Submitted by astrofilmsyt t3_11z3rwl in space
Comments
Ok-Communication-274 t1_jdav2kx wrote
This is going to open up a lot of new possibilities
astrofilmsyt OP t1_jdavjye wrote
Most definitely!
[deleted] t1_jdavnmo wrote
[removed]
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.
canadian_eskimo t1_jdayfzq wrote
Looks like the attempt will be approx 50minutes from when I post this.
[deleted] t1_jdaz1nr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdazex8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdb21b4 wrote
[deleted] t1_jdb367e wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdb37jv wrote
[deleted]
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
[deleted] t1_jdb7tc7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdb8fjz wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdb8fut wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
cjameshuff t1_jdb9jnj wrote
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.
Secure-Evening8197 t1_jdbaq18 wrote
Cool launch. The hosts were quite annoying to listen to.
[deleted] t1_jdbemuz wrote
[removed]
CrispyRussians t1_jdbhal3 wrote
You don't like canned enthusiasm as a substitute for actual information? This was a marketing presentation; felt the same way about the narration
Vigitiser t1_jdc2f8m wrote
This was the 3rd or 4th launch attempt, and it’s the only one I wasn’t watching. Ffs
Pashto96 t1_jdce7kq wrote
So what? They should print everything they use?
cjameshuff t1_jdckqok wrote
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?
Pashto96 t1_jdcsc4d wrote
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.
pmMeAllofIt t1_jdeoioz wrote
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.
cjameshuff t1_jdf28us wrote
I'm not the one saying it's feasable, reasonable, or even desirable to 3D print 100% of a rocket, that's Relativity.
pmMeAllofIt t1_jdhlw78 wrote
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
[deleted] t1_jdau9wa wrote
[removed]