Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Mitchz95]

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

If only we had some way of performing the research without going to Mars - oh, wait, we do.  A centrifuge in LEO will do just fine for basic research into the effects of Mars gravity on small mammals.

 

There was a proposal for this in the early 2000s, the Mars Gravity Biosatellite.

[CatastrophicFailure]

35 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Why would you want to use SRBs when you have the Falcon Heavy ?

I think maybe he's trying to drag this poor thread kicking and screaming back on topic. 

34 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

True, I just was wondering. Falcon heavy is the obvious choice.  

Using SRB's would completely negate SpaceX's achitrcture. Yes, that's why they built the FH. IIRC they're still one more revision of the F9 pending release, with a bit more power and easier to reuse. That should cover any possible need for payload capacity up to FH territory. 

[CSE]

1 hour ago, TheEpicSquared said:

This is completely off topic from Mars plans, but I wonder what a falcon 9 with SRBs would look like, and if it would even be feasible. I know it isn't meant for boosters, but then again, neither was the atlas v . I know reusability would be a problem (there would be no place for landing legs).

Potentially a solid-boosted Falcon9 would be even better (kg/$) than the Falcon9H at one of its jobs, that is at lifting medium/heavy satellite payloads to near-Earth orbits. But the Falcon's other job is to improve SpaceX's knowledge and skill with liquid rockets. Because SpaceX's goal is to push out the current boundaries of human space flight, and SRBs are not on the conventional path to that goal, I would guess that they're willing to fly a sub-optimal Falcon if that sets them up better for the rockets they will want to build tomorrow.

Falcon9-SRB would be a Good Rocket but a Bad Thing.

[kerbiloid]

Still am astonished, why such geeky/nerdish utopia project emphatically avoids another geek/nerd fetish: 3d printing.

Why bother with rocket reanimation (which is already obviously not so easy), make a burnt rocket return and land, try to repair its thin tank walls deformed by 4g acceleration and turbopumps got stressed under 600 atm (or how many for Merlin), then pray for this second hand won't burst?

Why not just to print expendable tanks, new for every flight. Always the same millimeter in millimeter (with every obscene word secretly scratched by workers on the inner wall)?

[Rakaydos]

12 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Still am astonished, why such geeky/nerdish utopia project emphatically avoids another geek/nerd fetish: 3d printing.

Why bother with rocket reanimation (which is already obviously not so easy), make a burnt rocket return and land, try to repair its thin tank walls deformed by 4g acceleration and turbopumps got stressed under 600 atm (or how many for Merlin), then pray for this second hand won't burst?

Why not just to print expendable tanks, new for every flight. Always the same millimeter in millimeter (with every obscene word secretly scratched by workers on the inner wall)?

3D printing is more expensive than traditional mnufacturing for most purposes. SpaceX already uses 3D printing for the parts that are improved by the process.

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

3D printing is more expensive than traditional mnufacturing for most purposes.

Wafer tank walls for a space rocket is exactly where 3d looks ideal, rather than printing crocodiles on ISS.

(In most purposes - yes, yet. Just because from ore you make a plastic steel slab, not a powder. So, it's easier to roll it into plates rather than mill into powder.
But not so many rockets required compared with pipes or rails).

[Tullius]

21 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Wafer tank walls for a space rocket is exactly where 3d looks ideal, rather than printing crocodiles on ISS.

(In most purposes - yes, yet. Just because from ore you make a plastic steel slab, not a powder. So, it's easier to roll it into plates rather than mill into powder.
But not so many rockets required compared with pipes or rails).

I don't think that a 3D printer capable of printing a 50m long and 4m wide tank would be particulary cheap. And you also need a material that can be used for 3D printing and that is at the same time very strong and light.

On the other hand welding a tank out of thin metal sheets is not that difficult or expensive. You just need to stay within the very strict tolerances of aerospace, but that is not exactly a work of magic.

SpaceX doesn't recover its rockets, because the tanks are expensive, but because the electronics and especially the engines are. Recovering the tanks is just a nice side effect.

[kerbiloid]

4 minutes ago, Tullius said:

I don't think that a 3D printer capable of printing a 50m long and 4m wide tank would be particulary cheap.

Why not? They anyway have 50 m high VAB. Add a printing carriage.
Certainly, it would be much harder than lunar base printing which is not considered as something impossible.

6 minutes ago, Tullius said:

And you also need a material that can be used for 3D printing

You also need it anyway. Metal or carbon powder is not something unusual.

8 minutes ago, Tullius said:

On the other hand welding a tank out of thin metal sheets is not that difficult or expensive.

It requires qualified personnel. quality control (they can't let any bad joint) and equipment. Wafer plates (almost every tank) also require chemical etching.
3dPrinter is just vzzzzz-vzzzzz here and back. It's absolutely accurate.

12 minutes ago, Tullius said:

SpaceX doesn't recover its rockets, because the tanks are expensive, but because the electronics and especially the engines are. Recovering the tanks is just a nice side effect.

This nice side effect forces to land a 50 m high smokepipe instead of landing just engines. Not what one could call "side effect". They save the tanks intentionally, to repair it and reuse.

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, Darnok said:

SpaceX is private company and I can't see anything wrong with idea that would allow using ITS by foreign governments.

ITAR maybe.

[kurja]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

This nice side effect forces to land a 50 m high smokepipe instead of landing just engines. Not what one could call "side effect". They save the tanks intentionally, to repair it and reuse.

Can't do a powered landing if you've ditched the tanks. They're kinda necessary.

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, kurja said:

Can't do a powered landing if you've ditched the tanks. They're kinda necessary.

A small round tank for landing, not a whole unbalanced and probably deformed (so no more useful) smokepipe.

[kurja]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

A small round tank for landing, not a whole unbalanced and probably deformed (so no more useful) smokepipe.

I'm pretty sure their plan is to not have it become unuseful, and then reuse the whole booster, not just the engines. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by kurja

[kerbiloid]

25 minutes ago, kurja said:

I'm pretty sure their plan is to not have it become unuseful, and then reuse the whole booster, not just the engines. 

, to fly rockets with a plane-like schedule.

Do they reuse everything, including package boxes for the rocket?
What's difference between package for rocket and package for fuel? Why one box may be expendable, but another one - necessarily reusable?

Fuel tank is usually made of aluminium+magnesium. 1st stage of Falcon 9 weights about 20 t, including ~10t of engines.
Say, the 1st stage fuel tank is ~10 t of aluminium.

Solid boosters use aluminium powder as a fuel component. For Space Shuttle aluminium is 16 % of total fuel mass. So, 10 t of Al = single-use 70 t solid booster. (1/8 of Shuttle's booster).
Why spending hundreds tons of aluminium just burning them in air doesn't shock anybody, but 10 t of the same aluminium powder absolutely sucks when print a single-use canister?

[Tullius]

30 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

, to fly rockets with a plane-like schedule.

Do they reuse everything, including package boxes for the rocket?
What's difference between package for rocket and package for fuel? Why one box may be expendable, but another one - necessarily reusable?

Fuel tank is usually made of aluminium+magnesium. 1st stage of Falcon 9 weights about 20 t, including ~10t of engines.
Say, the 1st stage fuel tank is ~10 t of aluminium.

Solid boosters use aluminium powder as a fuel component. For Space Shuttle aluminium is 16 % of total fuel mass. So, 10 t of Al = single-use 70 t solid booster. (1/8 of Shuttle's booster).
Why spending hundreds tons of aluminium just burning them in air doesn't shock anybody, but 10 t of the same aluminium powder absolutely sucks when print a single-use canister?

Nobody cares, if the materials to build a rocket are lost after a flight. Compared to the total cost of a rocket, the metals used are cheap. The real cost of a rocket comes from its manufacture and that is where SpaceX wants to save money: If they reuse the rocket, they don't need to build a new one. If you then keep the cost of refurbishing one small, you are able to launch your rocket for less money than anyone using expandable rockets.

3D printing a rocket may also be a way to cut costs, since it reduces the complexity of manufacture, you just need the printer.

However, if you print a rocket, you probably want it to have similar performance than a normally built rocket. But the Aluminium-Lithium alloy that SpaceX uses for the tanks cannot be welded using the classical method (you need friction stir welding). I don't think that there exists a 3D printer capable of printing that material.

In short, for printing a rocket tanks, you need a 3D printer at least an order of magnitude larger than anything that exists now, while at the same time being restricted to a selection of alloys that may or may not be the ideal choice for building a rocket.

[kerbiloid]

55 minutes ago, Tullius said:

The real cost of a rocket comes from its manufacture and that is where SpaceX wants to save money: If they reuse the rocket, they don't need to build a new one.

Indeed. Because currently the rocket stage is built by workers using manual, electric, mechanical and chemical equipment. Walls are not just metal plates, they are wafers, chemically engraved in the plate (from late 60s). Then it requires testing to ensure that all workers did this right.
Using 3d printing, you just wait while it grows.

1 hour ago, Tullius said:

However, if you print a rocket, you probably want it to have similar performance than a normally built rocket.

SpaceX declared that they 3d-print at least part of engines.

1 hour ago, Tullius said:

But the Aluminium-Lithium alloy that SpaceX uses for the tanks cannot be welded using the classical method (you need friction stir welding). I don't think that there exists a 3D printer capable of printing that material.

Don't know, but let it be so.
But they use Al-Li exactly because they must make the stage as light as possible, exactly because they want to land it all. Without trying to land the whole tower they wouldn't need Al-Li.

1 hour ago, Tullius said:

In short, for printing a rocket tanks, you need a 3D printer at least an order of magnitude larger than anything that exists now

What was wiser: to build a multi-purpose superprinter and have fun, or to build stages "manually" and then guess, wouldn't it will look like this

Spoiler

.
 

[kunok]

1 hour ago, Tullius said:

3D printing a rocket may also be a way to cut costs, since it reduces the complexity of manufacture, you just need the printer.

3d printing is one of the most expensive methods of manufacturing, and as a rule of thumb it only can replace casting, injection molding or similar process. Also, is additive manufacturing, no 3d printing. There is niche were is the only option or the best alternative because the geometry, but not for everything.

1 hour ago, Tullius said:

In short, for printing a rocket tanks, you need a 3D printer at least an order of magnitude larger than anything that exists now, while at the same time being restricted to a selection of alloys that may or may not be the ideal choice for building a rocket.

You are oversimplifying, there are bigger problems than that, the material structure in additive manufacturing is worse than in the usual manufacturing process, and the dimensional and surface tolerances are far worse, you normally need to do a thermal treatment after the manufacturing process and then machine the part to get it properly done.

Edited October 27, 2016 by kunok

[Elthy]

Also 3D printing is incredibly slow if done with decent precision and afaik most metal "prints" also need to be heated in an oven afterwards. Its simply not the "wonder" fabrication process to make everything, but just a new "tool" to choose from when wanting to build something. It has its advantages with complex forms or extremly low production numbers, but outside of that there are better choices.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Elthy

[kerbiloid]

51 minutes ago, kunok said:

3d printing is one of the most expensive methods of manufacturing,

 

51 minutes ago, kunok said:

You are oversimplifying, there are bigger problems than that, the material structure in additive manufacturing is worse than in the usual manufacturing process

 

8 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Also 3D printing is incredibly slow if done with decent precision

So, as you all can see, 3d printing (or additive manufacturing, doesnt matter) is just the key thing for Martian plans.

If they build a self-sustaining Martian colony, will they send a whole metallurgical plant (plants, as iron and aluminium production use rather different technologies), or will the colony need a high-quality industrial printer?
Bother with landing tin cans or just make them cheap expendables in the same way?

As you can see, a good 3d printing is a much more actual to colonize Mars rather than rocket equilibristics.

[kunok]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

So, as you all can see, 3d printing (or additive manufacturing, doesnt matter) is just the key thing for Martian plans.

If they build a self-sustaining Martian colony, will they send a whole metallurgical plant (plants, as iron and aluminium production use rather different technologies), or will the colony need a high-quality industrial printer?
Bother with landing tin cans or just make them cheap expendables in the same way?

As you can see, a good 3d printing is a much more actual to colonize Mars rather than rocket equilibristics.

Why you think you will need less industrial plant to use 3d print (if you wat to use that word)??

You still need the metallurgical plant to do the metal powder or whatever you are using

[kerbiloid]

12 minutes ago, kunok said:

Why you think you will need less industrial plant to use 3d print (if you wat to use that word)??

You still need the metallurgical plant to do the metal powder or whatever you are using

(I'm just using the most public name of this, as I'm not completely sure if additive manufacturing doesn't mean something another or more common, though is more correct).

What's the purpose of fuel tank landing? A high and narrow unbalanced pipe, very probably deformed and unusable.
Afaik, two purposes:
1) to save money by multiple usage;
2) to quicken land-refuel-launch sequence
Metal is cheap. If they make 4x4 printer (additive plant or what's correct), production would be also cheap and simple. Because less operations and because no curly hands could weld something wrong.
Sequence would be not land-disassemble-check-repair-refuel-launch, but land-berth-launch.

Also exactly the same printer is absolutely must have for a Martian colony if they aren't going to build several tens kinds of rolling machines just to convert slabs into plates and wire.

Edited October 27, 2016 by kerbiloid

[kurja]

That would be great if 3d printers were magic boxes churning out anything one could imagine with a push of a button. Sadly, they are not.

[kunok]

44 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

(I'm just using the most public name of this, as I'm not completely sure if additive manufacturing doesn't mean something another or more common, though is more correct).

3d printing is just a fancy new name to the additive manufacturing, a concept somewhat old. Also 3d printing is not used usually in some of the additive manufacturing techs, I think is because they aren't mean to the average Joe, they are restricted to the industry.

45 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

What's the purpose of fuel tank landing? A high and narrow unbalanced pipe, very probably deformed and unusable.
Afaik, two purposes:
1) to save money by multiple usage;
2) to quicken land-refuel-launch sequence
Metal is cheap. If they make 4x4 printer (additive plant or what's correct), production would be also cheap and simple. Because less operations and because no curly hands could weld something wrong.
Sequence would be not land-disassemble-check-repair-refuel-launch, but land-berth-launch.

I'm not sure what are we talking about.

46 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Also exactly the same printer is absolutely must have for a Martian colony if they aren't going to build several tens kinds of rolling machines just to convert slabs into plates and wire.

Is easier and require less machinery to cast the metal than to 3d print it.

When you have the liquid metal you can use it directly in a mold made by mars sand (you will need to look for a good one and sieve it), which can be done handmade with basic tools. To 3d print it you need to transform the liquid metal in something usable, that can be powder, wire, or whatever it uses.

So:

-For casting you only need producing the liquid alloy itself.

-For 3d printing you need to produce the liquid alloy, use a machine to made the consumables of the 3d printer, and then you need to use a 3d printer to make whatever. That's two more machines, consuming more time, resources (specially electricity) for a comparable final quality.

The only advantage that I can see about 3d printing in this scenario is that you need less skilled workers

[Technical Ben]

Nope. On Mars you have to do every step. Every single one, as what you bring is all you have.

A 3d printer is "ready assembled" and only needs materials, and outputs finished parts.

A casting system requires you to produce the materials, to produce the production machinery, to assemble them, then to produce the finished parts.

Both systems have their benefits and drawbacks. Both have costs and/or savings. Which is needed depends on the payload size, the materials available at Mars, and the skills/production when people get there.

Without that specific information, both ideas are as good as each other. It's like arguing over if you need a diesel or petrol car. Well, it "depends".

With 3d printing you need less skills, and can print some items impossible to cast (internal lattice etc). Casting may give you quicker production or purer materials. It all depends on use and need cases.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Technical Ben

[kunok]

17 minutes ago, Technical Ben said:

Snip

I was talking about a somewhat self-sufficient early colony. So not premade materials, only local production.

In your scenario you are right

[tater]

So when is return to flight? I'm guessing December.