International Space Station 3D-prints a replacement part for itself
27 replies, posted
[url]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f050339f55ab48cd887be06438233741/space-stations-3-d-printer-pops-out-1st-creation[/url]
[quote]The first 3-D printer in space has popped out its first creation.
The 3-D printer delivered to the International Space Station two months ago made a sample part for itself this week. It churned out a faceplate for the print head casing.
Space station commander Butch Wilmore removed the small plastic creation from the printer Tuesday for eventual return to Earth. About 20 objects will be printed in the next few weeks for analysis back home, NASA said. The space agency hopes to one day use 3-D printing to make parts for broken equipment in space.[/quote]
And so begins the Borg.
[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46575510]And so begins the Borg.[/QUOTE]
Borg is based on nano technology.
Always start small. Can't leap from small faceplate to an entire module, but hopefully we'll be at that stage one day. If we can build station component pods in an orbital construction yard, we'd be every closer to building our ships in space.
[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46575510]And so begins the Borg.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=AntonioR;46575528]Borg is based on nano technology.[/QUOTE]These new 3d-printing-based borg will be the... budget version, of the real thing.
"What the hell are you things!?"
"HEEEE ASIMMATE SO WE CAN GO DIDNEY WORL!"
"YAH TAKE US DIDNEY WORL."
"... No."
Then they frown a horrific frown, their ABS plastic lips curling unnaturally as the cheap Chinese-manufactured LEDs poking through their discolored skin, controlled by an Arduino, blink wildly in despair.
[QUOTE=ironman17;46575592]Always start small. Can't leap from small faceplate to an entire module, but hopefully we'll be at that stage one day. If we can build station component pods in an orbital construction yard, we'd be every closer to building our ships in space.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised they haven't tried doing this sooner, I mean, the cost in fuel alone must be astronomical if you can excuse the pun.
If it could also install said piece, that would be cool.
1. Identify thing that needs to be replaced
2. Find the blueprint for it
3. Print it
4. Install it
All without humans doing anything :haw:
[QUOTE=James xX;46576623]I'm surprised they haven't tried doing this sooner, I mean, the cost in fuel alone must be astronomical if you can excuse the pun.[/QUOTE]
I know, right? For nearly 15 years the ISS has been the furthest mankind has travelled since the early Space Age, not to mention it is pretty much the only major destination for manned space travel nowadays. It's expensive to transport materials into space, yes, but it's even more expensive to send a massive pod up there, I'll wager. Surely being able to build the pods in space would be at least slightly cheaper and less tricky than building in a high gravity environment before having to push it into the sky, right?
It's just a shame that the ISS is still the only major space station around, when logically there should probably be more. Not to mention it isn't all that big enough in the first place, not nearly big enough to justify being the only station around. I mean look at it:
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/International_Space_Station_after_undocking_of_STS-132.jpg[/t]
Apparently the dimensions of the thing are 108m by 72m by 20m. Now I'm not an architect, but that doesn't really seem all that large for a space station where people travel to conduct experiments in zero gravity. Not to mention the modules don't seem very large on the inside either.
[QUOTE=ironman17;46576723]
Apparently the dimensions of the thing are 108m by 72m by 20m. Now I'm not an architect, but that doesn't really seem all that large for a space station where people travel to conduct experiments in zero gravity. Not to mention the modules don't seem very large on the inside either.[/QUOTE]
That's why they're building these printers: to add a nice addition, maybe a new deck
[QUOTE=ironman17;46576723]I know, right? For nearly 15 years the ISS has been the furthest mankind has travelled since the early Space Age, not to mention it is pretty much the only major destination for manned space travel nowadays. It's expensive to transport materials into space, yes, but it's even more expensive to send a massive pod up there, I'll wager. Surely being able to build the pods in space would be at least slightly cheaper and less tricky than building in a high gravity environment before having to push it into the sky, right?
It's just a shame that the ISS is still the only major space station around, when logically there should probably be more. Not to mention it isn't all that big enough in the first place, not nearly big enough to justify being the only station around. I mean look at it:
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/International_Space_Station_after_undocking_of_STS-132.jpg[/t]
Apparently the dimensions of the thing are 108m by 72m by 20m. Now I'm not an architect, but that doesn't really seem all that large for a space station where people travel to conduct experiments in zero gravity. Not to mention the modules don't seem very large on the inside either.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doN4t5NKW-k[/media]
[IMG_THUMB]http://i.imgur.com/dBuk0zo.jpg[/IMG_THUMB]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/T5pU1Q8.jpg[/IMG]
(keep in mind the habitable part is the stuff between the solar arrays)
3D printing in zero-G
Trying to think how that even works
The same way it does in 1g... To be honest.
Yeah 3D printers don't actually work off gravity. They have a little gear inside that pushes the plastic filament into the heated nozzle which, in turn, melts it. That melted plastic's then pushed by the non-melted filament. You could probably print upside-down if you [I]really[/I] wanted to.
[editline]fdkh[/editline]
That's only those additive printers (read: the ones that print in layers) too. Powderbed printers just take a tank of powdered plastic and heat specific parts to fuze the plastic into whatever part it's printing. The only time a printer ever really needs gravity is when you're trying to print with the nozzle miles away from the print itself, which is the printing-equivalent of trying to sink an 8-ball by remote-controlling a flying pool cue from a mile away while blindfolded.
Less like the borg, more like the replicators if anything.
[QUOTE=OvB;46576748][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doN4t5NKW-k[/media]
[IMG_THUMB]http://i.imgur.com/dBuk0zo.jpg[/IMG_THUMB]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/T5pU1Q8.jpg[/IMG]
(keep in mind the habitable part is the stuff between the solar arrays)[/QUOTE]
Like I said, not really all that big at all, especially excluding the solar arrays.
[QUOTE=ironman17;46578744]Like I said, not really all that big at all, especially excluding the solar arrays.[/QUOTE]
And yet it's the biggest object ever in orbit, and the most expensive endeavor in the entire history of our species.
[QUOTE=ironman17;46578744]Like I said, not really all that big at all, especially excluding the solar arrays.[/QUOTE]
It weighs about 450t, it's flying at about 7.5km/s and all you're doing is complaining about it being too small. Does it [I]need[/I] to be bigger? Unless it actually does, there's no reason to waste energy on putting more stuff up there.
Not that I would in any way disagree with budget increases for space exploration, but you're kinda just coming off as "yeah it needs to be bigger, because it's not star trek sized yet".
It'll be a sad day when they bring down the ISS.
The iss is covered in mold and is otherwise showing it's age. It's a shame if they bring it down without plans for a new one immediately after. I'm not super confident in the Exploration Gateway Platform with current funding.
It would be nice if they could salvage it for parts before throwing it to the sea. I bet there is a lot they could re-use.
[QUOTE=James xX;46576623]I'm surprised they haven't tried doing this sooner, I mean, the cost in fuel alone must be astronomical if you can excuse the pun.[/QUOTE]
The cost in fuel to get the parts into space? Either way you'll have to send raw materials to the printer/shipyard in space, so fuel costs aren't going away.
[QUOTE=ironman17;46576723]I know, right? For nearly 15 years the ISS has been the furthest mankind has travelled since the early Space Age, not to mention it is pretty much the only major destination for manned space travel nowadays. It's expensive to transport materials into space, yes, but it's even more expensive to send a massive pod up there, I'll wager. Surely being able to build the pods in space would be at least slightly cheaper and less tricky than building in a high gravity environment before having to push it into the sky, right?
It's just a shame that the ISS is still the only major space station around, when logically there should probably be more. Not to mention it isn't all that big enough in the first place, not nearly big enough to justify being the only station around. I mean look at it:
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/International_Space_Station_after_undocking_of_STS-132.jpg[/t]
Apparently the dimensions of the thing are 108m by 72m by 20m. Now I'm not an architect, but that doesn't really seem all that large for a space station where people travel to conduct experiments in zero gravity. Not to mention the modules don't seem very large on the inside either.[/QUOTE]
Once we reach a point where asteroid mining is feasible, I'm convinced that orbital spaceyards that 3D-print spaceships from harvested material in space will become the norm. It's not feasible to launch anything even half the size of the ISS into space from Earth - everything has to be modular. Shipping material to construct larger stations from the surface isn't economical, either.
[QUOTE=B E A R;46579544]It would be nice if they could salvage it for parts before throwing it to the sea. I bet there is a lot they could re-use.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that you have to send a rocket up there to salvage it, and it has to be carrying some kind of containter big enough to store the parts in that can survive reentry, and that's probably going to cost a whole lot more than whatever you try to salvage.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;46579624]Once we reach a point where asteroid mining is feasible, I'm convinced that orbital spaceyards that 3D-print spaceships from harvested material in space will become the norm. It's not feasible to launch anything even half the size of the ISS into space from Earth - everything has to be modular. Shipping material to construct larger stations from the surface isn't economical, either.[/QUOTE]
Let's just hope that the next decade or two brings us an additional Elon Musk or Tony Stark to spearhead efficient techniques for mining the Belt. And when it does, I imagine this would end up being the theme tune for the Belterfolk.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cos8RTooA[/media]
[QUOTE=ironman17;46579691]Let's just hope that the next decade or two brings us an additional Elon Musk or Tony Stark to spearhead efficient techniques for mining the Belt. And when it does, I imagine this would end up being the theme tune for the Belterfolk.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cos8RTooA[/media][/QUOTE]
Planetary Resources already exists.
[QUOTE=laserpanda;46579663]The problem is that you have to send a rocket up there to salvage it, and it has to be carrying some kind of containter big enough to store the parts in that can survive reentry, and that's probably going to cost a whole lot more than whatever you try to salvage.[/QUOTE]
That's why I said "would be nice".
It'll probably be cheaper to make new parts and send them to space than salvage and send stuff back.
Even better, even if the company's still pretty young.
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=B E A R;46579761]That's why I said "would be nice".
It'll probably be cheaper to make new parts and send them to space than salvage and send stuff back.[/QUOTE]
There is a third option, although probably a bit weird. Have all future satellites and components designed to orient themselves into a specific re-entry path near the end of their lifespans, so that as they partially burn up upon re-entry, all the space junk ends up crashing in one remote area to be collected and recycled back on Earth, like a designated tract of artificial land in the middle of the South Pacific, or a cordoned-off patch of desert in the middle of the Sahara.
A bit complicated to say the least, but it'd mean most of the space junk ends up returning to Earth and is easily retrievable later on, whether to be collected by the space agencies or to be salvaged by the owners of the reservation.
Those of you who have used 3d printers will know how much of a bitch bridging is most of the time.
I wonder if bridging is easier in zero G since its less likely to droop down due to gravity
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.