Could NASA 3D Print a New F-1 Rocket Engine?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Enjoy 10% discount and free shipping on all Hoverpens with code CURIOUSDROID:
North America & other countries: bit.ly/CuriousDroid-novium
UK & Europe: bit.ly/CuriousDroid-noviumEU
When NASA was looking to go back to the moon, they did consider bringing back the Saturn V rocket and the Rocketdyne F-1 engines. However, that would have meant going back to decades old technology and working practices, something that just isn't possible today. But in the last decade, 3D printing of metal parts has advanced greatly, and now it is possible to make far more advanced versions of both engines and complete rockets. So, in this video, we look at if NASA could 3D print a new modern version of the F-1 engine.
To give one off tips and donations please use the following :
www.buymeacoffee.com/curiousd...
or paypal.me/curiousdroid
Written, researched and presented by Paul Shillito
Images and footage : NASA, Relativy Space, SpaceX, heroicrelics.org, 247printing, Adafruit Industries, TrentonForging, Jens Dyvik, RamG, SÒPHIA HIGH TECH, Tomáš Vít, TRUMPF Inc, TWI,
And a big thanks go to all our Patreons :-)
Eριχθόνιος JL
Adriaan von Grobbe
Alex K
Alipasha Sadri
Andrew Gaess
Andrew Smith
Bengtstromberg
Brian Kelly
Carl Soderstrom
Charles Thacker
Collin Copfer
Daniel Armer
erik ahrsjo
Florian Müller
George Bishop II
Glenn Dickinson
inunotaisho
Jesse Postier
John & Becki Johnston
John Zelinka
Jonathan Travers
Ken Schwarz
L D
László Antal
Lorne Diebel
Mark Heslop
Matti J Malkia
Patrick M Brennan
Paul Freed
Paul Shutler
Peter Engrav
Robert Sanges
Ryan Emmenegger
SHAMIR
stefan hufenbach
Steve Ehrmann
Steve J - LakeCountySpacePort
tesaft
Tim Alberstein
Tyron Muenzer
Will Lowe
Music from the CZcams library
Life's out there by Cooper cannell - Věda a technologie
Enjoy 10% discount and free shipping on all Hoverpens with code CURIOUSDROID:
North America & other countries: bit.ly/CuriousDroid-novium
UK & Europe: bit.ly/CuriousDroid-noviumEU
What kind of nonsense is this?
3D Printing is totally AMAZING.....Thanks Paul.....
Shoe🇺🇸
New tech is great - going boldly when no man/woman/other has gone before. 🙃👍
Fun thought experiment. Not that it has the thrust to weight for today's market.
A question on the Hoverpen. I went to the website, and nowhere does it mention "refills" (aka replacement ballpoint cores) as where common with old style Parker and Paper Mate pens. If the pen is to last decades, it needs ink. So did I miss something ?
I worked at Stennis Space Center from 2004-2012 for Lockheed and Rolls-Royce. Same place where the F-1 and SSME were tested at. At my Rolls-Royce faculty, we had a barge with a F-1 engine inside of it. That faculty was originally built to test the ASRM, but that never happened.
My former boss at Lockheed worked with Wernher von Braun, and had a cubicle just outside of his office back in the 60's.
I'll never forget watching the SSMEs get tested every few months at Stennis. They lasted 8 minutes followed by rain from they cloud produced from the exhaust. Both of the facilities I worked at were less than a mile from the test stands. Many people I trained came from the Michoud and Stennis NASA crews after the Shuttle program ended.
Miss those days!
I think that those memories of Yours - are real fortune!
Wow! The rain part is incredible.
Von Braun was a nazi, and when he worked in Germany, they'd hang the six slowest jews from the factory roof every day to "incentivise" the test. Bringing him here will always remain a blemish in our history, and the fact we employed him is disgusting,
Stargate 3d printer "virtually eliminates welding " - its a robot mig welder that makes things entirely out of weld bead !
He meant manual welding.
No, It virtually eliminates welders. It takes their jobs, and if one walks too close the robot arm, it kills them.
@@oglordbrandon - Robotic welding has been going on for decades now. This is the just another modern variant of it.
@@michaelmoorrees3585 whoosh...
Listen again. It eliminates weldings (as in welding seams and welded connections), not welding.
41 MW on the gas generator alone is incredible.
I've heard of gas generators being compared to spinning a turbine with an oxyacetylene torch. They are truly amazing.
I can read the stats of the F-1, but my brain just can’t wrap around it.
Not to mention the 600(?) liters/second of fuel flow thru each of the nozzle cooling tubes.
@@steveschritz1823 you need a slide rule instead of an infinite digit calculator.
Consumer grade additive metal manufacturing will change the world.
Between metals and plastic it'll be absolutely incredible!
If it's as flimsy as 3d printed plastics, it absolutely will not change anything. Except perhaps further decrease the lifecycle of consumer products. Gotta love planned obsolescence.
@@soggycracker5934 are you familiar with metal?
@@soggycracker5934 There's nothing inherently flimsy about 3D printed plastics. Every material and process has its strengths and weaknesses, and we design parts either with or without respect for those constraints, and make choices with or without clear strength and lifetime goals. I run a 3D print farm and mostly produce parts other people have designed with all sorts of different objectives. Most of my own 3D printing is about repairing and improving products to extend their lifetime and usefulness!
It's already here and doing so!
However 3D printing directly in metal is unlikely to be desirable in the home anytime soon, as it involves a level of energy and material handling safety risk that is orders of magnitude greater than plastic printing at home, not to mention more specialist tuned to a narrower niche of applications. However, consumer access to metal printing bureau services is already with us.
@@soggycracker5934flimsy??? I’ve spent several years designing automotive parts for 3D printing which out performed molded parts. Design matters, one can print part designs that can’t be molded.. even print pre-assembled parts to reduce cost. Many new processes and materials are just as good as injection molding materials.
Just wondering why Rocket Lab didn't rate a mention? Their Rutherford enigne is 3D printed and has been flying successfully for a number of years!
It's nothing new forgetting the little guy.
Relativity Space is stepping back from fully printed tank sections and adopting traditional manufacturing techniques, such as building up tank walls from coils like SpaceX or plates like ULA.
yep, it was a stunt to get some funding. It is a stupid idea when sheet metal is 10x faster and 10x cheaper.
Engines though, that has real potential.
There were supposed to be F-1B engines. They were even once proposed as possible engines on the liquid boosters for the block 2 variant of SLS (assuming said variant ever sees the day of light).
Fascinating and very informative video, Paul--thanks as always!
Your videos combine the history and technology in a seamless way to perfectly convey your points. Brilliant, as usual. Please keep going!
I NEVER KNEW that they had 3D printers in the eighties! All I know is, that I walked into a Microcenter one day about 12 years ago and there one was. It was a CHEAP ONE but still! Thank you Paul for another basket of information!
I remember reading about rapid prototyping in the late 80s where they squished out a ceramic paste which had to be cured by baking. But the beginnings for resin and extrusion printing are even older - just ask any patissier.
@@wernerviehhauser94 Midnight Engineering magazine.
There was/is the process of sintering, which was developed in the 1940s and became widespread in the 80s.
While not what you would call modern day 3D printing, it achieved the same results, especially in prototyping metallic components. I remember when studying engineering in those days (not the 40s) of being shown lasers zapping metallic powders to create components. So, it has been around for a while.
It was called stereolithography back then. Was very expensive, the parts extremely fragile, and we were in awe when presented with a 3D pirinted prototipe.
@Baldorcete today we use I think only resins for SLA, very accurate but the strength isn't there
Very bizarre, was just down a mini rabbit-hole about this exact topic lol, but as always, very informative and concisely presented video Droid, great stuff.
Another excellent mini documentary.
I always save these videos for when I've got some piece and quiet so I don't miss anything.
Keep up the good work 👍
Which piece? An injector nozzle? Anyway, enjoy the show when you have some peace and quiet 🤣
I worked at Blue Origin for 3 years, I have seen oodles of 3D printed parts of various flavors!
This was a good episode ;)
Absolutely fascinating Paul, really enjoyed that 👍
Always just really great .... entertaining , educational, just a real treat. Keep up the fine work....from a long term subscriber
Lovely Video, so detailed. Especially sincce it is an Addon to your Video 5 ys ago. Great Work!
Simple answer is no. The F-1 was designed with extremely specific means of manufacture. Between trying to replicate the F-1 or simply designing a new engine with comparable specs... the latter is more feasible.
I'm not arguing your point.
But what gross processes can be eliminated and or introduced?
@@AndrewBlacker-wr2ve Welding. It's fairly simple in concept but when you need to design an engine with minimal weight and maximum heat resistance... simple answer is that the F-1 was never intended for mass production. It is not something one can copy from a blueprint and recreate.
In the last decade their was a Proposed F-1B engine design study that had a higher specific impulse and more modern electronics and a simplified design.
Their thirst for efficiency seems to prevent them to create a giant Merlin 1-D like engine, simple open cycle engine with even more thrust than the F-1, but of course, « gushing » fuel…
In reality, no one just copy the F1 engine but they would modify it so it's much easier to use 3D printing. The real point is 3D printing is reaching a point that could be the dominate manufacturing method in the near future. It appears to use less material and appears to be less wasteful than traditional methods and often much faster.
I absolutely love your videos, CD. Amazing content, amazing footage. Keep it up!!
Another well done video, I’d love to see more in the future about other things in manufacturing that could be replaced in a one piece construction with 3D metal printing.
I wish someone could 3D print the 80's and 90's.
Or 3d print brains for twits born after 1990
👽🛸👾🤙
Retrowave is coming back
I 3d printed yer mom
Amen
I think we're on the cusp of doing great things with 3D printing. This process combined with AI may produce objects that we had no idea we needed. Loved the video, thanks for stimulating my imagination.
You pushed me over the edge! Back to being a Patreon supporter of this channel. Thank you for your imagination and dedication Paul!
I do enjoy watching your videos! I always learn something new 😄
Oh I wish you'd produce more content: your information and delivery is stellar. I subscribe to several comparable channels, however they lack your delivery, making up for it in volume.
Fantastic video as always!
Your always on point with your vids. When the subject matter is to my liking I always enjoy them!
Fascinating. Thx, love your videos.
Paul I’ve watched all your videos. I can kinda say you’re my inspiration. You write and host; idk how much into editing and the rest you’re involved but whatever the case I always look forward for your new content! I’m also glad you beat the health condition you faced at one point. Great stuff mate! 👍
Great video as always. Ty
What a tour-de-foce of 3D printing. I ill b watching this more than once. Thank you.
That's friggin nuts. I had no idea. Awesome video dude
You always have the coolest sponsors!! I've purchased the Mova globe from you and now this amazing Novium pen!! Thanks for accepting cool endorsements!
Great to see another great video. Hope you're doing well.
I appreciate the calm and unpretentious approach with well researched, accurate information.
Kool video again brother! 😎✌️
Brilliant video!
WOW!! Danke für das Video.
I'm sorry I left a blunt no earlier but I didn't tell how much I do enjoy your videos, and I feel like I learn something after viewing them , so please keep them coming :)
I remember your previous video on the F-1 - this was a fascinating follow-up. For you rocket fans out there, I highly recommend watching some slow motion Apollo launch footage, it's very interesting 👍🏼
Great upload
Absolutely incredible. How times have changed and what to the next 20 plus years, thanks Paul.
ohhhh looking forward to watch this
Interesting. I am working in LFAM myself and it's great to see the progress. two week ago I was at a AM event with readings by DMG Mori and ASML and the applications are everywhere. Everything can also be designed much lighter and compact. think of fro examble cooling channels in the walls that can't be made with moulding.
If I had a 'hover pen' at my work desk...I would never get any work done. I would be SO AMAZED at this pen...HOVERING...at my work desk!!!!
"Captain to engine room! Captain to engine room! Transfer all available power to main engine printers STAT!"
Even if we could... Why? It wasn't a very efficient or special engine.
Yes it was the reliable workhorse of Apollo, but that doesn't mean we'd use them today.
A 3d printed F1 would be a completely different engine. Unless you could make it as efficient as modern engines, no one would do this. It would be a cool pattern, though.
Yes...such a large engine would suffer efficiency problems with low chamber pressure relative to the modern Merlin or Raptor. You of course could make lots of thrust...but at the expense of more fuel needed so the Starship approach seems a more viable solution today.
OTOH ; 0 failures vs 10% failures
@@williamchamberlain2263 Are you referring to the first Starship flight? If so...that's not a fair comparison as the F1's had MANY failures in testing before they finally got them working for the actual flights. SpaceX works much more quickly and considering the launch pad problems the engines likely weren't the major source of the failures. They have made many improvements so let's see how the next flight goes....if the stupid government bureaucrats ever let them try again.
The problem with additive manufacturing something as huge as an F1 engine is removing the small internal defects that form during the process. The typical approach is to run it through a HIP process, which would heat it in argon to something like 1000C under ~15,000 PSI pressure comparable to being at the bottom of the deepest ocean trench) and crush all the defects that will cause early failure. However the thrust chamber is at much larger than the biggest HIP unit, (11ftx9.5ft vs 6.5ft x 8ft) and containing the pressure gets much harder as the diameter increases. Given a big enough budget it's solvable, but it might need a BIG budget.
Hosts ignorance doomed this video and your reply: Rocketdyne Laser scanned an Old F1 engine and put into CAD drawings etc. Even 3d printed its turbine turbo pump and tested it(flawlessly passed). They were looking to rebuild it for new Moon rocket for NASA. They were getting ready to 3d print the rest of the engine but ran out of funding when NASA decided to NOT fund them and instead gave the money to Bezos and new BE4 engine. Yes, we can easily print the rocket engine. It has already partially been done on the critical turbo pump machinery. Now can they print the exhaust chamber? Probably. Others are doing it and the F1 was overbuilt substantially. As for the defects... Heat treat it will take care of those as 3D printing material creates fewer bulk flaws in pressure vessels than previous material. Should be able to SAVE weight substantially compared to F1 engine. But your point about all the small inconsistencies of 3D printing and the ol' human programs might have screwed up or left voids etc and yes, testing required for sure. Why Rocketdyne wasn't ponying up the money themselves. Just because we can copy, doesn't mean it passes spec.
@@w8stral Entire turbo pump will fit in a big Quintus HIP unit. The turbo pump is something like 4' wide by 5'2" high. Much smaller than the thrust chamber.
The thrust chamber is the EASIEST portion to 3d Print. Downright simple in fact. The turbo machinery which COMBINES all those extremely hot gases at pressure is where the true heart of a rocket engine is. Thrust chamber is static pressure with zero moving parts. The secret to keep the flame from surging was solved going on 70 years ago. @@k53847
Great video!
Another major issue that would be encountered in a 3D printed successor/redesigned engine that was of the same approximate size as the F-1 would be combustion instability. This was a major issue during development of the engine, as the engine would catastrophically explode on the test stand. The engineers were unable to model the processes involved, and instead went through a long period of hit-or-miss experimentation employing explosives during engine firing. Fortunately, there was plenty of money available for this. The final configuration of the injector plate was achieved, and the engine became stable.
But why bother? The engine was not particularly efficient, and since it's not throttleable, it isn't practically recoverable/reusable.
I love your contents.
If the SLS debacle has taught us anything, it's that you're better off designing something new than using the "cheaper," "faster" "legacy" option.
It's not feasible to do nostalgia thing with taxpayer money anyway. If space shuttle engine can reach the moon, why bother using backward technology for sake of again, nostalgia.
I disagree, the SLS is a new design using some old parts, thats one of the reasons its expensive. Building a new Saturn 5 wouldn't be that hard because they already have the blueprints and it was a tested vehicle. They should have never stopped making them in the first place. The performance of a completely new rocket isn't that much better than a Saturn 5 so there isn't there need to completely make a new design from scratch unless you wanted to do something like have it be reusable.
@@teagueman100 if SLS is already a nightmare
Reusing saturn V is even more so, it's even older holy god. You need extensive testing and adjusting that can add extra 5 years instead of just plug and play RS-25.
Again, to do money-hogging nostalgic hobby with taxpayer money is not okay.
The problem of SLS had NOTHING to do with using legacy parts. Government boondongle bureaucracy. Engineers left for YEARS sitting on their ass doing nothing just to have some twiddle dump idiot in NASA bureaucracy who knows NOTHING about engineering or manufacturing decree on high how something "is to be designed"... and then a year or two later have another bureaucrat decree something else. All the while demanding "timelines" etc from manufacturers who are NOT allowed to do actual testing as well... if there is a "failure" said bureaucrat gets their brass braids and golden parachute snipped... Why it took decades and nothing has happened even while spending ??? $30B-->$50Billion now when one accounts for inflation? @@bocahdongo7769
@teagueman100, you're right. Building new F1 engines today would not be "that hard" today - it would be IMPOSSIBLE. There are skills that existed then which are no longer around. As the piece said, every F1 engine was HAND BUILT! Every engine was unique; a one-off. The blue prints were almost more guidelines. Besides, the F1 was a world beater in its day but would be an anachronism today.
Amazing that they accomplished this.
Just a comment; GRCop is not specifically optimized for Creep, and the primary failure mode is actually low cycle fatigue which is driven by thermal cycling.
That was so interesting.
As an aerospace engineer, I'm skeptical about the claims of weight savings when it comes to whole rockets.
I just don't think MIG welded aluminium can get near the strength to weight achievable with traditional heat-treated rolled and milled aluminium tank sections.
I can see it having uses for geometries that would be very difficult or impossible to make otherwise. Or constructing large structures like space stations in orbit, only having to fly reels of aluminium wire to LEO instead of whole modules.
5 years ago? wtf time flies.
It's always nice to be reminded about the great things humans can acomplish when they're working together, when the news is full of the worst parts of humanity. Incredible stuff!
The least believable part of Star Trek was the way humanity joined forces toward a common goal.
The news are always miserable, but yes.
So the great things humans can accomplish working alone are not worth consideration? Why even put "when they're working together" as a qualifier?
@@pyropulseIXXI 🙄 SMH
I want to see more of those printed rotating detonation aerospikes
Wow! Fantastic!
i thought this is about Formula 1 car engines.......but i still watched the whole thing even though i saw a documentary similar to this years ago......NICE WORK
I had a similar magnetic "hover" pens in the 90s 🤘
Thank you.
Probably could print an F-1 engine, however the intricate design of the double shell of the thrust chamber and the fuel distributor or “boiler plate”. Using lost PLA or similar ways of casting would introduce variations, the GR-Cop and laser sintering printer look promising. Unfortunately the size of the F-1 causes it to face combustion instability with the variations that any machining could produce- it was extreme quality control and good luck that none of the F-1 engines failed catastrophically mid-flight.
I'm amazed that 70% of the fuel can run through those pipes without bursting anywhere.
Using modern manufacturing technology, the F-1 engine could probably be recreated. The pertinent question is why would anyone want to? The F-1 was a single-use, very expensive low efficiency high thrust engine. In that reuse seems the coming trend, a first stage nonreusable engine seems not helpful. Moreover, the Rocketdyne F-1 had a sea level ISP of 263 s and a thrust to weight ratio of 94. This compares unfavorably to the RP-1 fueled Merlin 1D with a sea level ISP of 282 s and a thrust to weight ratio of 184. Additive manufacturing could likely improve the thrust to weight ratio however any redesign would require vast engineering work to overcome combustion instability common with these large engines. Methane and hydrogen and reusable engines seem the future, the Rocketdyne F-1, as impressive as it is, is a relic of the past. However, the liquid hydrogen Rocketdyne J-2X second stage engine does seem to have some applicability still today.
Guys, RS-25 and SRB is right there, just waiting to use. And it has total thrust of saturn 5 with lighter and better fuel economy
11:50 funny how it's possible to see the build took several days, just because the lighting changes in a particular pattern at relatively stable intervals. 👌
I would love to have back a wonderful Saturn V. Or its development for the Apollo application program ❤
Well, when looking at powering the proposed SLS, NASA went and 3D scanned all available F1 engines and parts. And found that they could CNC a new F1 variant engine with far fewer parts. It was the F1B (the F1A was the next generation at the time of Apollo of the F1 engine, with increased thrust and fewer at that time parts.) The F1B would have had comparable thrust to the F1A but weigh about 40% less, and be far cheaper than modern engines like the SSME/RS25/upgraded-J2 that were the Shuttle engines.
Ah, what could have been.
And then progress into an F1C with both CNC and additive manufacturing, possibly even to an F1D that was totally additive manufactured.
Instead, we're throwing $68 million per engine SSME/RS25/upgraded-J2s that were meant to be reusable (and thus the huge price) and throwing them away.
And NASA even looked at a stupid/dumbed down version of the RS25 and, no, kept with the very expensive reusable but thrown away engines used on the SLS.
(sound of banging head slowly against the wall...)
That's the perfect answer I was hoping someone write 👍👍. I followed very closely the developement of the F1B at the time and was a bit surprised it wasn't mentioned in the video. I think the race to provide a rocket engine for the SSL is a matter for a whole thriller TV Show 😂😂
Or a whole show on government and industrial corruption and stupidity. The whole SLS is a perfect example of what's wrong with government.@@zaperfield
3D printed exhaust bell makes sense, some of the other parts, like the compressor turbines, are better made from solid pieces where the material is the same all the way through, rather then have the layer lines becoming shear points.We could probably expect a combined techniques construction to be more efficient then the original F1.
I'd love to see a video explaining the pros and cons of multiple rocket engines. Are more better? (like on Starship) vs. the 5 on the Saturn V, vs. a single massive engine.
Sure, more engines can absorb more engine failures........ but is the weight of all the necessary equipment (fuel lines etc.) make it the best way to go?
Quality video - as always! :-)
I would really like to see some human ingenuity being thrown at the rocket engines with the help of 3D printing and AI . That would bring a lot of improvements to the table!
Please, don't waste human ingenuity by throwing it against lifeless objects. /j
3D printing is being used by several rocket companies right now. RocketLab prints entire engines, as do others.
@@h.dejong2531 Yeah, Relativity gets attention because they're printing entire vehicles, but RocketLab were being celebrated for 3d-printing engines long before anybody had heard of Relativity, and while SpaceX don't talk much about it, I'd bet they use it where it makes sense to them.
Pottery in 2023 kicks ass!!
It's so amazing to live in the future.
Those F1 engines that took thousands of man-hours to build each, were single-use. One 2 minute & 41 second burn then dumped into the ocean.
NASA and Boeing were looking into making the Saturn S-IC (first stage of Saturn V) into a reusable booster. The plan involved parachuting the first stage to a water landing but inverting the stage so that those magnificent engines were kept out of the seawater. The Boeing illustrations show what could have been.
@bobcastro9386, The F1 engine was designed for one time use. To accommodate reuse would have required more research time, of which NASA didn't have as the U.S. and the USSR were at the hight of the Space Race, with the Moon the goal.
The center F-1 engine was cut-off before the other four, so that time span can't be equal for each of the F-1 engines.
The engines weren't designed to be single use, they just happened to only be used once because recovery of the 1st stage wasn't cost effective or practical at the time. The engines actually saw more than one use before they were launched to space, every engine saw at least 1 test run before being mounted to the 1st Stage.
So, that is like a good meal: hours to prepare, then eaten in minutes, and erm... dumped! 🙂
"There were NO failures of the Saturn 5 Rockets".
"Early development tests revealed serious combustion instability problems which sometimes caused catastrophic failure.[3] Initially, progress on this problem was slow, as it was intermittent and unpredictable. Oscillations of 4 kHz with harmonics to 24 kHz were observed. Eventually, engineers developed a diagnostic technique of detonating small explosive charges (which they called "bombs") outside the combustion chamber, through a tangential tube (RDX, C-4 or black powder were used) while the engine was firing. This allowed them to determine exactly how the running chamber responded to variations in pressure, and to determine how to nullify these oscillations. The designers could then quickly experiment with different co-axial fuel-injector designs to obtain the one most resistant to instability. These problems were addressed from 1959 through 1961. Eventually, engine combustion was so stable, it would self-damp artificially induced instability within one-tenth of a second."
Pretty heavy science, there.
The question to ask is not if NASA could but if NASA should.
And if you mean "NASA" as in NASA contracting Aerojet Rocketdyne (the most likely candidate for obvious reasons) with the usual cost plus contract, the answer is absolutely not.
Cost plus would eliminate pretty much any cost reduction derived from technological advancements and further drain NASA of vital funds that could be better spent for what they do best: exploration (which is already suffering budgetary constrains).
Unfortunately while it might be cool to dream about what new technologies such as additive manufacturing can offer in this context, the bleak reality is that the old space companies have no interests nor ambitions to pursue anything like that unless they can absolutely fleece NASA (the government) for it and even then they wouldn't have any incentive to deliver in a timely matter.
NASA lost the plot when too many hangers on got working for them, as unproductive administrative staff, like the CIA. 😎
Now that your brains turned into mush with the tech talk...... EARTH IS FLAT 😊
Extremely intriguing.
Do 3D printed components require stress relieving/annealing/ heat treatment?
Good question, I'm curious too
Yes.. The parts have to go into an oven and bake. The parts will shrink significantly during this step so everything is printer larger and baked to final dimension.
It is very dependent on the metal and the printing method used. I worked a bit on selective laser sintering of a titanium alloy and heat treatments were definitively needed after printing.
@@AIM54A I know of that happening when printing with a kind of ceramic filament in normal 3D printers, but I would've never guessed metal works like that too. Where did you find this information?
I was always told that people who thought you could 3D print or cast a high stress metal component (ie a gun, or in this case a rocket engine) don't understand metallurgy - that casting a sword out of molten metal, or 3D printing it, was like making a baseball bat out of chipboard.
Has some radical technology change happened in the last 5 years and if so what is it?
3D printing has come quite some way.
7:40 simpler but BIGGER not "smaller" conponent. You cant cut off parts of an object and expect it become bigger.
11:50 less welding lol
Probably not, every engine was hand measured and hand built… they all where slightly different wich made them a piece of art on it’s own… the Saturn 5 is probably the most impressive vehicle ever built…
The Russian Energia comes close to it but it's true that the Saturn 5 especially taking into consideration the possibilities of that time remains the most stunning vehicle ever build.
That is a cool pen.
Original F1 engines were truly amazing engineering and artistry.
If you can 3D print titanium, as per Deakin Uni's World Solar Challenge suspension uprights, in their car racing Darwin-Adelaide (starting this Sunday) you can 3D print just about anything!
Another classic shirt there Paul. TBH, I dont understand why they arent using the Sea dragon which you did a video on.
Because it's a paper notion only based on the mistaken premise that you can scale an engine up without limits.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Guess you need to watch it again, the end part states its perfectly valid today as it was when designed. Granted Paul isnt an engineer with experience of rockets, but his videos are usually backed up with in depth research.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom🤔🪶
they could 3d print that too
@@catlee8064 Yet the more someone tried to scale up and engine the more trouble they had and this requires an engine 50x larger than the F-1 which alone was a difficult engine. It's balls deep in stupid, always has been and always will be.
Didn't you mention something along those lines in a video some time ago?
As to the comment as to whether it would happen given the large number of Raptor engines used on Starship / Super Heavy, I wonder if it might make sense to have a few huge engines like a modern version of the F1, and then a number of maybe Raptor-sized or smaller engines rather than using all the same size engine. Obviously they'd all have to use the same fuel mix, and you'd have to be able to robotically manufacture them or you're likely going to lose out due to lack of the mass production effect. But assuming you can do those, then you use the huge rockets on the way up, but not on the return flight since the rocket is much lighter. Just about pure speculation on my part, I'm not a rocket engineer!
I am not at all clued up about 3D Printing but I will take great interest because, at the end of the day, it is a technology that seems to be going in leaps and bounds to produce even more types of engineering applications and is still, in my opinion, in its infancy, and I will bet that I have more questions than answers by the end of the episode.
Forgive me if I am wrong but in the advertisement for the gravity pen you said it is made of Aircraft grade Aluminium, but aluminium is nonferrous and can’t produce or support magnetic fields, or has that changed recently by some very much more intelligent person than I.
An absolutely fascinating episode, a fair bit went over my head, but still fascinating and informative, I do have a question, only the one, but is it possible that the techniques used can help to create new materials that are technically impossible to produce using the technology we have at the moment?, for example, clear aluminium (as per Star Trek) it seems like it could to me if the scientists behind this printing technology are given the time and resources to experiment on a grand scale, they might even be able to reduce the amount of non renewable resources that we are currently expending on a huge scale. Thanks again, I really enjoyed this episode. 😀🇬🇧🏴🇺🇸🇺🇦🇮🇱
That’s the point
it is sad to think that in 2012 (11 years ago) a project to reuse an F1 type engine was refused by NASA (the Pyrios project) to replace the solid boosters of the SLS
This project would have used two F1-B engines per booster
the F1B is a modernized version of the original F1 engines composed of only 40 parts (thanks to 3D metal printing) compared to the thousands of parts of the original F1 engines
Great job
Keep it up
From Argentina
I was in for a pen untill you said Time magazine thought it was the best invention of 2022. Then I lost it.
relativity is no longer printing the tank walls. Which makes sense, the flaw density inherent in an additive process means the walls have to actually end up comparatively thicker than a rolled or formed tank wall.
Their rocket was so heavy, that Terran 1 could not have ever carried a meaningful payload to orbit, which is why it had none save for a symbolic first printed part on their first launch, and its why the rocket is canceled.
I think their CEO was quoted saying they only took a 5-10% mass penalty by printing... which doesn't sound bad until you release that is the payload mass fraction of most rockets.
Also, the flaw density inherent in additive manufacture makes its use for reusable rockets questionable in my opinion, its an inherently poor process for fatigue resistance, but we will see.
A printer error takes on a whoooooole new aspect here 😆
I know this has been discussed. The original crop of F1s was nearly hand made. But there's no reason why a new engine couldn't be built to its specifications.
yeah, this is what kinda frustrates me about the various 'we can't build F1s anymore!' dramas. It isn't that we can not build something with similar capabilities, only that we can not take that exact design off the shelf and put it back into production, which is pretty much true for any tech that old. It is a bit like saying we can't make TVs any more because some out of production CRT from the 50s can't just be spun up in a modern factory with no supply chain.
Thus the F-1B, which was considered for the SLS liquid boosters option.
we could, it just would be expensive.
the kind of "we don't know how much it would actually cost" kind of expensive too.
Or just in case if you guys really had bad dementia (gosh darn young people nowadays had early stage of dementia)
Space shuttle engine already prove it capable to reach the moon. Why goddam bother with 60's old engine technology. Doing nostalgia hobby with taxpayer money is not okay thing
The problem with building to specifications is that it assumes the specifications are accurate. And in any engineering project - especially limited production runs with lots of manual effort - the specifications rarely get updated to reflect all of the adjustments being made by the people who actually had to implement the specs.
i’ll take the old process. elite tradesmen are so damn impressive.
That hoverpen: what do you do when the ink runs out?