Just knowing how the thing is built doesn't seem to be enough. Comac still sources its jet engines from Pratt and Whitney for instance, despite many years of trying no local manufacturer has been able to build them to the same spec.
The product I oversee at my job is something that can only be built by people who are intimately aware of the process and have a strong understanding of the underlying engineering.
We could hand the full project file to a competitor and they almost certainly would not be able to build functional units. The failure points are fractal, so you need a strong intuition about what part you are installing, what qualities an ideal part has, what qualities the one in your hand has, how you might install it differently because of those qualities, and/or how you might change a later process to accommodate it. Or if the part should just be junked. The process is fraught with seemingly good intuitions that will ultimately lead you to failure as well.
These units also cannot be reworked, reused, or repaired, so any mistake before finalizing the build junks the entire thing.
For extremely low-entropy products, mother nature is incredibly unforgiving.
This is a bigger issue than most people appreciate, and a huge problem for the USA.
There is a specialised trade known as tool and die maker, or just die maker (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_and_die_maker) that is fundamental to a country’s ability to create industrial capacity. So far, no automation tool has been able to replace their expertise.
Without die makers, you can’t build tools that make things, you can’t build factories, and mass production in general is dependent on their skillset.
Right now, the USA only has 50k die makers, and the average age of a die maker, including apprentices, is 54. The average age of a master die maker is 73, and the average age of a journeyman is 62. A master die maker can teach about 5 apprentices to the journey man level in a work environment, after 2+ years of basic engineering school, in about 5-7 years. A journeyman may generally considered a master after 10-20 years of experience, depending on the nature of their experience.
We don’t have enough die makers to rebuild the industrial capacity of the USA, and we can’t teach the amount we need in less than 5-7decades without some kind of major change in the process of doing so. And since more than half of the master die makers are months from retirement or death, we are in an extremely precarious position as a viable industrial power.
This is why it is extremely difficult to build anything physical in the USA using only USA sourced parts and materials. It’s almost impossible to even get a decent variety of screws and fasteners made here in the USA, and we can’t easy build the machines to make screws because of the critical shortage of master die makers.
If we are to maintain the ability to build and maintain our machines, weapons, and critical infrastructure without being completely dependent on imported tools, supplies, and knowledge, we will have to reinvent the industrial process using automation or something similar to compensate for our foolish exportation and devaluation of strategic skills and capabilities.
If the average age is 73 that's the issue right there. People are refusing to retire at 62 and make room for juniors. Then when they finally do retire (73 average seems like "dies in office" levels) there are 2 decades of missing juniors who haven't been trained in the pipeline.
This is the shortcoming with most technical fields. No one is incentivized to see the big picture of the training pipeline that exists well outside the scope of their own company. No one likes juniors but that is their future.
The actual killer is the pay and working conditions, and the problem is fairly intractable.
If you are smart enough to be a good tool maker, you are likely smart enough to be a good 6-figure keyboard-all-day worker. Losing a finger (or three) and breathing VOCs all day for half the pay is not very enticing.
These industries aren't glamourous for investors either. The business proposition sucks, the cost and liabilities are intense, and the margins would need to be negative to be truly competitive.
And worse than anything, the stuff that comes from China is not only 1/10th the cost, it's also now better quality.
At this point, even if die makers started making 300k a year, there isn’t enough master die makers left in the USA to bootstrap the capacity in less than 5 decades. The only practical solution at this point is to max out apprenticeship and somehow incentivise the industry so that we could flood other countries with apprentices as well. Then, we might be able to start getting things balanced in as little as 2 decades.
Otherwise, completely homegrown manufacturing is essentially dead in the water.
If we want to regrow US domestic manufacturing, we need to throw about 100B at scholarships and incentives, or figure out how to capture remaining diemaker empirical knowledge into ML / robotics.
Or maybe we could spend 10B on immigration incentives for qualified Diemakers? Idk about the global state of affairs and how that would work. At any rate we need at least 100-300k new diemakers if we really want to rebuild 100 percent domestic capabilities overnight. And then we need a career path for them 20 years farther down the road.
It was really, really foolish to allow strategic industrial capability to wither on the vine.
Yes. Realistically speaking the value that a diemaker brings should easily be worth 2x or more their current scale.
The SmarterEveryDay piece was disheartening for sure, echoes what I have been singing from the rooftops ever since the government dropped the USA origin of manufacturing requirements for all purchases. Sure, it was a kind of corporate welfare, and it made for a tricky incentive misalignment, but it kept a lot of strategic industries on life support. We would be in a way, way better position now if it hadn’t ended.
The window has shifted as to what constitutes “us made” though. For most things “US assembled” is the norm, and when you get out into things like office supplies, vehicles, and construction materials it’s often far from true domestic manufacturing. For strategic military stuff it’s better, but often at the cost of using 1990s tech because we don’t make the newer stuff here. (It also has the effect of making things more repairable, but that argument gets weaker and weaker as time goes on)
At this point I think in practice it’s a preference for US manufacturers but a long way from robust enough to establish domestic supply chains.
Also -a lot- of military purchases are local, discretionary on a credit card, and there is no oversight on the origin there- it’s whatever they need from office max or the hardware store.
That may be the case in many industries, but I don’t think it applies in this case. The industry isn’t flooded with people looking to move up, it’s starving for interest. The problem is that you can farm out the work overseas for much less than you can do it locally, because our automation is decades behind China.
Chinese skilled labor wages aren’t that low anymore. The reason they can do most work for 1/10 of the local cost is advanced automation, government VC investment, and somewhat less c-suite greed. The incentive alignment of the government VC is also distinct from typical US VC.
We can’t even build the machines that would enable that kind of automation in the USA. We’d need to buy them from China, IF China was willing to sell them to us. Unlike the USA, China is probably not going to be stupid about diluting their advantages. I’m sure the CCP hasn’t forgotten the decades where we were unwilling to sell them high precision machine tools lol.
Unfortunately, we are more likely to see a slow deterioration of the US economy and infrastructure, until we hit about a 5-6x wage advantage over China which we could potentially use to copy the Chinese playbook and rebuild our presence.
A relative of mine worked at a medical devices company (brain sensors). She told me how small intricacies of the manufacturing process were critical to reach good enough yield or functioning devices, at all. The critical process steps were closely guarded and only a handful employees knew how to do them. The devil is often in the details - and the moat, too.
> Just knowing how the thing is built doesn't seem to be enough.
See perhaps:
> Tacit knowledge or implicit knowledge is knowledge that is difficult to extract or articulate—as opposed to conceptualized, formalized, codified, or explicit knowledge—and is therefore more difficult to convey to others through verbalization or writing. Examples of this include individual wisdom, experience, insight, motor skill, and intuition.[1] An example of "explicit" information that can be recorded, conveyed, and understood by the recipient is the knowledge that London is in the United Kingdom. Speaking a language, riding a bicycle, kneading dough, playing an instrument, or designing and operating sophisticated machinery, on the other hand, all require a variety of knowledge that is difficult or impossible to transfer to other people and is not always known "explicitly," even by skilled practitioners.
Building even basic things is difficult. Friend of mine tried like dozen companies from around the world to manufacture very basic milled aluminium part. None of them could make it. Only one company could make 1 or 2 right out of 100.
Slab of aluminium milled to a flat triangular-ish shape about 10mm thick, then inside hollowed out to half depth and 8 counter-sunk holes non-tapped.
Common issues:
- item is not flat
- nicks and dents on the edges
- non uniform depth of the counter-sunk holes
- holes in incorrect locations
- unapproved changes to design
- scratches
- pores (poor material quality)
- incomplete milling
Then parts have to be hard anodised and sand blasted.
- Sand blasting uneven
- Sharp edges remaining
- Streaks
- Contamination
- Exposed bare metal (it is only acceptable in the holes that could be used for hanging)
Companies also have virtually non existent QA. You can list them things that will cause rejection and they send it anyway.
One company told him after sending a batch that was complete carnage "We can give you $100 coupon for next order!" he insisted on rework. So they sent again, even worse.
> Or for analogy, following a recipe doesn't make you a good cook.
For an analogy, no one cares if you're a good cook if you're able to make a passable burger. Most of the demand is not for the best burger money can buy, the just want a burger.
But it also depends on how precise the recipe is - if it's described down to the exact movements the cook needs to do, which may be replicated via a machine...
No recipe accounts for ambient temperature/humidity, very few for altitude differences, etc. etc. It still takes knowledgable tweaks to get just right.
At the end of the day, the map won't ever be the territory. Typically the properties that makes something successful are those which cannot be specified. If it were otherwise and those qualities could be specified in a reproducible manner, that thing would not be observably successful.
They exist in the industry, where a small variation of one parameter could affect tons of products. Same for individual restaurants, cooks know how to set up their equipment. For amateur cooks at home it does not matter. They do not need that level of consistency, and it would get quite expensive.
I can't remember but I think Lance Air or Epic got split in a sale and a company bought the type design/blueprints but ran into issues actually manufacturing from them.
No, but they provide the best efficiency/performance for the buck. China can produce its own jet turbines, but they have to trade off performance or longevity to do it.
Obviously, but I would imagine that most of the “magic” isn’t in the supplied components, but in the finished product. Otherwise reproduction would be easier.
Yes. Their engines are mostly for military applications, tough, so they are less well known of the general public. Other than that, they are half of CFM International, but again they are not very visible.
That's the OP's point: COMAC is using CFM LEAP 1-C engines on the C919.
To be fair, they have taken the effort to build the CJ 1000A engine - which is on wing testing should the tangerine fellow cut them off. But its Plan B at best.
