3D printer for space

[DarkenedOne]

You know I was reviewing the basics of 3D printing technology or more specifically extrusion based 3D printing technology. 

Personally I do not see why we could not say take a Makerbot and run it on the ISS with little or no modification. 

If we could do so than we could then use it to make many simple things like brackets and things of that nature. 

Does anyone see any problems with the technology that would make it difficult to adapt to spaceflight.

[A_M_Swallow]

Any machine that uses gravity as part of its operation will not work in space.  Liquids will have to be pumped.  Powders will have a tendency to fly off.  Very high temperatures, such as needed to melt most metals, will cause problems for the ISS's cooling systems.

[QuantumG]

http://madeinspace.us/

[Pedantic Twit]

http://blog.reprap.org/2009/10/printing-in-space.html
http://reprap.erikdebruijn.nl/files/research/NASA%20as%20user%20innovator%20-%20WPMicrogravityFDM.pdf

[ptolemy1977]

Any machine that uses gravity as part of its operation will not work in space.  Liquids will have to be pumped.  Powders will have a tendency to fly off.  Very high temperatures, such as needed to melt most metals, will cause problems for the ISS's cooling systems.

That is why the space station should have an artificial gravity attachment.  If we used an inflatable attachment designed with minimizing cost in mind we could have space borne manufacturing I believe.

[DarkenedOne]

Any machine that uses gravity as part of its operation will not work in space.  Liquids will have to be pumped.  Powders will have a tendency to fly off.  Very high temperatures, such as needed to melt most metals, will cause problems for the ISS's cooling systems.

That is what we are discussing.  The Makerbot and other extrusion based 3D printers do not use gravity as far as  I can tell.  They do not use liquids.  They do not use powders.  They use moderately high temperatures, but I could imagine it would be a problem for the cooling systems of the ISS.

[Jim]

That is why the space station should have an artificial gravity attachment.  If we used an inflatable attachment designed with minimizing cost in mind we could have space borne manufacturing I believe.

Huh?  Then why be in space if gravity is needed?

[baldusi]

I know some systems require hard vacuum. I wonder if a system could be found that actually takes advantage of microgravity to do 3D printing. I know, for example, that hard vacuum is quite a problem due to heat management issues. In manufacturing, you usually want to be able to cool your pieces. Be because you are cutting and thus generating heat, or because before you can add a new layer you need to cool off the previous one. Having vacuum means you're basically annealing (crystallizing) everything.

[Prober]

I know some systems require hard vacuum. I wonder if a system could be found that actually takes advantage of microgravity to do 3D printing. I know, for example, that hard vacuum is quite a problem due to heat management issues. In manufacturing, you usually want to be able to cool your pieces. Be because you are cutting and thus generating heat, or because before you can add a new layer you need to cool off the previous one. Having vacuum means you're basically annealing (crystallizing) everything.

future "nano" level printers are being worked on, and major changes in feed stocks will open up, so in vacuum might be useful.

[Prober]

Any machine that uses gravity as part of its operation will not work in space.  Liquids will have to be pumped.  Powders will have a tendency to fly off.  Very high temperatures, such as needed to melt most metals, will cause problems for the ISS's cooling systems.

That is what we are discussing.  The Makerbot and other extrusion based 3D printers do not use gravity as far as  I can tell.  They do not use liquids.  They do not use powders.  They use moderately high temperatures, but I could imagine it would be a problem for the cooling systems of the ISS.

From my way of thinking ground support in the EVA's when they must make new tools out of stuff in stock and be replaced with uploading the design from earth to the Iss print and use.

Extruding ABS plastic or PLA, is very very strong.  Only issue I see might be the “fumes” during the process but this isn’t impossible.   It’s something a good NASA project would be good to work the issues out.

This model “sells Mendel” is currently obsolete and many years old.  This testing was done while under the Univ in London. 

[Blackstar]

Personally I do not see why we could not say take a Makerbot and run it on the ISS with little or no modification. 

What's the fire risk? What about particulates floating out of the machine?

And what would you actually use it for? What specific things would it make that are required? What is their mass compared to the mass of the machine? What are the trades of bringing up the machine vs. simply launching the parts that you need on the next cargo flight?

I know you don't know these answers, but I'm raising them just to show the issues.

[Robotbeat]

Nano racks is flying a 3d printer to ISS, I believe.

[Prober]

Personally I do not see why we could not say take a Makerbot and run it on the ISS with little or no modification. 

 What are the trades of bringing up the machine vs. simply launching the parts that you need on the next cargo flight?

Once they can get the bugs out....this could become a means of "savings" to operations of the ISS.   As an example I think about the recent knob that Suni broke while working in one of the projects.   

Think of the logistics involved in replacing that knob.  Logistics on earth getting that one knob up to the ISS for replacement. 

Further down the line the feedstock rolls of abs filament would become a consumable.  A creative use might be to combine it as part of the packaging program for ISS resupply.   ABS is a very strong material that won’t crush giving material inside the circle of ABS feedstock.

[A_M_Swallow]

Personally I do not see why we could not say take a Makerbot and run it on the ISS with little or no modification. 

What's the fire risk? What about particulates floating out of the machine?

And what would you actually use it for? What specific things would it make that are required? What is their mass compared to the mass of the machine? What are the trades of bringing up the machine vs. simply launching the parts that you need on the next cargo flight?

I know you don't know these answers, but I'm raising them just to show the issues.

Then do the trades for the Moon and Mars.  On planets we can use local materials.  The break even point for mass and money is likely to be just over the mass of the printer and mining equipment.  On Mars it can eliminate a reorder delay of several years.

[KelvinZero]

Personally I do not see why we could not say take a Makerbot and run it on the ISS with little or no modification. 

And what would you actually use it for? What specific things would it make that are required? What is their mass compared to the mass of the machine? What are the trades of bringing up the machine vs. simply launching the parts that you need on the next cargo flight?

I know you don't know these answers, but I'm raising them just to show the issues.

I think this is asking the question backwards.

If you knew the specific part that would break, of course you would prefer to have a replacement from earth.

Instead of asking what component on the ISS a 3d printer could reproduce, perhaps we should be asking the engineers who design each component (especially of a future BEO ISS) to, where possible, design their prototypes to a similar machine.

Finally in my and other's opinion, the goal of HSF is not exploration but to 'bring the solar system into the sphere of humanities economic activity" and "establish a permanent human presence beyond earth orbit". So ISRU and self sufficiency (including manufacturing our own parts) are what it is all really about. They are the goal itself. Therefore whenever anyone suggests such toys don't help current missions, this suggests we are currently not performing the right missions.

[QuantumG]

I'm wondering if anyone on this thread has actually used a 3d printer.

I have, once or twice, and only make-shift amateur ones.

The big design constraint appears to be somewhat gravity-related. I can imagine printing things in zero-g that could only be printed on the ground with difficulty.

Is there an expert opinion available?

[rdiaz]

I would think that pretty much you are constrained to FDM-type technologies like the Makerbot, building layers of molten plastic over a receding surface. Not much of a fire hazard overall I think. The problem is that even with gravity this is not the most precise of approaches and forget about any load bearing use of your part. Nevertheless it would be awesome to fly one of these and study warping factors, build orientation, etc. Additive manufacturing will make it to space and this would be a cool starting point. Other neat machines like Stereolithography or Laser Sintering (which could make metallic parts) would be worthless in microgravity.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip} Other neat machines like Stereolithography or Laser Sintering (which could make metallic parts) would be worthless in microgravity.

A small device can be rotated to simulate gravity.

[A_M_Swallow]

A variety of 3D printers are likely to be needed in aerospace.

a. A very high precision 3D printer.
b. A very large 3D printer.
c. A 3D that is both large and has a very high precision.  (derived from both a and b.)
d. A 3D printer that uses regolith.

[Prober]

A variety of 3D printers are likely to be needed in aerospace.

a. A very high precision 3D printer.
b. A very large 3D printer.
c. A 3D that is both large and has a very high precision.  (derived from both a and b.)
d. A 3D printer that uses regolith.

could you define aerospace?   my thinking atm is to use the space lab the ISS to perfect a 0G printer and grow from there.