Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Wants To Test 3-D Printing Aboard ISS

Posted by timothy on from the it-puts-the-droplets-in-the-bucket dept.

coondoggie writes "NASA wants to test out 3-D printing technology onboard the International Space Station to find out if the technology could be used to manufacture parts in space." NASA may not be creating any production parts this way for a long time yet, but they've got to start somewhere.

20 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Debbie Downers by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the 'well it sucks and cant be used for anything yet, but we are going to try it' attitude? ISNT THAT THE POINT OF THE ISS? To try the unfeasible and untested? How many experiments have gone up on pure theory alone and never have real world payouts? This FOR SURE will yield valuable data on advanced manufacturing techniques in space. You couldnt ask for a better experiment.

    --
    Good-bye
    1. Re:Debbie Downers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given the risk/reward for the space program, I'd say yes. If it is feasible in zero G to print parts, it would be much easier to ship up the raw materials and then make them there rather than have to ship it from Earth.

      If something critical to just one experiment breaks, the cost in lost time waiting until the next trip from Earth rather than building the part immediately to fix it is more than worth it.

    2. Re:Debbie Downers by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You only get what, half a minute to a couple of minutes of zero G at a time on those. I'll admit to not knowing much about 3D printers, but I'm sure NASA is interested in how it fares when running continuously for a couple of hours in zero G.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:Debbie Downers by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Unless the purpose is to test quality of something more complex than a Lego.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Debbie Downers by firex726 · · Score: 2

      Sure, but at the end of the day, the effect of gravity diminishes with distance, something that might work on the plane may not then have "enough" of a gravitational pull to make it work on the ISS.

      YOu can see this with fire, when a match is struck on the plane it'll look the same as on the surface, but when done on the ISS, it behaves differently.

    5. Re:Debbie Downers by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apples and Oranges much?

      Pick up a small (commercial unit) drive over to the next launch site and toss it into the cargo.
      The supply vehicles were going there anyway.
      You don't pay for the whole launch when the thing is small enough to fit on your TV tray.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Debbie Downers by jythie · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but you really should go back to some basic physics texts. Both the plane and the ISS are in a state of free fall, the distance is irrelevant (ok, technically you could talk tidal forces, but LEO and atmospheric are so close together the difference is tiny).

    7. Re:Debbie Downers by icebike · · Score: 2

      Nope.

      ZG Flights last maybe 90 seconds, at which point gravity comes back and destroys the entire situation inside the machine.

      You can't tell if your machine will operate in space by testing if for 1000 hours by testing 90 seconds at at time. Even the smallest printed item takes longer than 90 seconds to print.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Debbie Downers by icebike · · Score: 2

      Go away son, you bother me.

      Let the adults handle the engineering and science, and you keep wringing your hands and whining about dollars wasted and never trying anything new. With your attitude we would never have gotten to space in the first place.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Debbie Downers by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm more interested in what limitations can be overcome without gravity, especially since the 3D printers I've seen work by building up from a supporting structure.

    10. Re:Debbie Downers by khallow · · Score: 2

      Employing engineers here on earth to develop technology and iron out the bugs, and send it up on the next flight that is going anyway? What else would you rather do with those millions?

      Spend it on something more useful. Opportunity cost is commonly ignored in discussion of public spending.

      For example, if my post were higher profile, for some reason, we'd probably have a replier come on here to claim that because the US squanders billions on military spending, it should squander millions on poor technology development approaches. Such non sequiturs are common when one doesn't understand that there are choices not made as a result of the spending in question.

  2. most cheap printers don't care about gravity by gr7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The common, cheap, FDM printers (the ones that squirt out hot plastic from a nozzle) can print just fine upside down. So obviously they will print fine with zero gravity.

    1. Re:most cheap printers don't care about gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The common, cheap, FDM printers (the ones that squirt out hot plastic from a nozzle) can print just fine upside down. So obviously they will print fine with zero gravity.

      Nope. While they may work upside down, 0g can still be an issue. No convection causes major issues (heat does not rise in 0g). They might have fume or thermal problems. There may also be some issues with bearing, lubrication etc.

      Ever wonder what fire is like in 0g without convection? Its very strange, and might be what happens to the printer.

    2. Re:most cheap printers don't care about gravity by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Fluid materials behave differently in zero-g. For example, the surface tension of water is radically altered with and without gravity present. While it ultimately may not be an issue, I think it's worth mentioning.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  3. Interesting...but by Lt.+Squirrel · · Score: 2

    ...in all serious what of practical use could be made outside of plastic hand tools? Isn't most everything that is being used up there aside from a wrench and hammer dependent on some form of electronics? Don't get me wrong, like another poster said, the ISS is mainly to test to untested and uncertain - but what could practically be made out of nothing but plastics for use in space aside from hand tools?

    1. Re:Interesting...but by only_human · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about the time they needed to repair a satellite and had to custom rig a "flyswatter" (made from a window shade, a vacuum hose and a piece of plastic) to snag a lever on the rotating satellite?
      Custom parts will always be needed for unanticipated situations.

  4. Re:NASA Conversation: by game+kid · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Houston, this is ISS. I've always wanted to finish downloading that in space, so I could say 'The Spread Eagle has landed.' "

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  5. Re:Convection problem solved by Longjmp · · Score: 2

    The ISS has an atmosphere inside, so heat convection shouldn't be a problem.

    Wrong. Convection needs gravity. Without it you'd generate a heat bubble.

    ...If necessary, put it in a box with air driven through it to give circulation.

    Right there; however, a simple air blower would do, no need to encapsulate the printer (actually that would be creating problems where none was before.)

    --
    There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
  6. Re:Wrong naming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Solution: NASA Brand Replication Unit v0.001

    The Public will just call it a replicator anyway and the trademark will get watered down like Kleenex when it enters common usage once the technology matures.

  7. Hope it won't be a space gun... by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2, Funny

    Still, what jurisdiction would care?