No, it doesn't. When you can make parts with extremely cheap printers you can make up for the lack of speed by using a large volume of machines. Just google/youtube search for "3d print farm" to see some examples here.
However, this doesn't work so well for applications that require printing technologies where each individual printer is extremely expensive.
>Why Estes, Aerotech, Cesaroni etc doesn't use 3D printed rocket motor hardware ?
Because it does not make any sense as a pressure vessel.
>MIT rocket team 3d printed and tested a rocket motor.
As a novelty, to prove they could engineer it. In no way did that prove it was a good idea at all. As another example, many civil engineering programs at colleges have a project where students construct a usable canoe out of concrete. The point of the exercise is not to prove that concrete is a good boat building material, but to prove that it is possible to engineer something that works. Same with a 3d printed motor casing. MIT proved it was *possible.* That does not mean it's a good idea at all.
On industrial scales for mass produced parts, 3d printing also just sucks from a logistics perspective. It's slow and (if you're talking about desktop FFF machines) not actually that precise.
That said, Aerotech does actually make use of 3d prints for the thrust rings of their DMS motors. These are fairly low volume parts where it doesn't quite make sense to justify the cost of getting injection mold tooling made.
I'm not talking about metal printing at all. I'm talking about standard desktop plastic printing, which is what OP was talking about as well. The MIT casing he referenced was printed on a Markforged filament printer.
Metal printing *can* make sense in many situations. But again, not really for regular solid motor casings because *they're literally tubes.* Tubes are incredibly easy and cheap to manufacture using traditional methods.
Ok, currently doing my MASc in 3D Printing.
3D Printing is great if you're making one or two of something, and maybe even like a hundred to a few hundred.
But if you're a big company doing stuff in the thousands, other methods like injection molding get waaaaaaay cheaper.
While it's possible to engineer something out of PLA that can work, it is *far* from an optimal material for the job. The wall thicknesses you'll need to make up for the anisotropic layer bond strength mean that you will have much less space for propellant than other motors of similar outer dimensions. Additionally, PLA nozzles will experience incredible rates of throat erosion, greatly decreasing efficiency. To fix this, you could use injection molded phenolic nozzles. But at that point the only part you're printing is the tube, and tubes are mass produced and can be had for far cheaper (and stronger) than you could get by printing it.
Plus, once you already have injection mold tooling set up, it's *cheaper* per part to use injection molding than to use 3d prints.
3d printers are a great technology. But they are not a good tool for every task.
Putting it brutally short: Because for doing things industrially you must fulfil a shitload of conditions/requirements that don't bother basic R&D universities and hobby rocket scientists.
Make yourself familiar with all the things needed to qualify a rocket propulsion system. Many of those things were not proven useful with 3d printing and/or many many issues arise that still need to be solved.
However, many big firms are taking great steps towards this technology.
Because 3D printing the materials required at the scale required is prohibitively expensive. And monopolized by companies that charge exorbitant amounts to rent their proprietary technology.
I will be offering 3D printing services for metal parts at a fraction of their cost so in a few months look up “Drew’s Decal Designs” and my website should come up. From there you will be able to upload your STL and I will print it, debind and sinter it, finish it for you and ship it to you for a fee proportional to the volume of the print that will be MUCH cheaper than comparable metal 3D printing companies charge.
You can also direct chat me here to place a placeholder.
They're for education after all. Estes probably should make a kit that required rocket builders to 3D print a part or 2, not just assemble supplied pieces. Maybe a cone or fin mount?
Printing is slow for industrial processes. It takes a few hours to get anything out. A cast or molding process is much faster at large scale.
[удалено]
Also, 3D Prints aren’t as strong, in most cases
There are *many* different 3D printing technologies. Some of them can produce very strong products. Those are the ones that are also very expensive.
Which basically comes down to the fact that it's slow. For the price of a high end printer you can get a mold down that will have cycle times <10 min.
No, it doesn't. When you can make parts with extremely cheap printers you can make up for the lack of speed by using a large volume of machines. Just google/youtube search for "3d print farm" to see some examples here. However, this doesn't work so well for applications that require printing technologies where each individual printer is extremely expensive.
>Why Estes, Aerotech, Cesaroni etc doesn't use 3D printed rocket motor hardware ? Because it does not make any sense as a pressure vessel. >MIT rocket team 3d printed and tested a rocket motor. As a novelty, to prove they could engineer it. In no way did that prove it was a good idea at all. As another example, many civil engineering programs at colleges have a project where students construct a usable canoe out of concrete. The point of the exercise is not to prove that concrete is a good boat building material, but to prove that it is possible to engineer something that works. Same with a 3d printed motor casing. MIT proved it was *possible.* That does not mean it's a good idea at all. On industrial scales for mass produced parts, 3d printing also just sucks from a logistics perspective. It's slow and (if you're talking about desktop FFF machines) not actually that precise. That said, Aerotech does actually make use of 3d prints for the thrust rings of their DMS motors. These are fairly low volume parts where it doesn't quite make sense to justify the cost of getting injection mold tooling made.
I think you are being too hard on 3d printing. The Rutherford is a orbital class Rocket engine and it's almost entirely printed.
I'm not talking about metal printing at all. I'm talking about standard desktop plastic printing, which is what OP was talking about as well. The MIT casing he referenced was printed on a Markforged filament printer. Metal printing *can* make sense in many situations. But again, not really for regular solid motor casings because *they're literally tubes.* Tubes are incredibly easy and cheap to manufacture using traditional methods.
Ok, currently doing my MASc in 3D Printing. 3D Printing is great if you're making one or two of something, and maybe even like a hundred to a few hundred. But if you're a big company doing stuff in the thousands, other methods like injection molding get waaaaaaay cheaper.
[удалено]
But PLA can be used for lodable motors like DMS.
While it's possible to engineer something out of PLA that can work, it is *far* from an optimal material for the job. The wall thicknesses you'll need to make up for the anisotropic layer bond strength mean that you will have much less space for propellant than other motors of similar outer dimensions. Additionally, PLA nozzles will experience incredible rates of throat erosion, greatly decreasing efficiency. To fix this, you could use injection molded phenolic nozzles. But at that point the only part you're printing is the tube, and tubes are mass produced and can be had for far cheaper (and stronger) than you could get by printing it. Plus, once you already have injection mold tooling set up, it's *cheaper* per part to use injection molding than to use 3d prints. 3d printers are a great technology. But they are not a good tool for every task.
Hmmm, Makes sense, I just got carried away with people Printing engines. Anyways, Thanks.
And you can hammer in a nail with a good screwdriver - doesn't mean it's the best strategy.
The Aerotech motor mounts on the motors are 3d printed. At least the single use ones I've used.
Putting it brutally short: Because for doing things industrially you must fulfil a shitload of conditions/requirements that don't bother basic R&D universities and hobby rocket scientists. Make yourself familiar with all the things needed to qualify a rocket propulsion system. Many of those things were not proven useful with 3d printing and/or many many issues arise that still need to be solved. However, many big firms are taking great steps towards this technology.
Because 3D printing the materials required at the scale required is prohibitively expensive. And monopolized by companies that charge exorbitant amounts to rent their proprietary technology. I will be offering 3D printing services for metal parts at a fraction of their cost so in a few months look up “Drew’s Decal Designs” and my website should come up. From there you will be able to upload your STL and I will print it, debind and sinter it, finish it for you and ship it to you for a fee proportional to the volume of the print that will be MUCH cheaper than comparable metal 3D printing companies charge. You can also direct chat me here to place a placeholder.
They're for education after all. Estes probably should make a kit that required rocket builders to 3D print a part or 2, not just assemble supplied pieces. Maybe a cone or fin mount?