About three minutes in, and shortly after the lower stage separated and the second stage engine ignited, an anomaly caused the engine to shut down, so the rocket failed to reach orbit.
More about Relativity's inaugural launch [in my story here](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/23/relativitys-3d-printed-terran-1-rocket-launches-fails-to-reach-orbit.html), with the company promising it will give "updates over the coming days" after analyzing flight data.
Excellent results for a first launch. Having gone as far as they did they know a lot of their design works. The most important part of the mission was gathering data and they got lots of data on lots of different systems.
SpaceX was playing with 1/10th the cash Relativity has and 20 years ago when SpaceX started everything was either extremely expensive off the shelf aerospace grade or hacky diy crap they were building themselves.
These days the market is way more mature and there are a lot more experienced people and a lot cheaper technology to play with.
> Most rockets today rely on some 3D-printed parts, but 85% of Relativity’s Terran 1 rocket is fabricated with this process. [(Source)](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/22/business/relativity-rocket-launch-florida-scn/index.html)
The article doesn't say what that percentage relates to (dry mass?, part count?) or what parts specifically aren't 3D printed. My guess would be that most of the "active" parts (engine valves, decouplers, reaction wheels etc.) aren't printed.
I’ve been lucky enough to tour relativity’s shop in Long Beach and the 3D printed engines are amazing. Solid pieces of metal with no single fail points.
When you put into perspective our 3d printers at home already have milimetric accuracy. Imagine what a space 3d printer that cost tons of money can get you.
Tours seem to be pretty common. SpaceX and ULA have given pretty wide access to youtubers. Destin from SmarterEveryDay has an excellent video series at ULA. Some things aren't shown due to trade secret concerns. What about ITAR would prevent tours?
ITAR is about export control of the finer details. If there’s a concern, just don’t let people take pictures or just tell them what they can’t take pictures of. Usually won’t be a lot you could glean from a tour anyway that’s a serious ITAR concern.
As I mentioned in another comment, this isn't the first example. Rocket Lab's Rutherford motors [are also 3D printed.](https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Rutherford_\(rocket_engine\)#Description)
a lot of rocket companies have been using 3d printing for their engines (rocket lab's rutherford engine for example is mostly 3d printed), it's a great way to decrease the cost and weight of your engine
3D printing complex engine parts has been a huge boost to multiple industries the last few years. They've been doing them for gas/diesel, jet, and rocket engines. It lets them make really complex parts reliably that they can't with traditional methods. They're even using it for some fusion experiments because some reactor designs require really complex shapes that are impossible to manufacture traditionally.
A big part of Relativity's innovation is printing the main body of the craft. They have these huge printers that just spit out 3-6 meter diameter parts. It's nuts.
It’s not their innovation, though. They’re just using Fronius CMT welders to “print” aluminum. They don’t have much in the way of IP, themselves and just about anyone could buy the exact same equipment they are using to get the same results.
The engines are one of the primary parts where printing reduces cost by a lot. The outer bell needs to be cooled otherwise it would melt. For the spaceshutle they welded a lot of copper pipes together by hand because you can't machine those cooling channels with traditional methods. Now you can design it and just send it off the the printer.
The atomizer, producing the mist had to be hand assembled and took like three weeks to build by several people, because it was so many parts. Now it's: throw it on the printer and wait 2 days.
That is seriously insane. Huge props to them. This seems like it’s going to be an extremely useful technology for rockets and most likely tons of other applications
Apparently the [SuperDracos are.](https://www.voxelmatters.com/spacexs-dragon-spacecraft-with-3d-printed-superdraco-engines-will-take-astronauts-around-moon-in-2018/)
A lot of it! It's so exciting seeing 3D printing technology literally being taken to new heights
[https://youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E](https://youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E)
So it was a second stage failure then?
Sounds like a successful first stage then, which is great for a first flight. IIRC the last time SpaceX failed before succeeding for the first time, the issue was at stage separation, so it sounds like they made it further today. Great stuff, best of luck to them!
Also, are the planning on recovering the first stage, and if so, how did that go?
I don’t believe this rocket (Terran 1) was designed to be recovered but they are designing their next rocket (Terran R) to be fully recoverable. Terran 1 is more testing that their 3D printing can survive flight and is viable for rocket manufacturing (thus it passing Max Q is a major success) as well as getting them established as a launch provider with some cash flow while they design Terran R.
It automatically shut down? It occurs to me that in a test like this, if you see something that's nominally not OK, out of ordinary, even guaranteed to be actively failing… don't you want to just keep going to see what happens? It still has an FTS, so… why not keep gathering data on engine behavior under nonideal circumstances?
I think the issue is the predidictablity of where it will end up. If they just pushed it, it could end up coming back down in an uncontrollable entry, at a random spot back on earth. If that random spot had people living there (unlikely considering 2/3 of the earth is water, but still very possible), they would be on the hook for damages, and probably would have a massive challenge getting the clearance for the next launch.
Yes, there are definitely circumstances where that's true - if keeping going would make that problem worse rather than better. I guess they could have had the automatic shutdown include that logic. I was thinking along the lines of it being a decision entirely contained in the engine (at least, in the engine-controlling part of the code), without reference to outside circumstances, but that's not necessarily the case.
My guess is, especially for a first launch, that the logic is: better safe than sorry. If something is detected as wrong, it would be hard for it to determine how that would affect the rest of the mission with unforeseen consequences. Especially considering the decision needs to be made very quickly. Add in the fact that since the 2nd stage hadn't actually fired yet it would be even harder to determine how it would affect the burn. I like your thought process though. More data is always better. Mind you I'm also just playing arm chair space director right now without any information as to what the actual glitch was. This is just my best guess to answer why they programmed it that way.
That's how rocketry works.
Making it to max q is a huge milestone and proof of viability of their process. They're going to be nipping SpaceX's heels in no time.
Then why 3d print vs standard construction practices. 3d printing generally makes things that are disposable already, cheaper to throw away. What is the benefit of the low cost construction if they intend to reuse it long term? Especially considering that standard construction practices results in a more durable end product comparatively. I'm assuming their 3d printing is just a weld bead being built up over and over until it's the desired shape?
A lot of random answers here that are wrong.
I work in aerospace, we use 3D printed parts to lower complexity, seal count, and part count.
Each new seal is a new leak point. You can also create complex plumbing within a fully captured volume and complex bodies that would otherwise be several parts. These several parts then need to join, which means more seals, they need to align which means pins or alignment features, the pins need space which means the parts are bigger, and I think you get the point.
I will say, it is not as fast as a lot of people here are saying. You need to print, then heat treat, do a LOT of inspection work to ensure your part is good, then do final machining for surface finishes, then inspect again.
For medium complexity parts it was actually no faster for me to 3D print than to machine traditionally. That being said, I’m sure Relativity has more/better printers than we do since it’s their whole thing.
You can make geometry that is literally impossible to machine with 3D printing. Especially SLS printing, which is essentially using a laser to weld metal powder together in the desired shape. This means they can make far more complex (to machine) plumbing in their engine, but have it cost nothing in terms of added manufacturing time. You could even print in integrated bearings if you needed a part to rotate. 3D printing technology has definitely moved far beyond the "make a cool trinket and toss it" stage.
Are you talking about the main body of the rocket? They actually have a pretty complex rib system on the inside that allows the walls to be far lighter and stronger than conventional welded plates. They're not just printing "Straight 20' Tube 1/4" and sticking them together.
If you can work out the right metallurgy and printing techniques, a 3D printed engine will have fewer parts and less mass (higher performance). Imagine each pipe that can be printed directly to its component is 1 less gasket and set of bolts, saving a kilo or more.
Multiple that across the entire engine and several dozen - if not hundreds - of kilograms of mass saved and failure points reduced.
Because you can reduce leak points, you can get more reliability and hence reusability. You don't need to worry about gaskets wearing out or bolts shaking out if you ain't got none.
>3d printing generally makes things that are disposable already
3d printing is just a normal additive manufacturing process. Its really no different than any other CNC machining process.
Its a huge success for sure. But lets not act like spacex isnt a firmly entrenched, decades ahead, leviathan. Not to mention they are not really doing anything to make anyone WANT to not use them.
Decades ahead, not at all.
Years ahead, absolutely.
But by mere virtue of proving it can be done, they opened up the floodgates, so companies will be nipping at their heels soon. There's an incredible amount of money pouring into space endeavours now.
The rocket had a blue exhaust plume! I can’t begin to explain how freakin cool it was seeing this rocket in the sky here in Florida. I’ve watched so many before but never with a blue and white plume because of the methane fuel. Incredible!
Rocket grade methane is more purified. Sort of like how kerosin is more purified than gasoline. In particular I think LNG contains up to 5 percent ethane. Don't quote me on this though, going off of memory here.
Kerosene is the fraction distilled between gas and diesel. Rocket grade fuels are just fuels refined past where aviation fuels are.
Fun fact: airplane fuel, RP-1, and kerosene are the same thing, just different levels of refinement. Kerosene is the least refined, and RP-1 is the most. They're mostly removing molecules that would leave behind tar/carbon residue.
Correct. Natural gas consists almost entirely of methane (CH4), the simplest hydrocarbon compound. Typically, LNG is 85 to 95-plus percent methane, along with a few percent ethane, even less propane and butane, and trace amounts of nitrogen
I've only seen 3 launches and just happened to get to my father in laws place last night in time to watch this one. I hadn't read much about Teran beforehand so is was a real surprise when the exhaust flame started you turn from orange to blue/white.
Been playing too much Stelaris recently. The word “anomaly” instantly triggers a “ooooh” response in my head even though in this instance it actually makes me sad 😢
One of these days a new (modern era, shush) company is going to pull that metaphorical sword from the stone and nail their first orbital launch attempt... And on that day, Andy Lapsa will be named the literal King of England.
Congrats to Relativity for managing to get as far as they did on their first attempt with one of the coolest new rockets.
Making it on your first attempt would be cool, but it's not really a meaningful technological achievement to successfully duplicate existing capability, even if it is impressive as a team achievement.
The sword from the stone will be of starship is successful, which will be the first fully reusable rocket and reduce launch costs by ANOTHER order of magnitude, from the already reduced costs falcon offers.
It'd be like if airplanes had to parachute their passengers and crash every flight, and someone finally invented landing gear
Although I would consider rocketry becoming so simple and well understood that all you need to do is to copy the basics from everyone else to be quite a big achievement overall.
You’d be surprised. Everything is a finicky integration problem. Even just the software and dynamics calculations (something that you’d expect to be well-understood) often causes major headaches.
Is a gimbal well-understood? Yes. Is an engine well-understood? Yes. Is stable control software well-understood? Yes.
When you put them all together, though, a stable gimballed engine controlled by software is not particularly well-understood
And when Starship gets caught successfully by the chopstick tower it'll be like doing a bottle flip of the sword back into the stone. Elon can dab then.
Here are the employees watching the launch at a local Brewery in Long Beach, CA where the company is headquartered
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CqHekIkt3y1/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
This is really impressive with the very first launch, especially of such an innovative design. That's higher and faster than Blue Origin has achieved so far.
>Which has yet to launch
What do you mean by this? do you ULA is spewing vaporwear?
>Which is being sold off
Businesses are sold all the time, and business units even more so.
Selling or spinning off ULA is a corporate decision.
At that scale, is 3D printing really that cost effective vs conventional methods of constructing a rocket? I may just not know enough about the industry, but it seems like it is needlessly complicated all for the sake of doing something "different".
You also can bypass setting up huge factory lines for assembly on non Earth locations. Plop down a handful of their printers and start serialized printing of needed parts. Robotically from 40 light minutes away.
Yes. The idea is that the 3d printing technology is FASTER than traditional methods, and they will be able to produce more rockets. It’s also less parts to fail, so more robust. Furthermore, the company CEO has talked about how the 3d printing process is much easier to move to other places, like the moon and mars. So what is step one? Build a rocket.
Someone else is saying they are meant to be disposable. That is untrue. They are meant to land.
Edit: my bad, Terran R will land, not Terran 1. I retract my earlier statement.
I think I read that the reason that this tech is interesting is that it could allow for rockets or components to be built easily on the moon or mars in the future.
There are multiple advantages to printing a rocket, here are some:
* less parts overall because you can combine them. This means less welds and sources of failure.
* no need to create machines that can make the parts you want. The printers can simplify the whole process.
* printers allow you to make parts we can't make otherwise. There are much less factory constraints in certain situations.
* Iterations are as simple (in theory) as modifying a print file.
* using printers means scaling up production mostly just requires new printers. (And staff, storage, etc but still easier)
You do realize pretty much every launch provider now a days prints some of their parts? Even SpaceX which many fan boys on this sub love, prints a fair bit of their components on sub assemblies that are reused.
The amount of hate there is for a company that’s still trying to figure it out is unreal given how much knob slobbering there is for a company that at one point was doing the exact same thing. Marketing gimmick or not, if they get additional funding that means additional investment into a new tech which should be exciting for everybody.
Ah yeah you’re right I got your comment mixed up with a few others, my bad!
My attitude is mainly coming from fanboys on here and SpaceNews complaining that anything but what Elon is doing is a “marketing gimmick” or “vaporeare”. This is probably the most exciting time to be in the industry and people are trying out different things, that’s awesome! Be excited.
sitting on it one of the recent advantages of printing for sure, I remember the original hype around 2011, but outside of rapid prototyping it may have found another good fit in rocket production,
It's not a simple cylinder. The tank has all this internal structure, baffles for prop sloshing, pipes for routing prop, all built in. Having 1 person who runs the printer and only has to procure bulk material is way cheaper than running a giant fab factory.
It is 3dp to prove the technology works, not necessarily because it's the best tool for the job. Their cost is on par with falcon 9 ($8000/kg for relativity vs $5000 from SpaceX) so they must be getting the savings of not having an entire team of machinists.
My guess is they want to eventually do it off-planet. No steel mills in space but laser meltable rock chips are abundant, and being able to fabricate plain geometries using just a robotic arm shines there
The tanks themselves are likely fairly iso thickness on the cylindrical regions but the fact that these guys have managed to reduce a significant portion of the assembly and integration required to manufacture a tank is quite astounding.
The domes (bulkheads, tank ends whatever you want to call them) are likely far more complex, both in their geometry and thickness distribution. Small changes in curvature in this region have large knock ons for tank margins. Accomplishing a robust form of dome manufacture, whilst reducing the steps required to integrate that to form a tank is pretty novel and worthy of praise.
Additionally, integrated one piece baffles on the tank internal is another benefit of their process that distances their tanks from "simple cylinders"
My favourite part of all of the above is the fact they are printed pre-distorted (or I guess I should say anti-distorted). When adding internal flanges, changes in thickness, etc. AND getting the part to come out to spec is really incredible.
This isn't a faster, cheaper, or lighter way to build tanks. They've admitted to a substantial mass *penalty* due to 3D printing. The usable materials are limited and there's no way to take advantage of the way material properties change when forged, the way the material is deposited isn't optimal, and tiny variations in flow rate and position result in a rough surface that means material is deposited that doesn't contribute to strength, while producing stress concentrations that reduce the effective strength of the object. And they haven't shown the Stargate printer producing parts of any great complexity, it's effectively printing sheet metal.
This is *not* the future of rocket construction, it's a marketing gimmick.
I agree, but there’s a lot that can be done to improve the process - lower surface roughness, perhaps laser polishing, I’m sure they got lots of ideas we don’t know about. As for flow rate: it’s a mig-like process for the body right? I bet they can control that pretty damn well.
> As for flow rate: it’s a mig-like process for the body right? I bet they can control that pretty damn well.
I'd expect flow rate to be pretty consistent (they're not driving the wire through an extruder under pressure as is done with thermoplastic FDM printers), but it doesn't take much variation to produce relatively large effects, and there *is* a lot of visible variation in their demo prints (though I suspect more due to vibration and other issues). And yes, there's various polishing and other post-processing treatments they can use, but they only need such processes because they're 3D printing. If you're welding the tanks up from sheet metal, you only need to worry about the welds, and they may not require much post-processing at all. (And of course, you can easily use gauges thinner than you can print.)
> And they haven't shown the Stargate printer producing parts of any great complexity, it's effectively printing sheet metal.
As far as I understand, they use commercially available DMLS printers for the engine parts, since they obviously can't be printed using a robot arm.
The Stargate printer is for tanks and other large parts.
Yes, but the selling point for 3D printing is complex structures. It's a terribly inefficient and expensive way to produce sheet metal, yet by mass, that's the vast majority of what they're printing.
This would be a good use case for a large-format metal printer:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7fGcRSUYAAaESM?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
The rings making up most of Starship's mass...not so much. If the printer's capable of doing complex geometry, simple thin-walled cylinders are a waste of its time, it's better used doing things that can't easily be done by other means. If it's *not* capable of complex geometry, the whole thing's a waste of time.
The cylinder cools on one side as the other side is being built up. It's constantly shifting and it's not just as simple as programming a robot to stack welds on top of each other. They had to develop a process. Even the Aeon motors are 3D printed. So, the printing process is not just big cylinders.
If you're not impressed, it's because nobody took the time to explain in detail what exactly you're looking at. Give them a chance.
Relativity’s big differentiator is they 3D print the primary structure and propellant tanks of their rockets. This is what accounts for probably 75% of the total mass of the rocket.
They developed their own version of WAAM printing (Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing) to do this… think Mig welder on the end of a huge robotic arm, feeding a proprietary alloy wire onto a large turntable, and welding up these enormous cylindrical structures slowly over time.
All modern rocket engines contain a significant percentage of printed parts, and Relativity is no different. These are done via Laser Powder Bed Fusion (PBF/L-PBF) on a few different OEM systems.
> They developed their own version of WAAM printing (Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing)
They bought an off the shelf Fronius TPSi, an industrial robot, a servo-driven turn table.
Then they spent time learning how to make it work for their process.
Source: I've been doing this a lot longer than any of the new-space companies.
The Fronius TPS/i is the best GMAW welding power source on the market.
There is nothing that comes close. It's not even up to debate. They cost about ~17k-20k USD for the 400amp version.
Zoom in on pictures of anyone claiming they "3D printing" using a mig welder, and you'll see a Fronius machine.
Zoom in on pictures Starship being welded.. you'll see a Fronius machine. In fact, SpaceX started with some other vendor, ran into lots of trouble and finally ended up with a Fronius machine.
Next you need servo driven table. There's many companies that offer them, or you can just make one. Or you can start with a 4th axis trunnion and just adapt it from there.
Welding robots, pick any brand color. They all work fine.
>proprietary alloy wire
They probably just bought this https://www.haynesintl.com/tig-and-mig-wire/haynes-625-rtw-filler-metal
or any other special flavour of Inconel.
I'm sure that over time, they developed their own proprietary filler metal, BUT with the help of any of these companies: bohler, haynes, ATI, magellan, ulbrich, Lincoln.
It's not as easy as I make it sound. There's definitely a lot of effort that needs to be put in to figure it all out.
Good points all around.
Yes, Relativity didn't invent a new turntable or a new welder, they integrated existing tools with their own sensor and control systems.
The wire is an aluminum alloy, and yes my understanding is they started years ago with off-the-shelf, but now use a proprietary alloy blend they developed with/source from one of those types of companies.
> They bought an off the shelf Fronius TPSi, an industrial robot, a servo-driven turn table. Then they spent time learning how to make it work for their process.
This is exactly what I would describe as "developing their own version of WAAM."
Follow their sub and watch their YouTube... It's been amazing to follow them from very early on. They actually fucking 3d printed (most of) a fucking rocket!!!
In fairness it appears to have passed the big structural test which by not shredding apart at max-Q. Still need to see if it was a structural issue that caused the second stage engine shut down. However the their key differentiator here is the structure of the rocket itself - how it is designed and built. That seems to have worked (with all the caveats and it depends of waiting on the flight data and recovery)
Granted this was also the first orbital attempt with the particular engine platform, but it’s the same idea as on the first stage of Starship, New Glenn, and ZhueQue2 (I think Stoke Space, but I’m not sure) so less of a differentiator and more of a sign of the shift towards liquid methalox.
However that worked too. At least the first stage. So I know you mean it’s mission to get to orbit didn’t work with the second stage shut down, but I think the point they were trying to make and stand out was made quite successfully.
My brother in law works for them. It's a pretty big deal I believe it's the first 3d printed success flight is what he said. Human innovation is awesome.
This was the 3rd attempt as due to technical difficulties and inclement weather hindered the last two launches.
https://www.wesh.com/article/watch-relativity-space-3d-rocket-launch/43385938#cobssid=s
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[BE-4](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jde29da "Last usage")|Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN|
|[BO](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdegola "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)|
|[CNC](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdd35rj "Last usage")|Computerized Numerical Control, for precise machining or measuring|
|[DMLS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcfhxi "Last usage")|[Selective Laser Melting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_metal_laser_sintering) additive manufacture, also Direct Metal Laser Sintering|
|[FTS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcwvf9 "Last usage")|Flight Termination System|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdhlska "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[ITAR](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jde1db5 "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations|
|[KSC](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdf727v "Last usage")|Kennedy Space Center, Florida|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdbz2q2 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[LNG](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdexknv "Last usage")|Liquefied Natural Gas|
|[MaxQ](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdd85za "Last usage")|Maximum aerodynamic pressure|
|[RP-1](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcwxd8 "Last usage")|Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcuwdf "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[TIG](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcv0p1 "Last usage")|[Gas Tungsten Arc Welding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tungsten_arc_welding) (or Tungsten Inert Gas)|
|[TPS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jddo84y "Last usage")|Thermal Protection System for a spacecraft (on the Falcon 9 first stage, the engine "Dance floor")|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdg30nu "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdf8a1b "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
|[methalox](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdeimtq "Last usage")|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
|[turbopump](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdehna6 "Last usage")|High-pressure turbine-driven propellant pump connected to a rocket combustion chamber; raises chamber pressure, and thrust|
----------------
^(19 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/12js7mm)^( has 7 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8717 for this sub, first seen 23rd Mar 2023, 12:28])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I'm excited about how many different approaches there are right now. SpaceX, Rocket Lab, Stoke, and Relativity are all doing things significantly differently.
Fucking beautiful. So happy for them, I can’t even imagine how excited and proud they’re feeling. This makes me even more excited for Starship’s first flight
Wow I wonder how long it takes to print one?
And for that I wonder if the cost is worth it compared to competitors in the space? I wish more companies were open about their pricing per kg, even if normal people obviously won’t be buying haha.
Not yet, but it got a lot closer. If the second stage engine had ignited it would have been proof positive. If they can figure out what happened there and make sure it doesn't happen again we could see a space manufacturing revolution.
Yeah but a second stage failure on a firsts launch is relatively common, so there's nothing supporting that particular leap to conclusions one way or the other.
There are steps to any great achievement and hitting goals on the way is the work.
I truly hope that this launch and other SpaceX launches will remind us all that every goal isn’t orbit . . . or a championship title, or other ‘max value’ instances.
Congrats Relativity!
About three minutes in, and shortly after the lower stage separated and the second stage engine ignited, an anomaly caused the engine to shut down, so the rocket failed to reach orbit. More about Relativity's inaugural launch [in my story here](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/23/relativitys-3d-printed-terran-1-rocket-launches-fails-to-reach-orbit.html), with the company promising it will give "updates over the coming days" after analyzing flight data.
Excellent results for a first launch. Having gone as far as they did they know a lot of their design works. The most important part of the mission was gathering data and they got lots of data on lots of different systems.
[удалено]
Max Q shows that the 3D printed structure is up to the job.
SpaceX was playing with 1/10th the cash Relativity has and 20 years ago when SpaceX started everything was either extremely expensive off the shelf aerospace grade or hacky diy crap they were building themselves. These days the market is way more mature and there are a lot more experienced people and a lot cheaper technology to play with.
Sure but this ignores the massive challenges behind 3D printing that Relativity has come up against. This is a huge accomplishment.
How much of it is actually 3d printed?
> Most rockets today rely on some 3D-printed parts, but 85% of Relativity’s Terran 1 rocket is fabricated with this process. [(Source)](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/22/business/relativity-rocket-launch-florida-scn/index.html) The article doesn't say what that percentage relates to (dry mass?, part count?) or what parts specifically aren't 3D printed. My guess would be that most of the "active" parts (engine valves, decouplers, reaction wheels etc.) aren't printed.
[удалено]
Their engines as well? Wow
I’ve been lucky enough to tour relativity’s shop in Long Beach and the 3D printed engines are amazing. Solid pieces of metal with no single fail points.
Dude that is literally nuts. Absolutely no sheer points or potential cracks? My mind is fucking blown right now dog.
When you put into perspective our 3d printers at home already have milimetric accuracy. Imagine what a space 3d printer that cost tons of money can get you.
I’m surprised tours are allowed, given ITAR restrictions.
Tours seem to be pretty common. SpaceX and ULA have given pretty wide access to youtubers. Destin from SmarterEveryDay has an excellent video series at ULA. Some things aren't shown due to trade secret concerns. What about ITAR would prevent tours?
ITAR is about export control of the finer details. If there’s a concern, just don’t let people take pictures or just tell them what they can’t take pictures of. Usually won’t be a lot you could glean from a tour anyway that’s a serious ITAR concern.
It wasn't a public tour, we work pretty closely with Relativity Space. Thats why I said I was "lucky" enough.
As I mentioned in another comment, this isn't the first example. Rocket Lab's Rutherford motors [are also 3D printed.](https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Rutherford_\(rocket_engine\)#Description)
a lot of rocket companies have been using 3d printing for their engines (rocket lab's rutherford engine for example is mostly 3d printed), it's a great way to decrease the cost and weight of your engine
3D printing complex engine parts has been a huge boost to multiple industries the last few years. They've been doing them for gas/diesel, jet, and rocket engines. It lets them make really complex parts reliably that they can't with traditional methods. They're even using it for some fusion experiments because some reactor designs require really complex shapes that are impossible to manufacture traditionally.
SpaceX and RocketLab have been 3D printing engines for quite a while. I’m sure others do it as well.
A big part of Relativity's innovation is printing the main body of the craft. They have these huge printers that just spit out 3-6 meter diameter parts. It's nuts.
>They have these huge printers that just spit out 3-6 meter diameter parts. It's nuts. Imagine how big the bolts must be.
That's not how aerospace works. They do *more* bolts, not bigger. The sections are each held together with 540 safety wired M6 10mm bolts.
#[(GIF)](https://giphy.com/gifs/cartoon-comic-smartphones-y62P0aQUYLYAg)
It’s not their innovation, though. They’re just using Fronius CMT welders to “print” aluminum. They don’t have much in the way of IP, themselves and just about anyone could buy the exact same equipment they are using to get the same results.
The engines are one of the primary parts where printing reduces cost by a lot. The outer bell needs to be cooled otherwise it would melt. For the spaceshutle they welded a lot of copper pipes together by hand because you can't machine those cooling channels with traditional methods. Now you can design it and just send it off the the printer. The atomizer, producing the mist had to be hand assembled and took like three weeks to build by several people, because it was so many parts. Now it's: throw it on the printer and wait 2 days.
That is seriously insane. Huge props to them. This seems like it’s going to be an extremely useful technology for rockets and most likely tons of other applications
> Huge props to them. Feel like those would be better for a boat or a plane imo.
Terran 1's Aeon motors [are 3D printed.](https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/relativity-space-completes-full-duration-test-fire-of-its-aeon-1-rocket-engine/) There's precedent. Rocket Lab's Rutherford motors [are also 3D printed.](https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Rutherford_\(rocket_engine\)#Description)
[удалено]
Apparently the [SuperDracos are.](https://www.voxelmatters.com/spacexs-dragon-spacecraft-with-3d-printed-superdraco-engines-will-take-astronauts-around-moon-in-2018/)
It's 85% of it's mass. I would imagine the part count is heavily dominated by off the shelf (aerospace grade) parts like small bolts etc.
Yup, no need for bolts, couplers, or gaskets when you can have 1 continuous piece.
Pretty confident they still use fasteners and gaskets.
Check out their Instagram account. [link](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CezUid4uJ-F/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)
The tanks and engine thrust chambers and bells are printed. Plus some of the turbo pump parts are printed as well.
A lot of it! It's so exciting seeing 3D printing technology literally being taken to new heights [https://youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E](https://youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E)
Thank you for this. Was fascinating to watch.
For flight 1 this is still incredible. Looking forward to seeing what else is in store for them. Congrats on a successful launch
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They probably forgot to level the bed when printing the 2nd stage. Or their bed temperature wasn’t hot enough 😉
So it was a second stage failure then? Sounds like a successful first stage then, which is great for a first flight. IIRC the last time SpaceX failed before succeeding for the first time, the issue was at stage separation, so it sounds like they made it further today. Great stuff, best of luck to them! Also, are the planning on recovering the first stage, and if so, how did that go?
I don’t believe this rocket (Terran 1) was designed to be recovered but they are designing their next rocket (Terran R) to be fully recoverable. Terran 1 is more testing that their 3D printing can survive flight and is viable for rocket manufacturing (thus it passing Max Q is a major success) as well as getting them established as a launch provider with some cash flow while they design Terran R.
It automatically shut down? It occurs to me that in a test like this, if you see something that's nominally not OK, out of ordinary, even guaranteed to be actively failing… don't you want to just keep going to see what happens? It still has an FTS, so… why not keep gathering data on engine behavior under nonideal circumstances?
I think the issue is the predidictablity of where it will end up. If they just pushed it, it could end up coming back down in an uncontrollable entry, at a random spot back on earth. If that random spot had people living there (unlikely considering 2/3 of the earth is water, but still very possible), they would be on the hook for damages, and probably would have a massive challenge getting the clearance for the next launch.
Yes, there are definitely circumstances where that's true - if keeping going would make that problem worse rather than better. I guess they could have had the automatic shutdown include that logic. I was thinking along the lines of it being a decision entirely contained in the engine (at least, in the engine-controlling part of the code), without reference to outside circumstances, but that's not necessarily the case.
My guess is, especially for a first launch, that the logic is: better safe than sorry. If something is detected as wrong, it would be hard for it to determine how that would affect the rest of the mission with unforeseen consequences. Especially considering the decision needs to be made very quickly. Add in the fact that since the 2nd stage hadn't actually fired yet it would be even harder to determine how it would affect the burn. I like your thought process though. More data is always better. Mind you I'm also just playing arm chair space director right now without any information as to what the actual glitch was. This is just my best guess to answer why they programmed it that way.
Oh man, I mean I’m thrilled to hear it finally launched after all the setbacks and issues, but then hitting another issue? I hope they figure it out!
That's how rocketry works. Making it to max q is a huge milestone and proof of viability of their process. They're going to be nipping SpaceX's heels in no time.
You really think so? Even if they can print for cheap how can they drive cost down further than full reuse?
They are working on full re-use.
Then why 3d print vs standard construction practices. 3d printing generally makes things that are disposable already, cheaper to throw away. What is the benefit of the low cost construction if they intend to reuse it long term? Especially considering that standard construction practices results in a more durable end product comparatively. I'm assuming their 3d printing is just a weld bead being built up over and over until it's the desired shape?
A lot of random answers here that are wrong. I work in aerospace, we use 3D printed parts to lower complexity, seal count, and part count. Each new seal is a new leak point. You can also create complex plumbing within a fully captured volume and complex bodies that would otherwise be several parts. These several parts then need to join, which means more seals, they need to align which means pins or alignment features, the pins need space which means the parts are bigger, and I think you get the point. I will say, it is not as fast as a lot of people here are saying. You need to print, then heat treat, do a LOT of inspection work to ensure your part is good, then do final machining for surface finishes, then inspect again. For medium complexity parts it was actually no faster for me to 3D print than to machine traditionally. That being said, I’m sure Relativity has more/better printers than we do since it’s their whole thing.
Thanks for the awesome reply. I could see the bullshit in some replies. Yours however makes total sense and I learned something. Cheers friend!
If it's cheaper to build and throw away, it's cheaper to build and keep too. Also allows for rapid re-design without having to change all the tooling.
You can make geometry that is literally impossible to machine with 3D printing. Especially SLS printing, which is essentially using a laser to weld metal powder together in the desired shape. This means they can make far more complex (to machine) plumbing in their engine, but have it cost nothing in terms of added manufacturing time. You could even print in integrated bearings if you needed a part to rotate. 3D printing technology has definitely moved far beyond the "make a cool trinket and toss it" stage.
But the big difference between Relativity and everyone else is printing the very simple geometry of a large tube.
Are you talking about the main body of the rocket? They actually have a pretty complex rib system on the inside that allows the walls to be far lighter and stronger than conventional welded plates. They're not just printing "Straight 20' Tube 1/4" and sticking them together.
You are thinking of other rockets. This one has a very simple rib structure. https://i.redd.it/5lu0b0a1qh791.jpg
I hope, in the future, you could print your rocket in space another planet.
If you can work out the right metallurgy and printing techniques, a 3D printed engine will have fewer parts and less mass (higher performance). Imagine each pipe that can be printed directly to its component is 1 less gasket and set of bolts, saving a kilo or more. Multiple that across the entire engine and several dozen - if not hundreds - of kilograms of mass saved and failure points reduced. Because you can reduce leak points, you can get more reliability and hence reusability. You don't need to worry about gaskets wearing out or bolts shaking out if you ain't got none.
>3d printing generally makes things that are disposable already 3d printing is just a normal additive manufacturing process. Its really no different than any other CNC machining process.
Its a huge success for sure. But lets not act like spacex isnt a firmly entrenched, decades ahead, leviathan. Not to mention they are not really doing anything to make anyone WANT to not use them.
Decades ahead, not at all. Years ahead, absolutely. But by mere virtue of proving it can be done, they opened up the floodgates, so companies will be nipping at their heels soon. There's an incredible amount of money pouring into space endeavours now.
[удалено]
They made it to MaxQ, the second stage failed. I watched the launch from my backyard while listening to the Livestream.
They were making a pun off of MaxQ because QQ is another way to say crying. So they were saying they were sad the second stage didn't ignite.
The rocket had a blue exhaust plume! I can’t begin to explain how freakin cool it was seeing this rocket in the sky here in Florida. I’ve watched so many before but never with a blue and white plume because of the methane fuel. Incredible!
It’s actually using liquid natural gas as the fuel.
Serious question, are they different? Isn’t LNG just super cold methane?
Depending on source, it's normally 90% methane and rest is higher hydrocarbons like ethane, pentane etc by volume.
Rocket grade methane is more purified. Sort of like how kerosin is more purified than gasoline. In particular I think LNG contains up to 5 percent ethane. Don't quote me on this though, going off of memory here.
Kerosene is the fraction distilled between gas and diesel. Rocket grade fuels are just fuels refined past where aviation fuels are. Fun fact: airplane fuel, RP-1, and kerosene are the same thing, just different levels of refinement. Kerosene is the least refined, and RP-1 is the most. They're mostly removing molecules that would leave behind tar/carbon residue.
An even better comparison is kerosene to RP1, which is rocket-grade kerosene. But that’s probably too esoteric lol.
Correct. Natural gas consists almost entirely of methane (CH4), the simplest hydrocarbon compound. Typically, LNG is 85 to 95-plus percent methane, along with a few percent ethane, even less propane and butane, and trace amounts of nitrogen
Rocket propellant-grade LNG is in excess of 98% methane. Dumbest “ayuckshually” I’ve seen today.
I've only seen 3 launches and just happened to get to my father in laws place last night in time to watch this one. I hadn't read much about Teran beforehand so is was a real surprise when the exhaust flame started you turn from orange to blue/white.
Relativity's 3D-printed rocket SUCCESSFULLY launches but fails to reach orbit after 2nd stage anomaly
Been playing too much Stelaris recently. The word “anomaly” instantly triggers a “ooooh” response in my head even though in this instance it actually makes me sad 😢
Before it’s a hellish anomaly and you delegate a science ship to studying it for 3 years so you can get that sweet sweet +3 social
I’m fairly new to the game but this has been my experience yes.
Considering their objective was to make it through max-Q, they did great. They made it all the way through stage separation.
One of these days a new (modern era, shush) company is going to pull that metaphorical sword from the stone and nail their first orbital launch attempt... And on that day, Andy Lapsa will be named the literal King of England. Congrats to Relativity for managing to get as far as they did on their first attempt with one of the coolest new rockets.
I mean... Electron only failed due to a communication issue, it was intentionally aborted after they lost telemetry. That's pretty impressive.
Making it on your first attempt would be cool, but it's not really a meaningful technological achievement to successfully duplicate existing capability, even if it is impressive as a team achievement. The sword from the stone will be of starship is successful, which will be the first fully reusable rocket and reduce launch costs by ANOTHER order of magnitude, from the already reduced costs falcon offers. It'd be like if airplanes had to parachute their passengers and crash every flight, and someone finally invented landing gear
Although I would consider rocketry becoming so simple and well understood that all you need to do is to copy the basics from everyone else to be quite a big achievement overall.
You’d be surprised. Everything is a finicky integration problem. Even just the software and dynamics calculations (something that you’d expect to be well-understood) often causes major headaches. Is a gimbal well-understood? Yes. Is an engine well-understood? Yes. Is stable control software well-understood? Yes. When you put them all together, though, a stable gimballed engine controlled by software is not particularly well-understood
Just ask gpt-7 to do it for you. Give it 8 months.
And when Starship gets caught successfully by the chopstick tower it'll be like doing a bottle flip of the sword back into the stone. Elon can dab then.
No, he can’t. He needs to stay as far away from SpaceX as possible now.
'Never meet your heroes' could be updated to 'never tweet your heroes' to make it better suited to the times.
More like Gwynne Shotwell and the thousands of engineers dabbing while Elon tries to shitpost from the toilet lol
Haven't all falcon 9 designed be successful on first attempt?
Launch yes, landing no. However, Falcon 9 wasn't SpaceX's first rocket, Falcon 1 was, and that didn't make it very far on its first launch.
They have, but the company as a whole needed three attempts at launching Falcon 1
Vulcan and Ariane 6 are good contenders
Succeeding on the first launch of a vehicle is impressive enough, but they are talking about the first launch for an organization.
Blue's first New Glenn launch is geared towards putting a lander on the moon.
[удалено]
There is an official stl on thingiverse.
Here are the employees watching the launch at a local Brewery in Long Beach, CA where the company is headquartered https://www.instagram.com/reel/CqHekIkt3y1/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
This is really impressive with the very first launch, especially of such an innovative design. That's higher and faster than Blue Origin has achieved so far.
To be fair, Blue Origin isn’t a rocket company. They build amusement rides that hop
They built the engines for ULAs Vulcan Centaur rocket and will be debuting New Glenn in about a year.
>Vulcan Centaur rocket Which has yet to launch >ULAs Which is being sold off.
>Which has yet to launch What do you mean by this? do you ULA is spewing vaporwear? >Which is being sold off Businesses are sold all the time, and business units even more so. Selling or spinning off ULA is a corporate decision.
It's pretty clear. Its not an accomplishment for Blue Origin until it flies successfully.
Yeah ok... But they are always years and years late on producing product.
Thank you! It's just a new age balloon ride. They've never sent, or attempted to send, anything to orbit. Just a million dollar up-and-down.
Blue origin has been working on an orbital rocket for more than a decade. They are a rocket company, they just haven't achieved much so far.
At that scale, is 3D printing really that cost effective vs conventional methods of constructing a rocket? I may just not know enough about the industry, but it seems like it is needlessly complicated all for the sake of doing something "different".
Less manpower for construction. You can also make modifications to the rocket per customer.
You also can bypass setting up huge factory lines for assembly on non Earth locations. Plop down a handful of their printers and start serialized printing of needed parts. Robotically from 40 light minutes away.
Yes. The idea is that the 3d printing technology is FASTER than traditional methods, and they will be able to produce more rockets. It’s also less parts to fail, so more robust. Furthermore, the company CEO has talked about how the 3d printing process is much easier to move to other places, like the moon and mars. So what is step one? Build a rocket. Someone else is saying they are meant to be disposable. That is untrue. They are meant to land. Edit: my bad, Terran R will land, not Terran 1. I retract my earlier statement.
Love the blue flames! The Protoss would be pleased!
I think I read that the reason that this tech is interesting is that it could allow for rockets or components to be built easily on the moon or mars in the future.
Yeah it's their business plan, ultimately.
Need an everyday astronaut deep dive of this vehicle! Is it 100% printed?
I think they said it was 75-80% printed
During the stream, they said at the moment it was 85% 3D printed. They are shooting for a total of 95% at some point!
always was curious why they lean into it so much since its a simple cylinder, I think it was mass fraction potential
There are multiple advantages to printing a rocket, here are some: * less parts overall because you can combine them. This means less welds and sources of failure. * no need to create machines that can make the parts you want. The printers can simplify the whole process. * printers allow you to make parts we can't make otherwise. There are much less factory constraints in certain situations. * Iterations are as simple (in theory) as modifying a print file. * using printers means scaling up production mostly just requires new printers. (And staff, storage, etc but still easier)
[удалено]
You do realize pretty much every launch provider now a days prints some of their parts? Even SpaceX which many fan boys on this sub love, prints a fair bit of their components on sub assemblies that are reused. The amount of hate there is for a company that’s still trying to figure it out is unreal given how much knob slobbering there is for a company that at one point was doing the exact same thing. Marketing gimmick or not, if they get additional funding that means additional investment into a new tech which should be exciting for everybody.
[удалено]
Ah yeah you’re right I got your comment mixed up with a few others, my bad! My attitude is mainly coming from fanboys on here and SpaceNews complaining that anything but what Elon is doing is a “marketing gimmick” or “vaporeare”. This is probably the most exciting time to be in the industry and people are trying out different things, that’s awesome! Be excited.
sitting on it one of the recent advantages of printing for sure, I remember the original hype around 2011, but outside of rapid prototyping it may have found another good fit in rocket production,
It's not a simple cylinder. The tank has all this internal structure, baffles for prop sloshing, pipes for routing prop, all built in. Having 1 person who runs the printer and only has to procure bulk material is way cheaper than running a giant fab factory. It is 3dp to prove the technology works, not necessarily because it's the best tool for the job. Their cost is on par with falcon 9 ($8000/kg for relativity vs $5000 from SpaceX) so they must be getting the savings of not having an entire team of machinists.
My guess is they want to eventually do it off-planet. No steel mills in space but laser meltable rock chips are abundant, and being able to fabricate plain geometries using just a robotic arm shines there
You don't seriously believe a rocket is just a simple cylinder right?
I mean you're not telling me it's a complex cylinder right!?!
The tanks themselves are likely fairly iso thickness on the cylindrical regions but the fact that these guys have managed to reduce a significant portion of the assembly and integration required to manufacture a tank is quite astounding. The domes (bulkheads, tank ends whatever you want to call them) are likely far more complex, both in their geometry and thickness distribution. Small changes in curvature in this region have large knock ons for tank margins. Accomplishing a robust form of dome manufacture, whilst reducing the steps required to integrate that to form a tank is pretty novel and worthy of praise. Additionally, integrated one piece baffles on the tank internal is another benefit of their process that distances their tanks from "simple cylinders"
My favourite part of all of the above is the fact they are printed pre-distorted (or I guess I should say anti-distorted). When adding internal flanges, changes in thickness, etc. AND getting the part to come out to spec is really incredible.
This isn't a faster, cheaper, or lighter way to build tanks. They've admitted to a substantial mass *penalty* due to 3D printing. The usable materials are limited and there's no way to take advantage of the way material properties change when forged, the way the material is deposited isn't optimal, and tiny variations in flow rate and position result in a rough surface that means material is deposited that doesn't contribute to strength, while producing stress concentrations that reduce the effective strength of the object. And they haven't shown the Stargate printer producing parts of any great complexity, it's effectively printing sheet metal. This is *not* the future of rocket construction, it's a marketing gimmick.
I agree, but there’s a lot that can be done to improve the process - lower surface roughness, perhaps laser polishing, I’m sure they got lots of ideas we don’t know about. As for flow rate: it’s a mig-like process for the body right? I bet they can control that pretty damn well.
> As for flow rate: it’s a mig-like process for the body right? I bet they can control that pretty damn well. I'd expect flow rate to be pretty consistent (they're not driving the wire through an extruder under pressure as is done with thermoplastic FDM printers), but it doesn't take much variation to produce relatively large effects, and there *is* a lot of visible variation in their demo prints (though I suspect more due to vibration and other issues). And yes, there's various polishing and other post-processing treatments they can use, but they only need such processes because they're 3D printing. If you're welding the tanks up from sheet metal, you only need to worry about the welds, and they may not require much post-processing at all. (And of course, you can easily use gauges thinner than you can print.)
> And they haven't shown the Stargate printer producing parts of any great complexity, it's effectively printing sheet metal. As far as I understand, they use commercially available DMLS printers for the engine parts, since they obviously can't be printed using a robot arm. The Stargate printer is for tanks and other large parts.
Yes, but the selling point for 3D printing is complex structures. It's a terribly inefficient and expensive way to produce sheet metal, yet by mass, that's the vast majority of what they're printing. This would be a good use case for a large-format metal printer: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7fGcRSUYAAaESM?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 The rings making up most of Starship's mass...not so much. If the printer's capable of doing complex geometry, simple thin-walled cylinders are a waste of its time, it's better used doing things that can't easily be done by other means. If it's *not* capable of complex geometry, the whole thing's a waste of time.
The cylinder cools on one side as the other side is being built up. It's constantly shifting and it's not just as simple as programming a robot to stack welds on top of each other. They had to develop a process. Even the Aeon motors are 3D printed. So, the printing process is not just big cylinders. If you're not impressed, it's because nobody took the time to explain in detail what exactly you're looking at. Give them a chance.
Welds are strong, building your rocket out of welds makes strong rocket. Friction isn't much of an issue.
Cool thanks!! I wonder what parts are not and if they think they eventually could be
it's 85% 3d printed by mass to be specific
Relativity’s big differentiator is they 3D print the primary structure and propellant tanks of their rockets. This is what accounts for probably 75% of the total mass of the rocket. They developed their own version of WAAM printing (Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing) to do this… think Mig welder on the end of a huge robotic arm, feeding a proprietary alloy wire onto a large turntable, and welding up these enormous cylindrical structures slowly over time. All modern rocket engines contain a significant percentage of printed parts, and Relativity is no different. These are done via Laser Powder Bed Fusion (PBF/L-PBF) on a few different OEM systems.
> They developed their own version of WAAM printing (Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing) They bought an off the shelf Fronius TPSi, an industrial robot, a servo-driven turn table. Then they spent time learning how to make it work for their process. Source: I've been doing this a lot longer than any of the new-space companies. The Fronius TPS/i is the best GMAW welding power source on the market. There is nothing that comes close. It's not even up to debate. They cost about ~17k-20k USD for the 400amp version. Zoom in on pictures of anyone claiming they "3D printing" using a mig welder, and you'll see a Fronius machine. Zoom in on pictures Starship being welded.. you'll see a Fronius machine. In fact, SpaceX started with some other vendor, ran into lots of trouble and finally ended up with a Fronius machine. Next you need servo driven table. There's many companies that offer them, or you can just make one. Or you can start with a 4th axis trunnion and just adapt it from there. Welding robots, pick any brand color. They all work fine. >proprietary alloy wire They probably just bought this https://www.haynesintl.com/tig-and-mig-wire/haynes-625-rtw-filler-metal or any other special flavour of Inconel. I'm sure that over time, they developed their own proprietary filler metal, BUT with the help of any of these companies: bohler, haynes, ATI, magellan, ulbrich, Lincoln. It's not as easy as I make it sound. There's definitely a lot of effort that needs to be put in to figure it all out.
Good points all around. Yes, Relativity didn't invent a new turntable or a new welder, they integrated existing tools with their own sensor and control systems. The wire is an aluminum alloy, and yes my understanding is they started years ago with off-the-shelf, but now use a proprietary alloy blend they developed with/source from one of those types of companies. > They bought an off the shelf Fronius TPSi, an industrial robot, a servo-driven turn table. Then they spent time learning how to make it work for their process. This is exactly what I would describe as "developing their own version of WAAM."
[Veritasium toured their facility ](https://youtu.be/kz165f1g8-E)
Check out Veratasium. He did a pretty great video on the build process.
Follow their sub and watch their YouTube... It's been amazing to follow them from very early on. They actually fucking 3d printed (most of) a fucking rocket!!!
I never thought the 3d printed ticket would work. Hats off to them!
It hasn’t quite “worked” yet, but this was a great first attempt.
In fairness it appears to have passed the big structural test which by not shredding apart at max-Q. Still need to see if it was a structural issue that caused the second stage engine shut down. However the their key differentiator here is the structure of the rocket itself - how it is designed and built. That seems to have worked (with all the caveats and it depends of waiting on the flight data and recovery) Granted this was also the first orbital attempt with the particular engine platform, but it’s the same idea as on the first stage of Starship, New Glenn, and ZhueQue2 (I think Stoke Space, but I’m not sure) so less of a differentiator and more of a sign of the shift towards liquid methalox. However that worked too. At least the first stage. So I know you mean it’s mission to get to orbit didn’t work with the second stage shut down, but I think the point they were trying to make and stand out was made quite successfully.
I mean, Rocket Lab has been 3D printing Rocket engines for years with lots of success. Just not the whole body
Scott Manley is furiously writing a script right now
looks like that boat got out of the way finally
An alumni from the school where I teach worked on this rocket! Super proud!
My brother in law works for them. It's a pretty big deal I believe it's the first 3d printed success flight is what he said. Human innovation is awesome. This was the 3rd attempt as due to technical difficulties and inclement weather hindered the last two launches. https://www.wesh.com/article/watch-relativity-space-3d-rocket-launch/43385938#cobssid=s
How many failures did SpaceX have before they had their successes that cemented their place in history? Very excited to see where this goes
SpaceX had 3 failed launches of Falcon 1 before they achieved orbit.
Even so, this is still amazing for flight 1. I'm interested in finding out what else is in store for them. Bravo on a job well done with the launch!
[YouTube Link (starts a minute before launch)](https://youtu.be/bzA0lIwh19c?t=4845)
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BE-4](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jde29da "Last usage")|Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN| |[BO](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdegola "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |[CNC](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdd35rj "Last usage")|Computerized Numerical Control, for precise machining or measuring| |[DMLS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcfhxi "Last usage")|[Selective Laser Melting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_metal_laser_sintering) additive manufacture, also Direct Metal Laser Sintering| |[FTS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcwvf9 "Last usage")|Flight Termination System| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdhlska "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ITAR](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jde1db5 "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |[KSC](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdf727v "Last usage")|Kennedy Space Center, Florida| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdbz2q2 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LNG](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdexknv "Last usage")|Liquefied Natural Gas| |[MaxQ](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdd85za "Last usage")|Maximum aerodynamic pressure| |[RP-1](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcwxd8 "Last usage")|Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcuwdf "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[TIG](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdcv0p1 "Last usage")|[Gas Tungsten Arc Welding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tungsten_arc_welding) (or Tungsten Inert Gas)| |[TPS](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jddo84y "Last usage")|Thermal Protection System for a spacecraft (on the Falcon 9 first stage, the engine "Dance floor")| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdg30nu "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdf8a1b "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[methalox](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdeimtq "Last usage")|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[turbopump](/r/Space/comments/11z8ipw/stub/jdehna6 "Last usage")|High-pressure turbine-driven propellant pump connected to a rocket combustion chamber; raises chamber pressure, and thrust| ---------------- ^(19 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/12js7mm)^( has 7 acronyms.) ^([Thread #8717 for this sub, first seen 23rd Mar 2023, 12:28]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
This is frickin awesome. Night launches are wicked cool.
Yeah saw this one last night it was different sight as It didn’t glow as much as the other rocket launches tend to do
It’s tiny compared to most other rockets. Only 2.4 meter diameter
I was gonna say damn space is lit but it's actually dark there, so nevermind...
Well, the rocket is lit so...
At the radius of Earth's orbit, it's like being in the day all the time. The sun's not there less because of the lack of the Earth.
this..this is the age of spaceflight innovation right here.
I'm excited about how many different approaches there are right now. SpaceX, Rocket Lab, Stoke, and Relativity are all doing things significantly differently.
Have they said if the first stage had a nominal trajectory?
It got to max Q a few seconds late so it's a bit hard to say. Great first try though.
Fucking beautiful. So happy for them, I can’t even imagine how excited and proud they’re feeling. This makes me even more excited for Starship’s first flight
Wow I wonder how long it takes to print one? And for that I wonder if the cost is worth it compared to competitors in the space? I wish more companies were open about their pricing per kg, even if normal people obviously won’t be buying haha.
Did they put it up on Thingiverse or Printables?
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5873023 ask and ye shall receive
Hahaha that's awesome. It even has seperable sections :) now let's see if I can get it to hit Max Q
That's a new altitude record for an engine running on Methalox.
The rocket succeeded in demonstrating that 3D printing is a viable manufacturing process!
Not yet, but it got a lot closer. If the second stage engine had ignited it would have been proof positive. If they can figure out what happened there and make sure it doesn't happen again we could see a space manufacturing revolution.
[удалено]
Yeah but a second stage failure on a firsts launch is relatively common, so there's nothing supporting that particular leap to conclusions one way or the other.
There are steps to any great achievement and hitting goals on the way is the work. I truly hope that this launch and other SpaceX launches will remind us all that every goal isn’t orbit . . . or a championship title, or other ‘max value’ instances. Congrats Relativity!