4 ms·

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.
    - nknight 15y ago
      So here we have a NASA employee saying "we can't do it because the technology isn't already there" instead of "let's make this work". What a perfect example of the past 30 years of the US space program. By the way, being in space can be a significant advantage for 3d printers printing metallic components. Not that you care, since you can't buy it off the shelf yet, and anything that hasn't been done can't be done.

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.
  - nknight 15y ago
    So here we have a NASA employee saying "we can't do it because the technology isn't already there" instead of "let's make this work". What a perfect example of the past 30 years of the US space program. By the way, being in space can be a significant advantage for 3d printers printing metallic components. Not that you care, since you can't buy it off the shelf yet, and anything that hasn't been done can't be done.