The Genius of 3D Printed Rockets
 

.

The Genius of 3D Printed Rockets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E


Why am I posting this on ecomodder...???

Well, it is transportation oriented...

Manufacturing eco also....

And...

I think it’s pretty cool...😎



:turtle:

>

.

When I saw the title, I thought it would be about Integza. I've been following his experiments with vortex hybrid rockets and 3D printed solid fuel. The latest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fw4CbsqCcM
_______________

I watched the video. That kid is the founder of the company?!?


edit: If you want something to make you think more, try Sabin-a Hossenfelder: Physicist Despairs over Vacuum Energy

Depending on thrust and oxidizer requirements, fuel can be just about anything. Printing it is odd, but why not? Easier/faster to use the motor tube as a form and a center insert for burn formation, however. Unless you drop it.

They'll have a big second-mover advantage WRT reusable launch vehicles vs SpaceX.

I also like that their production easily scales in a linear fashion... add more machines, build more in parallel. But at the same time, they won't enjoy the economies of scale SpaceX can do. He even mentions this in the video. I wonder what the failure rate for their "one big part" is vs traditional methods... like, porous spots in the print, etc?

Sam

IMHO if they get the first layer to stick they're half the way there.

Probably the same for the solids on the shuttle, statistically 1 failure per 100 launches.*

Porous just makes the burn accelerate in odd ways and can lead to skin burn throughs: so boom , too much thrust, not enough thrust, asymmetric thrust, whatever.

I watched this last week and thought it was also very interesting. Being aerospace I'd imagine their quality control has to be pretty ridiculous. They probably x-ray these parts before anything is put in use or even tested.

magna-flux: duckduckgo.com/?q=magna-flux&ia=web

Fwiw, we did ultrasound only on the shuttle solid boosters, nitroglycerin mixed with aluminum chlorhydrate and a rubber binder/filler is a wee bit unstable to be putting much energy into. They did withstand rail and truck transport but not dropping

Since everyone was paranoid about propellant but not temps or o rings this kinda worked

Those were fun days.

They mentioned a 10-15% (if I recall correctly) weight penalty. That seems significant to me, but perhaps its not for the rocket as a whole?

Weight is only an issue if it reduces payload to orbit. Everything else support system is massively overbuilt.

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.