Comments on: New report tamps down “hype” about 3-D printing in space

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 02:11:32 +0000

The main reason that NASA is not building anything in space is because they have no money to do so. It’s being gobbled up by JWST on the science side and SLS and Orion on the HSF side.
Cheers

By: Trogdor

Trogdor — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:07:19 +0000

I’ve wondered that too. For all that’s known about the physiological effects of microgravity, I’d think if we want more people and more duration then we’d put serious effort into simulated gravity.

Yet all i can find is people saying, “nope, not feasible” along with “why do it after all the trouble to get up there, away from gravity ?” … both of which seem rather short-sighted to me.

By: Paul Scutts

Paul Scutts — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 06:28:52 +0000

“Hype” involved with space technologies, really? Who are they warning, little children and “newbie” politicians. The space community is not only well aware of “hype” but also at times has used it to accomplish their goals (“the end justifies the means” – just ask Aldrin and Zubrin).

BTW Why frig around with developing a 3D printer that will work (sort of) in micro-gravity? We should be designing/building/operating spacecraft and spacestations that use centrifugal force to simulate gravity.

By: Tom Billings

Tom Billings — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:21:55 +0000

I note some lacks in the recommendations I see in a first scan of the report. While the applications are put forwards fairly well, there is a standard assumption that this will be a primarily bureaucratic response. For instance, there is no mention I noticed of using prizes for specific achievements to stimulate private investment, in spite of the high probability that private groups’ facilities, once established in LEO or EML-1, will be the major sources of innovative competition to make progress march faster.

I saw no mention of the shifts in economic strategy that will be appropriate as high launch rate reusable launchers come to dominate the LEO launch market. For instance, the drop in the cost of 10mtons to LEO from $65 million to $5-7 million in the projected Falcon 9 prices will make simple feedstock mass in LEO far cheaper. This will make earlier 3D printing technologies not yet completely optimized, through utilization experience and iterative design based on that experience, for free fall and hard vacuum more competitive with ground machining and assembly.

Lastly, the roadmaps seem to progress primarily through different applications, rather than including progress through subtlety and intricacy of potential build structures. There seemed to be an assumption that while dimensions for spacecraft and their structures would change, no change in the basics of structural design were complicated. For instance, I saw no mention of 3D printing progressing to the type of 3D architectured nanomaterials now being investigated at CalTech, MIT, and Lawrence Livermore Labs.