Quote from: edzieba on 08/13/2022 03:39 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2022 09:57 amWhen comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?This only makes Relativity's story worse. At least for Terran-1, without re-use, it's all in one vehicle. There's no amortization across many flights to be had.Now, ignoring that (that there are no savings across multiple flights), you are now actually amortizing the enormous development cost of tank 3D printers across every flight you fly, for no good reason at all (since 3D printing the easiest part of a rocket for a development cost of tens to hundreds of millions is a ridiculous choice). So now, you just have a rocket with the same performance as all other rockets in the industry, with the same production speed (this is a guess, it could end up being even worse, ironically enough), and more or less the same market price. Factor in amortized development, and the overzealous size of company needed to drive that development and build (at ~1k personnel, Relativity is the largest of the 1t launcher companies) and you've created the most expensive, least economically feasible vehicle there is for the level of performance.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2022 09:57 amWhen comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.It's not so simple. Flight rate determines how many launches the initial construction cost can be spread across, as well as how many launches fixed costs are spread across. e.g. build one core and fly it 10 times per year for 10 years, build 10 cores and fly them each one a year for 10 years, and build 10 cores per year and fly each one, all spread the various fixed and variable costs differently. They also have different risks (if you only have 1 core, if it experiences a failure you have no business at all), and different personnel skillset and facility needs over time (if you build 10 cores in one year and 0 cores for 9 years, do you pay your engineers to do nothing for 9 years, or let everyone go and then rehire 9 years down the line?). And if 5 years in you find your vehicles are obsolete - or just a bad fit to the market and unprofitable - are you able to afford to produce new vehicles and take the loss of your existing ones having effectively doubled in manufacturing cost per vehicle at point of retirement (because they only flew half their design lifespan)?
When comes to RLVs operational cost is more important than built cost. That being case 3rd printing LVs isn't going make much difference.
Hence Tim Ellis’s talk about taking over the aircraft manufacturing industry with the 3D printing technology trialled for their rocket business. That’s a nice dream and all, but without it, I don’t see their business model succeeding.
Firefly and RL are using off the shelf composite printing machines that can print lot faster. Google "continuous composites 3d printer" .
This hasn't aged well, has it?I doubt Relativity has a much lower part count, if at all, than other similar launchers. The actual number of unique parts that go into the tanks are relatively low, and they're not building engines any differently than anyone else, bound to be a similar count of parts for those.To compare their build times of "2 months" to the alternative of "24 months" is a bit too cheeky, too. Sure, if you're comparing against the build of a Saturn V, 5-6 decades ago, this might be true (I'm not actually sure what the production cadence was) but their modern day competitors are going to be churning out vehicles at the same rate as them; not to mention, having to compare your production with that of a rocket from 50 years ago with >100x the performance just to make a favorable comparison... the criticism just writes itself.Years later, is anybody buying the 3D printing gimmick? If you asked me what the simplest, most tried-and-true, straightforward part of a rocket design was I'd tell you: tanks. What's the hardest? Propulsion, maybe avionics, depending on how you do it. Neither of which are things they are doing any differently than anybody else.Just sounds like a great way to build the heaviest, worst mass fraction vehicle you can while spinning an optimistic story about the future of manufacturing.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 08/15/2022 02:41 amHence Tim Ellis’s talk about taking over the aircraft manufacturing industry with the 3D printing technology trialled for their rocket business. That’s a nice dream and all, but without it, I don’t see their business model succeeding.Aircraft industry is moving to composite air frames.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2022 08:20 pmFirefly and RL are using off the shelf composite printing machines that can print lot faster. Google "continuous composites 3d printer" .Two very different technologies: Relativity's printers are freeform fabricators: feedstock goes in, part comes out. Rocketlab and Firefly are using freeform fibre layup on fixed forms (which then needs curing, postprocessing, joining, and more postprocessing), fibre (usually pre-preg) goes in, a layup comes out which is not yet ready to actually do anything. The freeform layup allows for optimisation beyond what sheet layup can achieve and is likely (but not necessarily) faster than hand layup with sheets, but layup is only a portion of the composites production process.
Aeon 1 upgrade testing for Terran 1 flight 2: +16 seconds vacuum Isp, +1,200 pounds of thrust improvement, x9
QuoteAeon 1 upgrade testing for Terran 1 flight 2: +16 seconds vacuum Isp, +1,200 pounds of thrust improvement, x9https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1559932554202861568If you're gaining 16 seconds of specific impulse in an upgrade, it's not an indication that you did a great job - it's an indication that the existing baseline sucked and was underperforming. What heinous shortcomings are there in the Flight 1 engines?
snip...If you're gaining 16 seconds of specific impulse in an upgrade, it's not an indication that you did a great job - it's an indication that the existing baseline sucked and was underperforming. What heinous shortcomings are there in the Flight 1 engines?
Quote from: ParabolicSnark on 08/17/2022 06:12 pmsnip...If you're gaining 16 seconds of specific impulse in an upgrade, it's not an indication that you did a great job - it's an indication that the existing baseline sucked and was underperforming. What heinous shortcomings are there in the Flight 1 engines?SpaceX's Merlin 1D would like to have a talk with you then. The number increase seems like they are just getting a better understanding of their engine and expanding it's operating envelope. I know of another engine with that happening too that's under development....
welcome to the future 🦾
MCLEAN, Va., Sept. 8, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Iridium Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: IRDM) today announced that it has reached an agreement with SpaceX to launch up to five of the company's remaining ground spare satellites from the Iridium® NEXT program, on its Falcon 9 rocket. Known as Iridium-9, the launch is planned to take place at Vandenberg Space Force Base in mid-2023. Earlier this year, Iridium celebrated the 25th anniversary of the first launch in Iridium's history, which also took place from Vandenberg on May 5, 1997. That first ever launch also carried five Iridium satellites to orbit on a Delta II rocket.Iridium-9 will be Iridium's second rideshare with SpaceX. Previously, SpaceX conducted eight Iridium launches between January 2017 and January 2019. These launches delivered 75 satellites to LEO as part of the Iridium NEXT campaign, replacing the company's original satellite constellation. Since completion of the launch campaign in 2019, Iridium has 66 operational satellites, nine on-orbit spares and six additional spares on the ground. Up to five of those six ground spares are planned for launch as part of Iridium-9. All satellites in the upgraded Iridium constellation were built by Thales Alenia Space and carry the Aireon® hosted payload, which provides truly global, real-time surveillance of aircraft around the world."We have always said that when the right opportunity presented itself, we would launch many, if not all, of our remaining ground spares, and just such an opportunity came about," said Iridium CEO Matt Desch. "Our constellation is incredibly healthy; however, the spare satellites have no utility to us on the ground. We built extra satellites as an insurance policy, and with SpaceX's stellar track record, we look forward to another successful launch, which will position us even better to replicate the longevity of our first constellation."Since the completion of the upgraded Iridium network in early 2019, Iridium's customer base grew by more than 730,000 subscribers in just three years and has more than 1.8 million today. With that subscriber growth came several new Iridium products and services, including the Iridium Certus® specialty broadband platform, Iridium's Global Maritime Distress and Safety System, Iridium Global Line of Sight® service for uncrewed and autonomous systems, and over 150 new Iridium narrowband and specialty broadband products brought to market by our partner ecosystem.Iridium remains the only commercial satellite constellation with truly global coverage, offering weather-resilient L-band service from pole-to-pole. The constellation is divided into six polar orbiting planes that each include 11 operational crosslinked satellites. The satellites from Iridium-9 will be launched into a parking orbit, and after initial testing will be drifted to their assigned spare orbits.
All clear at LC-16 🌥 Upon returning to the site, we’ve noted no major issues and plan to be back to nominal operations by Monday. Thank you to all for the behind the scenes support to ensure our launch site and hardware were secured in a timely and effective manner.
Now that we’ve come to the end of our test & dev phase, let’s recap: ✅ Successful structural qualification & acceptance testing of all full-scale primary structures for Terran 1 in Long Beach
✅ Successfully applied flight-like loads to all primary structure of Stage 1 and Stage 2✅ Functionally tested and qualified all stage separation hardware and flight-critical mechanisms✅ Completed qualification of all primary pressurized and unpressurized structure
Stage 1 testing recap: ☑️ 6 ignitions & 185s+ of hot fire for all 9 Aeon 1 engines on Stage 1☑️ Throughout tests, no engine swaps needed! Engines & autogenous press performed great
☑️ 10,900s of runtime across 191 hot fire tests throughout Aeon 1 engine qualification & acceptance testing
It's called art 🎨🖌️ Had fun with our powder bed fusion 3D printers to make our mitosis logo. A thread🔽
💡 Did you know our mitosis logo is a visual representation of humanity’s journey towards a multiplanetary future?
💡The single cell at the bottom represents Earth, which is where our journey begins. 💡From there, we'll make initial contact with Mars, building an industrial base and sharing resources. 💡Ultimately, at the top, we'll co-exist on two planets, with our own unique cultures.
Countless examples like this from our team. Awesome to see paper -> reality. Meanwhile, we have an extraordinarily dedicated team prepping for Terran 1 #GLHF where we will use flight data collected + our dev experiences to inform Terran R designs. Rate of learning rn is high.
We are listening to customers and the market and certainly swinging hard toward our vision. By tackling Terran 1 and R simultaneously we have gotten ahead in winning customer demand, enabling faster progress. It’s a calculated balance - SO excited to launch soon with Terran 1!
