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:QuoteThe 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.QuoteCompared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower variability in materials properties.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: SoulWager on 08/01/2014 02:54 pmQuote from: Dudely on 08/01/2014 02:33 pmI'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..QuoteCompared 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.
Quote from: Dudely on 08/01/2014 02:33 pmI'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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Avron: huh?
It just sounds like buzzword soup is all.
I would love to see a time lapse video of that valve being printed...RT
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).
