The 10% weight penalty did seem significant to me, but there was seemingly contradictory information when they said the process is stronger than conventional rocket building techniques. If it's stronger, then it should be lighter, not heavier.
Anyhow, it seems the underlying technology is more useful for rocket parts, and not necessarily for fabricating the entire rocket, especially when they talked about how labor intensive it is to build coolant passages in the engine cone.
Perhaps a little extra weight is offset by lower cost to construct, perhaps higher reliability through reduced part count, and speed of construction.
|