The first object manufactured in space.

[Aethon]

It's funny how the most paradigm changing events can sneak up on us with relatively little fanfare. Up until now, every object that humans used in space has been launched there, but the ability to have items in space and at home on demand, without costly shipping charges and space launches will change the world.

One question I had for someone more 'in the know' than I ( everyone ): Is there any benefit to using these processes in the vacuum of space, as opposed to inside the ISS? Perhaps the rapid cooling of materials or other processes I'm not aware of? How would molten materials, used in these and future processes react in vacuo?

I was thinking a future evolution of the process might benefit if the machine had access to the vacuum.

Reflections, comments, discussion.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/open-for-business-3-d-printer-creates-first-object-in-space-on-international-space-station/index.html

Edited November 26, 2014 by Aethon
Clariity. Sorry *Aqua*

[*Aqua*]

Is there any benefit to using these processes in the vacuum of space?

Not really, except you can manufacture everykind of object when you need it.

Actually they just tried if it's possible in space. There is the idea to build a Moon base with 3D printers out of Moon regolith. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[lajoswinkler]

This is truly a historical thing and the public barely knows about it. :/

[John FX]

I`d guess the benefit is you just have a few kilos of base material that you shape into whatever you need. If you have to take one of each thing that could break it would weigh a lot more.

I`m not sure the material would be stronger, my guess would be maybe even weaker but it`s the shape you need when you need it.

[xenomorph555]

Well... it isn't the first thing made in space, but is the first 3d printed item.

[Ikaneko]

Well... it isn't the first thing made in space, but is the first 3d printed item.

Indeed: history has been made on several occasions in space.

[Rakaydos]

I`d guess the benefit is you just have a few kilos of base material that you shape into whatever you need. If you have to take one of each thing that could break it would weigh a lot more.

I`m not sure the material would be stronger, my guess would be maybe even weaker but it`s the shape you need when you need it.

Best case is to have a cement-3d printer on a moon or asteroid base, where you can fill out 90% of your building material with local resources.

[Bill Phil]

Interesting.

Can't wait for 3d printed engines in space. *crosses fingers*

[sgt_flyer]

well, currently we only have 3d printed injectors for rocket engines or 3d printed combustion chambers (superdracos) let's refine the techniques on earth before trying to print them in space

but for sure, it will be an interesting day when we'll be able to create rocket engines / fuel tanks on demand in space (maybe from extracting the resources from an asteroid) - then you'll only need to send up the electronic components (especially if you also extract the fuels in space)

sending up only electronics would require much less payload mass than sending a full spacecraft

Edited November 26, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[Scotius]

Engines, solar panels, some batteries, radio, CPU, RAM...and you have first satellite made and launched in space This is it, folks - history is happening now, above our heads

[kerbiloid]

What's harder to launch: one kilogram of plastic mass or one kilogram of plastic details?

Btw: where are they going to keep thousands of plastic ponies and dinosaurs?

[Bill Phil]

What's harder to launch: one kilogram of plastic mass or one kilogram of plastic details?

Btw: where are they going to keep thousands of plastic ponies and dinosaurs?

What has more potential? A set of already built tools? Or a chunk of material of equal mass?

The chunk of material has more potential.

[RainDreamer]

I wonder about the reliability of those 3D printed objects when reliability is such an important aspect of instruments, tools, and components to be used in a spacecraft.

[kerbiloid]

What has more potential? A set of already built tools? Or a chunk of material of equal mass? The chunk of material has more potential.

Daily routine expendables as tapes, caps, cushions would be kept ready-made anyway  not to print them every minute, but to take from a box as many as you need.

Screws, nuts, nails  would not be printed plastic.

Some special non-standard details anyway would be designed and issued on Earth, so not are a one minute-readiness thing.

So looks like just as "we have a 3d printer - why not test with it on orbit?".

[Bill Phil]

Daily routine expendables as tapes, caps, cushions would be kept ready-made anyway  not to print them every minute, but to take from a box as many as you need.

Screws, nuts, nails  would not be printed plastic.

Some special non-standard details anyway would be designed and issued on Earth, so not are a one minute-readiness thing.

So looks like just as "we have a 3d printer - why not test with it on orbit?".

This is just the beginning. There's still much to do do,

[Streetwind]

What's harder to launch: one kilogram of plastic mass or one kilogram of plastic details?

Btw: where are they going to keep thousands of plastic ponies and dinosaurs?

Ah, but this is the beauty of it...

Not only is it easier to launch that one kilogram of plastic mass, but it's also recycleable. If they printed thousands of plastic ponies and dinosaurs, and suddenly discovered that they really need a plastic Kerbal right now, they can just throw some of the ponies and dinosaurs into a shredder and reuse the plastic to print Kerbals.

That has obvious implications for launch costs: did a 3D printed tool just break? Shred it and re-print it out of its own material. No need to launch a new tool with an expensive cargo rocket, or wait tool-less until said rocket arrives. It's this easy recycling of spare and wear parts that really saves money and complexity in the long run.

[KerbMav]

I wish I had had a 3D printer in my Lego era ...

[Lukaszenko]

I wonder about the reliability of those 3D printed objects when reliability is such an important aspect of instruments, tools, and components to be used in a spacecraft.

Reliability is important in space because if a part breaks, you're hundreds (millions?) of kilometers, tens-of-thousands of kilometers per hour, weeks/ months, millions/billions of dollars away from a replacement.

If only there was a way to print a replacement part on the spot

[RainDreamer]

Reliability is important in space because if a part breaks, you're hundreds (millions?) of kilometers, tens-of-thousands of kilometers per hour, weeks/ months, millions/billions of dollars away from a replacement.

If only there was a way to print a replacement part on the spot

I thought the more pressing concern for astronauts using those part would be "Will this thing cause an explosive decompression and kill us all if it failed?" rather than how much it cost to get a similar part to space.

[monstah]

I`d guess the benefit is you just have a few kilos of base material that you shape into whatever you need. If you have to take one of each thing that could break it would weigh a lot more.

I`m not sure the material would be stronger, my guess would be maybe even weaker but it`s the shape you need when you need it.

My guess? The materials we print today on Earth will pretty much be the same when printed on space. However, we may figure out we can print DIFFERENT kinds of material in space (say, cristalline structures too delicate to assemble in gravity, or something like that), and THOSE could be a revolution.

Daily routine expendables as tapes, caps, cushions would be kept ready-made anyway  not to print them every minute, but to take from a box as many as you need.

Screws, nuts, nails  would not be printed plastic.

Some special non-standard details anyway would be designed and issued on Earth, so not are a one minute-readiness thing.

Ah, but plastic printers don't work solely on plastic. There's metal 3D printing too. I'm no expert, can't say about the structural integrity of printed metal vs. molten or whatever, but they'll probably test until they find the right stuff for each need.

Edited November 27, 2014 by monstah
broken quote AGAIN

[prophet_01]

Printed metal pieces are used in some experiments for motors in the car industry. Siemens also did some interesting tests with it to mass produce customised products, basically individual pieces for every single customer without the regular increase in costs. They plan on using that kind of stuff for medical equipment. The low number of parts and the fact that you need a huge number of different tools in this area is what makes the maintenace that expensive. I would love to share the articles I used for the essays I wrote on this last year, but unfortunatly the most interesting stuff was in german only :/ In economics this is basically the introduction of the "long tail" concept by anderson to the industry. It offers huge potential

[jfull]

I had this idea that the best way to study life on Europa (if we discover any) without any cross contamination would be to set up a manned outpost on another one of Jupiter's moons.

If the outpost could refine local materials, they could start designing and sending their own robotic missions to Europa. Instead of taking years to reach its destination (which would be awful if the vehicle failed), vehicles launched from the outpost would reach Europa in just a few days, allowing scientists to study the lifeforms at a much more rapid pace.

3d printing would be a necessity for producing components without dozens of pieces of specialized equipment.

[Lukaszenko]

I thought the more pressing concern for astronauts using those part would be "Will this thing cause an explosive decompression and kill us all if it failed?" rather than how much it cost to get a similar part to space.

Obviosuly there's that also, but realistically how many parts' malfunction would cause a catastrophic spacecraft failure? I'm willing to bet there's orders of magnitude more parts whose failure would, right now, at least give you some time to think about your imminent doom.

Currently, EVERYTHING on a spacecraft has to have ridiculous reliability. If you can easily fix it and it's failure won't certainly kill you, that requirement is removed. Of course, you will always have parts whose failure will kill you. The solution is simple: continue to engineer those parts not to fail.

[SciMan]

TBH I think the best use of a 3D printer on a space station is to allow them to print out mounting brackets for holding non-critical things in places that other non-critical things were designed to go. As well as similar light duty non-critical "mostly structural" tasks. As few moving parts as possible, but if it needs to bend, that can probably be made to work ("live hinge" technique).

Basically, being able to turn a smartphone bracket mount into a tablet bracket mount just by 3D printing the appropriate adapter. Not like a tablet or smartphone coming loose inside the station is going to kill anyone.

Even if it did happen, chances are it would be found against the grate over the intake for the life support system's CO2 scrubber/dehumidifier. That's where pretty much all things end up if left free floating in a space station. That works even if it happens to be a person who fell asleep without tethering themselves (IIRC, that has actually happened).

[m4rt14n]

Steps to Conquer Space:

1. Capture an asteroid and bring it on a stable moon orbit.

2. Launch a self-replicating robotic miner/foundry/3D-printer

3. Mine the asteroid and make multiple robots from number 2

4. Create a giant Space Factory and Shipyard using the robots

5. Assemble Orion Project Generation Colony Ship

6. Explore, Colonize, Conquer