There is a company called fabrisonic that uses sound waves to essentially weave different metals together but they also have a process which is almost reverse 3d printing by removing parts of the metal. They said in a documentary that they also produce metal parts for nasa where they need liquid or gas channels inside of a sealed object, by using their method of creating the objects as one piece they can make objects that will be more able to handle strong environmental shifts in pressure and temperature however they do not have the reduced weight capacity that some of those other semi hollow devices and these new meta shapes have , however they can create objects which normally wouldn’t be able to exist.

Depending on how it’s designed, you might actually not be able to machine it due to inaccessible inner structures. It‘s not exactly time or cost-effective, though.

Nice. This is like proper next gen scifi stuff. I wanna see how human body support structure would look like considering all strength and weight issues in the body, in this evolved structures style. I wanna see one version for the inside support structure and another one for outside like a body suit.

Higher concentration of enthusiastic hobbyists/workers that like to talk about the things they think they know to people who, actually might, listen.

[removed]

https://www.relativityspace.com/

[removed]

Why do so many articles get an “Akshuuually” response here? They’re confidently incorrect responses half the time. So weird.

I think that these sorts of articles are confusing the larger cost driver here: the payload. Other SpaceX-tier companies can emerge in the realm of cost per kilogram, but if you look at the total cost of one of their F9 launches, it rarely ever comes close to the price of the payload. Where price per kilo actually does matter in these instances are for small-sats and there just isn't a big enough market for small-sats to ensure the sort of growth you'd want. There are small-sat launchers out there, and a lot of them are trying to figure out ways they can amortize the cost of their vehicle toward zero (full reuse, never needing to do maintenance or minimal maintenance, barebones number of employees), since the market for small-sats just isn't anywhere near as large. The problem has lessened a bit now that the launchers have managed to exist longer than a few years, but I don't think we'll ever see a small-sat launch market that's anywhere near as healthy as the medium and heavy payload ones.

If NASA actually wants to make costs go down, they ought it be focusing on how they can construct their next space telescope at a tenth the cost, not focus on how to make rockets cheaper. Someone else will figure out how to do that, but no one is looking at the payload issue.

IDK I work in a lab that does genetic algorithms work and I think most of the grad students/profs working on GAs would oppose that point of view

I want them to print an entire rocket because then I can take those designs and print a really tiny rocket at home.

Genetic algorithm is more accurately described as AI than most "AI" Tools out there.

Your example is still post-machined. Usually grown then wired then machined. If you can just machine it, it’s probably faster depending on quantities.

> Sometimes a chunk of metal is easier to get

Sometimes it's the only way to get a particular material. You're not getting single-crystal structures out of a powder bed, for example. And processes such as forging bulk materials can have desirable effects on its microscopic structure.

And yes, there are also things you can do with additive methods that you can't with casting and machining. Different manufacturing approaches have different tradeoffs. Ultimately, you'll make most effective use of these techniques by applying them where they're most effective, rather than, oh, trying to print an entire rocket or something.

Word on the street is that this will be put into orbit as kind of a “dummy” fuel depot. They will test maneuvers, movements, temperature changes, heat shield, and other stuff necessary for the fuel depot as well as fly future Starships near it to practice for their first attempt at transferring fuel. Shotwell has stated that Starlink is being put back in favor of HLS milestones

I mean, it's creating a defined mesh of the part and the forces for each connection point on said mesh are calculated utilizing a defined matrix and some good old fashioned math, which you could do by hand but would take an untold amount of lifetimes for a single part.

But yeah, Topological optimization and generative design are really the same thing.

The “Angry Astronaut” did a video from Boca Chica showing the Raptor work station being moved towards Ship 26:

https://www.youtube.com/live/MmUwHVji9b4

He says that’s only done if you are installing engines on the Starship. You don’t do that if you are only doing pressure testing. He notes though that it could be putting engines either on S26 or S25. Probably we’ll know by the end of today which ship is having engines installed.

Conceivably, it could only be doing static fire testing. Still, 6 engines are sufficient for it to take off fully fueled. Note, the expendable version is much lighter than the reusable version, having no top or bottom flaps, heat shield, legs, or ballast tanks. Any reasonable estimate of the dry mass of the expendable version allows for it to reach orbit with significant payload in a single stage.

Yes, it specifically talks about the desire to switch to additive manufacturing

[removed]

[removed]

>if NASA are still CNC machining these they're missing a trick.

Was that in the article?

There's also a problem with adding on stuff later. For example you have some brackets to hold something, one made classically with mostly square shapes, the other with this type.

Then you later need to add some way to attach another thing to the bracket. With the classic version there might be the option to just add some threaded holes and it's done, with the AI/topographical version you'll probably have to start "from scratch".

The NASA one is created by a genetic algorithm, not AI or machine learning

Sometimes a chunk of metal is easier to get than a how many barrels of such a fine powder, too. Powdered metal isn't exactly straightforward. There's a lot of ways that the process can go wrong, and leave contamination in the powder from tooling and transportation. On the other hand, a billet of most alloys is easy to make any size, and a lot cheaper in most cases, and can give much more repeatable crystal structure.

Mmm yes thank you this is the type of input I was hoping for.