Thread

1. ggm · 1790747290 · focus · HN ↗

   A couple of questions/observations:

   1) when people say "destroyed the jigs, tools and spares in 2007" What do they actually mean? Burying things isn't destroying. Putting them in a furnace is destroying. Is it possible that both parts, and tools actually are recoverable e.g. from the seabed? The dimensional stability might be off, but to help reconstruct tools, it's not nothing. Likewise digging up something buried in its packing crate is not rocket science.

   2) "that would be ludicrously expensive" doesn't mean much any more. It's not unlike "we can't make a saturn 1 any more because the tools were destroyed and it would be ludicrously expensive to make an F1 engine" -well yes, but thats not impossible, it's just unlikely and expensive. So maybe this is unlikely, expensive but ... has a unicorn sugar daddy?

   3) there are craft in all sorts of places. Not just on sticks outside NASA property. I am not a historian or a federal government employee, but I wouldn't think it impossible for people to ask other agencies to let you inside the shell and remove the bits you want, or even ask for it back. The one on a stick in Balboa Park San Diego might have associated boxes of bits-and-bobs..

   4) its a titanium alloy. It's temperature and corrosion resistant, noting some things (like chlorine according to the web) are bad for it. It's not made of pure chinesium or balsa wood. Interior surfaces would be in pretty good shape.

   1. crote · 1790759658 · focus · HN ↗

      > we can't make a saturn 1 any more because the tools were destroyed and it would be ludicrously expensive to make an F1 engine

      The bigger problem there is that we don't have the people any more.

      The Rocketdyne F1 was the pinnacle of hand-crafted engineering, with each engine being slightly different and the people having to account for those differences during assembly. It has a whole bunch of complicated welds which require a lot of tweaking, adjusting, and literally days of welding work? Neil's got to go to the moon, so you better get to it!

      Those highly-skilled highly-specialized engineers don't exist any more, and for a good reason: with CNC and robots we can achieve far superior results for a fraction of the cost. It just requires the designers to make it automation-friendly from the start. Those skilled people retired (and by now died) without a replacement, because the job had become obsolete.

      So no, we literally cannot build a new Rocketdyne F1. We can design and build a better F1-like engine, though!

      1. Beretta_Vexee · 1790761728 · focus · HN ↗

         > with CNC and robots we can achieve far superior results for a fraction of the cost.

         This is only true for mass production, where the set-up costs are spread across thousands of units. For small batches, the cost of automation often exceeds the cost of the batch itself. CNC machines are not magic; they require qualified and competent staff.

         The same applies to quality control, fitting and assembly.

         I don’t think they’re planning to start mass producing of SR-71s.

         > because the job had become obsolete

         You are greatly underestimating the number of parts, welds and inspections carried out on critical equipment that are done by hand or in small batches by highly skilled workers. The fact that they use a CNC machine does not make their job obsolete. In fact, quite the opposite is true, its require more skills.

         Apart from the turbine section, virtually nothing on a helicopter is produced with a high level of automation or in large batch.

         1. m4rtink · 1790768670 · focus · HN ↗

            Still, I don't think anyone is ever going to hand assemble thousands of tubes for nozzle cooling & prepare them for brazing.

            Not when you can get the same for a fraction of the cost by CNC milling the channels & then shrinking a jacket over it. Or in some cases even 3D printing the thing.

            1. fragmede · 1790772964 · focus · HN ↗

               How does SpaceX's 3D printed raptor engine factor into your analysis?

               1. verzali · 1790780808 · focus · HN ↗

                  The one that keeps failing?

                  1. fragmede · 1790781222 · focus · HN ↗

                     Does it? SpaceX doesn't publish official numbers, but nextspaceflight.com has the Falcon 9 at 99.5% success rate, which seems a bit better than "keeps failing" to me.

                     <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nextspaceflight.com&#x2F;rockets&#x2F;3&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nextspaceflight.com&#x2F;rockets&#x2F;3&#x2F;

                     1. efromvt · 1790785413 · focus · HN ↗

                        I actually agree with your point overall, but Falcon 9 uses the Merlin, not the newer raptor 3 for starship which is more 3d printing and has had some teething issues (no definite causation, and I expect they’ll get it sorted).
                     2. verzali · 1790789816 · focus · HN ↗

                        Falcon 9&#x27;s don&#x27;t fly raptors
                     3. AshleyGrant · 1790793482 · focus · HN ↗

                        The Raptor v3 had a 7% (3&#x2F;39) failure rate on yesterday&#x27;s Starship Flight 14. As others have mentioned, Falcon 9 uses the Merlin engine, which is a completely different, much lower complexity engine.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.