A 3D printed jet engine
A jet engine fit to power a plane is not a piece of technology you stamp out by the thousands, like so many trinkets headed to the gumball machine. To get the kind of precision and reliability you want under the wings of today’s flying machine, you’ll need about two years of manufacturing time, never mind the half a decade or so of designing and research that proceeds it.
But now Xinhua Wu, a professor of materials engineering and the director of Monash University’s Centre for Additive Manufacturing in Melbourne, Australia, has proved to the world that a jet engine can be made on a 3D printer. Image: Monash University
Wu had already printed a variety of components for a variety of aerospace companies, and, in her view, “It’s not much more difficult to make the whole engine, once you know how to deal with the materials.” To do just that she applied for a grant from the Australian government.
Wu had previously made 3D printed parts for GE, Boeing, and other companies, and she had learned that such cutting-edge products were not ones she could use to flaunt the capabilities of new additive technology. So, with those funds, she set out to rebuild a 40-year-old engine. Provided by Microturbo, it’s one that can still be found on the Dassault Falcon 20. “The older design I can display to the world,” says Wu. “If it’s a new design there is confidentiality, and we can’t show anyone.”
To print the engine, Wu and her team went through piles of 2D drawings and scanned the engine’s parts (several of which were not represented in the drawings). They also determined the material of each component to reproduce it with precision. They worked to optimize the printing process to be as fast as possible, and to use as little supporting material as possible. One particular challenge were the 100-micron holes—not a trivial size in the world of 3D printing.
After a year of work, they printed two complete engines. Now, should anyone want another, they can print it in a matter of months—years less than it would have taken to build in the past.
In theory, the engine is ready to be fired up and even power a plane. “There is nothing stopping anyone from doing it,” says Wu. “The only thing is we signed an agreement beforehand. We’re not allowed to do that.” Nor are they allowed to run off a few spare parts. The same agreement dictates that Wu and her team cut the weight of certain components before firing it up. “A direct duplication of the current engine is straightforward,” she says. “But we are going to change the design, and that becomes challenging. That will be the next step.”
But that’s not the only next step. Already, several engine manufacturers have approached Wu about building a newer engine. Duplicating the materials used in the older engine was a self-imposed constraint unique for the project. But those materials were better suited to casting and forging. Now Boeing has asked Wu to design a material and process more appropriate for 3D printing. And machining companies have come to her hoping she’ll pass down her knowledge.
However, much of Wu’s work is likely to change how things might be printed in the future. “The first goal,” she says, “is to demonstrate the abilities of 3D printing.”
Michael Abrams is an independent writer.
New Concorde Could Fly London To New York In One Hour
The original Concorde, a flying masterpiece, could zip from London to New York in a breakneck 3 hours and 30 minutes. For many people, it was a dream to experience faster-than-sound travel, and the prospect of cutting the seven to eight hour journey to half the time was enough to make even the most robust traveler giddy with delight. Aircraft manufacturer Airbus has been taking inspiration from this flying dream, and they have now won a patent for the next stage in speedy travel. And this monster goes faster and higher than ever before seen in commercial air travel.
One hour. That's how long London to New York would take in the planned hypersonic plane, called the “Ultra-rapid air vehicle” but dubbed Concorde 2.0. This new passenger aircraft would fly at up to four and a half times the speed of sound, Mach 4.5, compared to up to Mach 2.5 for the original Concorde.
Concorde ran into a couple of problems when it came to sound pollution that Concorde 2.0. hopes to solve. Blasting through the atmosphere faster than the speed of sound is a noisy business – so noisy that flying Concorde over populated areas was extremely disruptive. Often therefore having to fly slower in these areas, it couldn't quite live up to its high-speed potential.
Concorde 2.0 will avoid these problems as it climbs high up into the atmosphere, dissipating its noise energy horizontal to Earth by rotating its tail fins. This way, the sound waves won't reach the ground. Where Concorde flew at around 18 kilometers (60,000 feet), Concorde 2.0. will eclipse that at around 30 kilometers (100,000 feet); nearly twice the altitude.
Passengers of Concorde 2.0 would be in for a bit of a space-like adventure. The plane takes off vertically just like a Space Shuttle. After takeoff, a rocket motor would shoot the plane high into the sky where the ramjets would take over and accelerate the aircraft tohypersonic speeds (loosely defined as around Mach 5). Ramjets are more commonly found on missiles than commercial aircrafts.
To take off vertically, passengers would have to sit in hammock-like seats. And, instead of the 100-passenger Concorde, the Concorde 2.0 would only carry 20 passengers.
Unfortunately, you're not going to be able to book a seat on this vehicle anytime soon. The project is predicted to take 30 to 40 years before it becomes a commercially viable form of travel.
For further information on how Concorde 2.0 would work, check out the video below.
The original Concorde, a flying masterpiece, could zip from London to New York in a breakneck 3 hours and 30 minutes. For many people, it was a dream to experience faster-than-sound travel, and the prospect of cutting the seven to eight hour journey to half the time was enough to make even the most robust traveler giddy with delight. Aircraft manufacturer Airbus has been taking inspiration from this flying dream, and they have now won a patent for the next stage in speedy travel. And this monster goes faster and higher than ever before seen in commercial air travel.
One hour. That's how long London to New York would take in the planned hypersonic plane, called the “Ultra-rapid air vehicle” but dubbed Concorde 2.0. This new passenger aircraft would fly at up to four and a half times the speed of sound, Mach 4.5, compared to up to Mach 2.5 for the original Concorde.
Concorde ran into a couple of problems when it came to sound pollution that Concorde 2.0. hopes to solve. Blasting through the atmosphere faster than the speed of sound is a noisy business – so noisy that flying Concorde over populated areas was extremely disruptive. Often therefore having to fly slower in these areas, it couldn't quite live up to its high-speed potential.
Concorde 2.0 will avoid these problems as it climbs high up into the atmosphere, dissipating its noise energy horizontal to Earth by rotating its tail fins. This way, the sound waves won't reach the ground. Where Concorde flew at around 18 kilometers (60,000 feet), Concorde 2.0. will eclipse that at around 30 kilometers (100,000 feet); nearly twice the altitude.
Passengers of Concorde 2.0 would be in for a bit of a space-like adventure. The plane takes off vertically just like a Space Shuttle. After takeoff, a rocket motor would shoot the plane high into the sky where the ramjets would take over and accelerate the aircraft tohypersonic speeds (loosely defined as around Mach 5). Ramjets are more commonly found on missiles than commercial aircrafts.
To take off vertically, passengers would have to sit in hammock-like seats. And, instead of the 100-passenger Concorde, the Concorde 2.0 would only carry 20 passengers.
Unfortunately, you're not going to be able to book a seat on this vehicle anytime soon. The project is predicted to take 30 to 40 years before it becomes a commercially viable form of travel.
For further information on how Concorde 2.0 would work, check out the video below.
Transport’s Innovation Problem: Why Haven’t Flying Cars Taken Off?
Flying cars in The Jetsons and Back to the Future, or Star Trek’s spaceships and teleportation, may have captured the imagination decades ago, but most current methods of transport have been around a long time. Railways were being rolled out rapidly from the 1830s, while the commercial breakthroughs in petrol and diesel engines date to 1876 and 1892 respectively. Even the jet engine that made mass aviation possible can be traced back to Frank Whittle’s first patent in 1932.
Despite decades of futuristic predictions, modern transport wouldn’t look all that different to someone from the 1950s – certainly not compared to communications or entertainment. So why has there been so little recent innovation in transport? And will the latest batch of proposed driverless cars, levitating trains and electric aircraft actually make a serious breakthrough?
In part, there hasn’t been a revolution because existing technologies have been able to evolve. Engines have become more efficient, fuel is higher quality, we have lighter materials, more aerodynamic designs and better brakes that mean vehicles can operate safely closer together. However, eventually there will be a limit to these evolutions.
Flying cars in The Jetsons and Back to the Future, or Star Trek’s spaceships and teleportation, may have captured the imagination decades ago, but most current methods of transport have been around a long time. Railways were being rolled out rapidly from the 1830s, while the commercial breakthroughs in petrol and diesel engines date to 1876 and 1892 respectively. Even the jet engine that made mass aviation possible can be traced back to Frank Whittle’s first patent in 1932.
Despite decades of futuristic predictions, modern transport wouldn’t look all that different to someone from the 1950s – certainly not compared to communications or entertainment. So why has there been so little recent innovation in transport? And will the latest batch of proposed driverless cars, levitating trains and electric aircraft actually make a serious breakthrough?
In part, there hasn’t been a revolution because existing technologies have been able to evolve. Engines have become more efficient, fuel is higher quality, we have lighter materials, more aerodynamic designs and better brakes that mean vehicles can operate safely closer together. However, eventually there will be a limit to these evolutions.
We’re still waiting for the future of the 50s. James Vaughan, CC BY-NC-SA
In any event, transport is not just about technology. It is also about people – and people don’t always like change. We may be locked in to current technology, partly due to habit but also due to economics.
We have an extensive transport refuelling system based on petrol and diesel. To convert to electricity or, more fancifully, to hydrogen, will involve substantial re-tooling that will be difficult to finance. In the UK, drivers are used to manual transmissions and may be reluctant to learn how to use more automated systems, just as we would be reluctant to retrain to use a different keyboard even if it were more efficient. We are stuck with what we have – the economics of QWERTY.
Human factors may lead to unintended consequences – one of the ironies of automation is that it can lead to less attention to related tasks. For example adaptive cruise control can make car drivers less aware of hazards.
Even with full automation, when we still have trouble making all trains driverless, one might suggest driverless cars are a flight of fancy. Innovative aeroplane designs, such as the blended wing, are stymied by the human requirements for a window seat (NASA has suggested windows could be replaced with real-time video).
In any event, transport is not just about technology. It is also about people – and people don’t always like change. We may be locked in to current technology, partly due to habit but also due to economics.
We have an extensive transport refuelling system based on petrol and diesel. To convert to electricity or, more fancifully, to hydrogen, will involve substantial re-tooling that will be difficult to finance. In the UK, drivers are used to manual transmissions and may be reluctant to learn how to use more automated systems, just as we would be reluctant to retrain to use a different keyboard even if it were more efficient. We are stuck with what we have – the economics of QWERTY.
Human factors may lead to unintended consequences – one of the ironies of automation is that it can lead to less attention to related tasks. For example adaptive cruise control can make car drivers less aware of hazards.
Even with full automation, when we still have trouble making all trains driverless, one might suggest driverless cars are a flight of fancy. Innovative aeroplane designs, such as the blended wing, are stymied by the human requirements for a window seat (NASA has suggested windows could be replaced with real-time video).
The wing blends into the main body of the aircraft – but where are the windows? NASA / Boeing
Fancy new inventions have to be accompanied by a business model and the right infrastructure, or else they’ll just languish as prototypes like the pneumatic transit systemdemonstrated in New York City in the early 1870s and a forerunner to Elon Musk’s proposed Hyperloop. Take flying cars. Even supposing the technology works, where would they land?
Such a system would only succeed if infrastructure – air traffic control, landing space and so on – was set aside. While flying cars could technically operate from airport to airport, what’s the point? Until there are sufficient numbers to set aside pieces of land or roads for takeoff we won’t achieve any of the benefits. And there won’t be sufficient demand until this land is set aside. Catch 22.
Trapped In The Niche
When looking at how technology interacts with wider society it’s helpful to think in terms ofthree different levels: niches, regimes and landscapes.
In transport, there are plenty of niche innovations – battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, car clubs – but few become mainstream. An exception might be hybrid electric vehicles such the Toyota Prius, but even here the underlying technology may be traced back to a patent registered in 1898 (by Ferdinand Porsche, no less).
Fancy new inventions have to be accompanied by a business model and the right infrastructure, or else they’ll just languish as prototypes like the pneumatic transit systemdemonstrated in New York City in the early 1870s and a forerunner to Elon Musk’s proposed Hyperloop. Take flying cars. Even supposing the technology works, where would they land?
Such a system would only succeed if infrastructure – air traffic control, landing space and so on – was set aside. While flying cars could technically operate from airport to airport, what’s the point? Until there are sufficient numbers to set aside pieces of land or roads for takeoff we won’t achieve any of the benefits. And there won’t be sufficient demand until this land is set aside. Catch 22.
Trapped In The Niche
When looking at how technology interacts with wider society it’s helpful to think in terms ofthree different levels: niches, regimes and landscapes.
In transport, there are plenty of niche innovations – battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, car clubs – but few become mainstream. An exception might be hybrid electric vehicles such the Toyota Prius, but even here the underlying technology may be traced back to a patent registered in 1898 (by Ferdinand Porsche, no less).
The first Porsche – and the first hybrid. wiki
The problem isn’t coming up with new ideas – it’s changing the bigger picture. At regime level, new transport technologies have faced resistance from vested interests such as oil producers and car makers. And the wider landscape has not always favoured major innovations – especially low oil prices.
With lots of different individual suppliers, transport is also vulnerable to tragedy of the commons-type outcomes and clashes between rival designs and brands. Navigation technologies can only be sold commercially if they benefit the individual consumer. However, if we all have access to such technologies, we can be collectively worse off due to congestion – for the greater good, it would be beneficial if sometimes our SatNav sends us on a longer route, but who is knowingly going to buy something like that?
Electric battery technology might have more rapid adoption if the technology was standardised, permitting automated battery swaps. But standardised to whose technology? Magnetic levitation train adoption is limited by the fact they can’t run on traditional rail lines and have only limited overlap with other maglevs.
In short, despite the fuss over disruptive technologies such as Uber, it is unlikely that transport will have a technology paradigm shift until there is a major landscape change. Of course, with volatile oil prices, limited reserves and sensitive geopolitics, such a change could be just round the corner. But for the moment the technology push does not seem to be complemented by a societal pull – people might like to watch sci-fi, but they aren’t yet ready to live it.
The problem isn’t coming up with new ideas – it’s changing the bigger picture. At regime level, new transport technologies have faced resistance from vested interests such as oil producers and car makers. And the wider landscape has not always favoured major innovations – especially low oil prices.
With lots of different individual suppliers, transport is also vulnerable to tragedy of the commons-type outcomes and clashes between rival designs and brands. Navigation technologies can only be sold commercially if they benefit the individual consumer. However, if we all have access to such technologies, we can be collectively worse off due to congestion – for the greater good, it would be beneficial if sometimes our SatNav sends us on a longer route, but who is knowingly going to buy something like that?
Electric battery technology might have more rapid adoption if the technology was standardised, permitting automated battery swaps. But standardised to whose technology? Magnetic levitation train adoption is limited by the fact they can’t run on traditional rail lines and have only limited overlap with other maglevs.
In short, despite the fuss over disruptive technologies such as Uber, it is unlikely that transport will have a technology paradigm shift until there is a major landscape change. Of course, with volatile oil prices, limited reserves and sensitive geopolitics, such a change could be just round the corner. But for the moment the technology push does not seem to be complemented by a societal pull – people might like to watch sci-fi, but they aren’t yet ready to live it.
Life "Not As We Know It" Could Exist On Mars, Titan And Other Worlds
It is looking increasing unlikely that we are alone in the universe, but our current theories for extraterrestrial life are based on one key condition: It will probably be similar to that on Earth, which is reasonable to assume, as it’s the only type of life we know to exist. But what if it can exist beyond these limitations?
That’s what one team of researchers has been looking into. Their paper, “The Physical, Chemical and Physiological Limits of Life,” is published in the journal Life. In particular, they speculated what kind of alien organisms might be able to survive on Mars and Saturn’s moon Titan, and came to the conclusion that there could be "life, but not as we know it," to use the infamously misquoted phrase from Star Trek.
In the research, they discussed how, while life on Earth has a unique biochemical toolset, life on Mars or even Titan could survive with a few adaptations. On Earth, for the most part it requires oxygen, nitrogen and other key ingredients to survive, in addition to storing information via DNA and RNA, which is why we look for these things on other worlds.
But that might not be the case everywhere. One example is that a water-hydrogen peroxide mixture, rather than water, could be used in the cells of small microorganisms on Mars, whereas those on Titan could use liquid methane or ethane. Some other chemical process aside from DNA could store information as well.
"We only have one type of life as we know it," lead author Dirk Schulze-Makuch from Washington State University told IFLScience. "But there’s a whole range of adaptation that we see in different areas, and that could apply to other places."
If there is life elsewhere in the Solar System, don’t expect anything too big. On Mars, Schulze-Makuch says the limited source of food – namely organics – means that nothing larger than a tardigrade could feasibly survive. On Titan, the extremely cold temperatures, and thus a reduction in the amount of energy available, could be a limiting factor.
Actually detecting extraterrestrial life in the Solar System will be a challenge, too. It is likely that a robotic lander on Mars or Titan would need a suite of experiments designed to detect different kinds of life, and even then we might not know what we’re looking for. But Schulze-Makuch is optimistic that there’s something out there.
"I would be very surprised if there’s no life on Mars," he said, adding that he was "nearly sure" it was there a few billion years ago when Mars had oceans, and is possibly still there today. "The only questions is if it’s a common origin to Earth or a separate origin," he said.
But he says that finding life on Titan would be more important. That's because Mars is, comparatively speaking, rather like our planet. "[In the past] it was, in a way, a bit like a colder version of Earth," he said. "Now Titan, that’s a different story, because its environmental conditions are so different. If there is life there, it would have to have a separate origin."
And that’s possibly more important in answering whether life is abundant in the universe. "If you find life on Titan, then life can originate in different conditions, and is much more diverse than we probably ever expected," said Schulze-Makuch.
If there is life on Titan, it would mean that many more planets in the galaxy and beyond could have life than we thought. "And some [could have] intelligent life," Schulze-Makuch concluded.
It is looking increasing unlikely that we are alone in the universe, but our current theories for extraterrestrial life are based on one key condition: It will probably be similar to that on Earth, which is reasonable to assume, as it’s the only type of life we know to exist. But what if it can exist beyond these limitations?
That’s what one team of researchers has been looking into. Their paper, “The Physical, Chemical and Physiological Limits of Life,” is published in the journal Life. In particular, they speculated what kind of alien organisms might be able to survive on Mars and Saturn’s moon Titan, and came to the conclusion that there could be "life, but not as we know it," to use the infamously misquoted phrase from Star Trek.
In the research, they discussed how, while life on Earth has a unique biochemical toolset, life on Mars or even Titan could survive with a few adaptations. On Earth, for the most part it requires oxygen, nitrogen and other key ingredients to survive, in addition to storing information via DNA and RNA, which is why we look for these things on other worlds.
But that might not be the case everywhere. One example is that a water-hydrogen peroxide mixture, rather than water, could be used in the cells of small microorganisms on Mars, whereas those on Titan could use liquid methane or ethane. Some other chemical process aside from DNA could store information as well.
"We only have one type of life as we know it," lead author Dirk Schulze-Makuch from Washington State University told IFLScience. "But there’s a whole range of adaptation that we see in different areas, and that could apply to other places."
If there is life elsewhere in the Solar System, don’t expect anything too big. On Mars, Schulze-Makuch says the limited source of food – namely organics – means that nothing larger than a tardigrade could feasibly survive. On Titan, the extremely cold temperatures, and thus a reduction in the amount of energy available, could be a limiting factor.
Actually detecting extraterrestrial life in the Solar System will be a challenge, too. It is likely that a robotic lander on Mars or Titan would need a suite of experiments designed to detect different kinds of life, and even then we might not know what we’re looking for. But Schulze-Makuch is optimistic that there’s something out there.
"I would be very surprised if there’s no life on Mars," he said, adding that he was "nearly sure" it was there a few billion years ago when Mars had oceans, and is possibly still there today. "The only questions is if it’s a common origin to Earth or a separate origin," he said.
But he says that finding life on Titan would be more important. That's because Mars is, comparatively speaking, rather like our planet. "[In the past] it was, in a way, a bit like a colder version of Earth," he said. "Now Titan, that’s a different story, because its environmental conditions are so different. If there is life there, it would have to have a separate origin."
And that’s possibly more important in answering whether life is abundant in the universe. "If you find life on Titan, then life can originate in different conditions, and is much more diverse than we probably ever expected," said Schulze-Makuch.
If there is life on Titan, it would mean that many more planets in the galaxy and beyond could have life than we thought. "And some [could have] intelligent life," Schulze-Makuch concluded.
There is a bubble of excitement around a tall beauty that's ready to head into space, currently stationed in Germany. LISA Pathfinder, an instrument that will measure elusive gravitational waves, is the detector that is anticipated to probe the Universe like never before. The space detector is currently proposed to leave Earth this November.
The featured image shows the last time that scientists could lay eyes on the instrument before it is packed away to be shipped to the launch site. LISA will likely be launched on a Vega rocket.
The space laboratory has been in the making for the past 10 years. In the meantime, LISA's ground-based partner, LIGO, has been searching for gravitational waves but to no avail. The observatory's lack of success doesn't mean that LISA's mission will fail, though, since they each listen out for different ranges of gravitational waves.
“Gravitational waves are an entirely fresh and different way to study the Universe, providing an important complement to the well-established approach of astronomy, based on observing the light emitted by celestial bodies,” says Paul McNamara, LISA Pathfinder's project scientist.
But what is a gravitational wave?
When you clap your hands together, you produce ripples in the air, or sound waves. Your ears respond to the frequency of sound waves produced and detect the clap. Similarly, gravitational waves are produced when objects with mass interact. But instead of moving through the air, gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space-time. And the ear will be LISA Pathfinder, who will hopefully 'hear' these tiny vibrations.
Only the most energetic events create gravitational waves – such as merging supermassive black holes, pulsars and exploding stars. Even the Sun isn't massive enough to produce gravitational waves.
Unlike a sound wave, gravitational waves are extremely difficult to detect: A gravitational wave creates fluctuations that are on the scale of an atom. This sensitivity demands some of the finest engineering minds of the century. Precision is everything. Even the spacecraft's own gravity has to be taken into account when calibrating the device.
These tiny waves will be detected by taking advantage of Earth's gravity as LISA orbits the Earth. The detector examines the distance between two blocks, a distance that should be predictable to a high precision. If a gravitational wave passes over the detector, the separation of these two blocks will change ever so slightly.
"This is an extremely challenging mission that will pave the way for future space-based projects to observe gravitational waves, opening a new window to explore the cosmos," said McNamara.
This spacecraft will add another sense to our instruments floating above the planet. Who knows what it might find. "Any supermassive black hole will be detectable by LISA wherever it is in the universe," commented Karsten Danzmann, who's been working on the project for a very long time, in an interview with the BBC.
"We've made great progress with LISA Pathfinder in the past decade and are very excited to be so close to operating this incredible physics laboratory in space," concludes Paul.
The featured image shows the last time that scientists could lay eyes on the instrument before it is packed away to be shipped to the launch site. LISA will likely be launched on a Vega rocket.
The space laboratory has been in the making for the past 10 years. In the meantime, LISA's ground-based partner, LIGO, has been searching for gravitational waves but to no avail. The observatory's lack of success doesn't mean that LISA's mission will fail, though, since they each listen out for different ranges of gravitational waves.
“Gravitational waves are an entirely fresh and different way to study the Universe, providing an important complement to the well-established approach of astronomy, based on observing the light emitted by celestial bodies,” says Paul McNamara, LISA Pathfinder's project scientist.
But what is a gravitational wave?
When you clap your hands together, you produce ripples in the air, or sound waves. Your ears respond to the frequency of sound waves produced and detect the clap. Similarly, gravitational waves are produced when objects with mass interact. But instead of moving through the air, gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space-time. And the ear will be LISA Pathfinder, who will hopefully 'hear' these tiny vibrations.
Only the most energetic events create gravitational waves – such as merging supermassive black holes, pulsars and exploding stars. Even the Sun isn't massive enough to produce gravitational waves.
Unlike a sound wave, gravitational waves are extremely difficult to detect: A gravitational wave creates fluctuations that are on the scale of an atom. This sensitivity demands some of the finest engineering minds of the century. Precision is everything. Even the spacecraft's own gravity has to be taken into account when calibrating the device.
These tiny waves will be detected by taking advantage of Earth's gravity as LISA orbits the Earth. The detector examines the distance between two blocks, a distance that should be predictable to a high precision. If a gravitational wave passes over the detector, the separation of these two blocks will change ever so slightly.
"This is an extremely challenging mission that will pave the way for future space-based projects to observe gravitational waves, opening a new window to explore the cosmos," said McNamara.
This spacecraft will add another sense to our instruments floating above the planet. Who knows what it might find. "Any supermassive black hole will be detectable by LISA wherever it is in the universe," commented Karsten Danzmann, who's been working on the project for a very long time, in an interview with the BBC.
"We've made great progress with LISA Pathfinder in the past decade and are very excited to be so close to operating this incredible physics laboratory in space," concludes Paul.