With respect, I submit that this smacks of "640K is more memory than anyone
will ever need". Metal 3d printing is in its infancy - things would be
expected to be getting dramatically more efficient every year, so any
analysis that depends on mere linear improvements of print times should be
carefully looked at.
Of course, planning on using 3d printers to handle a flight a day tomorrow
is similarly unrealistic.
Thanks!
-David Summers
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 9:04 AM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I think he means ones that would actually be functional in that size
class. I’d say he may actually optimistic.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *David Gregory
*Sent:* Monday, December 30, 2019 1:23 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Aviation person?
Are you saying all the metal printers in the world can only make about 468
5k thrust chambers per year? I disagree.
On Dec 29, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It’s a fairly quick bit of math to find that the launch rate of an
expendable system with printed thrust chambers ends up being constrained by
the total number of printers in existence in the world (and really, by the
number of printers you can use within the artificial constraints of it*r).
That number is about one rocket’s worth of chambers per week. Distributed
across the four or five significantly capitalized companies that are doing
printed thrust chambers.
On Sunday, December 29, 2019, Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
With high value payloads perhaps. That seems like an expensive logistics
operation added to small and expensive launch system. Just an opinion but
perhaps focusing on designing and producing an inexpensive, simple and
reliable booster in vehicles this size and forgoing recovery would make
more sense from an operational cost standpoint. Or perhaps not. A few
successful missions should confirm it either way.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Joe Bowen
*Sent:* Sunday, December 29, 2019 12:34 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Aviation person?
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/08/12/rocket-lab-to-begin-booster-recovery-experiments-later-this-year/
Electron is going to try it and it's something that's been done in the
past.
Joe
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 11:01 AM Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Someone I have known for a long time asked me about using a remotely
controlled helicopter to aid recovering the SpaceX fairings.
It is a topic about which I don't know enough even to be dangerous.
But I said I would try to find someone who knew enough to critique his
ideas.
If there is such a person on this list, and you are interested, I can
pass on this guy's email.
Keith