Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Thursday September 11 2014, @10:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the made-in-space dept.

NBC News reports:

When the first 3-D printer designed to work in weightlessness is sent up to the International Space Station, as early as next week, it will mark one small step toward a giant leap for manufacturing in outer space.

"Imagine if you're going to Mars, and instead of packing along 20,000 spare parts, you pack along a few kilograms of 'ink,'" NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman said in a video recorded in March before starting his stint on the station. "Now you don't even need to know what part is going to break. You can just print out that part. ... I really like that, and it'll be fun to play with that in orbit."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Blackmoore on Thursday September 11 2014, @10:39PM

    by Blackmoore (57) on Thursday September 11 2014, @10:39PM (#92155) Journal
    So - this Space station gets a working 3d printer; and the next one will get one that can only print "region 1 certified, and copywritten" models..
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by looorg on Thursday September 11 2014, @10:56PM

    by looorg (578) on Thursday September 11 2014, @10:56PM (#92159)

    So you lug this 3d printer and "ink". I can think of at least two issues: The printer breaks or you loose power. Then what? How are you going to get more spare parts to fix the problem? Or is this that instead of brining all the spare parts you bring some spare parts or a second or third printer? Will the 3d printer come with some kinda handcrank and a burning flame for when you loose power? A burning flame on a spaceship sounds like a horrible idea. But at least the astronauts will have fun in orbit while playing around with their printed toys, and that is what matters.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 11 2014, @11:03PM

      by c0lo (156) on Thursday September 11 2014, @11:03PM (#92161) Journal

      The printer breaks

      This is what the bubblewrap and duct tape are for (grin)

      or you loose power.

      Well, you are properly screwed then... especially on a space station.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @11:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @11:18PM (#92167)

      The printer breaks

      You're still increasing your reliability. You would have to encounter two failures in order for the system as a whole to be disabled: one in the printer, and one on the station. In the system they have now, only one malfunction on the station can cause an issue. Even if the printer fails, they're no worse off than they would've been prior to the printer. They have to wait for a launched part to fix a printer, instead of waiting for a launched part to fix the station.

      This is assumes that the 3D printer has the capability to print more parts than it itself contains, otherwise it's probably a net loss.

    • (Score: 1) by WolvesOfTheNight on Friday September 12 2014, @01:02AM

      by WolvesOfTheNight (4704) on Friday September 12 2014, @01:02AM (#92196)

      Your arguments apply to just about any important equipment they might take into space; that has not stopped them from taking important equipment. If they have no power at all they are in big trouble with or without the 3D printer. If the 3D printer is critical they would need to include enough power for it in the redundant backup power systems. And, yes, if they plan on using printed parts to fix the printers then they would bring a 2nd printer. Maybe they would even plan on using the printers for stuff other than spare parts - like fabricating tools on demand instead of trying to plan for every possible tool they might need. That would really help justify taking several printers.

      Sure, the things are often over hyped. But when it is exceptionally slow & costly to get spare parts they are something to consider even if they only cover a few percent of your part needs.

      Having said that, this article reminds me of The Necessary Thing, by Robert Sheckley. It is a cautionary tail about the dangers of basing your entire repair plan on a single do-it-all fabricator, especially one with an attitude.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 12 2014, @01:12AM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 12 2014, @01:12AM (#92200) Journal

      That isn't even the main objection I have to the story.

      The idea that we can print anything is still a myth. Plastic parts, toys, novelties, maybe.

      But anything that has to withstand extreme stress and cold, followed by intervals of extreme heat, just isn't going to happen in real space flight. Every bolt on every part of every space vehicle is specified to the nats ass and you want to replace it with a printed replica made of plastic or at best a matrix of plastic and powdered metal?

      We are decades away from that capability.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday September 12 2014, @01:25AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 12 2014, @01:25AM (#92208) Journal

        Every bolt on every part of every space vehicle is specified to the nats ass and you want to replace it with a printed replica made of plastic or at best a matrix of plastic and powdered metal?

        So what? That level of review doesn't actually make the vehicle any more reliable. There's a certain degree of review that makes sense, for example, what is commonly practiced in commercial aircraft maintenance (which I might add achieves a higher level of reliability than NASA does). Past that, it's just sending money to the appropriate congressional districts.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 13 2014, @03:26AM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 13 2014, @03:26AM (#92659) Journal

          It has nothing to do with reviews. It has everything to do with engineering standards based on how much torque the bolt can take, how much much of a load it can take before the head snaps off, as well as how much sheer load it can withstand, and how it does at several hundred degrees below zero.

          Engendering most certainly does make the vehicle safer.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday September 13 2014, @07:40PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 13 2014, @07:40PM (#92793) Journal

            Sure. Which is why I brought up processes and engineering standards that work better at that than what NASA currently implements.

            It's also worth noting that much of the ISS is a shirt sleeve environment and doesn't need a high standard of performance.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:37AM

              by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:37AM (#92885) Journal

              That's because every bolt and fastener was engineered to over kill standards of durability.
              Just because they (NASA and the other contributors) make it look easy, doesn't make it so.
              Nothing up there holding that place to was easy.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 15 2014, @09:12PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 15 2014, @09:12PM (#93643) Journal

                There's a lot of stuff up there that doesn't have to meet those sorts of standards of durability. This sort ofapproach is a dead end because it makes everything so expensive that you can't afford to do it enough times to make it reliable.

                • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 15 2014, @09:46PM

                  by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 15 2014, @09:46PM (#93655) Journal

                  Agreed, not everything needs high durability parts, but when you start carrying another complex, heavy, power hungry machine to handle things that break all too easily, you have to start thinking about the possibility that the 15 cents saving in bolt price isn't likely to ever pay off.

                  If you NEVER need to replace something, because they used a SAE J429 - Grade 5 bolt instead of a 12 cent cheaper SAE J429 - Grade 1 bolt, there is no way you can hand waive that into a "dead end".

                  It would be different when we can print with any material, but that's a long way off.

                  --
                  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                  • (Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 15 2014, @11:43PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 15 2014, @11:43PM (#93720) Journal

                    that the 15 cents saving in bolt price isn't likely to ever pay off.

                    More like $15,000 than 15 cents. You're not just paying for the screw or the mass of shipping the screw, but the entire bureaucracy sludge that has to sign off on that screw and all that extra work needed to get that screw into place. I think what I have the most trouble with here is the sheer innumeracy of NASA supporters. Orders of magnitude difference in cost mean nothing to them. Similarly, neither does outcome. It's better to have a screw with a lot of sign offs on it in orbit than actually doing anything useful in space.

                    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:53AM

                      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:53AM (#93835) Journal

                      You got that bureaucracy sludge whether you use the cheap bolts or the extensive ones. They will be a little less nervous and picky choosing the one known to be engineering certified.

                      But, I'll do you one better. Lets assume it was $150,000 more for quality bolts.

                      Now go with the cheap bolts, and launch a 3D printer for less than that.
                      Same Sludge.
                      Can't win for losing.

                      --
                      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                      • (Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:21PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:21PM (#94277) Journal

                        It depends how many bolts there are. It sounds like they're speaking of tens or hundreds of kilograms of material plus the cost of whoever they need to sign off on that stuff before it leaves Earth. Meanwhile $150k probably can put 50 kilograms in orbit with Dragon, should it become viable. That should be able to put a 3-D printer in orbit with some starting material for making bolts.

                  • (Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:34AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:34AM (#93793) Journal

                    I may have been too harsh in my previous reply, but the ISS cost just to complete construction (ignoring its subsequent operating costs) somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 billion plus keeping the Shuttle going for another 30 billion in cost. These costs aren't there just because someone uses a better bolt. Even if SpaceX drives the cost of access to the ISS down, it's probably going to be several thousand dollars per kilogram just to put anything in the ISS.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Geotti on Friday September 12 2014, @04:23AM

        by Geotti (1146) on Friday September 12 2014, @04:23AM (#92265) Journal

        If they take an EOS up there, it'll be fine. Some people print heavy duty stuff [spacex.com], you know?

      • (Score: 1) by lentilla on Friday September 12 2014, @07:39AM

        by lentilla (1770) on Friday September 12 2014, @07:39AM (#92312)

        Every bolt on every part of every space vehicle is specified to the nats ass

        Quite correct. It has to be that way because one has to be certain that everything works perfectly under all conceivable circumstances for obvious reasons. Going to space makes planning a wedding look like something that can be planned in a five minute chat and documented on the back of beer coaster!

        If parts could be printed as required it would greatly increase flexibility. It may even herald an era of swashbuckling space captains (think Hans Solo or Serenity's crew). We'd still have to consider most things - just perhaps not the multitude of one-in-a-million possibilities that is required at this point in time.

    • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday September 12 2014, @07:33AM

      by davester666 (155) on Friday September 12 2014, @07:33AM (#92310)

      ...Send more ink. Fast...

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday September 12 2014, @12:21AM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 12 2014, @12:21AM (#92177)

    Given the stresses encountered by many components of the station, and the highly-specific materials of most others, I would like someone to tell me what's the ratio of the orbiting parts which can actually be printed... 1%, 5% ?

  • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday September 12 2014, @04:28AM

    by Geotti (1146) on Friday September 12 2014, @04:28AM (#92268) Journal

    Now you don't even need to know what part is going to break. You can wait hours and hours and print out that part.

    FTFY, Mr. Reid.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @10:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @10:17PM (#92594)

    "What would god want with a 3d printer?"