How 3D Printing Could Help Keep the ISS In Orbit 200
Despite all the best intentions and meticulous overengineering, some of the equipment on spacecraft like the ISS inevitably breaks. An anonymous reader poses the question "Why carry out a very expensive launch into space to resupply the ISS, when astronauts could just manufacture replacement parts themselves?" Startup Made in Space is working on a space-oriented 3D printing system to make it easy to transmit the information needed to pop out complex shapes (as might be in delicate mechanical systems), but the founders are also talking about using 3D printers to jump-start construction if humans extend their presence from the Earth to other planets (or revisit the moon).
Materials (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Materials (Score:5, Informative)
With 3D printing there is little to no waste. That's why it's called additive manufacturing.
The bigger issue is finishing, most 3D printed parts will need some. I'm sure they don't want metal or plastic filings floating around in the ISS, so that could be tricky.
Re:Materials (Score:5, Interesting)
There can be a lot of waste, depending on the part that is being printed. Fill material and the chemicals required to dissolve it would account for a majority of the waste.
Re: (Score:3)
Metal particles made into a thick paste with some glue or other thick liquid that vaporizes nicely, melted into place with a laser.
Make supports to places that need it with the same metal and cut them off with the same laser once the piece is complete.
Probably all the pieces would be things like clips, pins, struts, ect... Nothing that requires a bunch of run off bits that require support when making.
Re: (Score:3)
With 3D printing there is little to no waste. That's why it's called additive manufacturing.
The bigger issue is finishing, most 3D printed parts will need some. I'm sure they don't want metal or plastic filings floating around in the ISS, so that could be tricky.
Just do what I do when I don't want to cleanup sawdust or shavings in my house, just pop outside.... oh right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Additive manufacturing, or accretion printing, isn't wasteful. But having the ability to recycle printed parts back into raw plastic would be the big issue in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we only recently have tons of material up there? Aluminum, plastics, all sorts of good stuff. But no, we just flew it back to put in a museum.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we only recently have tons of material up there? Aluminum, plastics, all sorts of good stuff. But no, we just flew it back to put in a museum.
Yeah! Let's strand half a dozen people in orbit with a big pile of incompatible parts. That'll extend the life of the ISS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better to launch the stuff off the moon into an orbit where a station can capture it for manufacturing.
A multi-country project (US, EU, Russia, China, India) could enforce the power ceilings and trajectory controls on the launcher to prevent it from becoming a gun pointed at the Earth. Maybe a Far Side launcher with each country harboring takedown weapons pointed at the muzzle, in case they didn't approve a shot.
Moon is a harsh mistriss much? (Score:2)
Tell me, how do you prevent the luneys from firing an under-weight projectile at your limited energy?
The fact is that if you build it you will have to hold it, it is a weapon.
Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I like the general concept here, but it isn't much more sustainable than sending up supplies.
you still need to send up the raw material.
now cool would be to make 3Dprinters work with materials refine-able from the surface of the moon or mars.
instead of sending a new probe every few years, send a "Maker"
it would have two parts.
gatherer and a factory(with the 3Dprinter).
transmit the new plans and away it goes.
just thinking and rambling
call it Thrambling
Re:Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The main advantage would be to reduce the amount of spare parts they need to keep on hand in case they need them in a hurry. Additionally broken parts could possibly be melted down and reused.
I've actually read some old NASA studies for taking the external tanks to a space station, melting them down and using the aluminium to build new structures. Obviously building girders or whatever is rather different to building complex mechanical or life support components.
Re:Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
I've actually read some old NASA studies for taking the external tanks to a space station, melting them down and using the aluminium to build new structures.
Another old idea was to use the external tank as storage/habitable/engineering structures.
That main tank weighs more and has more usable space than the max capacity of the shuttle.
It's a crying shame that we spent a few decades bringing them to the edge of orbit, then letting them burn up in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth considering that they had a bit of hydrazine still inside, so they weren't exactly ready for human occupation...
Re:Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Cut a hole in one end for the airlock/docking unit. Leave it open to space for a month, and the hydrazine problem should mostly evaporate.
If there's still a bit of worry, then cover the hole, fill the tank with LOX and light a match, then repeat the "open to space, wait a month" thing.
All this assuming, of course, that they had hydrazine in the LOX/LH2 external tank, which they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
D'oh you're right, I thought it contained hydrazine X-(
Re: (Score:2)
Reusing the external tank gives you a shell but none of the guts. You still need power, insulation, temperature control, air purification and furnishings to make it habitable. All of this would have to be installed in space in zero-G. Its not obviously cheaper than constructing equivalent modules on the ground and putting them in orbit using one or more launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might be easier to have another machine to recycle the material back into spools of filament (although I don't think recycling plastic is so simple as melting it down).
Re: (Score:3)
(although I don't think recycling plastic is so simple as melting it down).
that is completely dependent on the type of plastic you are using
Re: (Score:2)
Would a waste plastic extruder interest you? http://www.appropedia.org/Waste_plastic_extruder [appropedia.org] It takes waste plastic and makes filament usable for extruding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the general concept here, but it isn't much more sustainable than sending up supplies. you still need to send up the raw material.
Which could be included on the regularly-scheduled crew launches, like food. Having a stock of material on board means that if some part breaks, it's likely fixable without an extra unscheduled launch, which is currently a very expensive option.
Re: (Score:2)
We also have to consider material type. You can't make a rubber gasket, or a hose.
And you need to control for particulate waste from the machine.
Not that we shouldn't send one, but lets recognize the limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
Gaskets are more of a 2-D problem, send them a Crikcut :)
Hoses are surprisingly interchangeable. It's the fittings that are all the trouble. those are often fabricated onsite on Earth, and it might eventually be worth sending up a tool one day.
Re: (Score:2)
The linings of the hoses are not necessarily interchangeable, depending on what the hose carries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Newton would like a word with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Newton would like a word with you.
Why? It's not like Newton had much to do with thermodynamics as we currently understand it, assuming you were talking about perfect recycling.
Even then there's nothing I know of in the laws of thermodynamics that prevents such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
now cool would be to make 3Dprinters work with materials refine-able from the surface of the moon or mars.
instead of sending a new probe every few years, send a "Maker"
Yeah, it always seems cool until it becomes sentient and starts firing rocks at us...
Re: (Score:2)
The chances of that are a million to one. But still....
Re: (Score:2)
"The Cylons were created by Man.
They were created to make life easier on the 12 Colonies.
And then the day came when the Cylons decided to kill their Masters.
After a long and bloody struggle, an armistice was declared.
The Cylons left for another world to call their own.
A remote space station was built where Cylon and Human could meet and maintain diplomatic relations.
Every year the Colonials send an officer.
The Cylons send no-one.
No one has seen or heard from the Cylons in over forty years."
Six: "Are you ali
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention uninhabited areas were picked and plenty of warning was given.
Mycroft
Re: (Score:2)
One advantage is that the raw supplies are inherently able to withstand the flight up there, so no investment has to be made into over-engineering the parts to survive being shaken to pieces by a rocket.
The question I had is how the polymers they're using behave in vacuum; they'll almost certainly outgas like crazy. How strong/durable do the parts remain after a given amount of time in space? What about UV light? I'd love to see them do some materials testing before sending an expensive printer up only to f
Re:Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Volatile Organic Compounds are a huge problem in any sealed environment. Not only are there human health effects, but the effects on some delicate instruments and machinery can be quite severe. This is why there is a very tight list of approved materials that can be used for construction in human-rated space equipment.
That whole "new-car smell" is pretty toxic when that's all you're breathing.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like the people who make space capsules are experienced in making sealed subcompartments in which a gassy process can operate before yielding its products to the human occupied spaces.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they just don't serve Chili, Cabbage, KimChi, TomYam etc on the ISS.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the parts would probably be used inside the shielded and pressurized compartments.
The more universal challenge is the lifecycle performance (including during manufacturing) of the formation of the polymer materials in microgravity, and in orbital stresses.
Re: (Score:3)
The point here isn't improvement in sustainability; it's a foregone conclusion that the ISS and fledgling extraterrestrial colonies aren't sustainable.
This is about JIT manufacturing and resupply. If something breaks, they likely need the replacement part NOW, not whenever the next Soyuz can happen to float past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self-sufficiency is not the same thing as sustainability. Yes, it increases self-sufficiency, but no, it doesn't improve sustainability as defined in the environmental context.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you are shipping up a spool of feed material wire (a la MakerBot), or even powder cartriges, then they'll likely be able to better tolerate a brutal high-g launch than delicate, precision tuned parts manufactured on earth. Now you can use linear induction launch methods (rail gun launchers) and high-g launch systems to more cheaply get the raw materials into orbit, and transform them once they're up there. Plus, its very likely you'd save on packaging overhead (less padding & whatnot), loweri
Re: (Score:2)
"Computer - tea, Earl gray, hot."
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, you'd be sending up big tanks of binder, and using the abundant regolith of the moon to create solid objects.
Unfortunately, this would only be appropriate for making a small minority of the kinds of things you need on a lunar colony. You could use i
Re: (Score:3)
I like the general concept here, but it isn't much more sustainable than sending up supplies. you still need to send up the raw material.
Absolutely wrong. It is far more efficient to just send up blocks of various materials, ala printer cartridges, instead of trying to predict when and how often specific parts will fail and need to be replaced.
You could send up 10 type A widgets, 10 type B widgets, 8 type C widgets, and be absolutely screwed should your 8th type C widget die while you still have 9 type A widgets collecting space dust... or you could just send up the equivalent weight of raw materials and print up whatever widget you need as
Replicate itself (Score:2)
It could even manufacture and assemble another 3D printer if the need be, what could go wrong?
Let's get rid of the formalities here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's get rid of the formalities here... and call it what we are all thinking it is... A REPLICATOR. (albeit a very basic one, but still...)
Unless of course there is a "royalty" fee attached to calling something that replicates items a REPLICATOR...
Re:Let's get rid of the formalities here... (Score:5, Funny)
For the love of GOD I hope you're talking about the Star Trek kind, not the Stargate kind of Replicator.
Re: (Score:2)
try asking one of those things for a cup of tea...
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what you ask for, it keeps giving this strange liquid that tastes almost entirely unlike tea. Trying to explain the concept to it, but it's requested the aid of Eddie and all systems have shut down. Just as a Vogon constructor fleet is attacking. Damn.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get rid of the formalities here... and call it what we are all thinking it is... A REPLICATOR. (albeit a very basic one, but still...) Unless of course there is a "royalty" fee attached to calling something that replicates items a REPLICATOR...
No, it's not a replicator. Main reason is that it is extruding metals and plastics to print; while a replicator would work at the atomic level using only energy to make the device; probably utilizing quantum mechanics to control the energy flows and make the desired atoms. Yeah, replicators are still far beyond us.
Base materials (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Base materials (Score:4, Informative)
This. And it's something proponents of 3D printing regularly miss - there's more to a physical part than just it's shape. Things like conductivity, strength, creep resistance, reactivity, etc... etc.. matter. They matter a great deal, and it's why the ISS isn't all made of a single material to start with.
The counter to this argument is that you have to lift the parts too... but that leads to *another* thing that many people that have commented so far are missing - time. It takes time to print the part, while a spare can simply be unwrapped and installed straight away. With 3D printing, your MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) goes way, way up.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming, of course, that you have the spare part in site, this is true.
On the other hand, if it has to be delivered by Soyuz, you might be waiting for a while. Months, perhaps...
Note that for operations farther from Earth, being able to make spares from generic materials is a major advance - instead of thousands (tens of thousands) of spar
Materials and Energy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are the materials that 3D printing is capable of using able to stand up to the tasks required of them?
It has been my understanding that most of the materials used are plastic, and not just any plastic will do, and
metal parts (if even possible) are simply not the same as cast and machined parts, either in strength or
precision.
Further this is done with powdered media, which will require advanced containment in a weightless environment, and a fair amount of power to operate the equipment. These machines aren't small enough yet to launch and install easily, so getting it there would be a problem.,
Further, the media plastic needs to be replaced often, sifted and cleaned/recycled.
In the final analysis, given the state of the art of 3d printing, I suspect it would be cheaper to launch each part as needed than it would be to launch a fresh batch of media to make each part.
Then there is the whole issue of the real value of the ISS, which has largely become a Russian playground with
no real mission, and the service life was planned to end in 2015, recently extended to 2020. The Russians want
to extend it to 2028 [space-travel.com], with nothing but a pie in the sky mission statement.
Re:Materials and Energy? (Score:5, Informative)
They're starting to use 3d printing in aircraft parts because they can print more complex, lighter and stronger shapes with the printers. This is being done with metal.
However, I've absolutely no doubt that the machines that are doing it are not the sort of thing that you'll be able to put on the ISS.
The moon, on the other hand, that's something worth considering.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of those printed parts are still machined after the fact, because in many cases you need smooth, flat, round, toleranced, etc. geometry to interface with with parts. Using 3D printing of metal is a faster and cheaper way of doing low-volume prototype and production than casting, but cast parts are rarely used straight-from-the-mold.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's true and false at the same time...
In many cases the reason they're printing them in the first place is because they *can't* be machined the way they want, so machining after the fact isn't an option.
This is an example, not actually being used in production as far as I know; but the idea is that it will be.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38352/?mod=MagOur [technologyreview.com]
However you're right about the tolerance and smoothness. The part I linked and others like it don't need to be perfect around the edges
Better, Stronger (Score:2)
Printing 3D in metals has been around for a long time - it's just more expensive then printing in plasic.
Materialise makes a 3D printer that can print titanium hip replacements. Because it can print in 3D it can replicate the structure of bones (i.e. lots of small holes) - So you get something lighter without diminishing strength.
3D printing without gravity? (Score:2)
Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to be pendantic (Score:2)
then you would note that even if they weren't in orbit of a planet or the Sun, there would still be gravity because everything with mass exerts a gravitational force. So there is gravity attracting the astronauts to the spacestation and to one another.
Note how this indulgent exposition added so little to the discussion. Hmmmm.
Becasue (Score:2)
you need to take the material with you any ways? 3d Printers don't create something from nothing.
That said, ans a universal tool to hedge against running out of some unplanned for part, then it's a good idea.
Better if it can use material found at the locate we go to, saw Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool and all.. (Score:3)
The ISS is super cool - the idea of a permanent human presence in near-space is awesome. However, it's kind of a colossal waste of money, in terms of hard science done per dollar spent. I don't think there's a single experiment done up there that couldn't be done autonomously. I don't think we're learning much more about living in space that hasn't already been explored in Skylab or Mir.
If the point of the ISS is to inspire people, then the mission should have been more inspiring, instead of parking people in orbit for a while, which has already been done. How about sending components to the moon to build an orbital spaceyard? Launching deep-space missions from the moon would be much more efficient, if we can manage to get the machinery up there.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole point of the ISS is to develop techniques for long term manned presence in space. Just sitting there staring out the porthole goes a long way to doing that. You don't need to do 'science'. Learning what materials work and don't work, how to fix things (a biggy), how to build things, the boring mechanics of just supplying the thing for years and keeping the crew sane - that's important.
The Russians are apparently fond of space rated duct tape for repairs. A 3D printer that was space rated could
not everything is plastic... (Score:5, Interesting)
I realize that with the activities of the "for the children!" Groups out there that it is easy to presume everything is made of plastic these days, but this simply isn't true.
I would be willing to bet money that the vast majority of the innards of the ISS's superstructure is mostly made from 2024 or 7075 aluminum alloy, sprayed with hexavalent cromium primer.
Those are the two most commonly used aluminum alloys used in aerospace fabrication (I make prints citing them all the time at work), and for strength reasons these need to be heat treated in most circumstances after being formed or milled. A powder or paste based prototype printer just won't be able to produce these alloys, because the desired mechanical properties are a result of the metalurgical crystaline structures present in them after annealing and heat treating. That is, unless you want to ship a whole annealing oven and solution heat treatment system up there... (just so you know, that equipment isn't light.)
For composite materials, conventional heat shaped plastics are not common either. Usually a thermally cured resin material is used, such as with phenolic, or with carbon fiber composite. Doing thse in space would be a nightmare, since not only do you deal with a sticky, honey like liquid with toxic fumes, and the curing oven, you also need a vacuum bag machine and the finished product must be sanded, creating tiny (toxic) particles to float around the ventilation system.
I could see a prototype maching puking out ceramic paste parts prior to electric kilning, or plastic parts, but not the main structural parts made from alloy or composites.
I don't see the justification for the added launch expense of bringing one and its consumables along.
OP needs to think this through a bit more... (Score:4, Insightful)
The OP asks, "Why carry out a very expensive launch into space to resupply the ISS..." and the answer is pretty simple...
It's expensive to boost mass up into orbit. 3D printers take raw materials to print with. It's either send up the raw materials for the 3D printer to use, or send up the finished product, and pay for that launch. One could I suppose harvest space junk and asteroids and use that material, but that's not going to come cheap either.
Note, this is the truth of the ISS. Something like a base on Mars or the Moon, that's another story. Then it's worth figuring out how to utilize the local resources to feed a 3D printer.
Why not send up a CNC? (Score:2)
What I didn't see was a good explanation of what the most common spare parts needed were? What exactly wears out? Can those broken pieces even be safely swapped out in the first place?
All that said, a CNC and a carefully picked set of raw chunks of aluminum should work. Sadly though, you'd have to wear out a lot of parts before you could justify the weight versus an equivalent weight of spare parts.
Lastly, given that the ISS is a manned station, it will see regular resupply every several months. I just
Re: (Score:2)
No joke!
A cnc machine is built heavier than big momma's fat ass, and for a good reason! They are built to be as heavy as possible, so that the accoustic vibrations and mechanical actuator movement inside will not jack with table and spindle positioning in a meaningful way. (They weigh so much that it takes epic shittons of energy to move them. That's the point.)
They are made that way so the machine can have the .001 inch and tighter machine tolerances required for aerospace.
They weigh several tons, even for
In space, no one can hear your scream (Score:3)
What's in a name (Score:2)
...presence from the Earth to other planets...
I suppose those other planets would be "the Mars" or "the Venus." I know, it's pedantic, but good grief I how I do hate that article when used in front of the name of our planet.
Not posting AC because, well, that would be cowardly despite the negative votes I will get, for both "off-topic" and "troll."
Launching Space Manufacturing (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if this project isn't necessary (or more useful than alternatives), it is totally worth doing for its own sake. The ISS should launch the era of space based manufacturing. That R&D will give us a huge jump into issues of microgravity and orbital mechanics, as well as 100% recycling/reuse of manufacturing byproducts. But it will also move forward both automated and remote manufacturing, especially of short-run items, that will improve manufacturing here on Earth.
It will give us a reason to exploit the nearby near-vacuum, and other local environment resources (eg. direct solar - in large quantities, but also causing very high temperature gradients in light/shade). Hard radiation and solar wind could help us make things that are impossible or prohibitively expensive on Earth. And it will also create demand for harvesting planetoid resources, whether the Moon, asteroids or other interplanetary matter. Which will bootstrap the further exploitation of the solar system.
Space-based manufacturing is how we should make the things that we disperse around the solar system, instead of launching the matter out of Earth's gravity well. We should be launching only what we need to make devices that make things. We should be able to transmit data and instructions for making new machines, some of which will take new data and instructions for making newer machines. Some of these machines can be very large - like other orbital stations, or other probes to launch. We should get started making things in orbit that can be landed on the Moon to start a base there, exploiting Lunar materials for further manufacturing.
And all of these improvements will bring better manufacturing back to Earth, even if only in lessons learned.
The ISS was worth doing for its own sake. What an achievement! It inspires the world. But now that it's largely completed, it should be our platform for projects that aren't an end in themselves. Moving humanity's tool use into effective use and occupation of the extraterrestrial neighborhood will be a vast dividend that will never stop paying us back.
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, no matter how much you rant about 'Space Nutters', the term will never catch on. It's only function is as an indicator that the user of the term (a set with a population of one) is a monomaniacal and inflexible obsessive.
Recursion. (Score:2)
Imagine a 3D printer that can print itself! Wouldn't that be great?
But, why stop there? Let us say the 3D printer that can mine raw materials to be used as "ink"! But the source material could be different in different planets. So it would just carry the logic and print itself the proper attachment suitable for each environment. But the 3D printer itself is made up of the ink. So one 3D printer can "eat" another 3D printer and recycle the material. May be th
Would this actually get used? (Score:2)
Let's get a list from NASA of All the Things That Have Broken on the ISS (they like lists, I'm sure they have one), and ask, "How many of these things could we have made with a 3d printer?" I'm betting the answer is "not many".
When the plastic blade of a ventilator fan breaks, a 3d printer has got you covered. When a SDRAM chip gets fried or a tungsten heater filament inside a sealed vacuum tube melts, you're screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The raw materials will weigh more than the finished product. Therefore, it's more expensive to launch a block of material than it is to launch the smaller, lighter component made from that material.
Not when a rocket launch costs, say, $50,000,000 whether you send one kilogram of parts or five tons of parts. If something has to be replaced tomorrow and you don't have a spare, then you can't wait until the next scheduled supply flight.
Re: (Score:2)
OR
you could...
manufacture parts on the moon, launch them into HEO without any fuel, assemble them and presto, new space station.
You're really not thinking this through. You could send a automated mission to mars, the moon, an asteroid and build a suitable habitat or a return vehicle with fuel all there. The mission could be launched a year before and have the destination all ready for inhabitants.
Ohh and btw, raw materials are never heavier than the finished products. Do you suggest that we somehow creat
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it tastes filthy! Here take this cup back!
Earl Grey, (Score:2)
Or maybe that is the wrong sci-fi metaphor, you were thinking Hitchhiker's Guide? But if I remember, the Star Trek replicator made a cup of tea no problemo, but in the Hitchhiker's universe, making that nice, hot cup of tea blue-screened the ship's computer and got them into a spot of trouble?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm continually amazed by how many things from 'Star Trek' appear in everyday life...
You think 'Star Trek' invented the idea of a machine that could assemble things from raw materials?
I'm pretty sure I've read 50s SF stories which incorporated them, if not earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they want to use any of the resin methods, I hope gravity isn't as essential as it once seemed for these to work properly. What I've seen essentially hardened liquid resin, and seemed to rely on gravity to hold the part 'down' so it didn't drift around. A space model might fab the part with an anchor embedded into the bottom of the vat I suppose. Then all ya gotta do is empty the vat and pull the part.
But the subtractives essentially create a lot of loose waste. You may not fully appreciate how much
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how many resins can survive the extremes of space. Extreme temperature shifts, extreme radiation, extreme impacts by the occasional solar flare, extreme manoevers to avoid space junk, and extreme singing by drunken Russian cosmonauts any time the smuggle vodka on board.
Re: (Score:2)
Inside-out. In orbit there's only microgravity, and whatever you simulate by centrifuge. A 3D printer on the ISS would probably work most naturally by adding sequential shells to a starting kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to use a powder. Some use filaments of plastic which are then melted and placed one tiny piece at a time. I'm sure gravity's a factor but there's some chance those could operate on just adhesive and cohesive forces. Some others use a liquid that hardens when hit with a UV light, again once the base of the object being printed is secure it might be possible to use that kind of printer without gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way I can stick glue to a ceiling?
Re: (Score:2)
Sticky things stick. They might even stick better in low-g... you might be able to build outwards, not just up.
Re: (Score:2)
We started building the ISS from existing orbiting stations in 1988 [wikipedia.org]. Of course parts started needing replacement immediately, since the base components were already in use for quite some time in one of the most extreme environments for machines (including launch). But of course after nearly a quarter century more replacement parts are needed.
These are all some of humanity's greatest successes. Even when there are failures, as is inevitable in any human work, fixing them under such difficult conditions is a
Re: (Score:2)
Getting the prototype running is trivial. Getting the prototype running to the point of producing space-grade materials --- that's something else altogether. This is something that is often forgotten. Space-grade materials are bloody expensive to make. They're not the parts you buy at your local DIY store. They have to survive extreme temperature variations and high radiation levels* for prolonged periods without any deformation or degradation. It's one thing to move the astronauts during a solar flare, but