Relativity Space launches first 3D-printed rocket on historic test flight
space.com
space.com
While technically a failure, it succeeded at many difficult tasks, like Max-Q, staging and not exploding. They got lots of data back and are in good shape for a second try.
Nobody has ever successfully launched a rocket to orbit on their first try, so Relativity was not expected to either. Some rockets have have succeeded on their first try, but no companies or space agencies have. For example Falcon 9's first try was successful, but they failed 3 times on Falcon 1 before its first success.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/relativity-space-has...
I bet Mission Control saw many high-fives when those astronauts touched down on Earth safely.
Ditto for Artemis.
I haven't checked but I think there were a couple others, too.
>No private company has ever launched its first independently developed, liquid-fueled rocket and had it reach orbit on the first try. And Relativity is pushing a lot of boundaries with its methane-fueled booster. Probably the biggest test here is whether the 3D-printed structure of Terran 1 can withstand the dynamic pressure of ascent through the lower atmosphere.
At the same time though it's important to acknowledge that the "works on the first try" for typical Old Space projects came at absolutely enormous expense [1], and it's reasonable for expectations to be different for a project representing billions to tens of billions of expenditure and billion(s) per rocket vs a private company doing something for tens to hundreds of millions. A properly done hardware rich test program has a lot of advantages.
----
0: https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/relativity-space-wil...
1: Not just in money either, but in terms of baking in bad designs until it was way too late to change them, which then could and did cause ongoing challenges for as long as the rockets were used. Like yes the first Space Shuttle made it, the design was made to work through heroic efforts, but the design also meant that heroic efforts were needed every single time. Which isn't very sustainable for something used for decades. And in turn we ended up losing multiple ones with humans on board and all lives lost.
And, I suspect (as your footnote mentions), they took risks that would not be considered/permitted today.
Modern "Human rated" space flights are very very different to the Gemini and Sputnik days.
And it was clear both during the development and in the retrospect, that the crewed launch was extremely presumptuous, as the STS-1 could have easily crashed due to the mistakes made during the development. It's been done to show that the modeling could replace testing (turned out it couldn't), and to cut the costs, as the Shuttle was supposed to be "economical", in the original concept anyway.
This is just false. See Orbital Sciences Pegasus first flight, right off the top of my head. There are others.
https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/16389231884397772... https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1638985593580408841
Hmm... https://img.hunkercdn.com/1260x/photos.demandstudios.com/get...
transform: rotate(180deg);I am still curious about the 15% that isn't 3D printed. Clearly the avionics, wiring, and carbon-fiber over wraps would not be 3D printed but is that it? Any other fittings or parts?
I am definitely looking forward to launch 2 and the root cause analysis of the second state engine startup issue.
I'm not sure but I would bet it takes less time to build a rocket with traditional means than through 3d printing.
There are other advantages (leverage with investors not the least of them, imo) to the 3D printing angle but simplicity of development and speed of production are not them.
We don't really know that 3D printing saves them much time. Rockets are large cylinders, which there are other efficient ways to manufacture. Other companies will 3D print parts of rocket engines. I'm sure Relativity Space does as well, but they probbaly do that separately from the main body of the rocket with some hand assembly after.
I wonder what 3D-printing in a vacuum in low gravity would be like.
In any case, this is lightning speed for an industry that still produces something initially designed in the 60s (Boeing 737).
I could see a gradual move to 3d printing, the engine of course with it's complex features, then the bulkheads, downcommer & manifolds, maybe fairing and other aerodynamically shaped pieces etc. But why would you try to print sheet metal transversely, one slice at a time? What possible design you could think of, other than a long, slender tube, that can utilize the flexibility of 3rd printing and provide value to justify the necessarily reduced mass ratio ?
EDIT: Shameless plug I know one the cofounders Jordan Noone, and he’s brilliant.
With all the companies getting into it as a fuel, that blue flame is going to get pretty distinctive.
And yes, it's the exact same blue as from a natural gas stove!
Now comes a fun space race to see which of them can get it right first!
When it's leaking somewhere, that cloud is building up in an uncontrolled way in an unexpected place.
Mercaptan is incredible at what it does. A minuscule amount is noticeable by our noses.
> My phone went from 50% to zero halfway through the final interview before onsite. I ran to my car to charge and called back 10 minutes later. Interview was dead. Such is life.
- Relativity Space was founded in 2016. Just to compare, Blue Origin was founded in 2000. It serves as a stark example of how throwing money at something doesn't necessarily solve problems. Who would've thought in 2000 that 23 years later Blue Origin still wouldn't have reached orbit?
- SpaceX's Falcon rockets use oxygen and RP-1 (ie pure kerosene) as fuel. Starship (like the RS Terran rockets) are attempting to use methane instead of RP-1. This is incredibly complicated because RP-1 is liquid as normal temperatures and methane isn't. So instead of chilling one fuel, you have to chill both. A big reason to do this is relevant to rocket reuse. RP-1 leaves behind a soot-like residue all over the inside of the engines. This process has a name that I can't recall. Methane does not have this problem so should reduce reuse cost and turnaround time;
- The company claims they will be hopefully flying the Terran R (reusable and larger version of the Terran 1) as early as next year. I am extremely skeptical. RS hit some important milestones with this launch but ultimately did fail to reach orbit. To argue we're 12-18 months away from a newer, larger and reusable version seems beyond optimistic at best. Landing a first stage is nontrivial. I think 2-3 years is more realistic and still aggressive;
- Falcon 9 can carry ~22,000kg to LEO. The Terran-1 has a projected payload of 1250kg so even with the low launch cost, the cost per kg is uncompetitive. Remember a rocket can carry multiple payloads (eg the Starlink launches a bunch of satellites at once). Still, there might be a market for this;
- RS seems to be putting all their eggs in the Terran-R bucket, which aims to be a reusable vehicle. I don't have details on this but I assume like Falcon it'll be a reusable stage 1 that lands. I'm not sure what the projected payload and cost of this is;
- 3D printing is mentioned all the time in RS news. I'm honestly not sure why. Is this really an advantage? Rockets are big. They're made of very large components. The usual advantage of 3D printing is not in cost but in your ability to produce things that cannot be made with traditional methods. For example, newer planes like 787 do this for key components in the engines. Ultimately i don't think people care how it's made, just what the payload cost, launch lead time and potential launch volume is.
Personally I'd like to see more competition in this space so I wish them well.
I'm as unimpressed by Blue Origin's (non-results) as the next person, but at the same time from the article it sounds like both co-founders came from Blue Origin...
You can print some shapes that are very hard to make otherwise, or even generatively designed and optimized. Integrate a bunch of parts into one, saving weight on bolts etc. Iterate on the design faster, as there's no need to make custom tooling and fixtures etc. 'Just' a ginormous printer.
The current Falcon 9 version "chills" its RP-1 as well (so they can fit more in the same tank volume). It's not far below 0 degrees Celcius, though.
What's more interesting is that the oxygen is also cooled below its boiling point to make it denser (so they can fit more in the same tank volume).
(PS: there are two propellants but only one of them is called "fuel". The other one is the oxidizer.)
BUT! Rocket manufacture in space.. that's where it shines. If you're a small Mars, Lunar or asteroid base and depends on rocket transit, you'll want full reproducibility on your side and complex economy-of-scale factories are not going to be feasible for a long meanwhile.
"coking"
They are aiming for both stage re-usability.
As an aside, I'd love to know what alloy they're using. I know NASA had problems with fusion welding 2195 and had to switch to friction stir welding.
It's a wonderful un-process hack. You talk about tooling, but there's also just so much less process, so much less variability, so many less joints & non-uniformities. It may be slow, but you only really have a limited set of lessons about printing to learn.
By compare, look at videos comparing Starship nosecone over time. So much rocket building is a manual process, and it's hard work figuring out how each thing has to happen. I think even the cylinder fab has a lot of lessons that have gone into it.
At first this kind of felt like a gimmick, but being able to go deep on one ultra-flexible thing & reapply those lessons again and again seems divine. Being constrained by chiefly imagination, asking only where you want to put material not how you want to get it there is such an enormous liberator.
And once it's working well, they have such deep parameterization tweaks they can make, to optimize hone & refine. Thin this in this area, try some different reinforcement patterns on this wall... having a totally abstract way of building feels like cheating, it's such an obviously easier better freer constraint-less way of making real.
The potential savings here seem to more than make up for a potentially slightly slower build speed.
Falcon 1 and electron are smaller vehicles in addition to being not 3D printed.
They had the runway and investor confidence to attempt a larger vehicle as their first
Fwiw, SpaceX also 3d prints quite a bit.
A bit of convergent evolution here.
SX picked rolled steel (really, a custom variant) as a good tradeoff for performance, durability and cost. That was trying something different, and Relativity's goals for low-cost and reuse look much more like these goals
Pretty much every modern rocket engine manufacturer does. The engines have a lot of unconventionally shaped pipes that could be manufactured as a single structural element using 3d printing to avoid the need for extra welding and potential points of failure.
By having SpaceX and Blue Origin on your resume. Noone was also in front of the FAA as a student, which turns heads.
He was just 20yrs old... (⌐■_■)
I hop Tim or Jordan will write more someday.
Also how much of it was 3D printed, and which bits?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkaYPMgpvIY
They did very well for their first launch. Most impressive.