Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wright Brothers first airplane flew only 100m or so.
The "Wright Brothers" moment for rocketry happened 60 years ago.
80 years depending on your marker.
Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
231–240 of 288 posts
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Besides, the question I have is why 3D printing? Rocket nozzles are heat limited. You could get more trust out of them only if the nozzle would not melt. So you do a lot of tricks to cool it. One of those many tricks is that you circulate your rocket fuel as a coolant in the wall of the nozzle. This requires an intricate web of many tiny pipes which form the wall of the nozzle. Typically these are constructed by ha…
My guess is failing to read between the lines and taking marketing too seriously. "Removing the need for postfabrication qualification" doesn't mean "perfectly detects errors" it means "detects errors within our business specs and we expect it to be profitable within that margin".
Eh sounds like lying to me. Maybe it sounds like marketing to people who develop software “we can iterate no worries” but I think rocket science has a higher bar for safety.
Reminds me of that failing nuclear startup that tried “fake it until you make it” with the US government.
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure exploding rockets on their launch platform is such a good thing when they're carrying a bunch of highly explosive / fragmentary warheads (in addition to the rocket itself, which is plenty dangerous). Unless this was something like a cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal.
>> cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal. If failure isn't a big deal, then the weapon should no have been used. An ALCM costs millions. The destruction it causes is part of a larger battle plan. Should it not work properly then friendly forces may die. Should it work properly then enemy forces may die. The effectiveness of such a weapon is never not a big deal.
If it’s that critical then they aren’t launching one cruise missile.
If system A costs 1k quid but only works 50% of the time, while system B works 99% of the time but costs 10k quid, system A actually makes a lot more sense. On average you are going to spend a lot less money for the same outcome.
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#234>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.…
3d printing rocket engines makes a lot of sense. The engines of Rocket Lab's Electron rocket are 3d printed, Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR1 engines have 3d printed fuel injectors, SpaceX's SuperDraco thrusters (the ones in the Dragon 2 capsules) are 3d printed. Complex geometries with lots of liquid channels make rocket engines difficult to machine, so overcoming the issues with 3d printing heat-resistant parts is well wor…
Everyone has a test environment, not everyone has a production environment.
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said originally, when you run out of arguments, not that you ever had one really, you resort to forms of attacks that are not substantiated by any logic. You don't know me or what I would do if I were or were not involved in aerospace. Maybe you want to go taunt Elon Musk for how many rockets his company has blown up.
> Maybe you want to go taunt Elon Musk for how many rockets his company has blown up. We know that Elon's SpaceX has many machines inspecting 3D printed (and other) parts, as per the SpaceX factory tours on YouTube. https://youtu.be/xahiWQQKw7Y?si=UGZ1u9xTil5iYoBi&t=71 Also, SpaceX blows up very few (none?) operational rockets. They only tend to blow up in novel ways while testing new technology. Bear in mind that th…
As far as I know none of the Raptors have failed in flight, it’s always been various issues with the fuel delivery to the engines.
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#236[dead]
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.
Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you." The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicl…
What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.
First, Tesla is not legally required to put the driver in control - they are free to indemnify the driver completely and shoulder all of the liability themselves. Second, who do you think was ultimately the one at fault for the excessive radiation doses caused by the Therac-25 machines: the machine technician operating the machine or the machine manufacturer? If it isn't the technician then I don't understand your ar…
Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. They do not have permission to sell a self-driving vehicle for use on public roads.
Secondly, it is already established and disclosed that the driver assist cannot self-drive. This would be comparable to a Therac-25 machine being sold as being incapable of limiting radiation output, and then not limiting radiation output.
There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their responsibility to be in control, would be blamed on the driver assist program.
Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions.
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
One is a failure to act as an agent - to control the car and make decisions. Another is a failure to even be a reliable tool - to do what the operator commands. Very different. Creating Agents is a lot harder.
Coming up with new words and terms in order to escape the comparison smacks of This Time It’s Different. Therac-25 was an Agent for performing radiation therapy - it controlled the radiation machine and made decisions. Autopilot/FSD is supposed to be a tool for the driver and it fails to be a reliable tool by driving into things. This Time It’s Not Different At All
Autopilot is NOT advertised as being able to drive perfectly on its own, and your disingenuous analogies won't change that.
Re: Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control.
You don’t just get a pass, especially not when you actively are promoting it as soon™ being able to drive you without any input whatsoever. Robotaxis and the like have been promised for years now, it’s not like Tesla isn’t actively claiming the technology is basically around the corner. In short, saying it’s “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” is not really enough.
You get a pass because nobody who drives a Tesla can reasonably believe the vehicle can drive itself. That it can't fully drive itself is fully and adequately disclosed.