Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 288 posts

Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours

#71

Post by sa1 »

constantcrying wrote: post #63

>Constructing a rocket engine using conventional approaches can take months, followed by extensive qualification testing to ensure it meets the required specifications. Using a metal 3D printer from German company EOS, Agnikul produced its engine in roughly three days. Agnikul printed the engine out of inconel, a high-performance alloy of nickel and chromium that can withstand high temperatures and mechanical loads.…

What part is not true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E

I'm sure that there are lots of problems with this approach, but it is not as obvious as your comment makes it out to be.

Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours

#73

Post by rvnx »

raverbashing wrote: post #64
cjbgkagh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how many people know about their 'sound detection system'. Carbon fiber is a fickle beast and is prone to such failures so that alone worried me, but it was incredible for me to learn that they expected some sort of early warning from cracking.

Well there were probably some early warning signs The problem is that warning sign comes at around 10ms or less before the actual disaster

If it would be a Tesla, just enough time for the auto-pilot to disengage and claim it was the fault of the user.

Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours

#75

Post by iamthirsty »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #57
otteromkram wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Imagine reading an article about the achievements of an Indian startup, based in India, with Indians at the helm, and thinking "Ugh, they only achieve things because US companies grace them with jobs!"

> Celesta Capital, Rocketship.vc, Artha Select Fund and Artha Venture Fund, and existing investors Mayfield India, Pi Ventures and Speciale Invest.[0]

Not making an argument about off-shore work, but to be fair a lot of the funding came from out-of-country.

—

[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/catherinewang/2023/10/17/indian...

Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours

#76

Post by cjbgkagh »

raverbashing wrote: post #64
cjbgkagh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how many people know about their 'sound detection system'. Carbon fiber is a fickle beast and is prone to such failures so that alone worried me, but it was incredible for me to learn that they expected some sort of early warning from cracking.

Well there were probably some early warning signs The problem is that warning sign comes at around 10ms or less before the actual disaster

I don't know how many 'test to failure' tests would have been required before I would have any confidence in the models but probably so many tests that the titanium alternative would have been far cheaper.

The other problem is that it cracks all the time and they get louder as they get deeper, so it's not just if it cracks it is if it cracks enough or more than expected. Which straw will break the camels back. It is just such an insanely awful metric.

On the hypothetical assumption that I had some faith in the models at what point will I have the life or death fight over whether or not that last loud crack was statistically significant.

Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours

#77

Post by tonyarkles »

constantcrying wrote: post #63

>Constructing a rocket engine using conventional approaches can take months, followed by extensive qualification testing to ensure it meets the required specifications. Using a metal 3D printer from German company EOS, Agnikul produced its engine in roughly three days. Agnikul printed the engine out of inconel, a high-performance alloy of nickel and chromium that can withstand high temperatures and mechanical loads.…

> Besides, the question I have is why 3D printing?

My understanding is that there's interesting things in the aerospace industry that are very difficult or sometimes impossible to machine from a single part in a conventional subtractive machining process. GE is doing it as well for the LEAP engines: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/ge-aerospace-to-scale-th...

As an easy example, imagine a single-piece rocket nozzle with internal channels for delivering fuel and oxidizer. Pretty much impossible to machine and not that big of a deal* to do with additive manufacturing.

* Your mileage may vary, talk to your doctor for details. :)

Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours

#78

Post by OutOfHere »

constantcrying wrote: post #63

>Constructing a rocket engine using conventional approaches can take months, followed by extensive qualification testing to ensure it meets the required specifications. Using a metal 3D printer from German company EOS, Agnikul produced its engine in roughly three days. Agnikul printed the engine out of inconel, a high-performance alloy of nickel and chromium that can withstand high temperatures and mechanical loads.…

"When you don't have any real criticism, just make stuff up! Keep people down at all costs."

P.S. Nick checks out.

Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours

#80

Post by metal_am »

Etheryte wrote: post #26

> The machine also automatically outputs a report that details any deviations during printing, removing the need for postfabrication qualification. Anyone who's previously worked with 3D printing knows that this simply does not pass any kind of a sniff test. Both preventing and detecting internal defects is one of the, if not the hardest problem in 3D printing. There are many large companies trying to find ways to re…

It might sound a little wild, but a huge amount of research has been put into getting metal AM parts to be “born qualified.” L-PBF is getting to be a fairly mature technology.
Post reply on HN