[HN Gopher] We just built the world's largest 3D-printed aerospi... ___________________________________________________________________ We just built the world's largest 3D-printed aerospike rocket engine Author : bookofjoe Score : 50 points Date : 2022-11-21 17:10 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.hyperganic.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.hyperganic.com) | clivefx wrote: | Looks quite heavy compared to a standard nozzle. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Standard nozzles are quite heavy as well. | | It's entirely possible that this aerospike engine is actually | lighter because they don't need large nozzles and nozzle | extensions and are more efficient | TaylorAlexander wrote: | This looks like a fantastically useful technology and I am | reminded of the fact that when FDM 3D printers were under patent, | they cost $25,000, and ten years after the patents expired they | cost $250. I believe some key metal 3D printing patents recently | expired, but I suspect much of this process is still patented, | making it unnecessarily expensive. I would love to see this kind | of tech become ubiquitous and affordable to everyone, and this | will not happen until the patents are fully expired and we see | genuine competition in the space. | | I guess I should preempt a couple of the most common responses I | get to this view: | | First, markets provide first mover advantage even without | intellectual property restrictions. The idea that governments | should provide monopoly protections on ideas is anti-competetive | and anti free market. Libertarians at places like the Mises | institute recognize this and have some good talks on the subject. | | Also, we would not see investment dry up without IP restrictions. | We would see the nature of investment change from fewer larger | investments to more smaller investments as competitors race to | get the latest incremental improvement to market first by seeking | investment to upgrade production lines, etc. | | Workers absolutely deserve to be compensated for their work, but | we see that in most IP restriction regimes, businesses take all | the winnings and pay only wages to the workers doing the | inventing. Individual inventors can still have first mover | advantage, and I would argue that most new invention is not | motivated by profit but curiosity. Removing IP restrictions would | vastly increase invention by curiosity, as there would be far | more places where a curious engineer could tinker and improve | something. Imagine that one person invents something and gets a | patent. This will prevent 100 other people from tinkering and | improving upon it. This is why I say that the sole function of a | patent is to reduce innovation - because that is the one literal | function of them. The supposed follow on effects are more of a | cultural meme that are often disproved by things like the open | source movement, which clearly demonstrates that a lot of the | assumptions around IP restrictions are not strictly true. | | Finally, people in foreign countries who cannot afford expensive | machines like medical scanners etc still deserve to build copies | of those machines for their own use, but patent harmonization | laws like TRIPS prevent these sorts of things. The same goes with | medicine. | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: | Which machine printed this? | unwind wrote: | Maybe something like this: [1]. It looks ... expensive. | | [1]: https://amcm.com/machines/amcm-m4k | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: | Thanks, looks like that's it: | | >The world's biggest 3d-printed rocket engine was printed by | the AMCM M4K customized machine. | | I hope some of this tech comes into the consumer price range | with little or no post processing involved | mentos wrote: | Love how it looks biological and represents a new kind of | evolution in engineering. | the8472 wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna | moh_maya wrote: | "Published 11 May 22" -- since then, is there any news of fire | tests? | | I'm sure its cool they've been able to design and 3D print a | complex structure - however, the company blog appears to only | link to additive manufacturing companies: I couldn't find a | subsequent link where this engine has been (even) ground tested, | demonstrating basic validation of the design in test / fire | conditions: till that happens, this is just (imo) a cool looking | untested, unvalidated design and therefore, untested, unvalidated | algorithmic design.. | | None of the reports covering this even mention any testing, or | any anticipated testing. Is it an art piece? | flaviut wrote: | It does not work: | https://twitter.com/linkayser/status/1528050454374109186 | | This is apparently a demonstration of their geometry software, | not something that will ever be fired, since they are an | "organic" modeling company, not a rocket company. | moh_maya wrote: | That doesn't make sense to me: why design it if it cannot / | will not be tested to validate / demonstrate the value of | their 'algorithmicEngineering'? | | How can one make any functional claims of value without some | functional testing? What am I missing? | ghostly_s wrote: | You're missing nothing, it's pure PR fluff. | rbanffy wrote: | Perhaps. | | We don't know if they sold the design and whether it was | tested. The design itself is very interesting - in | particular the complex heat exchange structures. | | On it being optimal, or even more efficient, as long as | it's cheaper to build than a conventional engine, it's | game. | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | we know the engine wasn't tested, and we do not yet have | enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the | engine is unsold | s1artibartfast wrote: | I think all of that is basically out of scope. I don't | think they are claiming it is a good design. The | impressive point is their software can make a design at | all. It seems like they want to sell it to people that | will use it to try to make designs that _are_ good | ImPostingOnHN wrote: | algorithmic design on its own, with no further qualifiers | (like functionality) isn't impressive though, I don't | think that's the pitch | s1artibartfast wrote: | Algorithmic design engineering is a fairly mature field | that's been around for 20 plus years. | | Looking at their website, they are simply developing a tool | for more integrated algorithms from the park level to | system level. | | With this in mind, the the component integration of the | model itself is extremely impressive and a proof of | concept. It doesn't matter if it actually works or not, | that's not really the point. | _Adam wrote: | I'm skeptical there's any value being generated here then. | Who are the customers? How do they know this fancy looking | biological design is any good at all? | | It's fine not to actually test fire it, but in that case | prove it with simulations. Demonstrate that it's superior to | existing designs, or at the very least that it's functional. | moffkalast wrote: | So in a nutshell I can grab the toroidal aerospike model from | KSP, print it 1 cm larger and I now have the world's largest | 3D printed aerospike. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | What's amazing about the linked blob post is that the | headline is "But Does It Work?" and the word "no" only | appears once, in the phrase "there's no looking back." | | The article asks really tough questions of itself, like "Have | you tested it, does it work?" and then very carefully does | not say yes or no. Why ask yourself those questions if you | don't want to answer them? | | Imagine a politician who starts a campaign speech "People are | asking me, 'Am I a Ghost Wizard?' and here's my answer: ghost | wizards are valid concerns. This builds upon the latest in | crytozoological knowledge of supernatural studies. The first | study of such wizards was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. | As I've discussed previously with my constituents, the United | Nations has previously looked into ghost wizards. In a way, | it seems that..." | more_corn wrote: | The headline needs the word "model". This is not a functional | engine. | zasdffaa wrote: | Lovely! | | Does it work? | more_corn wrote: | Model | tintor wrote: | It is printed out of copper, so no. | CarVac wrote: | Copper is a perfectly normal material for rocket engines due | to high thermal conductivity. | mrguyorama wrote: | How do you do comprehensive QA on a 3D printed part with complex | internal structures like that? Can you X-ray copper? What happens | to an engine that has a slight void or poor adhesion in a layer, | does it have a 1% degradation in performance, or does it fail to | cool effectively and melt during the dangerous part of the | launch? | Robotbeat wrote: | X-ray CT is standard. There's also just borescoping it. You can | build witness coupons at the same time and test their strength. | No substitute for test firing the engine. Even operationally, | you'll want to acceptance fire the engine before putting it on | a vehicle. | metal_am wrote: | This is a huge field in additive manufacturing. One of the most | promising solutions is in-situ process monitoring to identify | defects that may occur, often using machine learning. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Yes you can x-ray metals like copper. CT would be the best | choice due to the complex geometry. | | Failure modes from any defect would of course depend on the | scale and type of the defect, and could lead to nothing or | catastrophic failure | BobbyJo wrote: | The first several (10s or even 100s) will be run, most likely | from test stands, then ripped apart and combed over for hot | spots and cracks. Id even expect them to build some with | shittier materials specifically to see how it causes them to | fail. Rocket engines are a shocking amount of trial and error. | ghostly_s wrote: | If they had any intention of actually creating something | other than a marketing gimmick sure they'd do all that stuff. | jn5 wrote: | Maybe using ultrasonic testing during the printing process, | while the inner parts are still accessible | hgomersall wrote: | You can probably build a kind of acoustic signature of the | whole at various different points in the boundary and check | each build is sufficiently close to that signature. | bookofjoe wrote: | https://youtu.be/na9acHpi4WQ | | https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/pub/... | geocrasher wrote: | TL;DR: We printed a really big, hard to print model aerospike | engine. This was done to demonstrate how our printing could be | used in the future to make possible as-yet impossible advances in | rocket science. It's purely conceptual. | friesandties wrote: | This is seriously one of the coolest things I have seen lately. | Taking a moment to look at the overall engine itself, the nature | of how you arrive at such eloquently-chaotic beauty, and the | sheer uniqueness of the damn thing, wow! | | Appears to me to be littered with waveguides upon waveguides, | pinch points, and various irises. This is really cool. Whether it | works to cool the nozzle down, I feel like the beginning | simulations could easily yield do more of this, less of that, | test, and vary in a iterative feedback loop of sorts. Maybe even | hot gas at tight-knit control, induction loops for moving heat | inward to segments, or outward? Think of just how fast you could | build this just by going single-part alone if it works. | [deleted] | teruakohatu wrote: | According to Wikipedia (and the article itself), cooling the | aerospike is main problem with this type of engine | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine | | Does anyone know how this design solves the problem? | metal_am wrote: | The idea is additive manufacturing allows for more complex | internal geometries, i.e. cooling channels. | pengaru wrote: | "We just built the world's largest 3D-printed aerospike rocket | engine." | | Where's the built engine? All I see in TFA is an individual | complex 3d-printed component, seemingly just cutaway versions at | that. Not a built engine. | fudged71 wrote: | Likely more of an artpiece for the tradeshow than anything else. | For the RAPID tradeshow you see plenty of intricate prints like | this showing off the capabilities of different AM processes. This | one being hosted at the EOS booth is showing off the AMCM | customizable platform. Printed aerospikes have been tested a | bunch already but none of them are market ready. | autokad wrote: | This is pure PR fluff. if a company you dont already know says | they have an aerospike engine, you should already be skeptical. a | 3D printed one? Ok now you know its bunk. a small deep dive | proves that. | abudabi123 wrote: | Will an aerospike engine have more safety margin using the | SpaceX fuel mix and not the hydrogen type maintank on Artemis I | with all the fuel leak complications the media could not see | because the "funnies" would embarass the lawyers and accounting | arranging the "goofproofers" in the KSP simulation? | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-21 23:00 UTC)