9 ms·

3D printing could keep the ISS in orbit indefinitely

73 points by ukdm 15y ago

zitterbewegung 15y ago
There are two flaws with this. One is that if something breaks that can't be manufactured with a 3d printer. (Solar panel, processor, gyroscope) The other thing that would be a problem is that you are just shifting it over to what the 3d printer uses as building material. Even if you put a stockpile up there it may still run out.
- jxcole 15y ago
  The idea is to dramatically reduce the cost, not bring the cost to zero. I agree that the idea that we will be able to keep ISS in space infinitely with this technology is doubtful though.
  - wlievens 15y ago
    ISS needs some fuel to combat atmospheric drag every once in a while, too.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  And what if the 3D printer breaks?! They'll need a 3D printer printer. ;)
  - Lambdanaut 15y ago
    There actually are a bunch of 3D printers that print most of their own parts!
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Imagine a RepRap with NASA/RKA attention!
  - webjprgm 15y ago
    This is what I was going to say. They'll need 2 3D printers so if one breaks the other can print replacement parts for it. "Machines building machines, how perverse". Well, if we had little robots to run the 3D printers anyway.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I never did get that quote. After all, that's what car factories do... Oh well, I guess it was a shit movie to begin with.
- snewman 15y ago
  Yes, it's not a panacea. But it's a heck of a lot easier to store a generic supply of printer feedstock, than to store one (or more) of every part that might conceivably break. Suppose that you expect 1% of all replaceable parts to break over some projected lifespan. Then the mass of feedstock required would be 1% of the mass of the replacement parts... and would take up less than 1% of the space.
  - adamtmca 15y ago
    Ah, good point. I was thinking that if you are bothering to ship up the feedstock why not just ship the spare parts themselves? But you are right, this would reduce the total mass they needed to lift to orbit.
- ph0rque 15y ago
  For the second problem, the solution is to recycle the broken part back into the building material. This problem is being worked on by some in the RepRap community (sorry, no time to look up the link).
  - manveru 15y ago
    https://reprapdelft.wordpress.com/ https://reprapdelft.wordpress.com/
rafamvc 15y ago
Aren't all the current 3D printers are dependent on gravity? Or is the hot material sticky enough?
- Palomides 15y ago
  nope, repraps (and presumably all similar printers) can print in any orientation. see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euC2KZO37_Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euC2KZO37_Q
- parfe 15y ago
  Wouldn't mounting the printer outward from the center axis of a rotating drum solve this issue?
- grannyg00se 15y ago
  Not all 3D printers use hot sticky material. And those that do usually have some kind of method to push the material out with pressure. It's not a gravity drop.
  - maaku 15y ago
    Yeah, but it assumes the existence of gravity, which affects the size and shape of the plastic as it dries.
    - Groxx 15y ago
      Slightly, and less and less as you get finer and finer output and cohesion takes over.
- screwt 15y ago
  The article says it's an extrusion printer, so gravity isn't needed. Current machines would probably work without further modification (e.g. as others have noted, the RepRap can print upside down). In terms of what parts can be made, multi-material machines are commercially available[1] that allow a selective distribution of material properties throughout the printed object. This gives the ability to print quite advanced objects, not just dumb plastic parts. Add to that the developing abilities to print electrical circuitry, and you'e approaching a very useful ability and source of replacements. [1] http://www.objet.com/3D-Printer/Objet_Connex_Family/ http://www.objet.com/3D-Printer/Objet_Connex_Family/
maaku 15y ago
The things that fail on the space station are not the kinds of things replaceable with a 3D printer.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Surely the kinds of things that a 3D printer can print don't have zero failure rates on the space station.
  - maaku 15y ago
    Things that fail are things with movable parts. On the space station, things with movable parts are either a) require materials 3D printers don't work with, b) precision engineered and manufactured with exacting tolerance, or c) both. Are you saying that we can build an air lock, a solar panel, an air filtration system, or a robotic arm with a 3D printer? Because those are the sorts of things that determine the lifetime of the ISS.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I am saying nothing of the sort. I'm not defending the sensationalist headline. All I'm saying is that if an astronaut bumps into a plastic clip or something, why not print off a new one? Or maybe the astronaut just wants a new clip? 3d printers can be small as hell, it seems like something that could be very useful to have up there.
    - nknight 15y ago
      > Are you saying that we can build an air lock, a solar panel, an air filtration system, or a robotic arm with a 3D printer? Sure, why not? Some of them might have to be designed differently, but I don't recall anybody from NASA ever saying "it's impossible to design X in any other way".
      - maaku 15y ago
        All of those things enumerated depend on material properties, strengths, or tolerances that cannot be achieved with 3D printed plastic. Nobody is saying "it's impossible to design X in any other way", but rather we (I work for NASA) are saying that such objects make use of materials with specific properties, materials which cannot (yet) be used in 3D printers.
nkassis 15y ago
I know it's not the same but this is like a primitive replicator. Star Trek invented the future ;p
Groxx 15y ago
Hyperbolic headline, but the contents bring up an interesting point: printing space-things in space means you can make them to handle space-stresses and not launch-stresses. That alone could be a huge boon to space-based endeavors.
absconditus 15y ago
Is the ISS really worth keeping in orbit even in the short term?
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  As far as international budgets go, it costs a pittance. It's worth keeping around for what it's costing us if only so that fathers can point to a moving dot in the sky and say to their kids, "There are people on that."
  - absconditus 15y ago
    Why not divert all of that funding, even if it is not much, to useful space projects instead?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I'd be ok with that, provided they have similar or greater inspiration potential. Inspiration is like an investment, do it right and with any luck when all babyboomers die and are replaced you'll receive much more funding. For the same reason, that new project should be similarly international. I'd advocate defunding the ISS in a heartbeat if there was another project that I felt met those qualifications. However, without looking at the numbers, I fear that the cost of running the ISS would only pay for a fraction of the cost of launching a new project. So of course in either case you'll need to find new funding.
      - absconditus 15y ago
        The ISS budget for 2012 appears to be just under $3 billion. This could fund quite a few robotic missions.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        If you can squeeze that kind of inspiration and international cooperation out of a bunch of robotic missions, then great. Edit: Then again, this is what Cassini cost: "Cost of mission: $1.422 billion pre-launch development; $710 million mission operations; $54 million tracking; $422 million launch vehicle; $500 million ESA; $160 million ASI; total about $3.27 billion, of which U.S. contribution is $2.6 billion and European partners' contribution $660 million" http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/quickfacts/ http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/quickfacts/ So you could get just less than one funded Cassini a year for what we spend on the ISS. You would still need to find additional funding.
mindstab 15y ago
Somehow no one seems to have mentioned food (at least source material for the printers has been mentioned). So yes, resupply flights will still be required because for now at least, the operators of the printers and the actors who take their results and replace parts of the space station and then do science on the space station still need to be fed in food produce on earth. This will help but I don't think it warrants the title's conclusion or the opening paragraph that we can so do away with constant resupply flights to ISS
- Joakal 15y ago
  3D printing food: http://www.good.is/post/the-food-printer-how-mit-is-taking-the-cooking-out-of-cooking http://www.good.is/post/the-food-printer-how-mit-is-taking-t...
rickyconnolly 15y ago
What happens when the 3d printer breaks?

73 points by ukdm 15y ago

There are two flaws with this. One is that if something breaks that can't be manufactured with a 3d printer. (Solar panel, processor, gyroscope) The other thing that would be a problem is that you are just shifting it over to what the 3d printer uses as building material. Even if you put a stockpile up there it may still run out.

jxcole 15y ago
The idea is to dramatically reduce the cost, not bring the cost to zero. I agree that the idea that we will be able to keep ISS in space infinitely with this technology is doubtful though.
- wlievens 15y ago
  ISS needs some fuel to combat atmospheric drag every once in a while, too.
cpeterso 15y ago
And what if the 3D printer breaks?! They'll need a 3D printer printer. ;)
- Lambdanaut 15y ago
  There actually are a bunch of 3D printers that print most of their own parts!
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Imagine a RepRap with NASA/RKA attention!
- webjprgm 15y ago
  This is what I was going to say. They'll need 2 3D printers so if one breaks the other can print replacement parts for it. "Machines building machines, how perverse". Well, if we had little robots to run the 3D printers anyway.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I never did get that quote. After all, that's what car factories do... Oh well, I guess it was a shit movie to begin with.
snewman 15y ago
Yes, it's not a panacea. But it's a heck of a lot easier to store a generic supply of printer feedstock, than to store one (or more) of every part that might conceivably break. Suppose that you expect 1% of all replaceable parts to break over some projected lifespan. Then the mass of feedstock required would be 1% of the mass of the replacement parts... and would take up less than 1% of the space.
- adamtmca 15y ago
  Ah, good point. I was thinking that if you are bothering to ship up the feedstock why not just ship the spare parts themselves? But you are right, this would reduce the total mass they needed to lift to orbit.
ph0rque 15y ago
For the second problem, the solution is to recycle the broken part back into the building material. This problem is being worked on by some in the RepRap community (sorry, no time to look up the link).
- manveru 15y ago
  https://reprapdelft.wordpress.com/ https://reprapdelft.wordpress.com/

rafamvc 15y ago

Aren't all the current 3D printers are dependent on gravity? Or is the hot material sticky enough?

Palomides 15y ago
nope, repraps (and presumably all similar printers) can print in any orientation. see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euC2KZO37_Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euC2KZO37_Q
parfe 15y ago
Wouldn't mounting the printer outward from the center axis of a rotating drum solve this issue?
grannyg00se 15y ago
Not all 3D printers use hot sticky material. And those that do usually have some kind of method to push the material out with pressure. It's not a gravity drop.
- maaku 15y ago
  Yeah, but it assumes the existence of gravity, which affects the size and shape of the plastic as it dries.
  - Groxx 15y ago
    Slightly, and less and less as you get finer and finer output and cohesion takes over.
screwt 15y ago
The article says it's an extrusion printer, so gravity isn't needed. Current machines would probably work without further modification (e.g. as others have noted, the RepRap can print upside down). In terms of what parts can be made, multi-material machines are commercially available[1] that allow a selective distribution of material properties throughout the printed object. This gives the ability to print quite advanced objects, not just dumb plastic parts. Add to that the developing abilities to print electrical circuitry, and you'e approaching a very useful ability and source of replacements. [1] http://www.objet.com/3D-Printer/Objet_Connex_Family/ http://www.objet.com/3D-Printer/Objet_Connex_Family/

maaku 15y ago

The things that fail on the space station are not the kinds of things replaceable with a 3D printer.

burgerbrain 15y ago
Surely the kinds of things that a 3D printer can print don't have zero failure rates on the space station.
- maaku 15y ago
  Things that fail are things with movable parts. On the space station, things with movable parts are either a) require materials 3D printers don't work with, b) precision engineered and manufactured with exacting tolerance, or c) both. Are you saying that we can build an air lock, a solar panel, an air filtration system, or a robotic arm with a 3D printer? Because those are the sorts of things that determine the lifetime of the ISS.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I am saying nothing of the sort. I'm not defending the sensationalist headline. All I'm saying is that if an astronaut bumps into a plastic clip or something, why not print off a new one? Or maybe the astronaut just wants a new clip? 3d printers can be small as hell, it seems like something that could be very useful to have up there.
  - nknight 15y ago
    > Are you saying that we can build an air lock, a solar panel, an air filtration system, or a robotic arm with a 3D printer? Sure, why not? Some of them might have to be designed differently, but I don't recall anybody from NASA ever saying "it's impossible to design X in any other way".
    - maaku 15y ago
      All of those things enumerated depend on material properties, strengths, or tolerances that cannot be achieved with 3D printed plastic. Nobody is saying "it's impossible to design X in any other way", but rather we (I work for NASA) are saying that such objects make use of materials with specific properties, materials which cannot (yet) be used in 3D printers.

nkassis 15y ago

I know it's not the same but this is like a primitive replicator. Star Trek invented the future ;p

Groxx 15y ago

Hyperbolic headline, but the contents bring up an interesting point: printing space-things in space means you can make them to handle space-stresses and not launch-stresses. That alone could be a huge boon to space-based endeavors.

absconditus 15y ago

Is the ISS really worth keeping in orbit even in the short term?

burgerbrain 15y ago
As far as international budgets go, it costs a pittance. It's worth keeping around for what it's costing us if only so that fathers can point to a moving dot in the sky and say to their kids, "There are people on that."
- absconditus 15y ago
  Why not divert all of that funding, even if it is not much, to useful space projects instead?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I'd be ok with that, provided they have similar or greater inspiration potential. Inspiration is like an investment, do it right and with any luck when all babyboomers die and are replaced you'll receive much more funding. For the same reason, that new project should be similarly international. I'd advocate defunding the ISS in a heartbeat if there was another project that I felt met those qualifications. However, without looking at the numbers, I fear that the cost of running the ISS would only pay for a fraction of the cost of launching a new project. So of course in either case you'll need to find new funding.
    - absconditus 15y ago
      The ISS budget for 2012 appears to be just under $3 billion. This could fund quite a few robotic missions.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        If you can squeeze that kind of inspiration and international cooperation out of a bunch of robotic missions, then great. Edit: Then again, this is what Cassini cost: "Cost of mission: $1.422 billion pre-launch development; $710 million mission operations; $54 million tracking; $422 million launch vehicle; $500 million ESA; $160 million ASI; total about $3.27 billion, of which U.S. contribution is $2.6 billion and European partners' contribution $660 million" http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/quickfacts/ http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/quickfacts/ So you could get just less than one funded Cassini a year for what we spend on the ISS. You would still need to find additional funding.

mindstab 15y ago

Somehow no one seems to have mentioned food (at least source material for the printers has been mentioned). So yes, resupply flights will still be required because for now at least, the operators of the printers and the actors who take their results and replace parts of the space station and then do science on the space station still need to be fed in food produce on earth. This will help but I don't think it warrants the title's conclusion or the opening paragraph that we can so do away with constant resupply flights to ISS

Joakal 15y ago
3D printing food: http://www.good.is/post/the-food-printer-how-mit-is-taking-the-cooking-out-of-cooking http://www.good.is/post/the-food-printer-how-mit-is-taking-t...

rickyconnolly 15y ago

What happens when the 3d printer breaks?