HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submitlogin

> 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.



>> 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.

This isn't right.

CNC machines aren't magic and they do require skilled people to design for them and operate them.

BUT: they are an enormous advance on capability compared to 30 years ago and are absolutely not limited to mass production. 3D CNC milling is how most prototyping of metal parts is done and can be done to extraordinary precision, repeatably. It was always a low volume technology - it was Apple that started applying it in volume as part of mass manufacture.


While not metalwork, some are surprised to learn how old CNC machined guitars are. I have a Peavey T-60 and they were among the first CNC-machined production guitars in the late 1970s. It's going strong to this day as well, they're very well-built instruments.


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.


The assembly of the tube bundle in a nuclear steam generator is still carried out mainly by hand, using hundreds of shims, anti-vibration bars and supports.

At the other end of the spectrum are stamped-plate heat exchangers, which are mass-produced using a press line.

Each has its own specific application, and they are neither comparable nor interchangeable. The comparison makes no sense.


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


The one that keeps failing?


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.

https://nextspaceflight.com/rockets/3/


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


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).


Falcon 9's don't fly raptors




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: