> Besides, the question I have is why 3D printing?
Rocket nozzles are heat limited. You could get more trust out of them only if the nozzle would not melt. So you do a lot of tricks to cool it. One of those many tricks is that you circulate your rocket fuel as a coolant in the wall of the nozzle. This requires an intricate web of many tiny pipes which form the wall of the nozzle.
Typically these are constructed by hand by brazing together many many pipes. That takes forever. In contrast additive methods seem to perform well in this application.
My guess is failing to read between the lines and taking marketing too seriously.
"Removing the need for postfabrication qualification" doesn't mean "perfectly detects errors" it means "detects errors within our business specs and we expect it to be profitable within that margin".
In a typical rocket the payload is the most expensive thing, followed by the engines, and then the rest of the rocket and the fuel. Shaving costs off the engines is well worth it, but not if it sacrifices reliability.
Maybe they have a model in mind where it works. If you use dozens of engines like SpaceX's Starship you can tolerate more engine issues. Of maybe they want to launch really cheap payloads on inexpensive rockets. But in the parameters of traditional rocket design, QA on your engines is one of the last things you want to save money on.
Eh sounds like lying to me. Maybe it sounds like marketing to people who develop software “we can iterate no worries” but I think rocket science has a higher bar for safety.
Reminds me of that failing nuclear startup that tried “fake it until you make it” with the US government.
Rocket nozzles are heat limited. You could get more trust out of them only if the nozzle would not melt. So you do a lot of tricks to cool it. One of those many tricks is that you circulate your rocket fuel as a coolant in the wall of the nozzle. This requires an intricate web of many tiny pipes which form the wall of the nozzle.
Typically these are constructed by hand by brazing together many many pipes. That takes forever. In contrast additive methods seem to perform well in this application.
This is standard stuff nowadays. Everyone seems to be doing it. I'm not sure what is your objection. If you don't believe me listen to Tony Bruno: https://youtu.be/Bh7Xf3Ox7K8?si=YVDIDq1bvKeCuvY9&t=1509
> This plainly is not true
Which particular part are you objecting to?