Hot-Fire Tests Show 3-D Printed Rocket Parts Rival Traditionally Manufactured Parts

Propulsion engineer Sandra Greene, left, and test engineer Cynthia Sprader recently completed a series of test firings at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.(from www.nasa.gov)

What can survive blazing temperatures of almost 6,000 degrees Fahrenheit without melting? What did not break apart at extreme pressures? What is made by a new process that forms a complex part in just one piece? What takes less than three weeks to go from manufacturing to testing? What can reduce the costs of expensive rocket parts by 60 percent or more?

Answer: 3-D printed parts

Engineers know that 3-D printed rocket parts have the potential to save NASA and industry money and to open up new affordable design possibilities for rockets and spacecraft. But until recently, no one had tested rocket parts critical to engine combustion in a hot-fire environment.

NASA engineers at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., not only put rocket engine parts to the test but also were able to compare their performance to parts made the old-fashioned way with welds and multiple parts during planned subscale acoustic tests for the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket. In little more than a month, Marshall engineers built two subscale injectors with a specialized 3-D printing machine and completed 11 mainstage hot-fire tests, accumulating 46 seconds of total firing time at temperatures nearing 6,000 degrees Fahrenheit while burning liquid oxygen and gaseous hydrogen.

“We saw no difference in performance of the 3-D printed injectors compared to the traditionally manufactured injectors,” said Sandra Elam Greene, the propulsion engineer who oversaw the tests and inspected the components afterward. “Two separate 3-D printed injectors operated beautifully during all hot-fire tests.”

Post-test inspections showed the injectors remained in such excellent condition and performed so well the team will continue to put them directly in the line of fire. In addition to the SLS acoustic tests, Greene and her team tested a more complex assembly of a 3-D printed injector and thrust chamber liner made by Directed Manufacturing, Inc., of Austin, Texas. Marshall engineers transferred a second 3-D printed injector to NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, where it will continue to accumulate hot-fire time to test its durability.

“Rocket engines are complex, with hundreds of individual components that many suppliers typically build and assemble, so testing an engine component built with a new process helps verify that it might be an affordable way to make future rockets,” said Chris Singer, director of the Marshall Center’s Engineering Directorate. “The additive manufacturing process has the potential to reduce the time and cost associated with making complex parts by an order of magnitude.”

Traditional subscale rocket injectors for early SLS acoustic tests took six months to fabricate, had four parts, five welds and detailed machining and cost more than $10,000 each. Marshall materials engineers built the same injector in one piece by sintering Inconel steel powder with a state-of-the-art 3-D printer. After minimal machining and inspection with computer scanning, it took just three weeks for the part to reach the test stand and cost less than $5,000 to manufacture.

“It took about 40 hours from start to finish to make each injector using a 3-D printing process called selective laser melting, and another couple of weeks to polish and inspect the parts,” explained Ken Cooper, a Marshall materials engineer whose team made the part. “This allowed the propulsion engineers to take advantage of an existing SLS test series to examine how 3-D printed parts performed compared to traditional parts with a similar design.”

Since additive manufacturing machines have has become more affordable, varied, and sophisticated, this materials process now offers many possibilities for making every phase of NASA missions more affordable. The SLS injector tests are just one example of NASA’s efforts to fabricate and test 3-D printed parts in relevant environments similar to those experienced during NASA missions. The SLS injector test series complements a series of liquid oxygen and gaseous hydrogen rocket assembly firings at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, which hot-fire tested an additively manufactured, select laser melted injector developed through collaboration of industry and government agencies. A J-2X engine exhaust port cover made at the Marshall Center became the first 3-D printed part tested during a full-scale engine hot-fire test at NASA’s Stennis Center. Marshall materials engineers are currently making a baffle critical for pogo vibration mitigation; it will be tested at Marshall and Stennis and is a potential candidate for the first SLS mission in 2017. Marshall engineers are finishing up ground tests with Made in Space, a Moffett Field, California company working with NASA to develop and test a 3-D printer that will build tools on the International Space Station next year. NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston is even exploring printing food in space.

“At NASA, we recognize ground-based and in-space additive manufacturing offer the potential for new mission opportunities, whether printing rocket parts, tools or entire spacecraft,” Singer said. “Additive manufacturing will improve affordability from design and development to flight and operations, enabling every aspect of sustainable long-term human space exploration.”

NASA is a leading partner in the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation and the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative, which explores using additive manufacturing and other advanced materials processes to reduce the cost of spaceflight. For more information about the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, visit: http://manufacturing.gov/nnmi.html

78,000 sign up for one-way mission to Mars

Amersfoort, 7th May 2013 – Just two weeks into the nineteen week application period, more than seventy-eight thousand people have applied to the Mars One astronaut selection program in the hope of becoming a Mars settler in 2023.

Mars One has received applications from over 120 countries. Most applications come from USA (17324), followed by China (10241), United Kingdom (3581), Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Argentina and India.Bas Lansdorp, Mars One Co-Founder and CEO said: “With seventy-eight thousand applications in two weeks, this is turning out to be the most desired job in history. These numbers put us right on track for our goal of half a million applicants.

Mars One is a mission representing all humanity and its true spirit will be justified only if people from the entire world are represented. I’m proud that this is exactly what we see happening,” he said.

As part of the application every applicant is required to explain his/her motivation behind their decision go to Mars in an one minute video. Many applicants are choosing to publish this video on the Mars One website. These are openly accessible on applicants.mars-one.com.

Applicants we have received come from a very wide range of personalities, professions and ages. This is significant because what we are looking for is not restricted to a particular background. From Round 1 we will take forward the most committed, creative, resilient and motivated applicants,” said Dr. Norbert Kraft, Mars One Chief Medical Officer.

Mars One will continue to receive online applications until August 31st 2013. From all the applicants in Round 1, regional reviewers will select around 50-100 candidates for Round 2 in each of the 300 geographic regions in the world that Mars One has identified.

Four rounds make the selection process, which will come to an end in 2015; Mars One will then employ 28-40 candidates, who will train for around 7 years. Finally an audience vote will elect one of groups in training to be the envoys of humanity to Mars.

Stirling Engines & The E-Cat

Talk on the Journal of Nuclear Physics has now turned to the Stirling engine. While the E-Cat community mourns the loss of Prof. Focardi – co-inventor of the E-Cat, and Andrea Rossi faces threats against his safety if he leaves the United States, he continues to forge ahead with adaptations to his technology. The use of Stirling engines in his work means that the Hot Cat has progressed to the point where Mr. Rossi and his team are attempting to use the Hot Cat for electricity production.(from ecatreport.com)

On June 27th, Andrea Rossi posted on the JONP:

“To the Readers expert in Sterling Engine or manufacturers of Sterling Engines:

“Please send your proposals for Sterling Engines to be coupled with the E-Cats )power 5kW and 10 kW). The best offers will be bought for testing. Ask more details to info@leonardocorp1996.com

“Attention of Dr. Andrea Rossi.”

This is exciting news, indicating that work on the E-Cat has stepped into a new phase of development. Several commenters on the JONP jumped in with suggestions about Stirling Engines. Marchesi Marco posted:

“I’ve just read…that you’re working on electricity production. Maybe are you working on it in the usual sense with a steam turbine or could you re-evaluate the idea of a simple Stirling engine! An increasing Delta-T will augment the efficiency, so the Hot-Cat is the best choice…Or, maybe it’s an old idea, just tried and not working?”

Rossi replied:

“Yes, the Sterling Engine is an option with the new temperatures. We are studying also this kind of coupling.”

Pekka Janhunen, a frequent commenter on the JONP, asked:

“I assume that the 5 or 10 kW refers to the thermal output power of the E-Cat, not the mechanical output power of the Stirling engine which is lower by factor 3 or more. Correct?”

Dr. Rossi replied:

“yes, correct. I want to add that we are not interested to proposals of concepts or patents to be developed: we need a device ready to be tested immediately.”

The immediacy of the need for a working Stirling engine indicates that the testing phase and R&D for this technology is here, and ready to be fully developed.

Some suggestions for sources of Stirling engines, while promising leads, tend to run into patent pending situations, or into technology that is as new as the Hot Cat, itself. Chris Johnson recommended a promising company that develops this technology, but it is not patented yet, nor under production. Mr. Rossi is typically very open to new ideas and variations on the technologies involved with his E-Cats, even changing some of the construction aspects as per some suggestions from his readers. A good example of this is when he did away with the inner chamber of the reactor. So, for him to be this adamant about a working engine, it indicates that he and his team are definitely ready to move on to the next order of business with the Hot Cat.