Relativity Space and its two founders - Tim and Jordan - have a plan to make rockets faster and cheaper than anyone else. To do this, they're looking to build every part of a rocket - its engine, its fuel tanks and its body - with giant 3D printers. In this Hello World short, Bloomberg Businessweek's Ashlee Vance goes to check out Relativity.
Video by Brian Schildhorn, David Nicholson
Like this video? Subscribe to Bloomberg on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/Bloomberg?sub_confirmation=1
Bloomberg is the First Word in business news, delivering breaking news & analysis, up-to-the-minute market data, features, profiles and more: http://www.bloomberg.com
Connect with us on...
Seems like the "painter's pallet" of materials/material properties would (at least initially) seriously constrain weight to thrust ratio based on what one could economically print. Imagine, for example, building lightweight pressure vessels without composites.
Well if they can get that decent quality of 3D printing then obviously they won't just use it in the rocket business - that's inelastic demand. You wanna profit from increasing supply go for elastic demand markets such as manufacturing consumer products.
Unfortunately by that time 7 million dollar per launch BFR will have flown, sending 150 metric tons to orbit. Maybe not the rockets. But Mars will DEFINITELY need these guys to build things like dust proof machinery and habs and everything else. Better to send raw material and printers than premade parts, more space efficient. Pun intended.
Building parts has Nothing, NOTHING to do with having them function under RIDICULOUS loads. Loads that make the loads on a fighter jet look small. These are two guys that less than 10 years ago were doing home work in high school. If you think that all the knowledge of a full science team just gets picked up with a bit of work then you have no idea what a team of hardworking, committed, focused people did to make those other rockets work. This exists because someone with $5 billion dollars threw them $10 million dollars because he thought it would be fun. It has nothing to do with possible success.
Building a rocket on mars seems like a silly goal, if we fly rockets there then we would have all the rockets we need.
A mars colony however would be critically dependant on 3d printing tech to manufacture and maintain domiciles, tools and vehicles on mars. That should be their goal, it is both necessary and feasible within our lifetime.
This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. If you have the resources to 3D print this shit, you have the resources for injection molding, which is far cheaper, far more consistent, way faster and overall more reliable especially in large scale production. The fact that it yields a smoother surface on the product is enough of a reason to switch on its own - Look at those fucking surfaces! Do you honestly think _that_ is going to withstand atmospheric reentry?? That shit will produce more friction than a greek man's pubes.
Hey dumb moron,,, Molding is the most conventional from of large scale production, not prototyping. These fools want to use 3D printing, which is for _prototyping_ to manufacture the final product. And did you stop to consider that perhaps molding is the most widely adopted production method for a fucking reason?? Idiot...
Maybe it's because you're unable to prove that a surface that's essentially made from many layers welded together is more structurally secure and aerodynamic than a surface that is seamless. Oh wait lol. It's because IT ISN'T!
ahh shrek.... I know your an expert and all but I am not sure you understand anything about manufacturing in metal what so ever. I can't even begin to tell you how many thing in what you just said are completely and totally misguided.
Be very careful,remember China is looking at you,and they will still your idea and technology,good luck.remember China will be killing,Apple,Amazon,tesla,Ford,G.M.,solar panels made by American companies,in very few words they are buying corrupt people and very important companies all over the world specialty in USA,Germany,etc.etc.and if you're not thinking smart,Chinese will be owning almost every thing.
How can a 3D printed materials can be strong enough for such use? I think this company will succeed with rockets for other applications, like entertainment. Rockets for pyrotechnics, toys, or launching equipment into high altitudes..
This doesn't really seem viable; Rocket Lab is about to put 150kg payload into LEO, launching every 72 hours for $5m. Granted this is for a much higher payload, but a 2021 launch is way behind the curve.
I'm not really sure how their agenda's are too different, they both aim to be profitable space-freight companies, granted they are going about it in slightly different ways, however Rocketlab is using printed parts. I would love to see a source for the $6-7m figure if you have one, as Beck has repeatedly mentioned the $5m figure.
ur right but their agenda is different and rocket labs agenda is different and for your kind info....Rocketlab usually takes 6-7 Million dollars to launch a rocket....5 Million dollars was a publicity stunt
But you also have to consider what much lower prices will do to demand. It opens up space to become more than just a sat market. In either case if you can eventually do both, 3d printing and reusability, you will be even lower than just reusable systems alone. It's hard to believe a company that is thinking this far ahead is ignoring reusability, but probably just easier to build an expendable rocket first. Saves years of R&D and keeps the rocket much simpler for 3D printing in the beginning. This is challenging enough, as is reusability, to try and do both reusability and full 3D printing would be too much for a couple of young kids with little experience. Would probably be too much for any company really.
I agree with your prediction to some extent. However, the whole point of re-usability is that you don't need be super efficient in terms of build time and material cost. The gap in the market now is simply getting stuff up into space, I don't think that will be an issue in 2021 as rockets from SpaceX become increasingly reusable for larger payload and the myriad of other smaller payload companies start to launch. The issue with the car analogy is that it took years for the 'efficient assembly line model' we have today to even be needed. There was just not enough demand. If rockets are reusable, the demand will not be as high.
But this puts $1,250kg in orbit. And if they are making 80% profit I think they are going to get a lot of investor money. Price doesn't mean cost to them. They may very well be able to undercut everyone since their cost of materials might be less than the cost of operating and refurbishing even a reusable. Then they can still make it reusable on top of this. I personally predict we are moving to assembly line rocket production, reusable, just like cars. This is just the first company to go that route and it's easier to do expendables first.
The privatization of the supply for space carrier by corporation will lead to a lot space crash and accident... why? Simple the rocket will be build according to the demand and by price so it will be good and no so good products
Now all will sounds awesome but when the private space travel industry kicks off, get ready for this headline:
"The survivors of the StartShip Jupiter might come back home in 2 years after 5 years lost in space"
"The family are demanding to Chinese company JupiterFlights $US800 mm for damage..."
"The space smuggling controls a trade network of 20 bn"
"Trump the 3rd say it would build an earth shield for ilegal human born in mars"
There's 5 millions of aliens dreamer (human born in outer-space) dreaming to one day to visit planet earth..."
Emperor TrumpIII says "They're rapist.." "
"They bring rocks"
"They don't understand gravity.."
"They never seen a butterfly... "
"They never see and heard a covfefe can you believe that? A covfefe!
And trust me when I say.... they are not here just for covfefe...
"In congress 200 Democrats killed a bill for rising the budget for space defend"
"Saying that money should be use for welfare program in the space colonies...."
"The UN is putting sanction on Russia for allegedly build a death start in Saturn orbit.. The Kremlin denies it, such thing do not exist"
"Congress approve Transalien- extraterrestrial- marriage... whatever that means"
the next problem will be the fuel. It's nearly impossible to launch a rocket by electricity, you won't have enough thrust power to push it through the earth's gravity. Basically fossile fuel is still a must and sadly, it's not unlimited
Hey, Bloomberg! THE GRAPH AT 3:00 IS WRONG. You shouldn't use an ascending exponencial curve to model the business costs of the company. Maybe a descending one, "touching" the 10M line from above, in the long term. The graph in the video shows that the cost of each rocket will keep groing (exponentially!) after reaching the 10 milion line.
gus bisbal Its quite funny, you pretty accurately described my worklife in your sarcastic comment. I am an investor/entrepreneur, i literally sit around and come up with ideas and strategies, and then i tell my employees&partners to execute them.
hmm, so urgent nano sats is the only sustainable market. i mean i wish them all the best. gotta cross your fingers that spacex will not figure out how to launch 100 nanosats at once in one big reusable rocket. small packages don't get flown around in cheap small airplanes. They just put tons of them into an A380.
+Floris Schmucki They niche is Nano sat and spacex and nasa cant do what these company can do and that is custom launch for nano satellite whenever u wont at a bit higer cost than spacex but with more flexibility and i can say that due to the demand even if they sell 10x more cost than spacex they are gonna make it for like atleast this century........Lol but first they have to do their first successful launch
Sir, I was looking on how to respond, I understand the material science and the engineering complexities and after careful consideration I realise you have summarised my concerns. Thank you. Your comment was like poetry.
Fascinating! While many would hit the brakes right away, these guys put it to the test. They have a materials engineer and are in the R&D phase. Of course, the real plan so far is to R&D the hell out of it until we see the real boundary for their materials' capacity. You'll be on my watchlist, Relativity.
Look up RocketLab. They've already flown 3D printed engines. Not entirely 3D printed, but all major parts and the combustion chamber is one of them. Relativity claims they have already performed over 70 tests of the engine. The rest of the rocket is less complex than the engine.
Samuel Hvidager that was my concern when I learned about this. But to be fair, this 3D printer is not your average 3D printer. I don’t know how precise can it get, but it could be a challenge to be that much precise.
SpaceX rocket cost: 60 million per launch
Relativity rocket cost (est.): 10 million per launch
If these two companies combined technologies, I’m sure the cost per launch could decrease to 1 million per launch.
NASA launched 10 years ago for $600 million. Elon does it for $60 million. These guys want to do it in 10-15 years at $10 million. Only problem. They have to build a Reusable Rocket. NASA said that can't be done. Elon is the only one to do it. Good luck guys.
space station needs certain things thats impossible to make in an amateur remote island in mars or moon and thats why it cant be done for atleast this century and they sure can make some rocket in mars
We cry about the limited resources on this planet and continue to send more away. Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd and insane? Can't we just stick to real solutions?
Congress could have implemented a negative income tax and administered pharmacological freedom decades ago, and they still can, as proposed by Milton Friedman.
"The only difference between "propaganda" and "education", really, is the point of view. The advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we don't believe in is propaganda." -- Edward Bernays
"Poison is in everything, and no thing exists without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." -- Paracelsus
"Its a moral problem with a harm which government is doing." -- Milton Friedman
911 was an inside job and addiction is no more real than is Sisyphus. Milton Friedman has a full lecture on here, but our prison industrial complex is more important; not to mention liberty and freedom for human capital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
80 percent labour? Or R&D? What is a rocket? A mere tube containing propellant and engine. That's it. Tube is no problem. Just use any pipe. I built rockets out of tin foil when I was a kid. So nothing to it. And i had no engine. Just a nozzle at the end of it. So it could be done very inexpensively of fuel is only 5% of the cost.
+The Game well you can go to wikipedia and will get the actual costs because a project cannot be funded without numbers......Still isro is not cheaper....Its more of a showoff....Isro was cheaper 5-7 years ago but since spacex and rocketlabs have launched rocksts at drastically low peice.......Isro is out of business
Fuck them. There should be a law that says you have to clean up as much space junk as you send up there. It's getting rediculous. They litter up there with crazy amounts of satellites at one go then just decommission them after like half a year.
Although space junk is a problem, I'd rather see technological progress advance more quickly. It's just one problem that needs solving. Are you next going to complain that we shouldn't put anything in space because rockets are expensive? Are you going to stop technological advancement because of *one* problem?