China's Space Program News Thread

[PeoplesPoster]

What's about the throughput? The natural porosity for laser sintered parts? What's the cost savings of material (especially for stainless or aluminum) vs the cost of lower throughput or needing structurally thicker parts to compensate for the mechanical weakness?

If 3D printing is the be all end all how come most high quality stainless and aluminum metal parts are still done in CNC or with sheet metal techniques, while 3D printing is mostly done for titanium, refractory metals and other materials that are either expensive or hard to manage with CNC, or used for weird, small shapes?

Throughput of 3d printing will certainly be lower than sheet metal or injection molded/cast parts. However, a truly complex CNC multi axis parts will take just as long if not longer than a 3d printed part.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by mechanical weakness. Multiple studies have shown that a 3d printed part (using laser powder bed technology) can be just as strong and dense as a cast part and with HIP'ing or other heat treat methods can be equivalent to many wrought parts. Metal laser powder bed technology is basically micro-welding and there is plenty of real cases showing that a solid weld is as strong or stronger than the original part.

As for material, there are many use cases for 3d printing steel, aluminum, and titanium. Typically material cost is not the driving factor for most additive projects. Take for example a shoe mold built with aluminum. For this type of project where a fast turn around is desired for the design and production of the mold (not to mention its many iterations) absolutely 3d printing makes sense in terms of cost and throughput.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Throughput of 3d printing will certainly be lower than sheet metal or injection molded/cast parts. However, a truly complex CNC multi axis parts will take just as long if not longer than a 3d printed part.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by mechanical weakness. Multiple studies have shown that a 3d printed part (using laser powder bed technology) can be just as strong and dense as a cast part and with HIP'ing or other heat treat methods can be equivalent to many wrought parts. Metal laser powder bed technology is basically micro-welding and there is plenty of real cases showing that a solid weld is as strong or stronger than the original part.

As for material, there are many use cases for 3d printing steel, aluminum, and titanium. Typically material cost is not the driving factor for most additive projects. Take for example a shoe mold built with aluminum. For this type of project where a fast turn around is desired for the design and production of the mold (not to mention its many iterations) absolutely 3d printing makes sense in terms of cost and throughput.

yes 3d printing makes sense for prototyping or low volume. when have I disputed that? the real question is always high volume.

 

[PeoplesPoster]

yes 3d printing makes sense for prototyping or low volume. when have I disputed that? the real question is always high volume.

But we're talking about rockets and aerospace, this being the China Space thread, the volumes are perfectly suited for 3d printing. Which is why almost all the major aerospace players are investing heavily in 3d printing. Your the only one that brought up high volume.

 

[taxiya]

You are absolutely correct. OTOH, the impact will have far, far more energy than the carried explosive will. That would allow for a "deeper" probing. The controlled explosions would give an excellent calibration for the large impacts.

It's all moot though since nothing on the moon has a seismometer yet.

That is an excellent point that I forgot in my post. With a charge of known character, the measurement is accurate. A crashing debris however is an unknown input of kinetic energy on impact and unknown direction of the wave propagation, making any measurement useless without reference.

 

[anzha]

That is an excellent point that I forgot in my post. With a charge of known character, the measurement is accurate. A crashing debris however is an unknown input of kinetic energy on impact and unknown direction of the wave propagation, making any measurement useless without reference.

They are not entirely useless or NASA's Insight on mars would not be much use. However, it would be far, far better to have a calibration. Known vs ...something else.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

But we're talking about rockets and aerospace, this being the China Space thread, the volumes are perfectly suited for 3d printing. Which is why almost all the major aerospace players are investing heavily in 3d printing. Your the only one that brought up high volume.

I also brought up large component size. The space inside a 3D printer isn't infinitely large. To make the structural components it is unwise to use 3D printing.

 

[sferrin]

I also brought up large component size. The space inside a 3D printer isn't infinitely large. To make the structural components it is unwise to use 3D printing.

You should check out the video I posted. They're making an entire launch vehicle by 3D printing.

 

[sferrin]

That is an excellent point that I forgot in my post. With a charge of known character, the measurement is accurate. A crashing debris however is an unknown input of kinetic energy on impact and unknown direction of the wave propagation, making any measurement useless without reference.

There are were seismometers on the moon. (Well, they're still there just non-functional.)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You should check out the video I posted. They're making an entire launch vehicle by 3D printing.

Is that a smart thing to do? Is it a cost effective thing to do? Just because a company does something doesn't mean it's good or smart.

Examples: Spinlaunch, Hyperloop

 

[sferrin]

Is that a smart thing to do? Is it a cost effective thing to do? Just because a company does something doesn't mean it's good or smart.

Examples: Spinlaunch, Hyperloop

TBD. We'll have to wait and see. They're supposed to have their first launch sometime this year I think.

"We are one big step closer to launch! Check out this video recap of interstage, which recently went vertical. Plus, we completed its structural ATP test. This wraps up all full-scale structural testing for our first flight vehicle."