3D Printing: it may change everything, including spacecraft production.

[Moe Grills]

   
Every so often through history, some new revolutionary technological discovery comes along to 'change everything'. (hyperbole, yes; but not by much; a yogi-ism)
Examples:
Gunpowder, steam engines, mass production, electro-magnetism, aircraft, atomic power, transistors, lasers, PC's, internet, etc.
Now, according to an article in the science magazine, NewScientist
(issue: July/30/2011), a recent type of industrial production called 3D printing (still in the experimental stage) promises to change everything
according to Paul Marks (the journalist who wrote the story).

   The gist of this new (possibly revolutionary development) is this:
scan an original item (or CAD something new), digitally 'slicing it up', storing & using the high-volume data obtained for CAM-controled
lasers or electron-guns to fabricate plastic or metal objects
out of powdered plastic or metal that end up as perfect copies of the original.
   Dan Johns, who is using this new method to print strong metal parts
for the Bloodhound SSC rocketcar, claims that the strength of 3D printed titanium metal parts can equal that of the traditional MACHINED METAL.
 
   What this means for rocketbooster and spacecraft production (for parts that are made of plastic or metal) should be obvious.

  This could ALSO mean the beginning of the end for metal lathes, reamers, hydraulic metal and plastic molding, pressing, extrusion devices, and all traditional mechanical metalworking and plastic shaping and molding machines and tools. 
It could also theoretically mean that genuine mass-production of rocketboosters, spacecraft and components can be developed with minimal manpower, and with parts and hardware that can be defect free
(requiring no quality inspection by humans).

Of course, that could still be decades in the future.

[Downix]

Decades?  I'm ordering my 3D printer next week.

[Robotbeat]

Paging user SpaceXULA.

Yeah, people are starting to fabricate rocket engines with this technology. Paul Breed has done it successfully, as has the guy on the rocketmoonlighting.blogspot.com blog.

Here's the rocketmoonlighting guy's test of his Direct Metal Laser Sintering regen rocket motor:



Or maybe this run is better, since you can see the cooling channels:


You can see one of his earlier printed rocket motors:

[Jim]

  This could ALSO mean the beginning of the end for metal lathes, reamers, hydraulic metal and plastic molding, pressing, extrusion devices, and all traditional mechanical metalworking and plastic shaping and molding machines and tools. 
It could also theoretically mean that genuine mass-production of rocketboosters, spacecraft and components can be developed with minimal manpower, and with parts and hardware that can be defect free
(requiring no quality inspection by humans).

Not really.  3D only makes parts, there still is assemble and test.  And this goes for anything. 

Also, it doesn't guarantee defect free (no such thing) and still will require some quality inspection by humans.

You don't understand what it takes to make a launch vehicle or spacecraft if you think this will make them more mass producible.
Making brackets, fittings, boxes, parts for valves is not the issue.

[strangequark]

  This could ALSO mean the beginning of the end for metal lathes, reamers, hydraulic metal and plastic molding, pressing, extrusion devices, and all traditional mechanical metalworking and plastic shaping and molding machines and tools. 
It could also theoretically mean that genuine mass-production of rocketboosters, spacecraft and components can be developed with minimal manpower, and with parts and hardware that can be defect free
(requiring no quality inspection by humans).

Not really.  3D only makes parts, there still is assemble and test.  And this goes for anything. 
 Most NC machines are automated.  There is very littl ehuman involvement.

This wont change the space launch paradigm. 

Also, it doesn't guarantee defect free (no such thing) and still will require some quality inspection by humans.

Don't forget the part finishing too.

Yeah, overall it's a nice technology, and it has a lot of interesting applications, but it won't do away with traditional machining anytime soon. There is also a size limitation. Granted, that will probably increase over time, but you're never going to see primary structures printed. Can you imagine what an ET printer would look like ?

Good for small parts with complex geometries that benefit from being one piece. Turbine blades are a good example. Injectors and regen combustion chambers could probably benefit too.

I think the more exciting application, vis-a-vis spaceflight, is for eventual off-world use. Being able to print replacement parts for your machines may be pretty helpful for something like a moon or Mars base.

[Robotbeat]

In my post above, a regen rocket chamber is made using so-called "3D printing" technology. But it doesn't entirely replace all machining operations. In the image below, the blue and orange parts all represent areas where the regen rocket chamber needed to be threaded, since good threading requires much greater precision than 3d printing generally produces.

It's not impossible for 3d printing to create threads, but they're generally inferior to threads made if you use a tap and die set. Which is totally fine. It doesn't take that long to cut the threads.

Really, it's a quite interesting technology that we're just starting to see come into more practical use, but it won't replace traditional machine tools like lathes, etc. It's a good addition to them, not a complete replacement.

[kevin-rf]

Didn't we recently have another thread on 3D printing? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25091.0

Good for small parts with complex geometries that benefit from being one piece. Turbine blades are a good example. Injectors and regen combustion chambers could probably benefit too.

Um, aren't turbine blades mono crystalline?

Though, I will say the New Scientist article was interesting, and I was wondering how long before it would appear on NSF.

Btw. Hobbyist plastic 3D printers can now be had for under $1000 US. Google RepRap (http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page)

[strangequark]

Um, aren't turbine blades mono crystalline?

For the high pressure turbine in many jet engines, yes. However, there are other applications. I'm not intimately familiar with design requirements for LPTs, but I could see DMLS parts being acceptable, and easing manufacturing.

I do know for a fact that GE Aviation is doing R&D on where they could use DMLS.

[MP99]

There is also a size limitation. Granted, that will probably increase over time, but you're never going to see primary structures printed. Can you imagine what an ET printer would look like ?

Exactly my first reaction. But then I began to wonder about laying a tank down using a method similar to coil pots in clay (see attachment).

Start at the bottom of the tank, perhaps with a pre-formed sump. Place on a turntable, and use something akin to a printhead to lay a spiral of material, one very thin layer at a time. The head only needs to be as wide as the thickest element that needs to be produced. As the turntable rotates, the head lays a continuous layer, sintering as it goes. The head only needs to move radially from the axis (like the head on a hard disk drive) and upwards as more of the tank forms.

I presume a tank that is designed to support it's own + upper stage + payload weight while upressurised (ie not a balloon) could support itself through the assembly process, since it will be vertical and rotationally symmetric at all times. Obviously, it will need external support to hold it upright and ensure it maintains the correct shape during construction.

The "print head" would need some way to support elements that jut out from the basic structure between laying the powder and sintering, eg stringers etc. Perhaps the bottom dome could be supported from underneath by the "traditional" powder method while being formed. I believe that masonry domes can be constructed by adding one layer of bricks at a time which then become self supporting (circular structure in compression), so the same might apply for the top dome - only need to support a circular section where the rim is being formed. Alternatively, print the top dome upside down, then weld or sinter to the top of the otherwise complete tank.

The "print head" could also include instrumentation (ultrasound, x-ray, etc) to continuously check the structure as it is laid down.

Re the thrust structure where it joins to the domes / tank barrel, I wondered whether the cylindrical section could be formed first, then moved away whilst the dome is formed. Once the diameter of the dome matches the inner diameter of the thrust structure, place it concentric with the dome then add the layers to join the two structures together. This also becomes the structure that supports the tank walls as they are constructed above. This would probably require that the top dome / thrust structure be formed upside down with a short barrel section, then attached to the top of an otherwise complete tank.

cheers, Martin

[KelvinZero]

IMO the really staggering potential of 3d printing for space is the step towards self sufficiency using local resources. The amount of infrastructure we would need to put on the moon to build a simple washer or screw the way we do on earth would be staggering.

It is ironic that when we talk about space-age technology and materials we are usually talking about cutting edge technology that would be very difficult to manufacture anywhere but earth.

IMO learning to live self  sustainably on other worlds will be all about learning to use insitu resources to manufacture components  that may be quite shoddy, using quite labour intensive approaches, compared to what we can do on earth. They merely have to be good enough.

Building rockets is almost the last thing I would worry about. Once you are on the moon with access to heat, cold and volatiles there is an awful lot to explore and master before turning lunar resources towards rockets. Can we keep our lifesupport in repair? can we make a brick? An electric engine would be much more interesting to me than a rocket which is after all just a way to throw away lots of volatiles to go somewhere else when you have everything you need to live and grow right there.

[Tcommon]

...Now, according to an article in the science magazine, NewScientist (issue: July/30/2011), a recent type of industrial production called 3D printing (still in the experimental stage) promises to change everything according to Paul Marks (the journalist who wrote the story).

Bla. 3D printing this has been around for decades, including sintered metal processes.

A while back P&W had a blog release on J2X development that included a printed metal tube. They hailed it as a sterling example of the J2X's stunning application of new technology. The particular process they used has been around for over twenty years. They hired a jobshop to push a button and didn't even print the full size part - had to do some welding afterwards. Some amazing new technology there.

[JohnFornaro]

Decades?  I'm ordering my 3D printer next week.

Didja see the August issue of NTB, p.31?  The Roland MDX-540, starting at eight grand. 

[Lee Jay]

IMO the really staggering potential of 3d printing for space is the step towards self sufficiency using local resources. The amount of infrastructure we would need to put on the moon to build a simple washer or screw the way we do on earth would be staggering.

There's not much that's simple about a screw.  An ordinary grade-5 screw you might buy at a hardware store has rolled threads, a broached head, is hardened to a pretty high level, and is likely treated in one way or another to be corrosion resistant.  Making one using 3D printing will require an extreme level of precision, and several operations afterwards.

[JohnFornaro]

There is also a size limitation. Granted, that will probably increase over time, but you're never going to see primary structures printed. Can you imagine what an ET printer would look like :o?

Exactly my first reaction. But then I began to wonder about laying a tank down using a method similar to coil pots in clay ...

Are you in my mind?  Because I had a very similar idea: squirting out the coils of a regen nozzle along the proper profile.  Hadn't thought about the ET, tho.

The other idea I had was to grow the hull of a spacecraft, embedding sensors and ethernet, say, along the way.  I took embryonic growth as my model for this.  Then the drugs wore off.

It is the idea of printing small titanium parts, say, on a lunar base that would be quite useful.  But shoot, the technology would be the enabler of a whole nother industry here on Earth.  The inside visor clips on my '92 Volvo broke.  They're simply not available, that I can tell.  Wouldn't it be nice to temporarily glue the pieces together, scan them, tweak the part on screen, and have your printer make it?  I could make a new, improved map pocket for the passenger door.  The central console, including cd storage and a drink thingy which wouldn't spill on the cd's.  Fabricate a new seat belt retainer for the third seat.  Maybe other people have better ideas of stuff to make, but hey.  I'm prosaic that way.

[KelvinZero]

There's not much that's simple about a screw.  An ordinary grade-5 screw you might buy at a hardware store has rolled threads, a broached head, is hardened to a pretty high level, and is likely treated in one way or another to be corrosion resistant.  Making one using 3D printing will require an extreme level of precision, and several operations afterwards.

Um.. I don't doubt it

Maybe it would always be worth having a specialized machine just for screws at that. I guess a complex integrated circuit or solar cell might be easier than a screw.

[Robotbeat]

...An electric engine would be much more interesting to me than a rocket which is after all just a way to throw away lots of volatiles to go somewhere else when you have everything you need to live and grow right there.

Here ya go:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:11164
(Using 3d-printed parts and PCB, some magnets, and some steel washers)

[Robotbeat]

You wouldn't want to use a 3d printer to print things like screws or threaded rods directly, though those are definitely important parts of a 3d printer.

HOWEVER, you can print off a mini lathe with a 3d printer (plus you need threaded rods and bolts for some parts), with which it is possible to cut soft metals like copper or brass (with which you could build all the parts for another lathe, plus the 3d printed parts). With investment casting using 3d-printed molds (or making molds of the 3d-printed parts), you could make a much stronger lathe capable of cutting steel.


A 3D printer doesn't negate the need for a metal workshop, but it can help you make one. But a 3d printer doesn't negate the necessity for assembly and finishing.

I agree that tools like this are useful for helping to enable self-sufficiency.

[Moe Grills]

  This could ALSO mean the beginning of the end for metal lathes, reamers, hydraulic metal and plastic molding, pressing, extrusion devices, and all traditional mechanical metalworking and plastic shaping and molding machines and tools. 
It could also theoretically mean that genuine mass-production of rocketboosters, spacecraft and components can be developed with minimal manpower, and with parts and hardware that can be defect free
(requiring no quality inspection by humans).

Not really.  3D only makes parts, there still is assemble and test.  And this goes for anything. 

Also, it doesn't guarantee defect free (no such thing) and still will require some quality inspection by humans.

Though I didn't quite explain it well, yet I do agree that there will always be the need for a human (or humans) in the loop, but my prediction was based on the assumption of increasing
automation and correspondingly increasing reliance on software (assuming
the CAD-CAM software fits this acronym, QIQO.) in the decades to come.   

[baldusi]

  This could ALSO mean the beginning of the end for metal lathes, reamers, hydraulic metal and plastic molding, pressing, extrusion devices, and all traditional mechanical metalworking and plastic shaping and molding machines and tools. 
It could also theoretically mean that genuine mass-production of rocketboosters, spacecraft and components can be developed with minimal manpower, and with parts and hardware that can be defect free
(requiring no quality inspection by humans).

Not really.  3D only makes parts, there still is assemble and test.  And this goes for anything. 

Also, it doesn't guarantee defect free (no such thing) and still will require some quality inspection by humans.

You don't understand what it takes to make a launch vehicle or spacecraft if you think this will make them more mass producible.
Making brackets, fittings, boxes, parts for valves is not the issue.

All very true points. But part of what's amazing of direct printing, is that you can make parts that are impossible to machine, and thus can actually save assembly steps, unions and seals. Personally the current precision, finish and thermal treatment isn't even close to what's usually needed. But for things like manifolds, turbo cases, regen chambers and injectors, the technology is extremely promising. There's still the point that even if you invented a magical machine that can make perfect and tested rocket engines, you'd still have to do a lot of assembly, integration and testing of the whole stack. But if there's a machine that can do the whole chamber+injector, and a single manifold+turbo body, it would slash manufacturing costs.

[Downix]

Decades?  I'm ordering my 3D printer next week.

Didja see the August issue of NTB, p.31?  The Roland MDX-540, starting at eight grand. 

I'm just building myself a reprap, so I can experiment with various technologies.

[Downix]

There's not much that's simple about a screw.  An ordinary grade-5 screw you might buy at a hardware store has rolled threads, a broached head, is hardened to a pretty high level, and is likely treated in one way or another to be corrosion resistant.  Making one using 3D printing will require an extreme level of precision, and several operations afterwards.

Um.. I don't doubt it

Maybe it would always be worth having a specialized machine just for screws at that. I guess a complex integrated circuit or solar cell might be easier than a screw.

There is also a two-step process.  One of the more successful methods for producing such things with a 3D printer is not to print them directly, but to print a mold with which to cast them.  I know I'm planning on using that method for producing some parts.

[Rocket Science]

Paging user SpaceXULA.

Yeah, people are starting to fabricate rocket engines with this technology. Paul Breed has done it successfully, as has the guy on the rocketmoonlighting.blogspot.com blog.

Here's the rocketmoonlighting guy's test of his Direct Metal Laser Sintering regen rocket motor:



Or maybe this run is better, since you can see the cooling channels:


You can see one of his earlier printed rocket motors:

Somewhere in heaven Robert Goddard is smiling, slapping his knee and applauding…

[Rocket Science]

There's not much that's simple about a screw.  An ordinary grade-5 screw you might buy at a hardware store has rolled threads, a broached head, is hardened to a pretty high level, and is likely treated in one way or another to be corrosion resistant.  Making one using 3D printing will require an extreme level of precision, and several operations afterwards.

Um.. I don't doubt it

Maybe it would always be worth having a specialized machine just for screws at that. I guess a complex integrated circuit or solar cell might be easier than a screw.

There is also a two-step process.  One of the more successful methods for producing such things with a 3D printer is not to print them directly, but to print a mold with which to cast them.  I know I'm planning on using that method for producing some parts.

I could see it being all kinds of uses for mock ups or in the production of molds, tool and die making. For strength it’s hard to beat billet or forged parts and then CNC machining where necessary. Rapid prototyping really speeds up development with composite structures.
Robert

[Downix]

There's not much that's simple about a screw.  An ordinary grade-5 screw you might buy at a hardware store has rolled threads, a broached head, is hardened to a pretty high level, and is likely treated in one way or another to be corrosion resistant.  Making one using 3D printing will require an extreme level of precision, and several operations afterwards.

Um.. I don't doubt it

Maybe it would always be worth having a specialized machine just for screws at that. I guess a complex integrated circuit or solar cell might be easier than a screw.

There is also a two-step process.  One of the more successful methods for producing such things with a 3D printer is not to print them directly, but to print a mold with which to cast them.  I know I'm planning on using that method for producing some parts.

I could see it being all kinds of uses for mock ups or in the production of molds, tool and die making. For strength it’s hard to beat billet or forged parts and then CNC machining where necessary. Rapid prototyping really speeds up development with composite structures.
Robert

Direct Metal Laser Sintering rivals forging for strength, and is also a 3D printing process.  For parts like screws, it's overkill, but so is forged.  It depends on the demand.

As it is now, 3D printing is gaining cost effectiveness by leaps and bounds.  It is now only a matter of time before the incredible flexibility it offers will have it replace traditional manufacturing methods in low volume manufacturing, which the various space industries are very much part of.

[A_M_Swallow]

Direct Metal Laser Sintering rivals forging for strength, and is also a 3D printing process.  For parts like screws, it's overkill, but so is forged.  It depends on the demand.
{snip}

Just a side thought.  On the Moon and Mars there is no local wood so in practice screws means nuts and bolts.

[Jim]

Direct Metal Laser Sintering rivals forging for strength, and is also a 3D printing process.  For parts like screws, it's overkill, but so is forged.  It depends on the demand.
{snip}

Just a side thought.  On the Moon and Mars there is no local wood so in practice screws means nuts and bolts.

Just a side thought, another useless and inane post.

Screws are not just for wood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw

[Rocket Science]

There's not much that's simple about a screw.  An ordinary grade-5 screw you might buy at a hardware store has rolled threads, a broached head, is hardened to a pretty high level, and is likely treated in one way or another to be corrosion resistant.  Making one using 3D printing will require an extreme level of precision, and several operations afterwards.

Um.. I don't doubt it

Maybe it would always be worth having a specialized machine just for screws at that. I guess a complex integrated circuit or solar cell might be easier than a screw.

There is also a two-step process.  One of the more successful methods for producing such things with a 3D printer is not to print them directly, but to print a mold with which to cast them.  I know I'm planning on using that method for producing some parts.

I could see it being all kinds of uses for mock ups or in the production of molds, tool and die making. For strength it’s hard to beat billet or forged parts and then CNC machining where necessary. Rapid prototyping really speeds up development with composite structures.
Robert

Direct Metal Laser Sintering rivals forging for strength, and is also a 3D printing process.  For parts like screws, it's overkill, but so is forged.  It depends on the demand.

As it is now, 3D printing is gaining cost effectiveness by leaps and bounds.  It is now only a matter of time before the incredible flexibility it offers will have it replace traditional manufacturing methods in low volume manufacturing, which the various space industries are very much part of.

One of really truly innovative manufacturing aids to come along in recent times

[John-H]

Will it do to metalworking what the laser printer did to writing? We still have printing presses, and pens, but we use them less and less.

[Downix]

Just remember folk, something does not need to be better than the existing to win out.  Laser Printers were not better than a printing press, just a lot more convenient.  They were "Good enough" and that is all that is needed.  3D printers are rapidly approaching that "Good Enough" point for small scale work, and once the tipping point happens, it will ratchet upwards quickly.

[KelvinZero]

And most people wont pay any attention at all until some kid shoots another at school with a gun they downloaded off the internet...

[Andrew_W]

Expecting precision engineering from 3D printers is like expecting photo quality from 2D printers...

[Warren Platts]

Expecting precision engineering from 3D printers is like expecting photo quality from 2D printers...

Um, we've got that...

[Tass]

Expecting precision engineering from 3D printers is like expecting photo quality from 2D printers...

Um, we've got that...

My guess is that was his point.

We didn't in the beginning.

[DarkenedOne]

Just remember folk, something does not need to be better than the existing to win out.  Laser Printers were not better than a printing press, just a lot more convenient.  They were "Good enough" and that is all that is needed.  3D printers are rapidly approaching that "Good Enough" point for small scale work, and once the tipping point happens, it will ratchet upwards quickly.

First of all there is a problem with using the word better because what is better is highly subjective. 

Laser printers are able to print practically anything without reconfiguration.  This fact makes them ideal for limited production.  The printing press on the other hand was good for mass production.  For small productions it is cheaper to draw by hand than it is to use a printing press. 

Like laser printers 3D printers are able to make a vast array of parts in an automated fashion without reconfiguration.  3D printers will not replace all manufacturing lines like some have predicted because it cannot produce an item as cheaply in mass as many of our mass production factories.  Like the laser printer, the 3D printer, will have the largest effect on limited productions. 

Since the rocket business does not sell enough rockets to justify the high amount of automation in mass production lines, they will likely benefit  from 3D printing technology to some degree.

[Tcommon]

... Like laser printers 3D printers are able to make a vast array of parts in an automated fashion without reconfiguration.  3D printers will not replace all manufacturing lines like some have predicted because it cannot produce an item as cheaply in mass as many of our mass production factories.  Like the laser printer, the 3D printer, will have the largest effect on limited productions.

3D printers have and will have the largest effect on prototyping and development. I can email stl files and get the parts in one or two days. Functional parts. It's immensely valuable in rapid paced new product development. Another area it has value is for injections molded parts; before you cut a check for the $200,000 injection molding tool, it would behoove one to evaluate physical parts first, made off the same computer files the tooling will be made from.

Since the rocket business does not sell enough rockets to justify the high amount of automation in mass production lines, they will likely benefit  from 3D printing technology to some degree.

Valid point.

Rocket engines have thin margins. They use the best materials and the best fabrication techniques to address these margins. With printed metal parts you generally loose strength, accuracy, surface finish, the ability to use certain materials, and various other aspects of quality. Given this, a printed engine would be designed quite differently than current engines - but it's an intriguing idea. Space flight hardware typically pays huge premiums for small increases in performance. I wonder if this could do the opposite.

[kevin-rf]

Honestly, the greatest potential I see for 3d printing is in manufacturing that currently use CNC's to carve intricate parts out of solids blocks. While a 3d printer may not be as fast as a fully automated CNC (with 4th and 5th axis's and automated tool and material changers), the material cost savings will win out. You are no longer buying and sending back to the metal recycling yard the majority of the stock as chips. Instead you are only using the material needed to make the part (and maybe supports while the part is formed).

This all requires 3d printers to become cheap enough to operate and robust enough. Remember the CNC revolution did not happen overnight, it took time and in degrees. The CNC has complimented the machinist (not using the word replaced is deliberate), almost no one currently sends a complex design to a shop and has a machinist hand mill it. A CNC today is almost always involved in fabricating, or assisting the machinist in turning the part.

3d printing will be no different.

btw. Here is something to chew on, You may not want to turn bolts and nuts from a 3d printer, but with 3d printing it is possible to build the bolts into the part. For anyone that has had an impossible screw to place in an assembly, well it would be nice. Think about two flanges that go from 24 holes, copper gasket, 12 bolts, 24 washers, 12 nuts to 12 holes, copper gasket, 12 washers, and 12 nuts. Reduced part counts and paperwork!

[Warren Platts]

3D printing could be especially helpful in fabricating parts and even entire spacecraft at a place like the Moon. Chunks of nickel-iron meteorites would require minimal refining, and since its on the Moon (1/6 g) mass considerations would be secondary (ie. space craft could be built of steel instead of aluminum or titanium.

[john smith 19]

Laser metal sintering has been used to make the gears for F1 gearboxes with *minimal* finish machining. It's common to fabricate on a tank of metal or plastic flakes whose bottom is *lowered* to give support to the growing structure until complete. The flakes are flushed out and the free standing structure left.

Quite a lot of this sort of thing was looked at by GK O'Neils group at Stanford and NASA in the late 70's and early 80's. The ultimate idea was a "Self replicating factory" which could be landed on a moon or planet and *copy* itself (or switching over to totally automated production of stuff people wanted). See "Code of the Life Maker" for some amusing consequences of this.

How's *that* for ISRU?

I've seen claims that DARPA have run programmes to study this for repairing military hardware in the field. When you run a business as big as the US Army, operating world wide sending all those replacement parts out *really* starts to mount up.

If this sounds like an application of nanotechnology that's because KE Drexler was part of O'Neils group. Look at the group photo in "The High Frontier."

As others have pointed out this technology is *very* unlikely to displace conventional mass production. But being able to make one (or a few) of something from a common store of "stuff" can beat the hell out of a factory made part 180 miles away. Ask the people on ISS for example.

Note that like machining stuff from a solid block ("Hogging out" in aerospace terms) or some of the near net shape technologies like ring forging it scores at *integrating* lots of little subsidiary bits into 1 component. Armadillo Aerospace (for example) tend to machine all mounting flanges for their piping and sensor mounts as part of their tank and combustion chamber ends. Common practice is to weld them on *afterward* adding another process, more inspection and a join that is very *unlikely* to have full metal strength.  Once the CNC coding has been developed you can make as many of them as you like.

However some materials will *never* work using these systems. Making a single crystal will *probably* require the ability precise positioning on an atom by atom basis which is pretty slow with an atomic force microscope (but just *maybe* someone can devise a really neat hack to make multi-atomic blocks and speed up the process  )

Likewise materials that need a final stage heat treatment to give them most of their properties cannot be made this way *without* the heat treatment oven/furnace afterward.

However *within* the limitations there is a huge range of stuff that can either be done now or *could* be re-designed to operate *within* the limitations of the methods.

The limits are set by peoples knowledge and imaginations.

[kevin-rf]

However some materials will *never* work using these systems. Making a single crystal will *probably* require the ability precise positioning on an atom by atom basis which is pretty slow with an atomic force microscope (but just *maybe* someone can devise a really neat hack to make multi-atomic blocks and speed up the process  )

One option would be to print the part (in metal), and at same the time print the mold (in ceramic) around the part, melt the part, and through control of the cooling and insertion of a single seed crystal convert it into a mono-crystal.

Really, other than printers that print both metal and ceramic at the same time do not exist, it is no more complex than how current mono crystal parts are made. Of course saying production of mono crystal parts are simple to make is a bit of a stretch 

*Though I suspect the part surface finish would be a bit of an issue in applications that require mono crystal parts.

[RanulfC]

I think the most interesting "take" on 3D printing is the combination approaches being looked into, such as the "Hydra" here:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Hydra-MMM_Prototype

Such machines combine a 3D-printing function with a CNC-function where the printer does the general "form" and the CNC system then finalizes the detail for the final object.

Randy

[Robotbeat]

I think the most interesting "take" on 3D printing is the combination approaches being looked into, such as the "Hydra" here:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Hydra-MMM_Prototype

Such machines combine a 3D-printing function with a CNC-function where the printer does the general "form" and the CNC system then finalizes the detail for the final object.

Randy

Yeah, that is a neat approach.

One of the best parts of the whole "3D printer" sort of movement is that it gets a whole new generation in our country excited about machining and advanced manufacturing techniques, something that will be badly needed if we are to stay competitive in manufacturing while keeping wages high through high levels of automation.

[baldusi]

I think the most interesting "take" on 3D printing is the combination approaches being looked into, such as the "Hydra" here:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Hydra-MMM_Prototype

Such machines combine a 3D-printing function with a CNC-function where the printer does the general "form" and the CNC system then finalizes the detail for the final object.

Randy

Yeah, that is a neat approach.

One of the best parts of the whole "3D printer" sort of movement is that it gets a whole new generation in our country excited about machining and advanced manufacturing techniques, something that will be badly needed if we are to stay competitive in manufacturing while keeping wages high through high levels of automation.

My experience with a 4 axis CNC machine, is that once you use CNC, you need tool changer and 5 axis pallets. Else, you only increase the complexity of the part, but you improve very little the productivity (you might even hurt it). The beauty of 3D printer is exactly that: no tool changes and no fixture complications. Once you add a machining center, you're again in the old complication technology.
The other huge issue is that for 3D printing you only need to understand the limits on finish, minimum gauge, positioning, repeatability and minimum feature size. With machining, you have to understand feed speed, cutting edges and raking, coolant flow and positioning, fixture strategies and many more things. I would postulate that even threading is preferably done with a manual tap.

[jak42]

Is it possible to "print" a 3D part in ceramic or a ceramic-metal composite? If so, it might be possible to develop a thrust chamber with a ceramic liner or an all-ceramic thrust chamber.

[Downix]

Is it possible to "print" a 3D part in ceramic or a ceramic-metal composite? If so, it might be possible to develop a thrust chamber with a ceramic liner or an all-ceramic thrust chamber.

Yes, ceramics was one of the first things 3D printed in fact.

[sitharus]

Is it possible to "print" a 3D part in ceramic or a ceramic-metal composite? If so, it might be possible to develop a thrust chamber with a ceramic liner or an all-ceramic thrust chamber.

It certainly is for domestic purposes, see http://www.ponoko.com/make-and-sell/show-material/241-3d-printed-rainbow-ceramic for an example. I have no idea how well that'd scale to rocket engines though.

[kevin-rf]

Is it possible to "print" a 3D part in ceramic or a ceramic-metal composite? If so, it might be possible to develop a thrust chamber with a ceramic liner or an all-ceramic thrust chamber.

It certainly is for domestic purposes, see http://www.ponoko.com/make-and-sell/show-material/241-3d-printed-rainbow-ceramic for an example. I have no idea how well that'd scale to rocket engines though.

I suspect, a 3D printer technology needs to be developed that can print both ceramic and metal at the same time.

Don't 3D ceramic's need to be fired after printing? That might pose some issues for a ceramic/metal part.

[john smith 19]

However some materials will *never* work using these systems. Making a single crystal will *probably* require the ability precise positioning on an atom by atom basis which is pretty slow with an atomic force microscope (but just *maybe* someone can devise a really neat hack to make multi-atomic blocks and speed up the process  )

One option would be to print the part (in metal), and at same the time print the mold (in ceramic) around the part, melt the part, and through control of the cooling and insertion of a single seed crystal convert it into a mono-crystal.

Really, other than printers that print both metal and ceramic at the same time do not exist, it is no more complex than how current mono crystal parts are made. Of course saying production of mono crystal parts are simple to make is a bit of a stretch 

*Though I suspect the part surface finish would be a bit of an issue in applications that require mono crystal parts.

My point was that it would take an *additional* machine (in this case a fairly special furnace to generate a moving freezing front.

However if you're going to do something like this you can look at approaches that are not feasible with conventional casting and machining. For example an airfoil shell with cooling channels on venting onto it supported by network of closed cell metal "bubbles" like some chocolate bars, with different bubble sizes according to different stress levels within the blade.

I think one of the big lessons of learning to use this tech will be that the *economics* of additive Vs subtractive processes is different. Adding holes and air bubbles is *cheap* in this tech, expensive (or impossible) with more conventional approaches.

The 2nd question is can you use the system to build machines to post process you work or run parts through it again to do surface treatment (EG laser peening to improve surface strength) ?

Surface finish will likely be an issue as you trade raw material pellet size and heater head (hot element, laser etc) size for speed and resolution.

In this case post processing (EG electro-polishing) can make big improvements over the "raw" part.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
The 2nd question is can you use the system to build machines to post process you work or run parts through it again to do surface treatment (EG laser peening to improve surface strength) ?

Surface finish will likely be an issue as you trade raw material pellet size and heater head (hot element, laser etc) size for speed and resolution.

In this case post processing (EG electro-polishing) can make big improvements over the "raw" part.

I suspect that finishing can be performed better by CNC machines since they can rotate and other wise move the part.  Having two machines on the Earth is not a problem but may double the mass that needs delivering to the Moon.

Painting of cars etc. is frequently performed using machines that look like heavy duty robotic arms.

[JohnFornaro]

Saw this in Alumni News:

[go4mars]

Saw this in Alumni News:

What an excellent educational tool! 

[Downix]

{snip}
The 2nd question is can you use the system to build machines to post process you work or run parts through it again to do surface treatment (EG laser peening to improve surface strength) ?

Surface finish will likely be an issue as you trade raw material pellet size and heater head (hot element, laser etc) size for speed and resolution.

In this case post processing (EG electro-polishing) can make big improvements over the "raw" part.

I suspect that finishing can be performed better by CNC machines since they can rotate and other wise move the part.  Having two machines on the Earth is not a problem but may double the mass that needs delivering to the Moon.

Painting of cars etc. is frequently performed using machines that look like heavy duty robotic arms.

The main issue of CNC machines in this case is that they are subtractive, not additive, so mass is sent which is not used, a big no-no for rocket launching. 

[baldusi]

{snip}
The 2nd question is can you use the system to build machines to post process you work or run parts through it again to do surface treatment (EG laser peening to improve surface strength) ?

Surface finish will likely be an issue as you trade raw material pellet size and heater head (hot element, laser etc) size for speed and resolution.

In this case post processing (EG electro-polishing) can make big improvements over the "raw" part.

I suspect that finishing can be performed better by CNC machines since they can rotate and other wise move the part.  Having two machines on the Earth is not a problem but may double the mass that needs delivering to the Moon.

Painting of cars etc. is frequently performed using machines that look like heavy duty robotic arms.

The main issue of CNC machines in this case is that they are subtractive, not additive, so mass is sent which is not used, a big no-no for rocket launching. 

If I'm not mistaken, the idea of in situ manufacturing is to use local materials. Else, you'd ship the finished part from Earth. A 3D printer for doing most of the work might still need some machining for critical dimensions. For example, even after drilling or borings, you still use a reamer and/or a cylindrical grinder for certain critical holes (like the inside of an air cylinder,). Or an aerodynamic surface, for example.
In fact, you might even use the 3d printer to "print" the stock for the CNC machine.

[Robotbeat]

{snip}
The 2nd question is can you use the system to build machines to post process you work or run parts through it again to do surface treatment (EG laser peening to improve surface strength) ?

Surface finish will likely be an issue as you trade raw material pellet size and heater head (hot element, laser etc) size for speed and resolution.

In this case post processing (EG electro-polishing) can make big improvements over the "raw" part.

I suspect that finishing can be performed better by CNC machines since they can rotate and other wise move the part.  Having two machines on the Earth is not a problem but may double the mass that needs delivering to the Moon.

Painting of cars etc. is frequently performed using machines that look like heavy duty robotic arms.

The main issue of CNC machines in this case is that they are subtractive, not additive, so mass is sent which is not used, a big no-no for rocket launching. 

If I'm not mistaken, the idea of in situ manufacturing is to use local materials. Else, you'd ship the finished part from Earth. A 3D printer for doing most of the work might still need some machining for critical dimensions. For example, even after drilling or borings, you still use a reamer and/or a cylindrical grinder for certain critical holes (like the inside of an air cylinder,). Or an aerodynamic surface, for example.
In fact, you might even use the 3d printer to "print" the stock for the CNC machine.

Right, that's the best of both worlds. Very little wasted material, but very fine detail.

[Moe Grills]

Right, that's the best of both worlds. Very little wasted material, but very fine detail.

Just to clarify, the excess material leftover in any 3-D printing work/manufacture will almost certainly be recycled.

BTW, what awesome potential there is for this revolutionary manufacturing system/method if it were to be done on the Lunar surface; since the Moon is rich in titanium, aluminum, silicon, etc.;
elements that can be extracted, refined (by means already discussed on other forum topics)  & made available for 3-D printing work to make items like?
Solar panels? construction girders & sheetmetal? storage cylinders?  etc.

[catdlr]

On YouTube From NASA Langley

Uploaded by NASALANGLEY on Oct 3, 2011
Three dimensional printers are amazing technology. NASA uses them to make parts - or as in this sped up video - models for wind tunnels and other uses.

[Jim]

Solar panels? construction girders & sheetmetal? storage cylinders?  etc.

No,

Semi conductors (solar cells)  have unique pproperties
Sheetmetal is easier to make right after refining the metal
storage cylinders - not for high pressure and use sheetmetal for large ones.

3D printing advantage is in small parts/components.

[Nascent Ascent]

3D printing is also very nice for rapid prototyping (hence the name).  It can also be helpful in custom tooling and fixtures.  Small non-structural parts are also viable.

[MP99]

{snip}
The 2nd question is can you use the system to build machines to post process you work or run parts through it again to do surface treatment (EG laser peening to improve surface strength) ?

Surface finish will likely be an issue as you trade raw material pellet size and heater head (hot element, laser etc) size for speed and resolution.

In this case post processing (EG electro-polishing) can make big improvements over the "raw" part.

I suspect that finishing can be performed better by CNC machines since they can rotate and other wise move the part.  Having two machines on the Earth is not a problem but may double the mass that needs delivering to the Moon.

Painting of cars etc. is frequently performed using machines that look like heavy duty robotic arms.

The main issue of CNC machines in this case is that they are subtractive, not additive, so mass is sent which is not used, a big no-no for rocket launching. 

If I'm not mistaken, the idea of in situ manufacturing is to use local materials. Else, you'd ship the finished part from Earth.

There's an advantage carrying raw materials from Earth over carrying multiple spare parts that you might never use.

cheers, Martin

[Prober]

Think this story fits here as 3D printing is talked about in the story.

$5,000 Kit to Send Your Own Rocket to the Moon


http://news.yahoo.com/5-000-kit-send-own-rocket-moon-215401381.html;_ylt=AkqLD1NdkcyYXg3VfDwA86wPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTNtdm9zZjJoBG1pdAMEcGtnA2FhYjU1NzE1LTc4NGYtMzU1Mi04YjljLWVmOTdhNjAzOTY0NgRwb3MDOQRzZWMDbG5fU3BhY2VBc3Ryb25vbXlfZ2FsBHZlcgM2YzY0OGJiMC0yMmIxLTExZTEtYmViNy02ZTFmMmE5ZGEzMWE-;_ylv=3

[caveman]

Maybe in the future, with the right advancements in organ printing, we can just send the printers to other planets or Moons, to first build the homes, then build the astronauts.  Like in the 5th Element movie.  I would post a movie clip of the girl's body reconstruction, but not sure if it is appropriate.

[KelvinZero]

Maybe in the future, with the right advancements in organ printing, we can just send the printers to other planets or Moons, to first build the homes, then build the astronauts.  Like in the 5th Element movie.  I would post a movie clip of the girl's body reconstruction, but not sure if it is appropriate.

Looking very far ahead now, but another detail is that you need not even know how to build you people printer before you leave. If you have something that can build itself then it can probably build the machines that build the machines that build your people printer, once the technology emerges back on earth.

[JohnFornaro]

Looking very far ahead now, but another detail is that you need not even know how to build you people printer before you leave.

Well good then.  I already don't know how to do this.  Which means that I'm done, and ready to go...

[KelvinZero]

Looking very far ahead now, but another detail is that you need not even know how to build you people printer before you leave.

Well good then.  I already don't know how to do this.  Which means that I'm done, and ready to go...

Not quite,
You have to be able to build a copy of yourself. You would think this is something that humans already do pretty well. However so far we only know how to replicate astronauts on earth with access to a lot of resources we do not know how to export. Sending arbitrary amounts of food would just be like sending arbitrary amounts of complex machinery and spare parts, making the replication 'not the real thing'.

However this is in the unimmediate future and even the clunkiest replicator is a very different thing from a 3d printer. In the short term it is would certainly be exciting enough that a mission light-seconds or minutes from earth does not need to hold its breath while earth sends a tiny spare o-ring to repair the LS etc.

[sanman]

I read that Professor Behrok Khoshnevis of USC has been developing the approach of "Contour Crafting", which is a 3D printer big enough to build a house.


http://dailytrojan.com/2011/11/16/professors-present-project-to-build-lunar-structures/


They've been given a grant by NASA to research how to build lunar bases from regolith.

[JohnFornaro]

Not quite.  You have to be able to build a copy of yourself. You would think this is something that humans already do pretty well. However so far we only know how to replicate astronauts on earth with access to a lot of resources we do not know how to export.

This is getting pretty funny to me.

Not only do I think I know how to make a pretty good copy of myself, I already have made several functional, tho slightly different copies of myself, using only a gleam in the eye and simple in situ materials.  Right here on Erf.  True, the copies are "arbitrarily complex", but I thought that was a feature, not a bug.  Over time, they're getting less "clunky"; perhaps they too will make their own "spare parts".  They certainly appear "real enough" to me, but hey; I still flat out don't get a lot of stuff.

Bottom line is that actually, I do know how to "print" people; it's pretty common knowledge, despite the fact that I still don't know how to do one or maybe two other things; my knowledge being very nearly complete and all.  So... I guess my work here is finished?  I'm ready to go...

[Danderman]

http://mycommonsensepolitics.net/index.php?view=article&catid=43:space-policy-private-public-politics&id=3069:nasa-looks-to-3d-printing-for-spare-space-station-parts&tmpl=component&print=1&page=


NASA Looks to 3D Printing for Spare Space-Station Parts

Launch $1-billion-worth of spare parts to the International Space Station, and you can keep Earth's orbital outpost going for another decade. Send up some 3D-printing devices, and you invest in the ability to build everything on demand in space: space-station parts, astronaut tools, satellites, even spacecraft.

A first step toward space factories may come from NASA's recent selection of a U.S. startup's proposal to build a 3D printer for the space station. Such printing technology could build any number of objects, layer by layer, based on designs uploaded from mission control. Astronauts would only need "feedstock" material, such as plastic or metal, to make new tools or spare parts on the fly.

"When a tool breaks, at the very worst the space-station crew calls Houston and says, 'Send us a CAD (computer-aided design) file of that tool,' and they'll be able to 3D-print it," said Jason Dunn, chief technology officer and cofounder of Made in Space, Inc. "Ideally, one day they'll be able to design it themselves."

Made in Space came out of Singularity University — a school for startups aimed at solving the world's biggest problems. It chose to locate itself at the NASA Ames Research Park in Moffett Field, Calif., near Silicon Valley.

The founders estimate that printing parts in space could reduce the structural mass of objects by at least 30 percent, because the objects would not need to survive Earth's gravity or the extreme G-forces of launching into orbit aboard a rocket.

"Our long-term goal for 3D printing is to actually build functioning spacecraft," Dunn told InnovationNewsDaily. "A Cubesat (miniature satellite) could be built with the machine we are designing for the space station in the next several years."

First, the company must create a 3D printer that works well in the seemingly weightless conditions of space. It used past NASA funding to test a prototype and several commercial 3D printers during two hours worth of stomach-churning aircraft dives meant to simulate microgravity. Such printing runs led to the world's first tool — a small wrench — ever printed in partial gravity.

The tests eventually convinced Dunn and his team to go with their own custom printer design. They plan to focus on an extrusion printer capable of building objects out of plastic polymers, but say that the printer could still make a huge number of the space station's $1-billion-worth of spare parts.

"We think that one-third of those parts could be built using the machine we're building right now," Dunn explained. "We're starting with polymers because they're extrusion-based, and in some cases we're starting to produce our own space-qualified polymers."

The company's Small Business Innovative Research proposal — submitted with Arkyd Astronautics, Inc. and NanoRacks, LLC — makes the project eligible to receive up to $125,000 in NASA funding sometime next year. If all goes well with upcoming parabolic and suborbital flight tests, Made in Space could see its first 3D printer reach the space station by 2014.

[Robotbeat]

Yup, filament deposition 3d printing (i.e. all the inexpensive consumer/hobby 3d printers you see out there... down to $500 for a 3d printer!) works even upside down, so it should work just fine in microgravity (thermal considerations would be different, but just stick a couple fans on it).



It will be important to make sure toxic fumes aren't created and that there's not too much of a fire danger. But there really is no reason why this couldn't work quite well.

[KelvinZero]

Not quite.  You have to be able to build a copy of yourself. You would think this is something that humans already do pretty well. However so far we only know how to replicate astronauts on earth with access to a lot of resources we do not know how to export.

This is getting pretty funny to me.

Not only do I think I know how to make a pretty good copy of myself, I already have made several functional, tho slightly different copies of myself, using only a gleam in the eye and simple in situ materials.  Right here on Erf.

Exactly. so first we must figure out how to produce alcohol or in your case a small bottle of chloroform on mars? ;-)
But really I meant all the other infrastructure you would need on mars before a minifornaro becomes a competent astronaut able to maintain all that infrastructue for another generation. Its massive.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}It will be important to make sure toxic fumes aren't created and that there's not too much of a fire danger. But there really is no reason why this couldn't work quite well.

If the process does produce toxic fumes it is worth remembering that the one thing LEO does have is a strong vacuum only feet away.

[baldusi]

People forget how different is having an atmosphere and gravity. The problem with machining is that it creates lots of suspended particles in air. And many machining methods make use of both gravity and machining, not only for material removal, but for temperature egress as well. The additive processes might generate less particles, but I'm sure some are generated. And you usually need an atmosphere for transmitting heat. If you worked in vacuum, it would take a lot longer to cool each layer. But you'd also now have most particles suspended without any gas to move them around.
Space is hard!

[Cinder]

If not with fluids, how about magnetically?  For magnetized materials anyway.

[Robotbeat]

People forget how different is having an atmosphere and gravity. The problem with machining is that it creates lots of suspended particles in air. And many machining methods make use of both gravity and machining, not only for material removal, but for temperature egress as well. The additive processes might generate less particles, but I'm sure some are generated.

Nope. Not filament deposition. Cleaning up the pieces makes some, but they're big pieces (like stringy filaments). Just have a fan and a filter to collect them.

The powder-based systems wouldn't work so well in microgravity.

Space is hard!

Yup. Operating in vacuum would be likely more difficult for most processes.

But it actually works a lot better for some processes, like electron beam welding which allows fully-dense parts (powder-based processes are usually not fully-dense, thus aren't as good as the parts made with this vacuum process):


Operating in vacuum is actually partially why EBM is expensive. In space, it's expensive NOT to have a vacuum.

[kevin-rf]

Operating in vacuum is actually partially why EBM is expensive. In space, it's expensive NOT to have a vacuum.

Since the parts are something shirt sleeve astronauts will need to have access to, yes it will be.

You will still need the chamber, access, and then extra safeties to make sure you don't vent to vacuum while loading/unloading/ and servicing the chamber. The only cost savings is the pumps, but you are replacing them with valves and extra safety devices.

[Danderman]

Made in Space Selected for NASA Contract to Develop ISS 3D Printing Capability

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/11/30/made-in-space-wins-nasa-contract-to-develop-iss-3d-printing-capability/

Made in Space, Inc. has been selected for a NASA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract to develop in-space 3D manufacturing capability for the International Space Station. No terms have been released, but NASA says that SBIR agreements are typically funded for six months at amounts of up to $125,000.

The 3D system, called the Additive Manufacturing Facility, “will allow for immediate repair of essential components, upgrades of existing hardware, installation of new hardware that is manufactured, and the manufacturing capability to support commercial interests. Additive manufacturing is the process of building a part layer-by-layer, with an efficient use of the material. The process leads to a reduction in cost, mass, labor and production time,” according to Made in Space’s proposal.

The facility will allow NASA, other government agencies, and companies the ability to build what they need on-demand—whether it be hardware, spare tools, a small CubeSat, or even in-space fabricated 3D art. Key initial NASA applications include:

    Safety and emergency repair solutions, giving astronauts a much-needed contingency plan,
    ISS repair and life extension,
    Ability to build broken parts on demand, increasing reliability and capability to legacy experiments,
    Hardware on-demand, including the capability to build spare parts, tools, laboratory equipment such as syringes, modular laboratory configurations, and more,
    Science experiment building and repairing,
    Exploration research, building the research needed for such a facility to be used on long duration space flight missions,
    Spacecraft assembly and check-out.

As part of this proposal, Made in Space, Inc., combined with the mission experience of Arkyd Astronautics, Inc. and NanoRacks, LLC, will develop an Additive Manufacturing Facility for the ISS that will enable on-board manufacturing capability. The crew would be able to utilize the AMF to perform station maintenance, build tools, and repair sections of the station in case of an emergency. The AMF will use an extrusion-based “3D printing” method, which Made in Space has already tested in zero-gravity with successful results (Summer 2011), and is scheduled to do sub-orbital testing in 2012 as part of NASA’s Flight Opportunities Program.

The first-generation AMF will be contained and operated in an 8U of the NanoRacks® payload system. It will be capable of producing components from a variety of space-rated composites. Later generations will have the ability to produce parts with space-grade metals. This versatility will allow for a variety of components and devices to be manufactured, enabling the mentioned uses to be applicable as well as unforeseen uses to be developed.

[Robotbeat]

Operating in vacuum is actually partially why EBM is expensive. In space, it's expensive NOT to have a vacuum.

Since the parts are something shirt sleeve astronauts will need to have access to, yes it will be.

You will still need the chamber, access, and then extra safeties to make sure you don't vent to vacuum while loading/unloading/ and servicing the chamber. The only cost savings is the pumps, but you are replacing them with valves and extra safety devices.

I wasn't thinking of doing it the way you describe. I was imagining using the experiment airlock, which is already available, to transfer finished parts from outside the station to inside. Heck, you may be able to print in the airlock itself, which might allow easier access. The airlock is already there, and all large space station or large exploration vehicles are already likely to have an airlock plenty big enough.

It's just an idea. I'm sure there are complexities hiding there, but it is an option.

[A_M_Swallow]

Operating in vacuum is actually partially why EBM is expensive. In space, it's expensive NOT to have a vacuum.

Since the parts are something shirt sleeve astronauts will need to have access to, yes it will be.

You will still need the chamber, access, and then extra safeties to make sure you don't vent to vacuum while loading/unloading/ and servicing the chamber. The only cost savings is the pumps, but you are replacing them with valves and extra safety devices.

Parts for the Laura rovers and mining equipment may never need to come inside.

[JulesVerneATV]

3D Printing Technologies Pave the Way for Moon and Mars Construction

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/3D_Printing_Technologies_Pave_the_Way_for_Moon_and_Mars_Construction_999.html

NASA is pushing the boundaries of construction technology to support long-term human exploration of the Moon and Mars. By focusing on in-situ resource utilization, the agency aims to reduce the need for costly Earth-based supplies. The Moon to Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technology (MMPACT) project, funded by NASA's Game Changing Development program and managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, is leading this charge.

[BN]

additive manufacture x oscillating heat pipes. solving structure and thermal together would improve spacecraft in general by ~20+%. this is now feasible with metal 3d printing

however, very difficult to merge these departments

[Twark_Main]

oscillating heat pipes

Can you elaborate on this?  That's not a term I am familiar with.

[russianhalo117]

Risks with additive manufacturing:

[edzieba]

Risks with additive manufacturing:

Similar risks with other manufacturing methods, e.g. brazed-tube, or anything involving welding or deposition processes (e.g. channel wall construction). Whether laser-melted powder in a vacuum chamber or a handheld torch & braze rod in shirtsleeves, introduced defects can result in catastrophic failure. One advantage of layer-based AM in this regard is you have the opportunity to perform full cross-section inspection of the entire volume of the part during manufacture.