this technology reduces the cost of making engines so much that reusability is no longer all that attractive. A big machine spitting out Merlins at 100 grand each would change the numbers quite a bit.

[SoulWager]

I'd like to point out that, over the long term, it is cheaper to form a mold of something and cast it many times than it is to additively print it every single time. It also takes a LOT of time to print something, and you can only print one thing per printer at a time with the printers themselves costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This will be a boon to their development cycles and will makes it much cheaper and faster to modify and test something, and it will allow for more creative part shapes. However, over the long run I think any parts they think won't change for hundreds of flights will be casted.

Some parts are difficult to cast, consider how difficult it would be to make a mold for a superdraco combustion chamber with regenerative cooling passages. You'd have to make a new mold every time you cast it, and you'd have a hell of a time maintaining the correct wall thicknesses.

From the SpaceX article..

Compared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower variability in materials properties. The MOV body was printed in less than two days, compared with a typical castings cycle measured in months.

We were talking about price. 2 days on a 3d printer with those capabilities is crazy expensive. While it's probably cheaper for a single replacement part or prototype, valves are simple enough that they're probably cheaper to manufacture with traditional methods if you're making hundreds of them.  We don't know SpaceX's motivation for 3d printing the valve body, with the superdraco however, it's a part that's obviously very difficult to cast.

[Avron]

We don't know SpaceX's motivation for 3d printing the valve body, with the superdraco however, it's a part that's obviously very difficult to cast.

agreed, clearly there is something to that needs to be taken out of the "box" and re-engineered or tweeked, 3d printing moves this from the speed of technology to the speed of business.. welcome to the new school.

[Robotbeat]

It's going to be interesting if this technology reduces the cost of making engines so much that reusability is no longer all that attractive. A big machine spitting out Merlins at 100 grand each would change the numbers quite a bit.

Completely the opposite! 3D printing is not competitive with mass production, it's much too expensive per part. This is intrinsic to the technology. But if you're doing small numbers so that set-up costs dominate, then 3d printing is awesome. 3d printing is perfect for SpaceX's full reuse paradigm where they may only build 5 or 10 vehicles a year (vehicles of different classes, perhaps, and with improvements) but fly hundreds of flights. The cheap booster approach requires all the benefits of a full factory to be effective, gigantic presses stamping out rocket bodies or some such. Perfect for munitions, absolutely non cost effective for RLVs (though the scale of Mars colonization may require a return to traditional manufacturing to produce enough MCTs cheaply enough).

[QuantumG]

Every now and then I have to remind myself that there's a competition for cheap access to space going on between those who think reusability is the path forward and those who think mass production is key. For a while there SpaceX seemed to be hedging.

[Robotbeat]

3D printing makes vertical integration far more practical. You can easily use the same machine on several different projects. At the end of a project, you don't have a bunch of now-nearly-worthless jigs and molds but instead something that can make something completely different without any setup time. Also, the initial capital expense is small, and it gives even greater return to the usual advantages of vertical integration, namely faster turnaround time.

[Avron]

Every now and then I have to remind myself that there's a competition for cheap access to space going on between those who think reusability is the path forward and those who think mass production is key. For a while there SpaceX seemed to be hedging.

or they are breaking a simplistic paradime set years back .. a merge of two worlds to allow for production at the rate of business change   and needs while providing  process..  a new world ? ( see first principles and not dogma)

[Robotbeat]

Avron: huh?

[Avron]

Avron: huh?

Its not in the text books or presented by consulting company .. thus huh.. watch that space.. I work agile BI so I see that daily ..

[Robotbeat]

It just sounds like buzzword soup is all.

[Avron]

It just sounds like buzzword soup is all.

time will tell..

[Darga]

I would love to see a time lapse video of that valve being printed...

RT

Have you seen this one?

[Scylla]

Interesting article on the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory site of them printing a rocket engine.
https://manufacturing.llnl.gov/additive-manufacturing/metal-additive-manufacturing

The first working prototype engine was printed in 8 days at a cost of $10,000, at least an order of magnitude more cost effective than would be the case with traditional manufacturing approaches. The engines are designed to produce 5,000 pounds of thrust, with six mounted on Lawrence Livermore's proposed Nanosat launch vehicle eXperimental One (NX-01).

[Prober]

It's going to be interesting if this technology reduces the cost of making engines so much that reusability is no longer all that attractive. A big machine spitting out Merlins at 100 grand each would change the numbers quite a bit.

Completely the opposite! 3D printing is not competitive with mass production, it's much too expensive per part.

too wide a statement

Let's not forget that in all the excitement that the other Aerospace Companies are using the technology.  Seems I saw the RL-10 parts being tested recently.

[QuantumG]

This was interesting: http://pencerw.com/feed/2014/1/6/dmls-pricing

[TrevorMonty]

It is earlier days for DMLS  printing, remember when laser printers were $10,000 in 80s.

[deruch]

I had been wondering about that. Don't they mean that a new test valve can now be produced two days after a design change rather than months later?

Not to be too blunt about it, but it's almost as easy as hitting the <PRINT> button.  Except you had better be very sure you've run your spell-checker, dotted all your 'i's and crossed all your 't's, and all the three-dimensional equivalents, because that print operation will take a long time and cost a lot more than printing something on paper.

Now for the real question: can you actually cancel a print job once it starts?  If so, why hasn't this technology been integrated in my inkjet?

[CuddlyRocket]

So, why the press release? Why not just quietly integrate this into your engine development and production and improve your reliability and and/or competitiveness without your competitors knowing how straight away?

SpaceX's reputation is that of using existing technology in a more cost-efficient manner. This seems to work but would be more problematical if the point is technological development; for instance, if there were to be a government-funded rocket-engine development part of whose justification is that of developing advanced technology.

No doubt there would be a competition for funds, and better politically to have a public reputation for actual, flight-tested hardware using advanced manufacturing techniques that most people think will be highly relevant in this area in the near future.

In other words, this is pre-positioning for any RD-180 replacement.

[cambrianera]

Small brackets manufactured in one day for A350 XWB
http://bloga350.blogspot.it/2014/03/small-brackets-manufactured-in-one-day.html
"For the A350 XWB aircraft, Airbus has already produced a variety of plastic and metal brackets, which material and structural properties have been tested and validated, and are now incorporated on the certification test prototypes."

[MP99]

Now for the real question: can you actually cancel a print job once it starts?  If so, why hasn't this technology been integrated in my inkjet?

Some do. Yours doesn't?

Cheers, Martin

[Okie_Steve]

Thinking about the quote below - I wondered at the time if they resolved it with 3D printing.

From: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/06spacexmanifest/#.U90JD-NdWzk

Speaking to reporters via a conference call in April, Musk identified one manufacturing glitch, saying a primary constraint driving SpaceX's schedule "all boils down to this one particular part -- an injector casting."

"We think we've resolved that particular issue, which should unlock quite a high rate of increased production," Musk said.

[Prober]

So, why the press release? Why not just quietly integrate this into your engine development and production and improve your reliability and and/or competitiveness without your competitors knowing how straight away?

It's positive PR for the troops to stoke them up, prior to a launch.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

So, why the press release? [...]

It's positive PR for the troops to stoke them up, prior to a launch.

I don't think the troops need any stoking! (and even if they did I'm not sure a PR is the way to do it)

It's a good question to ask why SpaceX are publicising this. There's bound to be some politics to it; maybe emphasising their innovation and capabilities is part of rebutting those who talk as if only NASA should be trusted to do things? And/or it's all part of a general public relations/marketing strategy for people to think of SpaceX as forward looking and the future and, by implication, their competitors as stagnant.

I guess another element just could be to encourage the launch industry to innovate (in a similar vein, but on a smaller scale, to the freeing up of Tesla's patents).

[RedLineTrain]

Probably a number of reasons, including showing technicians with skills in this area that SpaceX could use their talents.

[MP99]

Thinking about the quote below - I wondered at the time if they resolved it with 3D printing.

From: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/06spacexmanifest/#.U90JD-NdWzk

Speaking to reporters via a conference call in April, Musk identified one manufacturing glitch, saying a primary constraint driving SpaceX's schedule "all boils down to this one particular part -- an injector casting."

"We think we've resolved that particular issue, which should unlock quite a high rate of increased production," Musk said.

If that was the resolution, it obviously hasn't flown yet.

Cheers, Martin

[Jet Black]

I'm looking forward to a complete to-scale replica of a F9 in a bottle. (by making a really small printed F9, not a really massive bottle!)

[Robotbeat]

I'm looking forward to a complete to-scale replica of a F9 in a bottle. (by making a really small printed F9, not a really massive bottle!)

easy since f9 is so skinny!

[IanO]

I'm looking forward to a complete to-scale replica of a F9 in a bottle. (by making a really small printed F9, not a really massive bottle!)

My desire is an actual Falcon 9 1.1 Space Pencil, with proportionately sized rubber fairing pencil topper.