
3D printing could keep the ISS in orbit indefinitely - ukdm
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/3d-printing-could-keep-the-iss-in-orbit-indefinitely-20111215/
======
Groxx
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.

------
zitterbewegung
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.

~~~
cpeterso
And what if the _3D printer_ breaks?! They'll need a 3D printer printer. ;)

~~~
Lambdanaut
There actually are a bunch of 3D printers that print most of their own parts!

~~~
burgerbrain
Imagine a RepRap with NASA/RKA attention!

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

~~~
grannyg00se
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
Yeah, but it assumes the existence of gravity, which affects the size and
shape of the plastic as it dries.

~~~
Groxx
Slightly, and less and less as you get finer and finer output and cohesion
takes over.

------
mindstab
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
3D printing food: [http://www.good.is/post/the-food-printer-how-mit-is-
taking-t...](http://www.good.is/post/the-food-printer-how-mit-is-taking-the-
cooking-out-of-cooking)

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

~~~
burgerbrain
Surely the kinds of things that a 3D printer can print don't have zero failure
rates on the space station.

~~~
maaku
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.

~~~
nknight
> _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
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
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.

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

~~~
burgerbrain
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
Why not divert all of that funding, even if it is not much, to useful space
projects instead?

~~~
burgerbrain
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
The ISS budget for 2012 appears to be just under $3 billion. This could fund
quite a few robotic missions.

~~~
burgerbrain
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/>

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.

------
rickyconnolly
What happens when the 3d printer breaks?

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

