FAILURE: Relativity Terran 1 Test Flight : CCSFS SLC-16 : 23 Mar 2023 03:25 UTC

[TrevorMonty]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

Relativity is working towards going from putting feedstock in the 3D printer to a completed rocket in 60 days.

The difference between Relativity and competitors is they are 3d printing tanks out of metal. Neutron and Firefly MLV will use composite 3d printed onto moulds. Everybody is using 3D printing for their engines and other parts. For all LV manufacturers final assembly is still labour intensive as production rates are too small to justify outlay for robotic assembly.

While Relativity's 3D printed tanks makes modifications easier when developing RLV its not cost effective. The $100Ms they've spent on this technology would've paid for lot RLV prototypes built by hand. I'm talking about RLV body shell and tanks only. The avionics, engines and plumbing costs are same regardless of how shell is built.

[chopsticks]

I am reminded by something one of the hosts said. Something to the effect of "if we can 3d print an orbital rocket, we can 3d print about anything", at least that was the implication.

Maybe Relativity is primarily a rocket company, but they are difficult to compare to other LV manufacturers because they potentially have other options to make money than just printing rockets. I think if someone came along and said "I need X space widget printed, you guys are perfect for this application", I bet they would be tickled to take the job.

Relativity even says themselves that they want to print stuff for living on Mars, so they are obviously not only focused on printing rockets. (At least in the future)

Sure, maybe 3d printing rocket tanks isn't the fast/cheapest/most efficient way of doing what they're doing (now), but to write them off and say it's pointless I think is missing the forest for the trees. I personally think that they have value to bring to the space industry, even if they do other things than rockets (even if that's what they do primarily).

[FishInferno]

I am reminded by something one of the hosts said. Something to the effect of "if we can 3d print an orbital rocket, we can 3d print about anything", at least that was the implication.

Maybe Relativity is primarily a rocket company, but they are difficult to compare to other LV manufacturers because they potentially have other options to make money than just printing rockets. I think if someone came along and said "I need X space widget printed, you guys are perfect for this application", I bet they would be tickled to take the job.

Relativity even says themselves that they want to print stuff for living on Mars, so they are obviously not only focused on printing rockets. (At least in the future)

Sure, maybe 3d printing rocket tanks isn't the fast/cheapest/most efficient way of doing what they're doing (now), but to write them off and say it's pointless I think is missing the forest for the trees. I personally think that they have value to bring to the space industry, even if they do other things than rockets (even if that's what they do primarily).

Exactly. The business case for Relativity makes a lot more sense if you see their rockets as simply a demo of their 3D printing technology.

[Hobbes-22]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

Relativity is working towards going from putting feedstock in the 3D printer to a completed rocket in 60 days.

60 days is doable with old school tech. If the end result of 3D printing is heavier, uses exotic/expensive alloys, why bother?

I understand 3D printing is immature tech, but I don’t see the path they are on leading to lighter, cheaper, higher quality rocket bodies.

As SpaceX demonstrated, it makes sense not to optimize for weight, but for cost. Of course that leaves the question of cost. Milling and bending tank walls isn't exactly fast or cheap either.

[Star One]

I'm rather surprised that so many see the excitement of a successful full-scale in-flight demonstration that proves their company's entire reason for existing - i.e. that a complete rocket body can be produced via direct metal deposition - is viable, is instead 'cringe'/'marketing'.
You know, rather than a bunch of engineers who have just shown that the idea they've spent the last near-decade working on works and are rightly rather happy about it.

There are two different things which some people are calling "cringe": the launch commentators' reaction upon reaching certain milestones during flight, and Tim Ellis' tweet about all of the "firsts" from the launch. Personally I'm much more accepting of the former than the latter, although ultimately even the tweet is still "he's excited, plus it's his job to market for the company, so whatever."

Personally all this discussion on here if something is cringy or not just in itself is pretty cringy and of low value to the discussion.

[daedalus1]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

Relativity is working towards going from putting feedstock in the 3D printer to a completed rocket in 60 days.

60 days is doable with old school tech. If the end result of 3D printing is heavier, uses exotic/expensive alloys, why bother?

I understand 3D printing is immature tech, but I don’t see the path they are on leading to lighter, cheaper, higher quality rocket bodies.

As SpaceX demonstrated, it makes sense not to optimize for weight, but for cost. Of course that leaves the question of cost. Milling and bending tank walls isn't exactly fast or cheap either.

Throwing them away after using them once is not only not cheap but totally insane.

[Hobbes-22]

AIUI, Relativity is working towards a reusable rocket.

[greybeardengineer]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

Relativity is working towards going from putting feedstock in the 3D printer to a completed rocket in 60 days.

60 days is doable with old school tech. If the end result of 3D printing is heavier, uses exotic/expensive alloys, why bother?

I understand 3D printing is immature tech, but I don’t see the path they are on leading to lighter, cheaper, higher quality rocket bodies.

As SpaceX demonstrated, it makes sense not to optimize for weight, but for cost. Of course that leaves the question of cost. Milling and bending tank walls isn't exactly fast or cheap either.

That isn't how SpaceX builds tank walls for either F9 or SS. It starts with wide roll sheet metal and welds on internal stringers and stiffening rings where necessary.

[AU1.52]

I am reminded by something one of the hosts said. Something to the effect of "if we can 3d print an orbital rocket, we can 3d print about anything", at least that was the implication.

Maybe Relativity is primarily a rocket company, but they are difficult to compare to other LV manufacturers because they potentially have other options to make money than just printing rockets. I think if someone came along and said "I need X space widget printed, you guys are perfect for this application", I bet they would be tickled to take the job.

Relativity even says themselves that they want to print stuff for living on Mars, so they are obviously not only focused on printing rockets. (At least in the future)

Sure, maybe 3d printing rocket tanks isn't the fast/cheapest/most efficient way of doing what they're doing (now), but to write them off and say it's pointless I think is missing the forest for the trees. I personally think that they have value to bring to the space industry, even if they do other things than rockets (even if that's what they do primarily).

On that theme - Mars - if you had to build a new rocket on Mars or repair one - would it be easier to ship / manufacture raw metal powder or sheet metal or composite? Assuming you had the tools to repair / build already on Mars? What would it take to manufacture sheet metal or raw metal powder on Mars?

[TrevorMonty]

On that theme - Mars - if you had to build a new rocket on Mars or repair one - would it be easier to ship / manufacture raw metal powder or sheet metal or composite? Assuming you had the tools to repair / build already on Mars? What would it take to manufacture sheet metal or raw metal powder on Mars?

Its probably easier to produce 3d printer wire feed stock by ISRU than sheet metal.

[edzieba]

Their approach seem suspect to me at least from what they have shown so far. The tank walls they have shown look like drip castles on the beach. Any material out of plane is dead weight.

Show me isogrid-like tank walls with deep webs, with filleted corners, with smooth surfaces, etc.

The current tech must be heavier than conventional construction, is built with exotic alloy, takes forever to print, etc etc.

Relativity is working towards going from putting feedstock in the 3D printer to a completed rocket in 60 days.

60 days is doable with old school tech. If the end result of 3D printing is heavier, uses exotic/expensive alloys, why bother?

I understand 3D printing is immature tech, but I don’t see the path they are on leading to lighter, cheaper, higher quality rocket bodies.

As SpaceX demonstrated, it makes sense not to optimize for weight, but for cost. Of course that leaves the question of cost. Milling and bending tank walls isn't exactly fast or cheap either.

That isn't how SpaceX builds tank walls for either F9 or SS. It starts with wide roll sheet metal and welds on internal stringers and stiffening rings where necessary.

i.e. lots of touch-labour, which gates cost and production time to human worker salaries and shifts. CNC-milled iso- and ortho-grid tanks trade away some labour (you can lights-out while a large panel is milled, whereas workers inside a tank ring welding stringers may complain if you turn the lights off) in exchange for higher raw material cost and slow production, as well as inflexibility in final structure (if you mill flat, you can only bend in one axis. If you want to bend first and then mill, you need both a much beefier press and a slower and more expensive 5/6-axis machine). Relativity's printer gets you hoops/stringers/grids + plumbing + mounting points in one go, with one or two circumferential welds per tank to complete it - and even those may go away depending on how their new horizontally oriented printers can handle small base diameters and long stickouts.

Also, they no more use 'exotic alloys' (a custom Al alloy is not exotic, and in volume not necessarily more expensive than any other alloy) than SpaceX's custom 30x Stainless alloy. If you have a big enough order, you too can ring up a foundry and have them produce an alloy of your desired mix, for less than you would expect.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1641461332116402176

Terran 1 got up offa that thing🚀
A week ago @relativityspace launched their 3D printed rocket, here’s what it looked like behind the scenes from two of my video cameras at the pad capturing the historic launch🔊🎶🚀❤️‍🔥still feels like a dream! 🌌 #hotmetalandblueflame

[mandrewa]

Most didn’t doubt that a 3D printed rocket could fly. The skepticism is about whether 3D printing is more cost effective than traditional manufacturing for mass producing a rocket. That skepticism has in no way been addressed.

Here's my sense of how things are likely to work with 3D printing on the level that Relativity Space is trying to do it.

Some people seem to be claiming that it would be cheaper to make a singular instance of a rocket design with more traditional methods than with the 3D printing. And I'm not talking about making something the nth time.

Bit I doubt that traditional methods are cheaper in this situation.

It may be that the 3D printing that Relativity Space has done so far has been fairly expensive.  But if so the reason would be because they are doing 3D development or learning how to do 3D printing.  And I'm not talking about rocket development.  I'm talking about development of the 3D printing process.

Once they get good at this. I suspect that the cost of mostly 3D printing one and only one instance of something is substantially less than traditional methods.

So here's how one could take advantage of such a capability.  During rocket development we want the capability to design a rocket, make the rocket, launch the rocket, and then change the design in response to the problems revealed by the launch.

And the end of that process, which might go through many cycles of design, would be a reusable rocket that goes to LEO.

Now is that the end of development?  No.  It's likely that this 3D rocket is heavier than it has to be.  So the next step is to look for parts of the rocket where mass could be removed by using traditional methods.  But whoever is doing this would have the huge advantage that they know that basic design is working.

And then this iterative process of design changes and testing stops when they can't find any part of the rocket that is heavier than it has to be.

That probably is the end of the rocket's development.

Although there might be another stage of development where they look for ways to make the rocket with less expense.  But that is probably only worth it if the rocket proves to be inordinately popular.  Given that this a reusable rocket, the advantage in doing this may just not be there.

[chopsticks]

I wonder if there would ever be a niche for really custom rockets that could be taken advantage of by 3d printing. Like customer specific rockets for specific payloads or needs.

It's kind of a cool idea in theory, ITSM.

The downside would be having to potentially verify structural design changes.

Edit: to expand on this, yes, the question become "If a rocket is 100% reusable, why make many different versions?" But if we use wheeled vehicles as an analogy, there are many types of vehicles from sports cars to trucks. Perhaps there could be a situation where a given customer would have their "own" rocket(s), designed for their specific needs and flown by Relativity. Think of a lease type of deal, Relativity operates the rocket (talking of a specific rocket serial number since it's reusable), but it is owned or leased by the customer. Whenever the customer has something to fly, they have their custom rocket for this available, kind of life having a private jet. I don't know if this will ever happen, but it's an idea that's been bouncing around in my head. Seems like it could work if there's demand for such a scenario.

[trimeta]

I wonder if there would ever be a niche for really custom rockets that could be taken advantage of by 3d printing. Like customer specific rockets for specific payloads or needs.

It's kind of a cool idea in theory, ITSM.

The downside would be having to potentially verify structural design changes.

I think there's probably a larger market for custom kick stages, especially for fully-reusable vehicles which may have trouble hitting higher orbits while still recovering the second stage. And being fully encapsulated along with the payload would reduce the number of loads which need to be tested.

[matthewkantar]

Also, they no more use 'exotic alloys' (a custom Al alloy is not exotic, and in volume not necessarily more expensive than any other alloy) than SpaceX's custom 30x Stainless alloy. If you have a big enough order, you too can ring up a foundry and have them produce an alloy of your desired mix, for less than you would expect.

This is untrue. They are alloying with scandium. Definitely counts as exotic to me.

[edzieba]

I wonder if there would ever be a niche for really custom rockets that could be taken advantage of by 3d printing. Like customer specific rockets for specific payloads or needs.

Custom fairings are not unheard of, e.g. the ones Rocketlab made to accommodate the corners of Synspective's satellites:
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1338201531431018496

Also, they no more use 'exotic alloys' (a custom Al alloy is not exotic, and in volume not necessarily more expensive than any other alloy) than SpaceX's custom 30x Stainless alloy. If you have a big enough order, you too can ring up a foundry and have them produce an alloy of your desired mix, for less than you would expect.

This is untrue. They are alloying with scandium. Definitely counts as exotic to me.

Whilst likely not the specific alloy mix that Relativity are using, Al-Sc alloys are available from multiple suppliers. Al-Li is also an 'exotic' alloy, but one also in use by a certain launch vehicle manufacturer.
There's "you might need to call and speak to someone to purchase it rather than ordering online" exotic, and there's "you might need to invest in your own furnaces to manufacture it" exotic. Al-Sc is firmly in the former camp.

[matthewkantar]

Lithium is dirt cheap/abundant compared to Scandium. Would love to know the difference in cost in stir weldable vs printable AL alloys.

[whitelancer64]

Also, they no more use 'exotic alloys' (a custom Al alloy is not exotic, and in volume not necessarily more expensive than any other alloy) than SpaceX's custom 30x Stainless alloy. If you have a big enough order, you too can ring up a foundry and have them produce an alloy of your desired mix, for less than you would expect.

This is untrue. They are alloying with scandium. Definitely counts as exotic to me.

Aluminum-scandium alloys have been in use for decades due to the superior strength and weldability of the alloy.

Airbus has been 3D printing with its proprietary aluminum-scandium alloy, called "Scalmalloy," for longer than Relativity has existed.

[whitelancer64]

Lithium is dirt cheap/abundant compared to Scandium. Would love to know the difference in cost in stir weldable vs printable AL alloys.

Al-Li alloys typically contain around 2.5% or more lithium, whereas Al-Sc alloys typically contain around 0.7-0.5% scandium. It varies a lot depending on the specific alloy you are looking at.

The open market cost of scandium is about 10x of lithium, but alloys use about 5x less, so cost wise it's probably close to a wash. Especially if you're buying in bulk rate from a mine or a foundry.