That launch mount screams triple stick upgrade like Falcon Heavy...
I don't known if they will revolutionise launch industry but good chance their technology will change how large aerospace structures are built. The Stargate could build large structures like aircraft wings. They use standard industrial robotic arms with their printhead assembly so scaling up is easy.In case of space colonies, they could build any habitat structure, just add power and wire feed stock. Metal refineries only need to output metal as wire and powder feed stock, no need for heavy rollers producing sheet metal. This is important consideration, should be able to start with small refinery and scale up. Ideally 3d print a large part of refinery on site, same again for robotic arms. In both cases most of mass is large metal parts. As space colony grows the more parts can be reproduced locally lowering cost of refinery and robotic arms, in return lowering construction costs of habitats.
The idea of building tanks as one single piece, without separate domes, is definitely interesting, but I keep coming back to the question: does building expendable rockets cheaply matter? Does being able to build large numbers of small rockets efficiently matter when rockets need to be reusable?
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1191770988423372800?s=21First time I believe seeing print speed of Stargate published. 1 ft per day on what looks to be 7-8 ft diameter tank. So that’s about 24 sq ft per day of wall area per printer. They have 4 now, each one can print about 30 foot tall. So scaling to a Falcon 9 size vehicle, that would take about 8 printers to do it in pieces. Multiplying out, I get about 45 days to print an entire Falcon 9. That’s pretty quick and low cost I’d believe.In the future they won’t be limited to just simple cylindrical shapes with skin-stringers like Falcon and Starship, they could do non-symmetric shapes and also use things like isogrid and topology to tune structure shapes. The question is if they can actually pull this technology off but if they do seems like a game changer.
Quote from: playadelmars on 11/05/2019 09:21 pmhttps://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1191770988423372800?s=21First time I believe seeing print speed of Stargate published. 1 ft per day on what looks to be 7-8 ft diameter tank. So that’s about 24 sq ft per day of wall area per printer. They have 4 now, each one can print about 30 foot tall. So scaling to a Falcon 9 size vehicle, that would take about 8 printers to do it in pieces. Multiplying out, I get about 45 days to print an entire Falcon 9. That’s pretty quick and low cost I’d believe.In the future they won’t be limited to just simple cylindrical shapes with skin-stringers like Falcon and Starship, they could do non-symmetric shapes and also use things like isogrid and topology to tune structure shapes. The question is if they can actually pull this technology off but if they do seems like a game changer.What's the time delta versus a welded tank? I understand there's tooling time, but once tooling is made, it's a matter of popping out tanks is it not?
I think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fibre, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.
Quote from: ringsider on 11/06/2019 01:29 pmI think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready.
I think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.
As for SLM machines: no reason for them to re-invent the wheel when CoTS solutions exist. SpaceX did not invent their own SLM machines to print the SuperDracos after all (or ARJ invent their own for RL10C-X, or Rockelab for Rutherford, etc), it would just be flushing cash down the toilet for no reason.
Quote from: edzieba on 11/06/2019 02:07 pmQuote from: ringsider on 11/06/2019 01:29 pmI think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready. I don't think there is any advantage to those massive welding robots at all in the case of big tanks, it's a gimmick even compared to stir welding sheet aluminum. I am fairly certain those Rocket Lab carbon tanks take way less time than 60 days to produce, esp. if you add on that post-processing time for milling of the aluminum etc. Plus, as Tim Ellis states, each arm costs several hundred thousand dollars. That's an expensive way to build a tank if each tank takes 60 days you can only build 6 a year on one setup - and you need a second one to build the smaller tanks, and way more to scale up. No wonder they needed $185m....QuoteAs for SLM machines: no reason for them to re-invent the wheel when CoTS solutions exist. SpaceX did not invent their own SLM machines to print the SuperDracos after all (or ARJ invent their own for RL10C-X, or Rockelab for Rutherford, etc), it would just be flushing cash down the toilet for no reason.Sure. I'm just pointing out there is nothing special or different about what they are doing there - everybody is using SLM or EOS or ARCAM or whatever to print engines today. Rocket Lab uses ARCAM machines by the way - I found that out in 2016:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1585101#msg1585101
Quote from: ringsider on 11/06/2019 03:34 pmQuote from: edzieba on 11/06/2019 02:07 pmQuote from: ringsider on 11/06/2019 01:29 pmI think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready. I don't think there is any advantage to those massive welding robots at all in the case of big tanks, it's a gimmick even compared to stir welding sheet aluminum. I am fairly certain those Rocket Lab carbon tanks take way less time than 60 days to produce, esp. if you add on that post-processing time for milling of the aluminum etc. Plus, as Tim Ellis states, each arm costs several hundred thousand dollars. That's an expensive way to build a tank if each tank takes 60 days you can only build 6 a year on one setup - and you need a second one to build the smaller tanks, and way more to scale up. No wonder they needed $185m....QuoteAs for SLM machines: no reason for them to re-invent the wheel when CoTS solutions exist. SpaceX did not invent their own SLM machines to print the SuperDracos after all (or ARJ invent their own for RL10C-X, or Rockelab for Rutherford, etc), it would just be flushing cash down the toilet for no reason.Sure. I'm just pointing out there is nothing special or different about what they are doing there - everybody is using SLM or EOS or ARCAM or whatever to print engines today. Rocket Lab uses ARCAM machines by the way - I found that out in 2016:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1585101#msg1585101If I don't remember bad, Spacex, used the machine of 3D Systems, for printing her Merlin Engine...Do you know ringsider, which 3D printing companies are the best in the actuality for aerospace structures?PD: Maybe is even good open a thread about this...
Quote from: edzieba on 11/06/2019 02:07 pmQuote from: ringsider on 11/06/2019 01:29 pmI think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready. I don't think there is any advantage to those massive welding robots at all in the case of big tanks, it's a gimmick even compared to stir welding sheet aluminum. I am fairly certain those Rocket Lab carbon tanks take way less time than 60 days to produce, esp. if you add on that post-processing time for milling of the aluminum etc. Plus, as Tim Ellis states, each arm costs several hundred thousand dollars. That's an expensive way to build a tank if each tank takes 60 days you can only build 6 a year on one setup - and you need a second one to build the smaller tanks, and way more to scale up. No wonder they needed $185m....QuoteAs for SLM machines: no reason for them to re-invent the wheel when CoTS solutions exist. SpaceX did not invent their own SLM machines to print the SuperDracos after all (or ARJ invent their own for RL10C-X, or Rockelab for Rutherford, etc), it would just be flushing cash down the toilet for no reason.Sure. I'm just pointing out there is nothing special or different about what they are doing there - everybody is using SLM or EOS or ARCAM or whatever to print engines today. Rocket Lab uses ARCAM machines by the way - I found that out in 2016:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.msg1585101#msg1585101
Quote from: ringsider on 11/06/2019 01:29 pmI think Peter Beck at Rocket Lab will be LOLing. I remember in one interview he said they could produce new main tank tubes every couple of days in carbon fiber, so there's a 30:1 adverse time factor, plus the approx 50% weight savings of carbon vs aluminum. I don't see the benefit of that printing technology at all in those two dimensions.Producing CF tubes != producing a stage. After you've wrapped and cured your composite tube, you then need to produce the tank domes, produce and install the slosh baffles, mate the major tank components, install the endcaps, produce & install all the plumbing, cable trays, thrust structure, interstage adapter, etc. The advantage Relativity have is that the vast majority of that they can print as part of the tanks (e.g. downcomers, thrust structure, interstage, mount points, etc) and in an ideal world would perform final post-milling of mating surfaces, lay in the wiring harnesses, and bolt in the engines to have a stage ready.
Do you know ringsider, which 3D printing companies are the best in the actuality for aerospace structures?
Good afternoon from Los Angeles - this is our Stage 2 Iron Bird, which will be the first additively manufactured tank to feed propellants to a rocket engine.
Is that a weld in the middle? Or what it looks like when Stargate repairs a print? Can't wait for the first WDR/static fire, regardless
It’s the common dome feature... not a joint, still made as one piece
