Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Printer Space

Startup That Aims To 3D-Print Rockets Says It's Fully Funded For Its First Commercial Missions (theverge.com) 73

Posted by BeauHD from the money-acquired dept.
Aerospace startup Relativity Space -- the company that aims to launch the first fully 3D-printed rocket to orbit -- says it has raised all of the money it needs to launch its first mission and then enter commercial operations as early as 2021. After raising $140 million in its latest funding round, Relativity says its total funding now equals $185 million, which is enough money to carry the company through its first flights over the next couple of years. The Verge reports: Started by former engineers at Blue Origin and SpaceX, Relativity has grand ambitions to create all of its vehicles -- from the engines to the fuselage -- using 3D printing almost exclusively. The goal is to overhaul how rockets have been built for the last 50 years by taking people out of the manufacturing process and automating almost everything. By building rockets this way, Relativity claims it can drastically cut down costs by requiring fewer parts per rocket. Eventually, the company hopes to replicate this 3D-printing process on another world, like Mars, creating a rocket that can take off from the planet and return to Earth.

Right now, the company is focusing on its first rocket, the Terran 1, a small- to medium-sized vehicle being built with Relativity's specialized Stargate 3D printers in Los Angeles. Relativity says these updated printers could eventually create a Terran 1 rocket in less than 60 days from raw material. "Those are actually twice the print size of the prior version, and we have several of those already up and operational," says [Relativity Space CEO Tim Ellis] of the updated printers. Designed to stand about 100 feet tall, the Terran 1 rocket will be able to carry up to 2,755 pounds (1,250 kilograms) of payload, which is just 6 percent of the capacity of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket. However, the company says it has increased the size of the vehicle's nose cone, or payload fairing, making it able to hold twice the volume as originally planned.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Startup That Aims To 3D-Print Rockets Says It's Fully Funded For Its First Commercial Missions More

Startup That Aims To 3D-Print Rockets Says It's Fully Funded For Its First Commercial Missions

Comments Filter:

  • Because I'm sure 3D printing something like Arianne wouldn't take long at all, no no, done in an afternoon!

  • Good luck. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @05:15AM (#59260330)

    I love 3d printing too, but "Rockets" and "Automating everything" should probly not go together.

    It's only a massive controlled burn of huge amounts of fuel travelling vertically into the most inhospitable environment mankind has found. Lets put the robots in charge of wrapping the miles of control wires in heat resistant kapton tape. In fact, lets put them in charge of the thruster control module too! And the comms links, and the guidance systems.... Who needs quality control, materials scientists, and master machinists when you've algorithms, 3d printing, and machine learning? It's just space right? Right?

    • Lets put the robots in charge of wrapping the miles of control wires in heat resistant kapton tape

      If this is supposed to be your best example of a task that is hard for a machine, then you've failed.

    • into the most inhospitable environment mankind has found.

      Arguably, the Marianas Trench is more inhospitable. You can survive a minute in vacuum, but you won't survive more than a few seconds if exposed to the environment down in the Trench....

      • into the most inhospitable environment mankind has found.

        Arguably, the Marianas Trench is more inhospitable. You can survive a minute in vacuum, but you won't survive more than a few seconds if exposed to the environment down in the Trench....

        Arguably the inside of a volcano is more inhospitable too. What's your point?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by quenda ( 644621 )

          Arguably the inside of a volcano is more inhospitable too. What's your point?

          It seemed clear to me. We have made machines to work in far worse environments than space.
          Marianas Trench was a good example. You could add the Venus landers. I don't see how volcanoes are relevant.

          • Because you can name a bunch of places that would technically kill you faster than being in space but that's not really what makes it so inhospitable. In the trench you've got massive pressure and the fact it's under water. In a volcano you've got massive heat and you still can't breath. In space you've got no pressure, no heat plus radiation all over the place and the massive distance from any kind of help and a whole bunch of other dangers.

            • The trench is relevant because it's someplace we've actually gone to and come back from, like space, but unlike the inside of a volcano.

              • Exactly, so it's technically more inhospitable. If we were really so inclined it would be possible to build something to resist that heat and provide a breathable atmosphere for someone to go in and have a look or do whatever. For a little while at least but there's not much payoff so why bother. My point was there are plenty of places on earth that can kill you just as quick if not quicker than space but that doesn't alone make them more (or less) inhospitable.

                • Yes, it does. It totally does. Read the definitions in the dictionary. At least one of them is guaranteed to suit.

                  • inhospitable
                    ADJECTIVE
                    (of an environment) harsh and difficult to live in.

                    So space, the marinas trench, inside a volcano, fucking the ant/arctic, middle of a desert. All these places are inhospitable. Are we ranking them by TTK? If so then yeah the pressure at anything more than a thousand feet down will probably kill you quicker than the vacuum of space but so will being engulfed by magma inside a volcano. If you go by atmosphere, the none, water or severly posioned will probably do you about the same ti

                    • "inhospitable
                      ADJECTIVE
                      (of an environment) harsh and difficult to live in.
                      [...]
                      My point was there are a bunch of places that could probably kill you quicker than space but that doesn't make them more inhospitable"

                      What the actual fuck? Not only does it make them inhospitable by definition, you literally put the definition right there so everyone but you can see that's what it means. See, to live means to be alive, to be alive means to have the property of life, to kill means to deprive of that property, and i

                    • Are you having a stroke? All those places are inhospitable. What are you arguing here? If were going by that then a volcano in the only one thats inhospitable because you couldnt even reach the trench or space unaided and if you can reach them and if you can you obviously have a self contained protective environment.

                      So just to confirm its time to kill on an unprotected person that is the ultimate ranking of inhospitable places and to you the inside of a volcano isnt on that list or relevant to it? You st

                    • You've confused yourself. Seems easy.

                      I mentioned places we've been because of relevance to the discussion, and for no other reason.

                      Now we're talking about English, and how you don't speak it.

                    • Because I've listed a bunch of places that are inhospitable or because I think there's more to it than how many seconds it take you to die there unprotected?

                      So why wasn't the inside of a volcano relevent? I think you'll find people have been there. Fucking top gear got right up to the edge of one. Had May driven over the edge how hospitable an environment would he have found?

                      Unless you'd like to try and move the goalposts again?

                    • I decided it was relevant. You can disagree as much as you want with that, but no matter how much noise you make about that it won't change the fact that you don't speak English.

                    • You decided what was relevant? Go back to the start, take a breath and make your point again. Either you've changed your mind and are saying the same thing I am or your mastery of English is failing you. I wouldn't know though, I'm just a dog mashing on a keyboard apparently.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        I'm not a diver so perhaps its too deep, but isn't it a case of just equalising the pressure within the body in a diving chamber first? Then you could swim outside in the trench with a suitable gas mixture and insulated suit. However the unprotected human body will never survive in zero pressure for any length of time no matter what you do.

        • There are no suitable gas mixtures. 70 bar is the world record (in a pressure chamber), with helium+oxygen. The Mariana trench is right above 1000 bar at the bottom.

        • Saturation diving looks like it reaches depths of around 530 meters. It may go deeper but there aren't any public records about it. That's a psi of 711. At 10,000 meters of depth the pressure is 14,227 psi. The human body certainly can't withstand those pressures and the problem for anthropomorphic suits at those depths is joints locking up due to pressure.

        • "I'm not a diver so perhaps its too deep, but isn't it a case of just equalising the pressure within the body in a diving chamber first?"

          If you're up to spend a couple of years in the decompression chamber?
          If the gas mixture existed you'd use up a truckload with each breath.

      • but you won't survive more than a few seconds if exposed to the environment down in the Trench.

        The pressure at that depth is double that of water jet cutters. I doubt you'd survive for a tenth of a second.

    • Anyone who is 3D printing parts for serious business, knows that quality control is a seriously important part of the manufacturing process. Why do you think they’d skip that part?

    • "I love 3d printing too, but "Rockets" and "Automating everything" should probly not go together."

      Why? After all, it's not rocket science.

    • Who says they're skipping quality control? Or materials scientists? Or using machine learning to do the design?

      With automated production, it may be easier to control quality because you can instrument the production process instead of having to rely on people filling out checklists. Similarly, when you can replace thousands of hours of touch labor with a single 3D printed part (as would be the case for e.g. the rocket engines), you've replaced a QC nightmare with a simple process.

      Speaking of guidance, NASA'

  • Attention Seeking (Score:3)

    by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @05:45AM (#59260362)

    I imagine that much of this 'everything 3d printed' hype is just the sort of PR exercise you need to get VC money these days. Beyond that it sounds like the team have decent experience and there certainly seems to be a nascent market for small launchers. Spacelab use 3D printing extensively in their design, so I'm sure if there were more easy gains to be made in the use of 3D printing they would have been raving about them already. Also, if this startup really had a 3D printer that offered significant process/output improvements over the current industry leading products, then they wouldn't be a rocket startup, they would be dominating the 3D printing market.

    In the medium term though, I wouldn't invest in these companies. If SpaceX or BO get anywhere near their plans for space based internet, then they will be regularly launching satellites into a range of orbits, and I imagine their piggy back service for small sats would quickly destory the economics of these small launchers (even Peter Beck is concerned).

    • There are some advantages to 3D printing. I’ve seen examples of printed titanium parts that were unbelievably light yet very strong, which seems useful for rockets (these parts were to be tested in various aircraft). The structure and shape of these parts is such that you can’t just cast and/or machine them, only building it in layers works.

      Perhaps there’s a weight or strength advantage to be had by printing the entire rocket.

      • They're not going to literally print the whole thing. Flat sheets will still be formed the old-fashioned way. It would be idiotic to print them because you can't make them as strong as rolling no matter what you do.

        There are design advantages to printing the rest of the rocket. When you cast or machine parts you are limited to what can be achieved through those methods. That does translate into reduced strength AND increased mass. It's also very expensive to machine some metals (e.g. titanium) which makes F

    • It's also light on details when fully 3d printed is all you need to say. I mean, are they planning to just 3d print the individual parts out of whatever materials and then put them together in the same way rockets usually get put together with parts made normally? Are they planning to 3d print the whole thing in situ then just add fuel and launch? Some combination of both I'd imagine but they don't say.

      • One potential advantage of 3d printing is that if you can make a part in one step then you can design things as a single object which is impossible to assemble and much lighter than an assembly because there are no joins, seams or bolts. All that is lost though if your parts are less strong than forged parts.

      • Most likely, printing complex 3D parts, and then put them together, and also add some other parts from traditional manufacturing (like the control electronics)

      • It's also light on details when fully 3d printed is all you need to say. I mean, are they planning to just 3d print the individual parts out of whatever materials and then put them together in the same way rockets usually get put together with parts made normally? Are they planning to 3d print the whole thing in situ then just add fuel and launch? Some combination of both I'd imagine but they don't say.

        They are 3D printing LARGE parts of it, the engine for example is put together with 3 separate parts only

    • That's okay - if the others start working out better than these guys, they'll just pivot to doing launches onto Blockchain ;-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      The SpaceX model of mass produced rockets seems a lot better. 3D printing is great for one-off items, but we're just now getting the benefits of mass production in rocketry.

      • This is exactly right. I mean, I'm glad that there are dumb VCs investing in this, because it might speed up improvements in metallic 3D printing. I just don't see them ever making their money back. In the unlikely case that this actually works and is cost effective, there is nothing to keep rivals from getting the same printers and printing their own rockets. I think the company's best hope is to convince the US military that it might work: a scared government might pay them off to stop work and classify t

        • there is nothing to keep rivals from getting the same printers and printing their own rockets.

          Except, of course, the small detail of the actual design.

  • This is a good plan. Just like Tesla automated everything with their "Dreadnaught" factory to make inexpensive EVs.

  • So it must be bad. Everyone pile on and make up silly reasons why this company will fail but Musk will succeed when his rockets will cost more.

  • I will believe it when... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @07:27AM (#59260548)

    We can start 3D printing carbon fiber and nanotubes. I am not seeing 3d plastics cutting the mustard here.

    Its like that panic from our elected idiots over a 3d printed gun. It was a single shot .22 that destroyed the plastic after firing. There is no material integrity. A prison Zip gun is more of a threat. People expect too much out of these early stage devices. They are not nanotech assemblers. We are still a ways off from those.

    3d printing has a way to go before it meets the materials specifications required for many tasks where some manner of force is applied, either BY or ON said object. Moving beyond 8km/s through 8 miles of atmosphere clearly qualifies as applied force. Unless this -rocket- 12in tall and is using Xcell 3 stage rockets you buy at a hobby shop, I am not buying it.

    • We can start 3D printing carbon fiber and nanotubes. I am not seeing 3d plastics cutting the mustard here.

      Its like that panic from our elected idiots over a 3d printed gun. It was a single shot .22 that destroyed the plastic after firing. There is no material integrity. A prison Zip gun is more of a threat. People expect too much out of these early stage devices. They are not nanotech assemblers. We are still a ways off from those.

      3d printing has a way to go before it meets the materials specifications required for many tasks where some manner of force is applied, either BY or ON said object. Moving beyond 8km/s through 8 miles of atmosphere clearly qualifies as applied force. Unless this -rocket- 12in tall and is using Xcell 3 stage rockets you buy at a hobby shop, I am not buying it.

      You do know that we can 3-D print metal, don't you?

      • As of when? And real metal or a soft clay equivelant? Gallium is technically a metal, but i would not make a wrench out of it.

        • Inconel for instance. This isn't done using your cheap hot extrusion head, but by laying down thin layers of metal powder, and then fusing them with a laser.

        • As of when?

          I've seen and held early stuff since the mid 90's.It's come a long way since then.

          And real metal or a soft clay equivelant?

          Real metal. Lots of different alloys The process is somewhat similar to the plastic 3-d machines in use today. Obviously you have to have a heat source commensurate with melting the metal in use.

          I think you might be using a mental model of the plastic 3-d printers in use today. There's a whole lot of industrial processes out there for some serious 3-d work today,

    • Re:I will believe it when... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @08:19AM (#59260672) Homepage Journal

      Why are you blathering about plastic? We can 3d print inconel, titanium, stainless steel...

      • Link?. I looked into this a few years ago and nothing was comparable to machined parts. Aluminum?

        • Here's a link...
          https://3dprint.com/21109/3d-p... [3dprint.com]

          Why print a handgun? Lot's of reasons.

          People know what a handgun is, even if they don't want one.

          It demonstrates the durability of the material. It has to hold up to the pressures of a 10mm Auto cartridge. For those unfamiliar with this cartridge think ".357 Magnum". This is their second attempt, the first fired the more moderate pressure .45 Auto.

          It demonstrates the fine detail of the printing. A handgun is a very precise machine, needing very detailed

          • I started digging around. It looks like last year they think that they might actually be able to get graphene aerogel to print. That will be interesting because itâ(TM)s very light weight and itâ(TM)s able to withstand temperatures of 4000Â Kelvin. I think that material just might be the future of space exploration. Not to mention cars. The lighter the car the more efficient it is

            • No.
              The more aerodynamic the more efficient.
              Weight only matters because rubber burns off on roads.
              Put the car on steel tracks with steel wheels. voila', instant increase in efficiency.

            • What we really need for cars is foamed aluminum. I mean, foamed steel is pretty dope, but it still has a bigger corrosion problem than aluminum, which you can protect with a simple zinc anode. Metal has a great failure mode.

              However, multimaterial printing is the future of... everything. When the printer can just print complete parts cost-effectively it will change manufacturing fundamentally.

          • Yeah, I love the idea of untraceable weapons of murder lying in wait

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by G00F ( 241765 )

        Some things can be 3d printed with metal.

        The problem is metal has to be handled i na certain way for certain properties to be achieved. The 3d printed ones best case scenario would only achieve base material strength. (there is more than just simple heat treatments done for this)

        Now these next two issues I believe are solvable but the temps required for 3d printing are not good for many alloys as even you typical stainless is Chromium nickel iron and a bit of carbon. Things want to corrode each droplet ha

    • SpaceX already 3d prints some metal parts. Parts that are exposed to the combustion.

      Regular people can't afford this, but it's certainly well into development.

    • I believe that HP has the most used 3D metal printers used by aerospace at the current time: https://www8.hp.com/us/en/prin... [hp.com]

      SpaceX has been doing Rocket engines for a while, here's an article on the SuperDraco: https://additivemanufacturingt... [additivema...gtoday.com]

  • Blasting "This is major Musk to ground control" from the speakers of his Roadster.
    That is, if them aliens don't get their hands on that Roadster first.

  • VC buzzword attention getting (Score:3)

    by labnet ( 457441 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @09:30AM (#59260962)

    So,
    There’s a myriad of things that can’t be 3D printed.
    -Printed circuit boards assemblies.
    -Electrical and Hydraulic Connectors
    -Battery power systems
    -Hydraulic actuators
    -Valving systems
    -Wiring looms

    And in most cases, it is WAY cheaper to turret punch and auto bend a part from sheet metal rather than 3D print it.
    3D printing is just another machine shop tool.
    Use the best fabrication method for Cost/Quailty/Time.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I thought I seen an article years ago that they had shipped a 3d printer to the space station for manufacture on site replacement parts. Having a quicker turn around for replacement parts. Can't really find an article as of yet, but in Google searches. I have seen as far back as 2011 they were researching and experimenting with 3d printing in space.

    This is not a bad write up on it. http://spaceflight101.com/iss/made-in-space-1st-iss-3d-printer/ [spaceflight101.com]

    Here is another article on it from NASA.
    https://www [nasa.gov]
  • Need I say more?
    Some things need to be done with the utmost of care, by hand.

    • Some things need to be done with the utmost of care, by hand.

      I wouldn't want to ride a rocket where all the parts were hand-carved from a block of steel. I wouldn't even trust one made by hand-operated lathes. I want my rocket to use the latest and greatest CAD machine tools and tested with the latest and greatest automated test equipment.

      That's not to say there isn't considerable human oversight, just like I'm sure there will be for 3D printed parts. I'm just saying you don't actually need a human hand that close to the tools.

      • I want my rocket to use the latest and greatest CAD machine tools and tested with the latest and greatest automated test equipment.
        That's what I mean, you pendantic clod. Seriously, how could you not think that?
  • do they have an engine? Building, testing, and putting into production a suitable engine is a non-trivial task heh.
  • If Iran is able to start pumping these guys out ... doesn't sound so great for us.

    The difference between a LEO rocket and a ballistic missile is slim, mostly semantics.

  • Or at least not with any kind of reasonable performance and reliability. They may be able to deliver a stunt, but for any real utility, wait a few decades at the very least.

  • My knowledge of rockets consists of watching videos, and my knowledge of planes and cars is being in them. That said, this seems to be picking a very hard to implement goal. Watching tesla fail even modest attempts at full robotics, makes me wonder why target such a hard task as building a rocket.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close