NASA's Rocket Maker To Begin 3D Printing Flight-Ready Components 40
Lucas123 writes: United Launch Alliance (ULA), the company that makes rockets for NASA and the U.S. Air Force, plans to 3D print more than 100 flight-ready components for its next-gen Vulcan rocket. The company also just printed its first flight-ready component, a new Environmental Control System for its current Atlas V rocket. The ECS assembly had previously contained 140 parts that were made by third party suppliers, but ULA was able to reduce the parts to just 16, resulting in a 57% part-cost reduction. Along with cost reduction, ULA said 3D printing frees it from contracts with parts providers who may or may not deliver on time depending on whether the deem the rocket maker a priority at any given time. The company, which launches 12 rockets each year, is also hoping to use 3D printing for a more traditional role — rapid prototyping of parts. "We have a long list of [parts] candidates to evaluate — over 100 polymer parts we're considering and another 50 or so metal parts we're considering," said Greg Arend, program manager for additive manufacturing at ULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets also not forget the fact that they are not using makerbot or other commodity 3dprinters
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. Some parts of the Merlin 1D are built additively, I think, but the *entire* SuperDraco thruster (which uses Hydrazine rather than cryogenic fuels like RP1/LOX) is printed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
It's really cool to see this technique taking off (pun not initially intended, but let's go with it). People think of 3D printing as making rough plastic parts, but it can be used to create extremely precise parts out of various metals, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Laser Sintering has been around long enough that the *initial* patents have expired. I used to think of it being used predominantly for prototyping, but apparently it's used for low volume runs as well, which is exactly what the SuperDraco thruster and ULA components will be.
Re: (Score:2)
The first patent (which had no attempt to commercialize) was in 1979. Most early research, with largely failed attempts to come up with a commercially viable product, were in the mid 1980s. The tech has slowly advanced since then, and nowadays is becoming rather mature.
I don't know why this is seen as a way to diss 3d printing. Some people's hatred of makerbots and their ilk is so great that they can't accept that 3d printing broadly has developed into actually useful production processes in some fields. Ro
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, I wasn't playing it down at all, not sure where you got that idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense. Even if Dragon 2 takes over completely from the initial Dragon, if SpaceX gets anywhere near the reusability out of it that they're aiming for (and, unlike the Falcon 9 first stage, Dragon 2 is designed from the start for safe landings and reusability) they won't need to manufacture that many of the rocket motors. Certainly not enough for economies of scale, at least not for the first revision or two. In the meantime, they (and ULA, and everybody else doing this) will be driving down the cost o
Re: (Score:1)
SpaceX is already printing rocket engines.
Which is great! And even more great, now that the MIC is doing it, too. I name this a win for competition-driven cost-saving measures.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that SpaceX has started printing *entire* rocket motors - not primary launch motors, to be sure, but rocket motors for production spacecraft nonetheless - I don't think ULA playing "me too" with building a few parts this way is going to make them as cool as SpaceX!
Re:ULA propaganda much? (Score:4, Interesting)
The SuperDraco may not be a "primary launch motor" but you wouldn't know it seeing a test firing. I didn't realize there was a 3D printing system out there that even came close being able to produce components that could take the kind of temperature/pressure you find in a rocket engine chamber. I'm sure there is some catch somewhere (heavier, longer individual production time, etc) but at least from what I can find it can't be much of a catch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: 56% cost reduction in perspective (Score:2)
Plus, SpaceX is already printing parts. So how is it news when their competitor does it?
Re: 56% cost reduction in perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
How long before all the subcontractors start complaining to their local congresscritters about being bypassed for the pork?
Stereo Lithography (Score:2)
Stereo lithography has (had?) been used for decades to prototype various 3D parts for fit and interference, though it could not make structural parts, certainly not for high temperature applications.
3D printing is a newer iteration of this technology as used for part fit and interference testing. The ability to actually fabricate the final product vs. just making resin shape prototypes is the really cool potential of this technology. It's being done now, but it will interesting to see how ubiquitous this
Re: (Score:2)
machine shops are already starting to have them..
stereolitography is still used. fdm is used for the home printers because it's simple and not messy, no powders or shit.
the 3d metal deposition, sintering etc techniques are under constant research. still a lot of troubles with internal stresses twisting the parts etc.
Re: (Score:1)
SpaceX's SuperDraco [wikipedia.org] engine is completely 3D printed, although I'm not sure of the exact technology.
You mean they weren't already doing this?!!! (Score:1)
So much for ULA's space "technology." Sure, there's the whole bit about the unique demands of space, but commercial additive manufacturing's been around for ages.
displacement (Score:2)
Suppliers are flaky? (Score:2)
"... may or may not deliver on time depending on whether the deem the rocket maker a priority at any given time"
I bet they haven't been the best client over the past few years either.
Re: (Score:3)