Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Indian startup 3D prints rocket engine in 72 hours (ieee.org)
438 points by pseudolus 33 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 272 comments



> The machine also automatically outputs a report that details any deviations during printing, removing the need for postfabrication qualification.

Anyone who's previously worked with 3D printing knows that this simply does not pass any kind of a sniff test. Both preventing and detecting internal defects is one of the, if not the hardest problem in 3D printing. There are many large companies trying to find ways to reliably solve just this problem alone. Saying that this method doesn't require any checks after production is simply false.


To steelman the argument, maybe they meant "the monitoring system is good enough at catching defects that if none are reported, the engine will probably pass an all-up hotfire test of the engine".

Of course you could do a water or air-pressure leak test on the plumbing pretty easily, and you would likely do that on the first 30 engines...

But if you have confidence in your build process, maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze on (say) a direct contact ultrasound void check on every square millimeter of the part.

It's all about "how expensive is it to run the test" vs "what is the likelihood the test catches an issue" vs "what's the cost of failing while everyone is watching?"

Same reason SpaceX went from dry-dress-rehersals to wet-dress-rehearsals to separate-static-fire-before-launch to hold-down-for-three-seconds-before-launch... The hold-down -before-launch is an integration test that covers everything the previous tests do, so eventually you can start removing redundant tests.


>> maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze

In rockets/aerospace, where the failure of any one of a thousand different parts means instant disintegration, checks are always worth the squeeze. Everyone talks about building rockets on the cheap and accepting a slightly-higher failure rate, but in reality that doesn't work. Even a tiny increase in component fault rates translates to total mission failure once multiplied across thousands of vital parts. The answer isn't to not check but to find ways to more efficiently and more thoroughly check each part. This is only more true if one considers reusable rockets where components will be expected to participate in multiple launches.


> In rockets/aerospace, where the failure of any one of a thousand different parts means instant disintegration

To make matters worse the failure modes don't only affect the launch vehicle itself. A failure of a rocket likely means a total loss of the payload. It also runs the risk of damage/loss of the launch pad, support structures, and hapless down range victims.

Rockets contain a significant amount of stored chemical energy, enough to get the payload mass into a stable orbit of the Earth. If you release all of that energy at once as an explosion it will cause a significant amount of damage. Rockets aren't something to goof around with and make assumptions about safety.


My dad works in aerospace. In no field or world does anyone actually check every little part.

You create a process, you test that process so that you understand its limits, and then you make sure to follow that process.

Now I don't know if 3D printing rocket parts actually works and I have my doubts but this startup is currently testing the process and they will figure out its limits. That's the whole point of R&D.


For context, 3D printing rocket parts is incredibly common, even student teams often use printed nozzles and such. The linked article is about printing a whole engine as a single piece, which is a different beast.


Well, if you build it robust enough, you can test less. Not saying testing is worthless, but sometimes a one-piece that used to be 45 pieces held together by rivets is just, much much more resilient.


It’s a bit of chicken and egg to know if you built it robust enough without meticulous testing of your robustness


Robust enough to not need testing == too heavy to be cost-effective.


> checks are always worth the squeeze

This is simply inaccurate. You can spend months and hundreds of millions of dollars running scanning electron microscopes over all of your parts - no one does this, because it's not "worth the squeeze". The question is where to draw the line, and I have no idea what your opinion is there.


this might be 20th-century thinking. if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper


> if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper

The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, which can take months (or years if you're Blue Origin). Also, your insurance rates tend to go up a lot when your rockets blow up regularly, which tends to push customers away.

In practice it doesn't work.

Notes: Astra said they were going to pursue this strategy. It was not well received by potential customers and they basically had to walk it back.


>The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure,

Only if you want to launch from US. I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements.


> I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements.

Good luck with that.

Exploding rockets are a very serious public safety risk since they're >90% propellant. Even Russia grounded Soyuz until they root caused its launch failure. From what I can gather China has the same policy, although they're very quiet about any launch failures that happen, so it harder to tell.


Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader.


> Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader.

What are you talking about? SpaceX's Falcon 9 is arguably the most reliable rocket ever made. They've launched hundreds of times in a row without failure.

If your point is that they're blowing up Starship prototypes, well... they're in the middle of a development program and they're not flying customer payloads.


They blow up a few of the early Falcons, and the explosions got a lot of news coverage.

Now they are launching an landing[1] safetly, but it's boring and the news show a cute puppy instead.

So for most people the rate of explosions vs launching is skewed.

[1] It's crazy that landing rockets is boring now.


Right, because as one of your rocket customers, I'm totally fine with you disintegrating my one-of-a-kind payload


The issue isn’t the rocket: it’s what you have affixed to it (the payload).

The rocket itself is purely a delivery system for a payload after all.


from the rocket perspective, sure, but not so much from the perspective of your cargo.

In many cases the cargo is more precious than the rocket so you need reliable rockets.


>> maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper

But it isn't about destroying a bunch of them. Cut corners on checks and you very quickly blow up all of them. Any slight increase in the failure rate of individual parts, saving a few pennies, multiplies exponentially across the entire rocket into total system failure. So the money-saving approach is actually to test test and retest, to cram down the failure rates so low that the cumulative rate become acceptable (about 1%).


what about payload?

ready to build many Webb telescopes?


Who pays when the payload disintegrates?


So what you're saying is instead of inspecting the parts, you just try to launch the rockets and try again when they explode. Production is your testing ground. Statistically speaking, if a specific design succeeds a few hundred times in a row, it's probably sound? If it crashes, you just push a patch?

Day 1 patches for space travel?

Thanks, I hate it.


this works for munitions, but not for payloads that anyone cares about.


Not sure exploding rockets on their launch platform is such a good thing when they're carrying a bunch of highly explosive / fragmentary warheads (in addition to the rocket itself, which is plenty dangerous).

Unless this was something like a cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal.


>> cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal.

If failure isn't a big deal, then the weapon should no have been used. An ALCM costs millions. The destruction it causes is part of a larger battle plan. Should it not work properly then friendly forces may die. Should it work properly then enemy forces may die. The effectiveness of such a weapon is never not a big deal.


If it’s that critical then they aren’t launching one cruise missile.

If system A costs 1k quid but only works 50% of the time, while system B works 99% of the time but costs 10k quid, system A actually makes a lot more sense. On average you are going to spend a lot less money for the same outcome.


What's the price on weapons technology falling into enemy hands? A dud is a gold mine of data for an enemy's reverse-engineers.


I'm sure even in this case, risking the air-frame of the bomber or friendlies on the ground below is not ideal. Bear in mind cruise missiles are usually launched from friendly territory.

Also, failures might reduce the accuracy of the missile, leading to potential civilian causalities.


Titan submersible sound detection system vibes.


I'm not sure how many people know about their 'sound detection system'.

Carbon fiber is a fickle beast and is prone to such failures so that alone worried me, but it was incredible for me to learn that they expected some sort of early warning from cracking.


Well there were probably some early warning signs

The problem is that warning sign comes at around 10ms or less before the actual disaster


There were plenty of early warning signs. In a previous dive back in 2019 they had professional submersible designer Karl Stanley on board, who later wrote an email to OceanGate about the worrying cracking sounds he heard.

> "What we heard, in my opinion ... sounded like a flaw/defect in one area being acted on by the tremendous pressures and being crushed/damaged," Stanley wrote in the email, a copy of which has been obtained by CNN.

> "From the intensity of the sounds, the fact that they never totally stopped at depth, and the fact that there were sounds at about 300 feet that indicated a relaxing of stored energy /would indicate that there is an area of the hull that is breaking down/ getting spongy,"

It's more impressive that the sub continued to work while giving warning signs for 4 years.

https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oce...


They seem to have totally recreated the hull using a different manufacturing method in late 2020/early 2021: https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid...

They seem to have run fewer tests on the new hull, though. From the outside, it looks like one of the lessons they learned from earlier tests was that tests can create bad news, so if you're optimizing for the best reports back to investors you should stop running tests.


If it would be a Tesla, just enough time for the auto-pilot to disengage and claim it was the fault of the user.


Is there data, that indicates Tesla did this, or something like this?


Kind of? Autopilot has a habit of disengaging right before crashes [1]; which may not be a bad thing, your seat belt also has a habit of not being adjustable in a crash (dunno if an ICE engine will turn off).

Mix that with Elon had a habit of commenting on crashes [2] to keep good marketing about FSD. And like who cares if it was "Auto lane control" vs "Autopilot" that let somebody drive the car from the passenger seat but Elon made sure to let everybody know "Autopilot" wasn't engaged.

[1]: https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest...

[2]: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/elon-musk-says-autopilo...


Your second link makes it clear that no version of self-driving was on anywhere near that particular crash, so that does not support the above comment at all.

If the only true part is that the system disengages at some point, then "kind of" is much too generous for that kind of rumor-mongering.

But if I ever see some real proof I'll spread it far and wide.


Tesla autopilot is not supposed to be unmonitored, so any accidents under its control are entirely the fault of the driver. If a driver disengaged 0.1s before impact, they were derelict in their driving.


OSHA has a nice pamphlet regarding hazard identification and hazard controls. The least effective method of protecting workers is to put the risk on the worker to protect themselves. Your view has a similar vibe to "well they weren't wearing their hard hat and so it's their fault," a view that has been rejected across the board for safety in favor of the view that even letting the situation get to that point is a failure.

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Contro...


If a driver is using any driver assistance feature they need to be paying attention all the time. Not only is it stated in all vehicle manuals, it is the intelligent way to use the features given that automated driving is still far from perfect.

Your analogy makes no sense given that the risk is always on the driver whether there are driver assistance features or not.


Unfortunately it is very difficult to remain vigilant when the automated system seems to be doing a great job. Eventually you will become distracted.

Even in accident cases, remember that the Teslas involved are not new - they have had dozens or hundreds of successful drives before the accident.


Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control.

This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.


Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding

They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you."

The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicle at any moment.

Compare this to GM's "Super Cruise" branding. The message I get from that is "cruise control, but better." Cruise control is a long established feature, drivers have plenty of experience with it, and they know that it is definitely not going to drive the car itself. They know they're still going to have to pay attention because the car is going to do some of the driving tasks but not all of them. The car is making no implicit or explicit claim that it will drive for you.

"Full Self Driving" and related features like "Summon" make implicit claims in how they're named and presented. The driver absolutely has responsibility but Tesla is trying to play both sides of the coin with their branding vs their actual liability.


What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control


There's a reason "it does what it says on the tin" is generally seen as a positive aspect of a product.

When a product's naming and branding is well aligned with its actual utility, it builds trust with the customer. The customer doesn't feel like the seller is trying to pull a fast one on them.

Tesla chose their branding direction and Elon chooses to make his "optimistic" predictions that have made it sound like true self driving is right around the corner for years. That people take this impression away is no fault of anyone but those that put the impression out there in the first place.


This is simply a mischaracterization of the situation. No one who drives a Tesla thinks that the driver assist features are intended to or capable of autonomous driving.

The naming, whatever you may think of it, is massively overrided by the strongly worded warnings and instructions that are abundantly and repeatedly displayed to the driver, that effectively and unambiguously convey to the driver that they must be attentive while using the driver assist features.


First, Tesla is not legally required to put the driver in control - they are free to indemnify the driver completely and shoulder all of the liability themselves.

Second, who do you think was ultimately the one at fault for the excessive radiation doses caused by the Therac-25 machines: the machine technician operating the machine or the machine manufacturer? If it isn't the technician then I don't understand your argument because you can just find/replace every instance of driver in your post with technician.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25


Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. They do not have permission to sell a self-driving vehicle for use on public roads.

Secondly, it is already established and disclosed that the driver assist cannot self-drive. This would be comparable to a Therac-25 machine being sold as being incapable of limiting radiation output, and then not limiting radiation output.

There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their responsibility to be in control, would be blamed on the driver assist program.

Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions.


Therac-25 is more like a stuck accelerator pedal. The operator did not command the machine to deliver too much radiation, that happened outside their control.


And you think that a driver commands their Tesla to run into an object when they enable autopilot or FSD?


One is a failure to act as an agent - to control the car and make decisions. Another is a failure to even be a reliable tool - to do what the operator commands. Very different.

Creating Agents is a lot harder.


Coming up with new words and terms in order to escape the comparison smacks of This Time It’s Different. Therac-25 was an Agent for performing radiation therapy - it controlled the radiation machine and made decisions. Autopilot/FSD is supposed to be a tool for the driver and it fails to be a reliable tool by driving into things.

This Time It’s Not Different At All


Agent - Something that makes decisions and actions that are not pre-programmed or predictable. Humans are definitely agents. LLM (eg Chat-GPT) are not quite there yet (they don't take action on their own).

Tool - Pretty much everything humanity has made to date. It does a preprogrammed thing or provides mechanical advantage. But it does not act on novel decisions it is making.

The terms come from an AI safety expert that Lex Friedman interviewed recently. [1]

Tesla FSD is almost an agent, though it asks a human to be ready to take over at any time.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNr6gPelJ3E


Autopilot is NOT advertised as being able to drive perfectly on its own, and your disingenuous analogies won't change that.


This is true, but it also falsifies Tesla's naming, promotion, abd advertising of the capability as "Full Self-Driving".

("Self-Driving" alone could be reasonable in certain contexts, but insisting on "Full Self-Driving" is a flat-out lie in plain language. Saying " Alan is fully capable of driving the car." means that he requires zero monitoring and/or intervention; same for the "Fully..." phrase.)


What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control.


Yup.

It's "we'll take the profits from selling it as something that it is not.".

While simultaneously they take every step to ensure that when things go wrong when it inevitably turns out to NOT be what they claimed, the entire burden and responsibility is not on them, but on you.


More conspiracy theories. The driver assist disengaging had nothing to do with a ploy by Tesla to shift responsibility. A driver taking control of the car 0.1s before impact is a result of inattentive driving.

Like I said in the other comment:

There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their responsibility to be in control, would be blamed on the driver assist program.

Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions


the lengths that people go to to defend them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions


I only go to great lengths because I can see that the attacks are driven by an agenda that is not impartial.

And I've articulated why I think that in this case.


>>conspiracy theories ... agenda-driven and a result of emotions

No, not even close, dead wrong spurious insults. For many years, I held Musk in very high regard, and you can find I've even posted extensive defenses of him here on HN. My changed views are a direct result of observed behavior.

No, the fact that the driver assist disengages is NOT what I am pointing to as the attempt to shift responsibility.

Tesla is selling and loudly insisting that they can use the term "Full Self-Driving". Tesla advertises and charges(ed?) 5-figure-USD amounts for fully autonomous self-driving capabilities that would allow the cars to be used in competition with Uber/Lift but without drivers. This money was charged for features that were supposed to be available in the previous decade. Yet now, in the middle of the 2020s, there are no such features available.

Moreover, they are so far from delivering such features that your argument is that any accident is fully the fault of driver attention being less than 100%. So, clearly, the features related to "Full Self Driving" or "FSD" do not exist.

Moreover, everything about the actual implementation, including instructions to be always vigilant, UI warnings about no hands on the steering wheel/yoke, alerts to re-engage, auto-disconnect, live data collection so Tesla can prove what mode was engaged, what level of control, etc., etc., etc. all point to the requirement for the DRIVER TO BE FULLY ENGAGED. They also ensure that the situation is such that if the driver fails to be fully engaged, it is the driver's fault/responsibility.

When the driver MUST BE fully engaged

(as you argue and I just documented),

the car is NOT "Fully Self-Driving".

The two conditions are by definition mutually exclusive.

The fact that Tesla is trying to have it both ways is exactly as I said:

They want the profits from the false advertising that it is "Fully Self-Driving", but ensure that when it turns out to be false, all consequences are on the customer.

There's nothing emotional about that fact pattern. I've even said above, that I think it'd be perfectly OK for Tesla to say "Self-Driving" as that does not directly imply that you can fully disengage because the FAD is "Fully" engaged.

I'm not the only one who thinks that language means something, even though Musk does not, and you think that calling out a blatant lie and possible fraud must be emotional.

Sorry for the length, if I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter post


Your views on Musk changed precisely when everyone else's did, when he started challenging the establishment on critical points, like their support for rampant censorship of Twitter and other social media sites (e.g. removing the Hunter Biden story before the election and permanently banning users if they used certain gender pronoun conventions).

No one who drives a Tesla thinks that the driver assist features are intended to or capable of autonomous driving. The naming, whatever you may think of it, is massively overrided by the strongly worded warnings and instructions that are abundantly and repeatedly displayed to the driver, that effectively and unambiguously convey to the driver that they must be engaged while using the driver assist features.

If you want to criticize the naming for being inaccurate even if they argue it's intended to be a forwarding looking statement of aspirations, I would accept that criticism as arguably justified.

But that the driver is fully aware of their responsibilities is beyond any doubt.

Blaming Tesla for its autopilot disengaging 0.1s before impact in a number of accidents is therefore unjustified.


>>Your views on Musk changed precisely when everyone else's did

NO they did not. If I was like you, I'd over-generalize and say that "you are just like every other right-wing nutter who only believes a limited view of the world and must slam any other view, regardless of how disconneced from the facts..."

But I won't. I'll explain that my view changed when Musk went from delivering as much or more than he claimed, as was the case with early SpaceX and Tesla. to massively over-promising and under-delivering, e.g., now nearly a decade late on his FSD, so late on Starship that his first cricumlunar customer already bailed, making inflated promises about AI, lying about OpenAI, delivering Cybertruck a half-decade late and with crappy quality, etc., etc., etc. One particular turning point was when he argued about software engineering in public with one of Twitter's lead engineers, and it was obvious to me (with some background in commercial software) that Musk was nothing but bluster and bullshit; it became clear he is not a master engineer, he's a master manipulator. I have far less respect for the latter.

As you can see, it has absolutely zero to do with whatever 'anti-establishment' carp you are ranting on about. But you seem to enjoy your fact-free life more, so carry on.


Musk has always over-promised. The entirely left-wing establishment news media turned on him when he started criticizing the sacred cows of and growing support for censorship by the political left, which mainstream journalists, unionized as they all are, try to show solidarity with.

All his faults came into laser focus, and a disproportionate share of coverage became negative in its slant.

Nothing in his entrepreneurial strategy changed since 2018. Ordinary people just don't appreciate how ideologically biased mainstream news media is, so are taken in by the change in how they choose to portray him.


>> Musk has always over-promised.

Arguing that your 'champion' has ALWAYS been a liar — that argument does not mean what you think it means

>>don't appreciate how ideologically biased mainstream news media is,

"The liberal media" is the biggest lie ever. It may once have been the case, and while some still wear liberal clothes, 90% of the news media, including 'local' media, is owned and run by only SIX corporations. While some operations have unions, they are virtually powerless to even slow down massive newsroom layoffs, and the corporations that aren't flat-out right-wing yellow sheets (e.g., Fox, [0]), are nevertheless all-in on pro-'conservative' politics as both the corporations and their owners & leaders dislike being taxed at higher rates.

>> so are taken in by the change in how they choose to portray him.

Right, so all people are mere sheep being "taken in" by the evil news media, except for you... As you rant on in every more circular ways, that becomes less and less convincing, and in fact look far more like you are the one taken in by RW populist rags who flood the zone with lies and opinion designed to flatter your biases.

The fact is that your hero, who we agree always lied, initially delivered some really great advances, and initially had the reputation of an engineering wizard, has in more recent years failed to deliver on decades-old 'promises', and has shown himself publicly to be less of a master engineer and more of a master manipulator. His focus has obviously changed from engineering to social media nonsense.

I can see that from his own writings. I did not need any news media whatsoever to observe this. Many other people also can view this. Except for you.

Consider taking your own advice, stop reading the media, and start going to the actual source data.

And yes, providing many arguments that saying two opposite and mutually contradictory things in marketing vs actual operations is somehow OK, actually convinces us that no, it is systematic lying and definitely not OK. The marketing is fraudulent and the operations are proof of that.

[0] Fox, which settled for $787 million for repeatedly lying about elections, and literally argues in court that no reasonable person would believe their announcers)


>>Arguing that your 'champion' has ALWAYS been a liar — that argument does not mean what you think it means

He's not my champion. I generally like him, but disagree with him on some issues. I defend anyone against clearly agenda-driven attacks, whether I support them or not.

>>90% of the news media, including 'local' media, is owned and run by only SIX corporations.

Is that why the media conspired to hide the Hunter Biden laptop story during the elections?

The corporations cannot override their unionized employees, because of labor laws and collective bargaining agreements.

And the corporations themselves are often dependent on the labyrinth of regulatory restrictions inhibiting competition, and government contracts, for their bottom line, so are by no means biased toward political parties that defend free market principles.

>>Right, so all people are mere sheep being "taken in" by the evil news media, except for you...

I think the people who have turned on Musk have been taken in, and I haven't. Naturally I think I'm right. Now what I think doesn't matter. What does is the evidence I provide, like the coincidence of public opinion and news media coverage turning against Musk precisely when he began vocally criticizing positions espoused by the political left, like advocating censorship of views critical of tbe Democratic party, and minority viewpoints on COVID and gender pronoun use, on the largest social media sites.

>>The fact is that your hero, who we agree always lied, initially delivered some really great advances, and initially had the reputation of an engineering wizard, has in more recent years failed to deliver on decades-old 'promises',

Tesla hit sales records precisely before and during the period when the mainstream/establishment turned on him. Tesla became the most successful US automaker in a generation, and for a time, was the most valuable automaker in the world. And all while building only fully electric vehicles.

SpaceX made enormous strides in reusable rockets, with record numbers of launches of Falcon 9, and significant advances on its fully reusable Starship space vehicle, in exactly the same period when you are claiming he was falling short.

Look at this graph of number of space launches per year:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-...

The massive increase in US launches was solely due to SpaceX. To put it another way: the US restoring its leadership in the pivotally important space industry was entirely due to Musk's company.

Sp no, your arguments don't stand to reason. His behavior and performance would not explain a significant portion of the population turning against him.

The establishment, which includes all the left wing news guilds which dominate news media, turning against him for his anti-establishment comments, would.


>>More conspiracy theories.

>>I defend anyone against clearly agenda-driven attacks

Well, you have clearly massively misidentified my comment, from the start to the last comment.

I have no conspiracy theory or agenda. I simply observed, over time, from Musk's and Tesla's OWN STATEMENTS that he and Tesla insist that "Full Self Driving" is a legitimate claim (despite failing to prove it in court and settling to avoid a verdict) and that this is in contrast to the requirement that the driver be '100% in control at all times'.

One of those is a plain language lie. It does not require a conspiracy theory or agenda to point this out.

Yet you are more clearly pursuing your own agenda and conspiracy theories.

I've many times defended Musk on here, but no longer do as I have more information.

In contrast, you just posted this conspiracy theory:

>>like the coincidence of public opinion ... Tesla hit sales records precisely before and during the period when the mainstream/establishment turned on him.

This is not evidence, it is a theory that there is a conspiracy against Musk. Your claim is that it is not real people, but some cabal of unionized journalists (btw, only about 17% of journalists are unionized) that conspired to print lies to turn people against Musk.

You overlook entirely the most likely explanation, which is that Musk's own statements, often designed to be outrageous, speak for themselves.

Musk obviously chose his side and insists on being extremely blatant about it. I've never seen a CEO tell everyone to "Go fuck yourselves" on a public stage, or most of the other blatantly attention-seeking comments Musk has made.

The fact is that Tesla's primary customers are environmentally-conscious, which goes with more left-leaning politics, yet Muck choose the right-wing side, who typically deny climate change issues and hate electric cars.

He can have his opinions, but as he's not a politician, it was an extremely stupid business move to broadcast them so strongly. Or, maybe it's brilliant and he'll sell more Cybertrucks the more truck-driving RW customers than he'd ever sell Model-Xs to LW customers. But it does not look like it's working out that way.

But zero of this requires a conspiracy of the 1/6 of journalists who are unionized.

And it's laughable to accuse me of being media-agenda driven when I haven't lived in a household with a cable subscription for 2+ decades, and I treat all news media with great suspicion and work hard to find more accurate sources. While I've defended Musk on HN for his innovations at SpaceX, I also noticed that his executives have said that they have a team dedicated to handling Musk, creating a bubble around him to insulate the organization from his toxicly disruptive influence. There are thousands of other examples.

As the famous quote goes: "When the facts change, I change my mind; what do you do?"


>I have no conspiracy theory or agenda. I simply observed, over time, from Musk's and Tesla's OWN STATEMENTS that he and Tesla insist that "Full Self Driving" is a legitimate claim (despite failing to prove it in court and settling to avoid a verdict) and that this is in contrast to the requirement that the driver be '100% in control at all times'.

If the misimpression created by the marketing term is corrected by the explicit and repeated warnings and instructions given to Tesla drivers, then the marketing term cannot be blamed for inattentive driving.

>This is not evidence, it is a theory that there is a conspiracy against Musk.

The coincidence is the evidence here.

>The fact is that Tesla's primary customers are environmentally-conscious, which goes with more left-leaning politics, yet Muck choose the right-wing side, who typically deny climate change issues and hate electric cars.

So you are, in fact, supporting my point, which is that the attacks on him intensified due to the political views he expressed.

Like I said:

"Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions"

Trying to blame Autopilot accidents on Tesla instead of inattentive drivers is example of that.

>btw, only about 17% of journalists are unionized

Which major newspapers and TV networks in the US are not unionized?

>He can have his opinions, but as he's not a politician

In a democracy, everyone is supposed to express their political opinions.


> Musk has always over-promised.

Yes he has, we're in agreement.

> The entirely left-wing establishment news media

You opened your mind too far here and your brain may have fallen out.

Have you heard of Fox News and the Murdoch empire? Could you explain how either Murdoch isn't part of the US establishment news media or how it is that he's "left-wing" ?


News Corp and its subsidiaries own well under 10% of newspapers and TV networks in the US, and being outliers as they are, they are incessantly attacked.

Where do you think the media and political power concentrates in the US? The Republican party or the Democratic Party?

89% of cities with a population > 100,000 in the US have a Democrat mayor. All of the public sector unions support the Democrats. All of the news guilds, and most of their members, support the Democrats.

Almost all of academia supports the Democrats. Law firms donate five times more to the Democrats than to Republicans. The political class is intimately linked to the legal profession.

Judge Kathaleen McCormick, who rescinded Elon Musk's $55 billion Tesla compensation package, against the will of the company's board and 80% of its shareholders, worked at Young Conaway before her Delaware Chancery Court Judge appointment.

In 2016, Hunter Biden organized a gubernatorial campaign event for Congressman John Carney, featuring then-Vice President Joe Biden as the guest speaker. The event was held at the Law Offices of Young Conaway in Wilmington, Delaware.

The lawyers who won the lawsuit against Musk thanks to McCormick's ruling are now asking for $5.5 billion in Tesla stock, for their legal fees. Giving to Democrat-allied lawyers and taking from technologists.

>Yes he has, we're in agreement.

I'm not surprised you agree with me on the one negative thing I've said about him. Entirely predictable.


You don’t just get a pass, especially not when you actively are promoting it as soon™ being able to drive you without any input whatsoever. Robotaxis and the like have been promised for years now, it’s not like Tesla isn’t actively claiming the technology is basically around the corner.

In short, saying it’s “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” is not really enough.


You get a pass because nobody who drives a Tesla can reasonably believe the vehicle can drive itself. That it can't fully drive itself is fully and adequately disclosed.


So, what is the difference between your argument and this more concise version?

The falsehood of the "Full Self-Driving" claims are generally known to existing customers, therefore it is ok to lie to new customers.


I'm challenging the original comment, which blames Tesla for accidents caused by drivers being inattentive.

The name of the driver assist program even if inaccurate, did not mislead any of those drivers, as any driver who uses these features is amply informed/warned that the features do not provide autonomous driving and don't obviate the requirement of the driver to remain fully engaged at all time.


Since your core point is that Tesla requires drivers to be fully engaged 100% or the time, it is an odd way to challenge someone blaming Tesla by responding to me pointing out that Tesla's advertising is fundamentally dishonest.

Tesla are trying to have it both ways. They ADVERTISE and promote that it is "FULL Self-Driving" and "FSD", while simultaneously doing everything post-sale to ensure the driver is responsible for failures of FSD.

I wasn't originally in that camp, but your arguments are convincing me that Tesla does in fact bear some responsibility for the crashes, despite the facts you point out that Tesla post-sale promotes driver attention.

Despite all Tesla's efforts towards driver attention, Tesla ALSO broadcasts conflicting messages which do give the impression that FSD is more capable and safe than it is. What percent responsible? I don't know, but I think it's above 5%, especially for new drivers, who have been more exposed to the sales pitch and less to the documentation.


Either the advertising misleads the driver or it does not. Whether the advertising might mislead some buyers, investors and unconnected members of the general public, is orthogonal to whether drivers are being misled, and thus whether accidents caused by their unattentiveness should be blamed on Tesla.

There is no credible case to be made that any Tesla driver is unaware of Tesla's stance, that the driver assist features cannot provide autonomous driving and that the driver must always remain engaged.

The warnings are absolutely clear and reiterated so they could not be missed. If you want to challenge that notion in court, be my guest.


> If you want to challenge that notion in court, be my guest.

I mean, you do realize that there is a class action against Tesla for misleading customers with the names of their products, right? This is actively being fought in the courts. That alone should prove that people feel misled by the marketing.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-must-face-vehicle-owner...

> There is no credible case to be made that any Tesla driver is unaware of Tesla's stance, that the driver assist features cannot provide autonomous driving and that the driver must always remain engaged.

You’re free to believe what you want, but this is far from the closed case you are portraying it to be. In short, that’s just like your opinion man.


Anyone can bring forth a class action lawsuit. Nothing has been ruled on that, so it doesn't support that claim.

But more to the point: being misled into purchasing it is entirely different than being misled while driving it, and blaming an accident on thinking the auto assist didn't need their attention as a result.

That is not what the lawsuit is alleging.

It stands to reason that if there was anything approaching a credible case that any driver thinks they don't need to be engaged while driving a Tesla, because of misleading naming of its driver assist features, some law firm somewhere would have organized a lawsuit on behalf of accident victims by now.

So the evidence supports my position.


Your argument was, and I quote,

> If you want to challenge that notion in court, be my guest.

I pointed out that it is, in fact, being challenged. Right now. And has already been several times before, with Tesla settling out of court specifically to prevent any repercussions from a guilty verdict.

If you wanted to talk about successful cases, then that should have been your argument. At this point, you’re just moving the goal posts.


The notion that no Tesla driver got into an accident because the name of the driver assistance program misled them into thinking they could be inattentive while driving has not been challenged in court. That lawsuit doesn't allege that, and if it did, I would wager money it would lose.


It reminds me of the data entry days. You can have someone type a million table rows into a form and catch all typos but if you give the same person the same data and the same time without having them type it they find non of them.


You're completely right, but unfortunately people place too much trust in it.


I don't know how many 'test to failure' tests would have been required before I would have any confidence in the models but probably so many tests that the titanium alternative would have been far cheaper.

The other problem is that it cracks all the time and they get louder as they get deeper, so it's not just if it cracks it is if it cracks enough or more than expected. Which straw will break the camels back. It is just such an insanely awful metric.

On the hypothetical assumption that I had some faith in the models at what point will I have the life or death fight over whether or not that last loud crack was statistically significant.


Do you have a link? Google just gives results about the US Navy detection of the implosion…




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LcGrLnzYuU

As I remember he talks about the sound detection thing.


What does "vibes" mean here? Are you saying that this is a comparable level of negligence, or that it simply personally reminds you of the former case, and nothing else? There are better words available than "vibes".


I'm not vibing with your distaste for the vibes.


Exactly what I thought.


I too am doubtful. The market is littered with failed 3d printed products, all failed because the designers know nothing about real-life product design or because their deigns are too brittle or melt too easily in heat.


Just out of curiosity, is your 3D printing experience on the consumer side? Or the professional/commercial side?

There are various types of non-destructive testing that could be integrated into a larger scale 3D printer for post-production analysis, and it's a direction I'm surprised there hasn't been more movement in.


I’m curious about why that is. Naively, it seems like printing layer by layer would allow for a lot of inspection. Maybe even photograph each layer as you go?

And then test and go back to see what kinds of defects were apparent in the photos.


It's just that it's very easy for deviations from what the sensors see to occur. In traditional 3d printing, this can be stuff like a sensor switch wearing out, maybe physically moving slightly, being temperature sensitive, maybe the frame has changed shape slightly due to heat, moving the sensor a little, maybe something in the microcontroller happened to cause a slight delay in reading the sensor, or looseness developing in the motion system, or something being slightly out of alignment, or some component in the extrusion system experiencing momentarily higher friction and so on.

The layers are really thin, so manually inspecting them would slow down the printing process drastically. Then, ultimately, what even can you do if there's a defect? The layer has been laid already. If material is missing somewhere, you could have the machine go back and add it, but if there's excess material somewhere, or it's in a form that the machine can't fix, there's not a lot to be done, particularly in applications like rocketry, where your structural strength tolerance are very tight.


>It's just that it's very easy for deviations from what the sensors see to occur.

right, but this is a problem in any modern precision machining, and it has been (mostly) conquered to a degree that we can produce very precise things in an almost entirely automated fashion.

>If material is missing somewhere, you could have the machine go back and add it

laser sintering is easier to audit than a normal fdm style print in a lot of ways if you care to take the time to do it. The process can be paused fairly easy with the right machine and right environment, the product can be weighed mid-process, it can have all sorts of vision and laser metrology done to the product midway through production; whatever -- and the mid print failure rate is astronomically lower than extrusion based methods.

it doesn't seem that unbelievable to me.


We aren't talking about deposition 3d printing for metal parts as it needs to get to the oven and precision is...not it's strong part

The most common form for metal precision production is powder bed fusion

You deposit a whole layer of powder and a laser melts the desired parts


I know for certain that defects in the powder layer can be fixed in binder jet by redoing the recoater. There has been talk in the research world about being able to fix errors in L-PBF but I’m not sure they’ve gone past the research stage. The big point is that you can know a part might be out of whatever your acceptance criteria might be.


You are correct, and with the current metal AM techniques (DED, SLM), you can also take thermal imaging of the melt pool throughout. From this you can a pretty accurate picture of the weld quality across the whole volume.

I'm not sure that's sufficient to eschew any other non destructive testing, but it is great information.


> Maybe even photograph each layer as you go?

Differential cooling is an issue, and is one that isn't apparent until the layers have already been printed.

If their process actually works, whatever they are doing isn't trivial.


Peregrine from Oak Ridge National Lab does exactly this. Lots of other research papers about it too.


If they’re not doing post fabrication validation, then the passengers are…


... test dummies.


what's wrong with testing in prod? /s


Nothing. Always Be Testing.

But _only_ testing in prod is bad.


If any system could measure its own signal to noise accurately, it wouldn't have any noise in the first place.


This is a "truthy" statement that sounds right but is, in fact, false. Radio systems have an easily measurable SNR, but the noise cannot be eliminated.


You can measure is from outside the system itself if you know the original signal. Of course its possible to measure the noise externally if you know what was transmitted.


AFAIK this is incorrect. There exist modulation schemes where the received signal power is evident. For Wifi the signal is usually > 10-100x the noise floor and it is modulated with phase-shift keying. So there is no technical problem with seeing a noise floor, then receiving a much larger signal with constant envelope and calculating an SNR.

ETA: Just to sharpen the point, this is clearest when considering digital noise and error correction. It is easier for error correction codes to indicate a corrupted message than it is to provide the correct message.


That only works if you have an ultra-high-resolution record of isolated noise.

An accurate measurement of signal-to-noise is just some power levels and basic knowledge of the shapes of the signals. It's easy to figure out and doesn't help you read back your data. It helps you configure appropriate transmission settings and doesn't do much else.


It might sound a little wild, but a huge amount of research has been put into getting metal AM parts to be “born qualified.” L-PBF is getting to be a fairly mature technology.


They may be skipping small portions of the post-print qual. Or more likely, they're just more confident that the pieces being created are of a certain level of quality. It's a hype-y statement but they're probably trying to highlight that they're doing some sort of software-defined quals.


Check out Roboze on this. (disclosure: investor). They do a fantastic job with this, and in fact their 3d printing machines are widely used in aerospace and defense.


Yes and innovation curve tends to go down in large companies because of barriers which a startup is not bounded by. This is how future big companies are created.


Very Indian approach. Print a report, and call it a day. :D


You may go further and say the rocket would be built on a proper rocky foundation.


>Constructing a rocket engine using conventional approaches can take months, followed by extensive qualification testing to ensure it meets the required specifications. Using a metal 3D printer from German company EOS, Agnikul produced its engine in roughly three days. Agnikul printed the engine out of inconel, a high-performance alloy of nickel and chromium that can withstand high temperatures and mechanical loads. The machine also automatically outputs a report that details any deviations during printing, removing the need for postfabrication qualification.

What amateurs are at work here? This plainly is not true and if you believe this can work you can not be trusted to be anywhere near an engineering project.

Besides, the question I have is why 3D printing? There are innumerable ways to manufacture a rocket, why did they choose 3D printing? If it is because they think you don't need qualification and testing for the produced hardware they should not be allowed to launch anything they make.


> 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.

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?


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.


> I'm not sure what is your objection.

I am. It is that it's an Indian company. How dare these brown people do something cutting-edge in science or engineering!


3d printing rocket engines makes a lot of sense. The engines of Rocket Lab's Electron rocket are 3d printed, Aerojet Rocketdyne's AR1 engines have 3d printed fuel injectors, SpaceX's SuperDraco thrusters (the ones in the Dragon 2 capsules) are 3d printed. Complex geometries with lots of liquid channels make rocket engines difficult to machine, so overcoming the issues with 3d printing heat-resistant parts is well worth it.

But skipping qualification testing is indeed a weird reason. I doubt you can skip test fires.


Everyone has a test environment, not everyone has a production environment.


> Besides, the question I have is why 3D printing?

My understanding is that there's interesting things in the aerospace industry that are very difficult or sometimes impossible to machine from a single part in a conventional subtractive machining process. GE is doing it as well for the LEAP engines: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/ge-aerospace-to-scale-th...

As an easy example, imagine a single-piece rocket nozzle with internal channels for delivering fuel and oxidizer. Pretty much impossible to machine and not that big of a deal* to do with additive manufacturing.

* Your mileage may vary, talk to your doctor for details. :)


What part is not true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E

I'm sure that there are lots of problems with this approach, but it is not as obvious as your comment makes it out to be.


The part which is not true is: "removing the need for postfabrication qualification"


Makes sense, thank you


Yeah, that's just not true - it _eases_ post-fabrication qualification, but Agnikul does indeed qualify their nozzles (among other means, by static firing them in a test rig).


SpaceX has been printing the Draco and Super Draco engines for the Dragon capsule for many years. It’s a proven technology at this point.

With 3D printing you can create geometries that are simply not possible with any other manufacturing processes.

The issue is not 3D printing. The issue is deluding yourself by thinking that somehow 3D printing is magical and you get to skip qual. You don’t.


Integrating all the plumbing in to the structure is a lot easier to achieve with 3d printing.


relativity space does this as well, they have youtube videos on what they do


They don't do qualification of their hardware? Why would you put that on YouTube?


i dont know about that part, but they 3d print

i don't honestly believe there's anyone building a rocket like this that isn't concerned about the rockets success


Why are they saying they don't need QA then?

Sure, you can use whatever appropriate manufacturing processes you want. But none of them can replace QA.


i dont believe relativity space has said this, and i dont speak on their behalf

i have no idea what they do, im not in this industry


At the very least, 3D printing allows nearly full automation without having to create expensive custom production lines.


It worked. The engine flew. Mission success. Is that not qualification enough? As long as nobody is put in danger.


[flagged]


This is a very ignorant comment, as is the one you're replying to. Making engine nozzles used to be extremely manual and involved process, which could take up to a year to make a single nozzle. These need very particular channels within the walls for cooling, and that's impossible to manufacture with simple reductive methods. They used to form wax modls and deposit nanometre layers of metal.


"When you don't have any real criticism, just make stuff up! Keep people down at all costs."

P.S. Nick checks out.


How is gross negligence on QA not a "real criticism"?


You hardly enough know anything about the project to make an assumption about the absence of QA. If you were an employee there, and you had specific concerns, that would be worth something. You made it up because you had no real point.


>You hardly enough know anything about the project to make an assumption about the absence of QA.

I take their claims at face value. Either they are for some weird reason lying about not doing QA or they are extremely negligent in their manufacturing. Granted, I can not exclude the first option, but to be honest that might make the company look even worse.


They're not shipping people into space with this tech yet. As such, even if QA were missing, which we don't really know much about, the need for QA is way less than you make it out to be. It's not a big deal if a cargo rocket blows up, and so far it hasn't even blown up. Together, this is why your line of comments is unqualified.


I sincerely hope you are never involved in any aerospace projects.


Like I said originally, when you run out of arguments, not that you ever had one really, you resort to forms of attacks that are not substantiated by any logic. You don't know me or what I would do if I were or were not involved in aerospace. Maybe you want to go taunt Elon Musk for how many rockets his company has blown up.


> Maybe you want to go taunt Elon Musk for how many rockets his company has blown up.

We know that Elon's SpaceX has many machines inspecting 3D printed (and other) parts, as per the SpaceX factory tours on YouTube. https://youtu.be/xahiWQQKw7Y?si=UGZ1u9xTil5iYoBi&t=71

Also, SpaceX blows up very few (none?) operational rockets. They only tend to blow up in novel ways while testing new technology.

Bear in mind that the SpaceX Raptor is a cutting edge engine - full flow staged combustion is hard.


As far as I know none of the Raptors have failed in flight, it’s always been various issues with the fuel delivery to the engines.


If you don't understand that rocket hardware needs QA, please stop talking about the subject. It is like a software engineer who believes that software should be shipped without any testing.

>You don't know me or what I would do if I were or were not involved in aerospace

True. I still hope that you are never involved in any aerospace or remotely safety critical project.


I hope you are not involved in anything at all, as you look to be a fairly toxic person to be around who will put others down at all costs.

Also, like I said, you have no idea of the emphasis I place on safety when the situation and funding merit it.


Relativity Space are also 3-D printing not just rocket engines, but entire rockets, and have had a successful first flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E


They backed away from printing entire rockets because, well, it's a foolish way to fabricate large tanks.


Thanks - I wasn't aware of that, but it does make sense.

They are sticking with 3-D printing of the engines though, and have been testing their next-gen Aeon R engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjKJMcOQYBQ


> feature eight engines in total and able to carry a 300-kilogram payload to an altitude of around 700 km. The launch vehicle used in May’s test was only 6 meters tall

Significant military implications as well [0].

There is a significant spy-sat race going on in the region right now [1] with China, India, UAE, Saudi Arabia, US, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Israel, etc all investing in capabilities in the region.

Also has an impact in enhancing India's Ballistic Missile strategy used to combat a two-front war [2], because Missiles are to Indian military strategy what Drones are for Chinese military strategy.

Also highlights how the India-US relationship is built by the Indian-American diaspora. The VC who funded Angikul is Anand Rajaraman - the Stanford professor who started "Big Data" with Ullman, was one of the earliest investors in Facebook, and lead Amazon Marketplace after getting acquired by Amazon early in it's history (Marketplace was originally an Indian e-commerce startup called Junglee).

As India gets richer, and America's immigration system gets more and more rickety, a reverse brain and capital drain has started to form, much like with Chinese Americans in the late 2000s.

[0] - https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/agnikul-showcased-more-...

[1] - https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/China-and-India-lea...

[2] - https://www.usiofindia.org/publication-journal/Evolution-of-...


> Also has an impact in enhancing India's Ballistic Missile strategy used to combat a two-front war [2], because Missiles are to Indian military strategy what Drones are for Chinese military strategy.

Almost no one uses liquid fueled Ballistic Missiles any more (I think China is the only one) because they are so operationally terrible.

The eventual rocket sounds like it's a hair larger than RocketLab's Electron. Which is struggling to reach profitability after being in its segment for 7-8 years mostly without peer competition. Largely thanks to SpaceX's transporter (and now bandwagon) missions sucking most of the volume out of the market.

Making a working rocket is undoubtedly an amazing accomplishment. But at the same time, I really wish that companies stopped making small-lift rockets. There's just no way for them to work financially.


> But at the same time, I really wish that companies stopped making small-lift rockets. There's just no way for them to work financially.

Making a small launch vehicle is seen as necessary to attract the level of funding needed for a medium or heavy lift launch vehicle


> Making a small launch vehicle is seen as necessary to attract the level of funding needed for a medium or heavy lift launch vehicle

I get that.

But it seems like every VC on the planet had the same idea at the same exact time because there's like 50+ small lift rockets in various stages of development. And approximately 0% of them have a shot at profitability.

I have real doubts that any of them that aren't backed by a nation-state will be able to fund raise and survive long enough to build a medium lift rocket on the back of their experience.


> Almost no one uses liquid fueled Ballistic Missiles any more (I think China is the only one) because they are so operationally terrible.

India does as well as China.

But they are cheap! Very cheap. Read the 3rd article I linked - it's the actual Indian government strategy around BMD.


> India does as well as China.

> But they are cheap! Very cheap. Read the 3rd article I linked - it's the actual Indian government strategy around BMD.

The only place that liquid rockets are specifically mentioned:

> Scientists are also working towards making interceptors used in both layers operate on solid fuels. This is because chemicals in the liquid fuels corrode the fuel storage tanks easily. Therefore, most of the missiles are not kept in a ‘ready-to-fire’ mode. Also, it takes a minimum of three to four hours to fill the liquid fuel in the missile,9 a hardly acceptable scenario wherein precious time will be lost in case of an emergency.

It seems pretty clear that:

1. This particular rocket has no military application because the rockets that India uses use hypergolic propellant (presumably UDMH and NTO), while the planned rocket uses LOx and RP1, which are cryogenic propellants (well, at least the LOx is).

2. India is pretty clearly trying to move away from liquid fueled rockets because, as I said in my previous comment, the operational aspects are really terrible.


> America's immigration system gets more and more rickety

It's completely insane that we allow mass migration of people with no money and no skills and make it incredibly difficult for the most valuable immigrants to get in.


It's quite understandable, imho. Immigration is being allowed precisely for cheap labor, especially when citizens are not prepared to go through the extra hardship - for example, I remember reading that the fatalities when the bridge fell in Baltimore around 1 am, were all immigrants, all on duty at that hour.

For specialized labor, there is always a question of possible espionage and back-channel tech transfer. This is not so much perhaps for India as opposed to other technological rivals, but it may be one of the considerations in the immigration policy being counterintuitive.


> fatalities when the bridge fell in Baltimore

As an example of how strict immigration policy is, the crew were made to stay on the boat throughout, including while parts of the bridge were blown up.


I'd inferred that it was the company keeping them there, after hearing stories like this:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-ed...

This article goes into the actual reasons, the visas only came into play during the second month:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/18/us/baltimore-bridge-dali-ship...

Basically the company would get in trouble if the crew left, and they are too cheap to hire replacements, so they threaten them.


pfft people who want to find a way around what anyone "allows" will do so. To desperate people rules dont matter.

There are more than 50 countries right now standing with begging bowls outside the IMF cause their economies have no hope of growing without help. As long as that list has no hope of shrinking, people who live there and recognize that reality, are going to find ways to get out by hook or crook.

Immigration is a symptom of growing global inequality. Without inequality reducing no rules or walls are going to stop the incoming waves.


> we allow mass migration of people with no money and no skills

You don't? There's no visa for that category.


you do, if you have sanctuary cities and entire states openly claiming they will not arrest people who break immigration law, it reduces the ability of USA to actually pass policies to take in more skilled immigrants who'll be a net benefit to America as a whole.


Like the War On Drugs, the human cost, violence, and intrusiveness of enforcement is worse than the alleged problem. The much-vaunted localism of America lets states and cities decide that it's not a problem for them to allow people to live there, and they don't want to help the big bad Federal government disrupt that.

(it's still no picnic being in that category, unable to register for social security or even take an internal flight)


World isnt some amazing la la land, I hope people who break laws to immigrate to America, will continue having the same sympathies towards you, when they become majority, and start dominating over you with their culture.

It feels bad to say this, but to build a good well integrated state, integration is key, you cannot integrate people into a society, if you cannot even control the immigration rate. You can't just let people come to your country illegally, setup shop, and then tell everyone 'Cant do anything about it folks'.

The human cost is paid in everything, the cost americans need to worry about, is whether the safety and future prospects of americans is safeguarded, not of people who break laws to illegally immigrate.

It's like having sympathy for a next door neighbour child who is uncared for, and serving him/her food, while you're own child cries and starves to death.

America isnt a country, with limitless resources, and enough food,housing,healthcare to feed everybody, stop treating it like it.

Also, I'm not sure the people who arrive here illegally are as ready to integrate with America's culture, as some americans are ready to integrate with illegal migrants.

I understand life is cruel, and maybe america should even do good things for it, but not at the cost of watching americans starve to death, veterans getting overdosed on the streets wishing after years of suffering to just die and be at peace, and watching them not being able to help them, because our resources are too stretched, Charity starts at home. Even the people who migrate illegally here, they'll help their own first, before even sparing one thought towards you.

One needs to be realistic about certain things, it's perfectly doable to protect your own borders, Singapore does it against Malaysia, India does it against Pakistan and Bangladesh (big borders), China does it against neighbouring countries, most Asian countries can protect their own borders.

Why can't america?


> I hope people who break laws to immigrate to America, will continue having the same sympathies towards you, when they become majority, and start dominating over you with their culture.

I don't know how many folks around me broke the law to immigrate to America, but whether or not they broke the law to come here they faced a lot of racism, classism, and suspicion. I've been in the same area for about 20 years, and if I'm not a minority in my neighborhood it's close. It's the immigrants who are kind to me, help me keep my house secure, and trade goods and services with me. They even help me practice my awful Spanish with them. So in my case, yeah it's working out.

> America isnt a country, with limitless resources, and enough food,housing,healthcare to feed everybody, stop treating it like it.

America doesn't have limitless resources, but with 5% of the world's population it uses 25% of the world's resources [1]. To anybody's eyes that's going to look limitless.

I think simple laws of diffusion say that people are going to go where the resources are available. Whether it's politically tenable doesn't matter, this is human nature since we started walking.

[1] https://www.re-sources.org/2020/05/online-lesson-material-wo...


If you don't mind sharing, i'm curious to know where you live. I live in North central Oak Cliff which is a large, predominantly hispanic, area consisting of multiple neighborhood just SSW of downtown Dallas. In my neighborhood there's a local Mercado that i can walk to for small things, i speak enough Spanish to manage but I'm eyed with suspicion from when i go in to when i leave. My wife is a HS teacher with about 25% of her students being undocumented. They use a bus service in Oak Cliff to freely move back and forth to Mexico, i'm not sure how that works but that's what they use.

My son's middle school is a DISD public magnet in a wealthy area called Preston Hollow. The middle school is probably 85-90% hispanic and despite my kids being 1/2 Mexican they have faced enough racism and abuse that my wife and I have had multiple meetings with the administration to address it. African American kids face it even worse. One other anecdote, when my kids were in elementary some of their calsses were taught in Spanish because my kids and one other were the only ones who spoke English. The teachers, who barely spoke English themselves, got in trouble for that. Ironically, if you want true diversity in Dallas schools you have to pay/be admitted to the elite private schools.

All this to say, in my experience, neighborhoods consisting of mostly undocumented immigrants and cities welcoming of undocumented immigrants aren't that great... unless you're an undocumented immigrant.


Wow that's interesting. I'm in Longmont, Colorado. Boulder's annoying little brother with a chip on his shoulder. I was born here, and when I was growing up it was predominantly white. As more Latinos immigrated here white people in my mom's generation went through some rough transitions. Some of their racial bias rubbed off on me at the time.

Funny you should mention private school though because my mom did send me to a private high school. At its most diverse it was probably 90% white, and I wonder if that colors my experience. I did decide to learn Spanish there and ended up minoring in it in university.

One of my daughters goes to a predominately Latino high school, and my other daughter goes to a mostly white Jr. High. My oldest doesn't get any harassment like you describe, so my advice is to come to Longmont. Maybe because it's still a city in flux we humans haven't had a chance yet to revert to our normal xenophobic ways.

Haha but yeah when I go to the tortilleria to try my Spanish the people behind the counter almost always respond politely but pointedly in English. I feel like such a dork.


If 20 of the kids spoke Spanish and 2 of the kids spoke English, doesn't it make sense to teach the course in Spanish? Why would the teachers get in trouble?


For now at least half of the US is pretending there aren't 40-50 million illegal immigrants in the US, even though the country is overflowing with undocumented persons and it has become an enormous problem. Every mid-size town and above has a lot of illegal immigrants today, whereas 20 years ago there were few. So if you start switching public school systems over to Spanish because entire schools are now filled with illegal immigrants, or children of illegal immigrants, it's going to get a lot of unwanted attention. Plus it reveals that the US is fracturing rapidly. Whereas English is drastically more valuable than Spanish economically, the US is developing a large population base that does not speak English and it's quite bad for the country's cohesion and economic outcomes.

I'm seeing this firsthand. Where I live in a mid-size university town, 20-30 years ago there was practically zero illegal immigration, undocumented persons. It was fairly unheard of. Now there are a vast number of Spanish-only speaking illegal immigrants. My apartment complex in the span of a few years has become 3/4 illegal immigrants that only speak Spanish, almost entirely young adult males. They harrass anyone that isn't Hispanic and have tried to push all other tenants out of the complex. The police are called frequently for violence issues, and being uneducated young adult males they drink heavily and trash the place constantly.

It can't be fixed either. If you just remove the gigantic base of illegal immigrants GDP will plunge by at least 10%. Nobody will do that. There is no path forward other than chaos. No serious immigration reform will get passed near-term.


40-50 million really isn't credible.


Of course when the federal government decided to let millions of them in and the local government in Texas decided that it was a problem for them and decided to enforce it themselves, all those people who are so much in favor of local control when it comes to "sanctuary cities" suddenly lost their shit.


They are allowed in without visas


Not having a visa is the opposite of "allowed".


No. Being kicked out is the opposite of allowed.


> It's completely insane

It makes perfect sense when you understand the principal-agent problem and the current political landscape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...


If the policy was the opposite you could also argue that. Its basically a fundamental problem of government, whatever the outcome.

You have to be way more specific when you want to actually be insightful about the topic.


valuable immigrants are going to take my jerb and not flip my hamburger, pick the crops or mow my lawn.


I wouldn't defend america's immigration system (in my opinion the world should be borderless and you should be able to vote in any location where you can demonstrate that you've performed work for a wage or something like that), but if anyone should be allowed to seek labor by moving freely, it is the unskilled, who are already tremendously disadvantaged by globalization. Skilled labor is unlikely to be tremendously impoverished by being unable to move to the absolute optimal location.

In other words, one could say its insane that we draw imaginary lines on paper and then confine human beings to those lines based on the accident of their birth location.


Those lines are not imaginary per se. It means that the people living within those imaginary lines have come together with similar ideals and unity, arrived by many years of co-operation, to bestow certain rights and privileges to their fellow neighbors. Those rights were paid in blood, sweat and tears.

The reason people organized as tribes matters. Its part of our very nature. And those tribes also respected imaginary lines. Even animals respect some imaginary lines. Eventually, some may be accepted in the tribe. But no one would just walk in to the tribe. Its not how nature works.


Hardly. The lines are basically drawn by aristocrats of one kind or another and the rest of us have to deal with it. They are expressions of power and very little else, and mostly not the power of the people. The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people who draw borders and consist entirely of statements that are borderless assertions of the value of human beings, not citizens. You may be right that there is some kind of fundamental tribal mentality in human beings, but that doesn't mean that enshrining that reality in law or even nurturing it is morally right. The idea that borders benefit the common person better than, for example, a system which genuinely respected the dignity and right of human beings regardless of their geographical coincidences, is bullshit.


>>> The lines are basically drawn by aristocrats of one kind or another and the rest of us have to deal with it I agree. So ? Tribes had the same interactions. Nothing's changed. We are still humans.

>>> The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people

So by that assertion , wherever you live, you should vacate right now. Because if you take that line of thinking to its conclusion, it means that there are no property rights, and therefore, no security at all. And, there's the conundrum that the entire world disagrees with you, and has borders which they protect to varying degrees.

>>> (aristocrates) who draw borders and consist entirely of statements that are borderless assertions

The aristocrats are actually elected representatives. Its nice to paint them with the aristocrat brush, hey ill even join you there because i despise them too, but taking that tack doesn't change the fact that those are still elected representatives. And they made those assertions in our behalf. On behalf of free people.

>>> of the value of human beings, not citizens I don't know what that means. If you are arguing for inalienable rights, I agree there. But inalienable rights do not include the right to force a group of humans to carry the weight of a stranger. That's aggression over a human's inalienable rights.

>>> that doesn't mean that enshrining that reality in law or even nurturing it is morally right. It is morally right because you have the right to protect yourself and your kin. That's what borders are. Arguing otherwise goes against nature and against what's right. Once you leave your comfortable home to write on HN and instead house some malnourished somalians, maybe we will start paying attention to you.

All you advocate is charity, by usurping your tribe's rights. That is an act of aggression, and i'm calling you out on it. That's what politicians do. Maybe do something different from them, and lead by example ? (do as i say, not as i do, seems a fitting descripting here)


There are not property rights and there is no security except the security that human beings create for themselves and, ultimately, one another. "Property rights" do not descend from the platonic realm to protect you if someone invades your home. You may protect yourself or your neighbors may protect you or, as is more generally the case, I believe, a general sense of bonhomie shared by human beings everywhere, does most of the protecting. But the rights are a mere convention cooked up by people, for people, and even then they are more a symbolic act against the barbarism of the sorts of sociopaths who show up with soldiers and decide they are the kings.

It's true that now those kinds of people are often directed towards politics and become the elected officials which you assert justify the borders, but in fact most of the borders we live with were never drawn with any consent of the people living there. The vast majority of borders are pure objects of fiat power (especially the border over which the immigration you have a chip on your shoulder about, which was quite literally determined via war).

Herein I'm not advocating charity, which is, nevertheless, a fundamental human virtue. I am advocating that human beings, if they have any rights or dignity at all, have those rights and dignities by virtue of their humanity and not by virtue of where their parents happened to be when they were born. Communities of humans shouldn't tolerate freeloaders, but the people coming across the border are by and large the exact opposite: people willing to work harder for less than many people living here. If you are really so concerned with social parasites, let me suggest you look to institutions like health insurance companies, landlords, etc.


The biggest flaw on your argument is that you are choosing to ignore that we are talking is a complex system that involves time in a grand scale. Like most things in nature.

You can't understand the dynamics of a colony by observing 1 ant. Similarly, you can't understand borders by focusing on who or when they were drawn.

Borders are the equilibrium point of the strength and culture of a particular tribe over a very long period of time developed thru their communal effort. Borders will move or disappear when a tribe gets too strong or weak. Its a process that has always taken place in nature at all levels, for all time.

You can choose to look at the ant, and the ant may appeal feckless and it has a very short lifespan.

You are just stuck in the wrong domain. We are talking about natural processes. You seem to insist to suggest this is a different domain.


Your dream will evaporate when the newcomers self organize and disenfranchise you. This foolishness and lack of critical thinking will be ultimately resolved by nature itself.


What dream do you think I have?


That's super cool.

India has enormous potential and it is amazing to witness the rise of its tech scene.


I wouldn't jump to praise so quickly. Additive manufacturing (aka 3D printing) is standard in the industry and the time is dependent on the size (and to some extent the mass) of the engine.

They then further claim you don't need to do any post-manufacturing qualifications, which is absolute nonsense. So it's either misreporting or it's an indication of Indian incompetence/lying.


I wonder where Indian incompetence/lying falls on the Elon scale.


I don't remember Elon ever stating something does something it's not actually doing. His future timelines are off but it's never his competence that's been a problem with anything relating to SpaceX. And calling SpaceX (the entire industry leader) anywhere near "incompetent" beggars belief.

WDon't believe everything you read in headlines written by people with no understanding of the space industry. If you want to read about the industry, read about it on industry specific sites (like spacenews.com) or from industry specific reporters (Eric Berger or Stephen Clark at ArsTechnica). Davenport at Washington Post is good too.


[flagged]


Imagine reading an article about the achievements of an Indian startup, based in India, with Indians at the helm, and thinking "Ugh, they only achieve things because US companies grace them with jobs!"


> Celesta Capital, Rocketship.vc, Artha Select Fund and Artha Venture Fund, and existing investors Mayfield India, Pi Ventures and Speciale Invest.[0]

Not making an argument about off-shore work, but to be fair a lot of the funding came from out-of-country.

[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/catherinewang/2023/10/17/indian...


A lot of the funding for various American startups comes from SoftBank and the Saudis, but we don't hear the same criticism of them when they achieve things...


And funded by Indian money?


These guys are friends... We share investors, I've visited them at their test site, and they're neighbours at IIT Madras Research Park (where their rocket factory is). Their engines are a pleasure to hold and see in real life...

Couple of points that are missed in the article:

1. 3D printing is a way of bringing down assembly costs - the geometry they print is quite intricate, and it allows much better performance. The disadvantage is that it wouldn't survive multiple launches, but these are meant to be single-use rockets anyway so it doesn't matter. This is a way to build a semi-cryo engine relatively cheap.

2. They are doing it _really_ conservative; three attempted launches of which two were cancelled in the last two minutes (the fourth succeeded). But they always err on the side of caution. It's impressive enough that they're able to cancel so close to launch without losing the vehicle.

3. Here's the launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGWruZR4rSg


Among world-firsts that happen in contemporary India, this is probably one of the coolest.


There is a veritasium video on rocket 3d printing.



It's not a world first. It's an industry standard in tact.


This is really neat, but would like to know more about the engine. The image seems to show a very simple design, without turbo pumps that are a mainstay in any other "rocket" engine.


It looks like it's electric pump fed, and it doesn't look like those pumps are part of the engine. Is it just a combustion chamber then?


This is amazing. Strap several of those engines with a control system of some sort and you can basically launch a wide variety of payloads.


> control system of some sort

Control of multiple engines is non-trivial. You get fun stuff like plume interactions between the engines.


If you take a look at a real rocket engine you will see hundreds of parts that cannot be printed

Raptor 1, 2, and 3:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/07/spacex-further-improve...


For very simple pressure fed engines (which this appears to be) it's actually cheapest to additively manufacture (3D print) engines as you can integrate the cooling channels. On engines like Raptor you have pumps, which notably need to move so while you still use 3D printing (Raptor uses a ton) you can't print it in a single piece.

3D printing is already an industry standard and nothing this company did with relation to its engine manufacturing is anything special. They also appear to have lied that no post-manufacturing qualification is required.


Can't wait to 3D Print a bootleg PATRIOT system.


I take it you've seen the DIY 3D printed SAM some random Hong Kong dude made?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvcDwSmmxWs


I really would love to have the time and energy to replicate that. That guys work is pretty nuts


based on his other videos, either he's actually a Chinese missile scientist or you can pretty much make an entire rocket fleet in your farm in modern China


Patriots use solid fuel. Additionally nothing on a Patriot missile used 3D printing. There is no benefit for 3D printing.


It sounds like they're not doing QC/QA, which would be unwise and maybe isn't necessarily true.

While 3D printing allows printing shapes that cannot be forged or cast, testing is always needed as part of the manufacturing process feedback loop. X-ray and dye penetration nondestructive testing check for abnormalities on accessible services, but destructive testing is needed sawing samples into slices to also check them for hidden defects.


Total random comment, but for posterity's sake -- apparently, Agnikul is organized using a free and open source ERP called ERPNext. There's not been much discussion on it, but I'm doing my best to get my foot in the door using ERPNext and Frappe Framework (what it's built on) in North America.


This company has been pushing a lot of press about this but it's really not anything special. The industry has been printing engines for many years and the time to print is dependent on the size (and to some extent the mass) of the engine and the speed of the printer. Take this with a grain of salt.


Nice pre-flight photo of the engine. Could we also have a look at the engine post-flight?


I had no idea so many Hacker News commenters were rocket scientists.


We have nuclear physicists, CRISPR researchers, philosophy PhDs and specialized physicians posting here all the time.

Is there something about the topic of rocketry that you expected would keep it away from HN?


3D printing is the conventional way of designing rocket engines today. Literally every new rocket startup does it a lot. Its more unconventional how much isn't 3D printed on the SpaceX Raptor.


I wish them well, but the rocket went less than 9km to apogee and 8km over the ground. It has to continue improving...


Wright Brothers first airplane flew only 100m or so.


The "Wright Brothers" moment for rocketry happened 60 years ago.


The first useful rockets were during the second world war, used for artillery into London. So over 80 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket


Yeah I was referring to Sputnik, as the V2 wasn't orbital.


Depends what you mean by 'useful'. They were a technological marvel, but an incredibly inefficient way to deliver approx a ton of high explosive. But I guess we should be thankful that Hitler wasted so much of Germany's increasingly scarce resources on 'Wunderwaffe' like rockets. The Allies developed technology that was less showy, but much more useful (computers, cavity magnetron, proximity fuze, atom bomb etc).


Every new team has to start somewhere; even SpaceX had to learn to crawl before they could walk, and that was with the benefit of decades of prior art to draw upon. It would be a shame if SpaceX became the last company to ever succeed at designing a rocket because no one after them would try.


80 years depending on your marker.


I've seen less skepticism on cryptocoin threads on HN. The absolute racism in this thread is disgusting.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Kudo's to the team! This is a great success.


I hope they all get to ride on it like true engineers would.


i wish there was more than a single photo, and maybe some cross sections or something. didn't see any with a quick google


I hope this doesn't lead to an exponential increase in space debris.


[dead]


I don’t hear anyone disparaging the ability of Indian companies to build great rockets. ISRO has done some really great work, and deserves lots of credit. But this startup seems to be bragging about making some pretty basic mistakes, like claiming not to need QA without having actually done anything to solve that problem (they didn’t build the 3d printer). So they seem to be doing the same kind of non-serious stuff we see from other vc backed startups all over the world which deserves skepticism.


Wow. Talk about getting triggered.


Hang out in HN long enough, and you'll see what I'm talking about.


If SpaceX could produce a rocket every 72 hours it would be a concern too.

Also, best of luck in your quest of fighting imaginary villians.

By conflating unrelated things and jumping to conclusions such as that you are not acting as a good ambassador for your country.


> If SpaceX could produce a rocket every 72 hours it would be a concern too.

Just FYI, SpaceX is trying to launch a Falcon 9 about every 48 hours this year.

So far they seem pretty responsible about things, though.


regardless of the veracity, i wonder about the space debris implications of making rocketry accessible going forward.

we got regulations, but can they be enforced well enough?


I approve this for all billionaire flights in the future


Now do it again, but this time build a fully automated rocket factory on the moon.


[flagged]


The primary purpose of rockets these days is to put satellites into space, not to bomb people. This includes the rockets built by the world's militaries.


Guided missiles fall under the umbrella of rockets. There are far more guided and unguided missiles in the world than rockets for peaceful purposes.

The primary purpose of rockets is to annihilate an enemy military with a secondary benefit being to put things and sometimes people into space. That's how it was pitched, and that's how it will always be.


Or perhaps probes to the Mars?


[flagged]


There's a picture of the rocket at the top of the article


This post is giving me the same energy as[1]. I'm usually not so blunt about callouts, but this just seems blatant.

[1] https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/78030000/...


Here's a better article - https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/29/india-agnikul-3d-printed-r...

> There are only a few players in private space which print rocket engines, and our very own SpaceX was one of the first to pioneer this

The US isn't the only country with a large private space sector. China and India have both been heavily investing in it since the mid-2010s, because a dynamic space sector also means having an indigenous capability to deploy spy-satellites and ballistic missiles.

There's a reason why Maxar, SpaceX, etc all get outsized DoD funding.

India's space sector is also getting a massive cash infusion from the UAE [0] and KSA [1], as they both begin their process of building domestic space capabilities due to worries of Iran.

[0] - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/spotlight/indian-space-m...

[1] - https://www.zawya.com/en/business/technology-and-telecom/sau...


"The 6.2-meter-tall vehicle is made of carbon composite, which gives it a liftoff mass of 1,268 lb; at its heart is the 3D-printed semi-cryogenic engine that Agnikul manufactured in-house, each of which provides 6.2 kN of thrust."

This is like they clubbed together processes which Russia seems to use for manufacturing of some of its Novator cruise missiles. That technology must have transferred over somehow and they are just adapting it for space. It's great they adapted a military technology for something else (though I expect it will stay military), but it's nothing novel.


> That technology must have transferred over somehow

Nope. Russia and Israel attempted that for India in the 1990s but were threatened by US sanctions for breaking MCTR.

Idk why you're so surprised that these kinds of domestic capabilities exist in India now.

India is fairly poor, but R&D capabilities have been strong, and there is an actual reverse brain drain going on from the US now that GC backlogs are multi-decade in length.

> it's nothing novel

It's a significant incremental development, as it drastically reduces the upfront cost for ballistic missiles or sub-orbital launches (eg. satellites), because you can manufacture much more faster. Plus, it is actually indigenous, which is a significant change.


I don't think people are moving back to India for jobs last time I checked if thats what your implying with your reverse brain drain comment.


Where do those laid off Indian H1B and EB1/2 move?

The reverse drain has started already for several years now (around 2021-22). Indians will still come to the US, do a BS masters, and then work in an American company for a couple years, but they inevitably face a 134 year backlog for naturalization.

You can either live in the US as an indentured servant for a company, and end up getting kicked out if you get laid off and can't find another employer. Or you can upskill as much as you can in the US, and then leave once you have a strong enough professional network.


Canada is much more immigration-friendly than the US. It also has a program to green-light and fast-track immigration for all H1B holders in the US, though for calendar year 2024 the cap of 10k visas has already been reached. But my understanding is that there's a pretty significant population of skilled workers that were planning on settling in the US permanently (or semi-permanently), and have instead relocated to Canada because of immigration difficulties related to the greencard backlog.

Europe is also an option, though it's not as pro-immigration as Canada (and has lower salaries as well).


1. Europe is a big region, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Sweden has far far far more higher living standards than Canada, their total disposable income is higher, even if canadians might get paid decent, cost of housing is crazy, taxes are crazy, you cant get any medical surgery done without years in waitlist, So europe is 10x better than canada (just being frank, Canada was an amazing country 10 years ago, not anymore)

2. Canada also has a huge surge in re-migration, that is, the most skilled immigrants in your country, are leaving for other countries, they only come to take your citizenship, as a safety net, and then try leaving for more better countries (the high income ones, not the rest, they stay back in canada), the number of applications in permanent residency is going down among skilled immigrants, you're receiving a lot more of fraudulent immigration from degree mills who are abusing your immigration rules.

3. Canada is already probably will have the lowest growth and highest decline in income among all OECD countries, and is predicted to stay the same in next 3 decades, if it continues doing the same things.

USA still has a strong immigration procedure, but a lot more countries are now getting skilled immigrants from China, India, other Asian, African and Latin American countries, Japan is slowly going to increase immigration (already starting), a lot of European countries welcome skilled migration like Germany, India itself is surging and giving more high income job prospects (they are struggling at creating blue-collar jobs, but white collar well paid jobs are increasing, with more and more GDCs opening there (Global Development Centres), most major computer chips used are designed either in India or Taiwan, the majority of it, happening in other sectors too now)

Canada is immigration friendly, but as a whole along with its other policies, it's inviting the wrong group of immigrants (low-skilled workers across the world, who'll fight with natives for lower paid jobs and drive down wages) that is not a good immigration policy, America also has better diversity capping immigration for each country at 7% max, Canada's immigration policies are poorly designed, and will continue to hurt the country going forward.


> Europe is a big region

I'm aware, particularly given that I live there.

Post-tax, post-essentials income comparisons are absurdly complicated and always depend on the individual. For example, dual-income families in Germany can tick slightly ahead of similar families in the USA because of how much more expensive it is to raise children in the US and how many (cash and societal) benefits you get from the social support system in Germany. But even this is a can and not will; that will also depend on your specific tax situation, and a whole host of other things. And whether the discrepancies in income levels are balanced out by different standards of living is also something you can really only evaluate on a case-by-case basis, because it's different for every job. For example, the income differential in software engineering is way higher between NA and Europe than it is for, for example, healthcare workers. In my specific case, when I moved from the US to DE, my gross decreased by 2/3 and my post-tax, post-essentials decreased by 1/2 -- and by post-essentials, I'm including things like massively higher rents in the US.

> a lot of European countries welcome skilled migration like Germany

I'm an immigrant to Germany and I would absolutely *not* consider it welcoming to immigration, skilled or otherwise. And given the results of the past few elections here (and elsewhere in Europe), which have been dominated by extremely negative discussions of immigration (with the notable exception of most/all of the Scandinavian countries), I don't really think your comment is painting an accurate picture.

I've never lived in Canada and have no experience with immigration there, so I can't speak to Canadian immigration policy beyond what I've already said -- that the current government is very pro-immigration and has policies in place specifically meant to compete with the US on skilled workers. What I can say though, is that much of what you're saying is very contrary to both my lived experience as an immigrant to Europe, as well as much of my experience with several very close friends who've been through the H1B -> green card lottery in the USA. Also, from an economic perspective, I would neither describe US immigration policy as "smarter", nor "better" than Canada's. And I would absolutely *not* describe it as a "strong procedure".


> Where do those laid off Indian H1B and EB1/2 move?

I don't think that would be a "reverse". A reverse would be Americans trying to apply en masse to Indian companies.


I mean, people move back to be close to their family, for jobs, for startup capital, cost of living, and even for the politics.

There is a former coworker who flew back to vote in the election and even have some kind of celebration because some kind of Communist government got voted out of his province.


I agree there are many different reasons to move. I would really call out people who are saying that Indian talent is leaving the US and/or Canada because from my viewpoint we have a very significant amount of Indians leaving India and coming here. It's much more the exception to the rule of Indians leaving North America and going back to India.


I do agree it's a significant incremental development from an Indian perspective for India.

I think it is important for them to have this technology.

However, it is being pitched as a "world first". That's kind of disingenuous.


It takes them 40 years to make a contemporary fighter jet, not all of which is in house, and they cannot make an infantry rifle, tank, or any defense equipment that their DoD equivalent is happy with outside of "ring laser gyroscopes", which was developed as a part of their guided missile program, which was made with covert and overt Russian and possibly Iraqi help.

They cannot make their own trainsets, cars, and consumer goods to fulfill local demand aside from food. India is on the road to privatizing many of its industries, but if you look that the list of GoI enterprises versus public private partnerships and the endemic levels of corruption (or else ethno-fascism) it is likely these are going to succeed anything soon. Indias largest exports are ideas and philosophies like religion, and I bet in the future it will be manufacturing and operating philosophy like Japan did with Kaizen.

India is a good place to go to offshore costs for space, and many countries do. They know how to squeeze the inefficiencies out of a process (and also not pay people, but that's another story) and bring down the costs of a mission. But there is nothing novel about the missions themselves. There is nothing pioneering, and there is nothing wrong with that. This is the case with Japan. Most of Japanese innovation is actually from US companies that they took over.

In any case, it's important to be realistic-- it's nothing to do with India being poor. They are not poor. They can afford a lot, and do a lot. Some people are in the mindset to accomplish a great deal mentally. Most people are not and still throw banana peels into the highway after eating them. No country without a basic civic sense can (in the immediate few years) have the R&D capabilities you speak of in a meaningful fashion.

Maybe in a few decades when people are more educated.


> Most of Japanese innovation is actually from US companies that they took over.

Just gonna leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_inventions_an...

Hopefully you'll realize that that is one of the more uninformed takes you've had, and then question the other things you think are true.


I clicked on that list. I went to pocket calculator, and it said the first one was made in the United States.


You should look into the sheer amount of industrial espionage that Japan did in the United States and Soviet Union post WW2. It is mind boggling. We started legally transferring and licensing technology to them so that at least we would make some money back.


Finding one example that confirms your pre-existing biases is not the way to attain wisdom.


> No country without a basic civic sense can (in the immediate few years) have the R&D capabilities you speak of in a meaningful fashion.

LOL. Pray tell… Are you going to elaborate on your theory of technology development, or are you just bloviating your biases?


And you know what? Even some of the Indian companies at the time were super good.

HCL was the Indian IBM. In fact, it's a one letter shift from IBM, and one of the earlier Indian tech companies. There were opportunities. People wanted money and things and didn't want to wait.


Yes. You need to have national unity, pride, and not be entirely selfish in order to have more engagement and participation in higher education and therefore in R&D. You need to be in a position in which you can inspire your citizens that there is a better life for them by engaging in that R&D and morale improving projects, but that attitude also needs to be seen on the streets, not just on TV.

India has some parts of the population in which that exists, but that's far from a large part of the population. Most people are very self interested, and you cannot blame them. People think of themselves. Why do you think there is a brain drain? People are educated at the government's expense at premier institutions and leave because they don't feel any sense of allegiance or civil responsibility to develop their country.

My math teach told me that during the Cold War, in the United States, the math that they learned was harder than it was now. It was your duty to become a scientist or engineer or something positive to push your country forward. That should be how it is for India, but aside from a smaller segment of the population (who are pretty loud and say some interesting things) people are more self interested. And you can't blame them. If your cousin moved to the United States and seems to be "living the life" why wouldn't you leave?

So a whole generation of scientists and engineers who were top notch educated at IIT at the government's expense under socialist India in the 80s basically left in the 90s and 00s because of more money, even though there were possibilities in India for them at the time (HP and IBM India, CDAC, CDOT, DRDO, ISRO, HAL, etc)


And sure, I am biased. That was my dad's life. That was his story. He made the call to leave India hoping to improve his career by moving to Australia and then the United States. He considered moving back multiple times, but could not bring himself to do so, not because of the lack of good opportunities, but because of the lack of civic sense.

There are people in India who work super hard (which he really likes), but then there are people who are so selfish, driving on the sidewalk in the opposite direction, get upset because the ambulance is speeding to the hospital and refuse to move and block it intentionally, taking all kinds of shortcuts and opportunities to cheat each other instead of conducting business honestly, etc. No good treatment of women.

It's messy and it needs to get more organized to do anything meaningful in terms of R&D in that country.


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

Search: