** The Official Space Flight Thread - The Space Station and Beyond **

this might interest some :
www.dailycal.org

Berkeley researchers’ SpaceCAL 3D printer successfully operates in space

In a significant advancement for space technology, a team of UC Berkeley researchers, led by doctoral student Taylor Waddell, successfully launched a 3D printer into space. As part of the
www.dailycal.org www.dailycal.org

As part of the Virgin Galactic 07 mission, the team sent a 3D printer named SpaceCAL to space to explore the potential of Computed Axial Lithography, or CAL, and additive manufacturing in space... During its 140-second flight in suborbital space, the SpaceCAL printer autonomously detected microgravity and printed four test parts: two space shuttles and two Benchies, or 3D-printed boats created to check the printer's accuracy, according to Sean Chu, a member of the team who worked on designing structures and mechanisms. Within the 140 seconds, the process involved multiple steps such as printing, post-washing, flushing with water and post-curing with light to fully solidify the parts.
 
That's more than pretty it's elegance. Reminds of that Civ4 tech quote. An engineer has reached perfection not when there is nothing more to add but when there is nothing left to take away. SpaceX have really taken that to heart, the best part is the part you don't need.
 
I look forward to seeing one actually installed in an operational condition - it’s probably the skeptic in me but it seems curious just HOW much is missing compared to the previous generations, and does this actually make the engine less maintenance friendly? If so much has been internalised through 3D printing (not a bad thing in the slightest) then do you end up just swapping out the entire engine any time you have a fault rather than replacing the individual component that has failed because you can’t get to it or it simply isn’t replaceable.

I shall watch with interest.
 
Penfold101 said:
I look forward to seeing one actually installed in an operational condition - it’s probably the skeptic in me but it seems curious just HOW much is missing compared to the previous generations, and does this actually make the engine less maintenance friendly? If so much has been internalised through 3D printing (not a bad thing in the slightest) then do you end up just swapping out the entire engine any time you have a fault rather than replacing the individual component that has failed because you can’t get to it or it simply isn’t replaceable.

I shall watch with interest.
Click to expand...
According to the Musk in the Everyday Astronaut Star Factory tour the engine is a ******* to maintain because so many features are integral. But is should be more reliable once the design becomes mature, the loss of mass is also a major requirement for hitting LEO load objectives and the lost components should help with rapid reusability in the long run. From first flight version of Raptor 1 to current test stand firings on Raptor 2 I think chamber pressure has gone up nearly 30% so a huge increase in thrust. This engine family has been tested to death the very model of "break things quickly". Some SpaceX critics go on about how many testing failures there are conflating normal pre-flight testing with design iteration testing as some sort of proof about how SpaceX are, despite all the evidence to the contrary, not a good rocket company.
 
www.youtube.com

First Look Inside Blue Origin's New Glenn Factory w/ Jeff Bezos!

Join Jeff Bezos for a tour inside Blue Origin's New Glenn Production Facility at Cape Canaveral, Florida. This video was shot on May 30th, 2024.00:00 - Intro...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

I'm enjoying this Everyday Astronaut Blue Origin factory tour. I don't know Bezo's like I know Musk, but he's quite a likeable character in the video. It's nice that Blue Origin have opened up about their production. I'm a SpaceX fan boy I suppose but the BO New Glen does look like a very cool rocket. Utterly different design philosophy to SpaceX fairly cool though.
 
Last edited:
I read that above article with interest. I agree, irrespective of the competition between companies; to forego standardisation and compatibility between the two or any other company who services the ISS is beyond an oversight and begs the label of utter stupidity.

Amazing.
 
I guess the issue with that it would have stifled innovation for a competitive process designed to deliver innovation. Crew Resupply has resulted in Crew Dragon and Starliner plus a healthy dose of the the development of Dreamchaser. Would the contract have been so successful had Nasa defined the solution to large numbers of the problems at the outset?
 
PlacidCasual said:
I guess the issue with that it would have stifled innovation for a competitive process designed to deliver innovation. Crew Resupply has resulted in Crew Dragon and Starliner plus a healthy dose of the the development of Dreamchaser. Would the contract have been so successful had Nasa defined the solution to large numbers of the problems at the outset?
Click to expand...
Perhaps but when it comes to life-support systems or even just the adapters between separate systems; is it really beyond NASA / ESA / whoever to agree on the connector /compatibility types between those systems.

Did NASA really learn nothing from the Apollo 13 "square peg in round hole" scenario.

e: I'm quite agog, irrespective of what the confidence levels were or of the low probability of a scrubbed return using the vehicle, no-one in the room piped up with "oh by the way, the Starliner suits are incompatible with Crew Dragon's life-support systems". It's quite astonishing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom