-
#200 by Jim on 10 Nov, 2014 13:00
-
A) This is the old business model. You keep operating under this thinking now, and you'll be out of business in a few years.
B) a continuous upgrade.
Not applicable here. This is low rate production with high capital costs.
it makes no sense to do continuous upgrade because the output is so low and there is nothing to really upgrade. welders and CNC machines don't go out of date that quick. Anyways, why change out something when it is working as fast and efficiently as you need it to be? -
#201 by Prober on 10 Nov, 2014 13:22
-
everything, think along the lines of the personal computer in the manufacturing environment.competition, and advanced manufacturing techniques. The manufacturing equipment is obsoleting at the rate of around 1 1/2 to 2 years.
Competition drives cost effectiveness and not necessarily modernization.
They already use advanced manufacturing techniques.
So what manufacturing equipment is becoming obsolete?
As someone that has spent decades in manufacturing, you are conflating unrelated situations.
Personal computers usually go obsolete mainly because of these conditions:
1. The software continues to evolve and require increased capabilities, thus making older generations slower.
2. Because the market is so competitive faster/more capable hardware is always being created and marketed.
3. Some are built not to last very long.
Your twisting things; I picked Personal computers for a reason. Everyone can identify, and understand it. Most have either lived though the process, or can google the history.
The PC industry started from a "build it yourself" industry, to a consumer commodity item.
BIY --------> commodity item.
=============================
This thread was setup, and has a decent database : Look at this information http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1235543#msg1235543
There is a very, very good reason the GE management looked into their crystal ball and recently sold off their Consumer business (washing machines, stoves etc.).
-
#202 by Lobo on 10 Nov, 2014 17:38
-
I really do not believe that an ATK solid is an appropriate replacement for the Atlas 1st stage MPS.
I could list a whole litany of reasons but because that is just my opinion I will stop there.
I don't think many would disagree with you Chuck. Maybe if there were -no- other options they could do it out of necessity. Their Atlas pads should be able to stack big solids veritcally on the pad or MLP. But There is BE-4, and even AR-1, which would all for a new booster to be much closer to what they are doing now. So I cannot see them going with ATK vs. the liquid engine options.
I thought it made more sense for OSC after their merger with ATK as a potential Antares booster, if they could resolve the infrastructure issue of being able to stack big solids on their pads. The advantage is the boosters would be made in-house rather than purchased, as well as the "core" would then be in-house rather than purchased from Ukrane. As ULA would need to purchase the solid booster or liquid engines anyway, there's no advantage to them there. Besides, they are already set up to build their own liquid cores. All they need is engines. So ATK large solids as an Atlas booster just doesn't seem to hold any advantage for ULA like it -might- for OrbATK. -
#203 by Prober on 10 Nov, 2014 18:55
-
A) This is the old business model. You keep operating under this thinking now, and you'll be out of business in a few years.
B) a continuous upgrade.
1) Not applicable here. This is low rate production with high capital costs.
it makes no sense to do continuous upgrade because the output is so low and there is nothing to really upgrade. welders and CNC machines don't go out of date that quick. Anyways, why change out something when it is working as fast and efficiently as you need it to be?
1) maybe, comes down to finished product time and cost.
2) Welding time becomes limited, and CNC becomes a final finishing process NOT the full process.
3) In metal your talking subtractive (removing metal), the new process is adding metal. 30 parts can be manufactured into one part vs cutting 30 metal parts out (labor), assembling (labor) and welding (labor).
Next generation Nuclear plants are built with the new toolsets in the quantity of (1). Low production rates don't relate, labor and finished costs are the drivers.
Watch the video here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1225058#msg1225058
It just came out from behind closed doors.
Edit: add link
-
#204 by Jim on 10 Nov, 2014 19:17
-
1) maybe, comes down to finished product time and cost.
2) Welding time becomes limited, and CNC becomes a final finishing process NOT the full process.
3) In metal your talking subtractive (removing metal), the new process is adding metal. 30 parts can be manufactured into one part vs cutting 30 metal parts out (labor), assembling (labor) and welding (labor).
Next generation Nuclear plants are built with the new toolsets in the quantity of (1). Low production rates don't relate, labor and finished costs are the drivers.
Watch the video here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1225058#msg1225058
It just came out from behind closed doors.
Edit: add link
You keep hyping 3D. It is not applicable for launch vehicles. They are mostly sheets of metal, machined, formed and welded together.
Nuclear plants are not production line items and are purpose built and hence not an applicable analogy.
-
#205 by Coastal Ron on 10 Nov, 2014 19:48
-
1) maybe, comes down to finished product time and cost.
2) Welding time becomes limited, and CNC becomes a final finishing process NOT the full process.
3) In metal your talking subtractive (removing metal), the new process is adding metal. 30 parts can be manufactured into one part vs cutting 30 metal parts out (labor), assembling (labor) and welding (labor).
Just because a technology exists does not mean it's perfect for EVERY application. 3D printing has it's uses, but so far it can't make material with the same type of grain structure that formed and drawn material has, which means it's not useful for making the sheets that rocket bodies are made from.
And in any case, every tool or machine that is currently used has a known ROI. So in a free market industry will decide if it makes sense to adopt a new technology that may require them to redesign some or all of the components of their products, and so far 3D printing has not penetrated too far into the production line environment because it is very slow for most parts. Sure there are some complex parts that lend themselves to being redesigned for 3D printing, but those are the exception, not the rule.QuoteNext generation Nuclear plants are built with the new toolsets in the quantity of (1). Low production rates don't relate, labor and finished costs are the drivers.
Practically every nuclear power plant has been custom made, so I'm not sure what advantage you're seeing, especially when there are NO nuclear power plants authorized to be built in the U.S.QuoteWatch the video here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1225058#msg1225058
It just came out from behind closed doors.
I watched the video, and it was interesting technology, but not anything that I thought would result in a wholesale change to the machining world. The bottom line is cost, and if the new technique is too costly, or potentially too limited in application (i.e. limited in material types and strengths) it may not be widely adopted by the fabrication industry - it's hard to justify installing a machine that rarely generates revenue. -
#206 by Prober on 10 Nov, 2014 21:58
-
1) maybe, comes down to finished product time and cost.
2) Welding time becomes limited, and CNC becomes a final finishing process NOT the full process.
3) In metal your talking subtractive (removing metal), the new process is adding metal. 30 parts can be manufactured into one part vs cutting 30 metal parts out (labor), assembling (labor) and welding (labor).
Next generation Nuclear plants are built with the new toolsets in the quantity of (1). Low production rates don't relate, labor and finished costs are the drivers.
Watch the video here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1225058#msg1225058
It just came out from behind closed doors.
Edit: add link
1) You keep hyping 3D.
2) It is not applicable for launch vehicles.
3) They are mostly sheets of metal, machined, formed and welded together.
1) NOT hype Real LM, Darpa etc. are all switching over to it.
2) Did you even watch the video?
3) What do you think that's all about? See 2&3 in my first post.
-
#207 by Prober on 10 Nov, 2014 22:23
-
It's a major change in thinking, but once you get your head around it you won't wish to go back1) maybe, comes down to finished product time and cost.
2) Welding time becomes limited, and CNC becomes a final finishing process NOT the full process.
3) In metal your talking subtractive (removing metal), the new process is adding metal. 30 parts can be manufactured into one part vs cutting 30 metal parts out (labor), assembling (labor) and welding (labor).QuoteWatch the video here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1225058#msg1225058
It just came out from behind closed doors.
I watched the video, and it was interesting technology, but not anything that I thought would result in a wholesale change to the machining world. The bottom line is cost, and if the new technique is too costly, or potentially too limited in application (i.e. limited in material types and strengths) it may not be widely adopted by the fabrication industry - it's hard to justify installing a machine that rarely generates revenue.
You missed something from that video. With that process you can build two different metals. So you could start out with a steel base (flat) and buildup two other metals.
-
#208 by Jim on 10 Nov, 2014 22:57
-
1) NOT hype Real LM, Darpa etc. are all switching over to it.
2) Did you even watch the video?
3) What do you think that's all about? See 2&3 in my first post.
1. You are hyping. It is not a do everything process.
2. Do you know how tanks are made?
3. Still not applicable.
See Ron's post. -
#209 by john smith 19 on 11 Nov, 2014 06:59
-
Mfg techniquies is OT for this thread but I will note a few things.
Big glass and carbon fiber winding machines have been available at least since the days of the Beal BA-1 so large diameter solids with FRC casings are certainly possible.
[EDIT But I'll remind people of Henry Spencer's comment that "the apparent simplicity of big solids is deceptive". Combustion modelling is very complex as you've got solids, liquids and vapour inside a high pressure/temperature environment. If the design undergoes a deflagration-to-detonation transition you will also see a "burn" turn into a "boom." with a big solid there's a lot to go boom ]
Personally I'd like to say a few words for a technique which no one [AFAIK, I'd love to be proved wrong] has ever used.
Centrifugal casting.
This system can deliver high quality cylinders up to 8m in diameter in the US. (Wisconsin Centrifugal IIRC). The spin forces force the lighter items to the inside surface, meaning that (in principal) all the dross is on the surface and can be skimmed off. By contouring the inside of the mold it's possible to put stiffeners into the outside of the casing (along with things like mounting brackets) at minimal extra cost.
[EDIT you can also (in principal) do the perimeters of the tank ends, potentially eliminating the complex "y" joint, moving the design even further toward a near net shape approach ]
While this technology is well proven in several areas I'm not sure it's been done with the kind of alloys needed to make a solid rocket motor casing. and of course centrifugal casting companies don't do space, although I think they do some of the casings for large turbofans.
However this has nothing to do with ATK's proposal so lets get back to that. -
#210 by Prober on 11 Nov, 2014 14:41
-
1) NOT hype Real LM, Darpa etc. are all switching over to it.
2) Did you even watch the video?
3) What do you think that's all about? See 2&3 in my first post.
1. You are hyping. It is not a do everything process.
2. Do you know how tanks are made?
3. Still not applicable.
See Ron's post.
1) It's a complete reversal of thinking, and means to manufacture with MANY processes.
2) Yes
3) Incomplete data; my friend's have been developing the add on equipment to hybridize current mfg. equipment in the field. This will lesson the costs of translation to the full set of upgrades. The Genie is out of the bottle,
-
#211 by Prober on 11 Nov, 2014 14:49
-
Centrifugal casting.
great process; being used in Aerospace, GM has a joint venture and is trying to get some costs out, for future mass engine casting.
-
#212 by Jim on 11 Nov, 2014 15:02
-
1) It's a complete reversal of thinking, and means to manufacture with MANY processes.
2) Yes
3) Incomplete data; my friend's have been developing the add on equipment to hybridize current mfg. equipment in the field. This will lesson the costs of translation to the full set of upgrades. The Genie is out of the bottle,
No, nothing but over the top hype. -
#213 by Prober on 11 Nov, 2014 15:10
-
1) It's a complete reversal of thinking, and means to manufacture with MANY processes.
2) Yes
3) Incomplete data; my friend's have been developing the add on equipment to hybridize current mfg. equipment in the field. This will lesson the costs of translation to the full set of upgrades. The Genie is out of the bottle,
No, nothing but over the top hype.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison
-
#214 by john smith 19 on 12 Nov, 2014 10:32
-
Trying to get this thread back on topic I'll say that solids can be more flexible than people sometimes realize.
Solids with throat pintles have demonstrated thrust turn down ratios of 10:1. This is deep throttling territory for liquids.
Solids were used in some of the few free flight tests of plug nozzles and by the Italians for bench testing plug nozzles in the late 60's. A plug nozzle version of the Ariane 5 SRB's could have been very interesting.
But historically solids have much higher vibration levels than liquids (why the USAF got CSA engineering to develop payload vibration isolation systems). Not so much of an issue for Orbital with Antares as they already run a solid.
Personally I think what would kill the ATK proposal is the peripheral costs. This is not just an engine it's a stage and it's different form factor and propellants would need ULA to completely re-jig how they handle the stage, access platforms etc.
I hope they will continue with their relationship with Blue and encourage them to be the second new US engine supplier (after XCOR)
On the subject of 3D printing and additive technologies.
IIRC Musks comments on it were roughly "We only got into it when we couldn't make the Super Draco's work any other way, but it's worked out really well."
For any kind of mfg method there is a certain "profile" for objects that that method is particularly suited to.
Loosely speaking for current profile for 3D metal printing is
a)Smallish (1m cube is big) b) Intricate (lots of cavities or spaces that would have to be machined out otherwise) c)Tolerant of poor surface finish d)Accepts the metal grain properties given by the deposition process itself. e)The design is not finalized. You want to do a lot of "tweak and test"
If your object is OK with those limits congratulations. Feed you data, load up the metal powder hoppers, wait for your machine to do its thing and you will have a ready to use part at the end of the cycle.
The more the part you want to make deviates from those limits the more "post processing" you'll have to do make this method viable.
Possibly the worst of all would be if your application is too stressed to used the grain structure you're machine lays down. That means you're into developing some kind of heat treatment cycle to get new grain growth (or the reverse, grain refinement) in the right directions.
You may think only 3D printing can merge multiple parts together, or deliver functionally graded composites or embed parts of one metal in another. But you'd be wrong.
I expect most rapid prototyping technologies will get better over time and production parts will be made with them.
However large parts of LV structure are a)Well understood structurally b)Fairly simple and/or repetitive c)Made in well understood alloys whose properties (in their standard wrought or cast forms) are well understood.
3D printing technology brings useful but not unique capabilities for making some components, but not others.
Much like any manufacturing technique in fact.
Possibly the worst of all would be if your application is too stressed to used the grain structure you're machine lays down. That means you're into developing some kind of heat treatment cycle to get new grain growth (or the reverse, grain refinement) in the right directions.