Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Chairboy t1_jdaw0bv wrote

The tech behind this is way bigger than justbrockets. That they can make rockets with it is going to be both cool but also potentially a wickedly effective bit of marketing for the tech.

7

canadian_eskimo t1_jdayfzq wrote

Looks like the attempt will be approx 50minutes from when I post this.

6

chewie8291 t1_jdb7f5v wrote

I've seen tests of the rockets on the ground. I have no idea what I'm seeing but it's cool

2

seanflyon t1_jdb8nnh wrote

Second stage anomaly which I assume means a loss of the vehicle. First launches are hard and getting that far into the mission is significant.

13

Spicy_Lobster_Roll t1_jdb8sgy wrote

Pretty neat launch, especially the blue color of the flame. I was also pleasantly surprised to be able to hear it so far down the coast.

4

cjameshuff t1_jdb9jnj wrote

Replying to Chairboy (#2,312,010)

Marketing is really all it is. Notice how, as much as they talk up the rocket being 85% 3D printed, they aren't using 3D printing for much else. The rocket's much flashier than, say, the strongback.

2

Vigitiser t1_jdc2f8m wrote

This was the 3rd or 4th launch attempt, and it’s the only one I wasn’t watching. Ffs

1

cjameshuff t1_jdckqok wrote

Replying to Pashto96 (#2,316,027)

Uh...yes? If it's such a superior way to manufacture things that it's automatically the right choice for the rocket to such an extent that they're trying for a 100% 3D-printed rocket, why wouldn't they?

1

Pashto96 t1_jdcsc4d wrote

Replying to cjameshuff (#2,316,754)

It doesn't have to be the superior way to create everything. Rockets require virtually all custom parts. Custom parts require custom machining and don't get the benefits of economies of scale. Having one machine that can create all of those custom parts cuts out the requirement for custom machining and they don't need to change the machine if they make adjustments to the parts. Strongbacks on the other hand are relatively simple truss structures. You can use mass produced parts to build up the strongbacks fairly easily and inexpensively. There's really no reason why they couldn't print the strongbacks, but it doesn't really make sense to.

3

pmMeAllofIt t1_jdeoioz wrote

Replying to cjameshuff (#2,316,754)

It's impossible to 100% 3D print one. Alot of that weight is in things like electrical cables, computer components, rubbers, and fasteners and fittings.

That 85-90% is all the main component mass. That's impressive.

1

pmMeAllofIt t1_jdhlw78 wrote

Replying to cjameshuff (#2,326,021)

Uh, theyre not saying that. Their eventual goal is 95%. That means they only have to shed about a ton off, but none of that will really lower the part count much-which is there first goal(which suceeded). They made a rocket with 100x fewer parts than others and you're calling it a failure. Lol

0