3D-printed rocket parts
November 11, 2012
First test piece produced on the M2 Cusing Machine at the Marshall Center (credit: NASA/MSFC/Andy Hardin)
NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center is using ”selective laser melting” (SLM) to create intricate metal parts for America’s Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket, saving millions in manufacturing costs.
SLM is similar to 3-D printing (additive printing) and is the future of manufacturing, says Ken Cooper, advanced manufacturing team lead at the Marshall Center.
“This machine takes metal powder and uses a high-energy laser to melt it in a designed pattern. The laser will layer the melted dust to fuse whatever part we need from the ground up, creating intricate designs.
Building complex shapes with SLM process (credit: NASA/MSFC/Andy Hardin)
“The process produces parts with complex geometries and precise mechanical properties from a three-dimensional computer-aided design.”
Benefits:
- Significantly reduces the manufacturing time required to produce parts from months to weeks, or even days in some cases.
- Replaces welding, so the parts are structurally stronger and more reliable, and thus safer.
SLS is designed to take humans, equipment and experiments beyond low Earth orbit to nearby asteroids and eventually to Mars.
Comments (55)
by josdorpjossie
I’m happy to see that 3d printing is capable of creating real parts instead of just models that don’t need any strength. But how can it be stronger than welding? Since the whole thing is created by melting metal with a laser, the whole thing is basically welded.
by tedhowardnz
Once you get down to atomic scale, the problem inverts, it is the stickynes of stuff that is the issue, everything wants to stick to everything else.
It is only when dealing with large lumps of stuff that they want to remain dust.
Atomic scale manufacturing has many profound and very tricky issues; and we are starting to get a handle on some of them.
by Bri
Actually of you check out Drexler’s lectures, he states that many atomic manufacturing processes are net energy gainers!
by Gorden Russell
The Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket will have a payload of 70 tons at first and later it will have a payload of 130 tons. This is more than enough to carry a 3D printer and the SLM with a few robots to operate them and assemble more robots. (They can pack feedstock for the first printer to make pieces for more robots and printers.) As long as they pack a few hundred pounds of processor chips and wafers, they will be able to assemble a large workforce. Then they can set up a parabolic mirror and melt nickel and iron to make rocket engines to push asteroids back to L-5.
by Gorden Russell
This is very exciting news. Now ”selective laser melting” can be used to bring back asteroids. It is a problem that the nickel-iron is in one type of asteroid and fuel is in the carbonaceous asteroids and the silicon is in the stony asteroids. But if you can just lash three asteroids together, then you can build robots and antennae and parabolic mirrors for melting stone and metal. Then you can build and fuel rocket engines to push asteroids back to Lagrange Point Five. (Save Lagrange Point Two for Space Telescopes.) (After a Mars ship is built, it can be moved over to L-2 where it is easier for people to rendezvous with it. Because of the way the gravitational fields of Earth and Moon tug at each other, it takes less fuel to get to L-2 than it does to reach geosynchronous orbit. But since L-2 is beyond the far side of the Moon, that’s the best place for telescopes.)
by marty weiss
Earthlings still using rockets. Discovering fire was good, but get over it. First, we don’t melt, weld, forge or machine metals, we grow them. Second, here’s a clue: fecundity and flexibility flourish in the ruins of rigidity.
ttfn
by rob falgiano
the future is gonna be even crazier than now. i can’t wait
by ProfessorZ
You had me at “building rockets with lasers”
by Marcos Marin
hahaha everything with lasers are better indeed!
by rob falgiano
hell yeah!
by Marcos Marin
“Replaces welding, so the parts are structurally stronger and more reliable, and thus safer.”
so UFO nuts aren’t as nuts?
by Mr.X
@Marcos: Non sequitur. Besides, they’re not one closed group with all the same beliefs.
by Marcos Marin
1) “Non sequitur.” I want a formal proof. It’s not at all clear 1 less crazy statement do not make for a less crazy overall set.
2) Ignoratio elenchi.
So? But, now that you bring it up, how many UFO nuts you know who believe UFOs are hold together by nuts* and bolts?
*Pun intended, they certainly are. heeheehee
by Mr.X
1.) “It’s not at all clear 1 less crazy statement do not make for a less crazy overall set.”
Pardon my English (^^), but I don’t know what you mean.I meant, just as you said once, one wrong clock can tick right twice (need those nootropics for my memory).Doesn’t make it any less wrong?
2.I want formal proof ;)Jk.
I don’t know any UFO nuts, sadly.
Well, I once knew a guy who believed the earth was completely hollow.I said “like your head”, and we never meet again (friend of a friend).Maybe I should ask for his opinion.I’m sure he believes other stuff, too.
by Mr.X
@Marcos: Oh well, you meant to say their (perceived?) “nuttiness” is reduced.I presume.
You’re maybe right, but I think being right for the wrong reasons (the “ufo nuts”, who often hold all kinds of “theories”, just because they aren’t “unenlightened” mainstream) still counts as crazyness.
If you think that (fairly abstract) rightness alone, achieved by arbitrary reasoning, is less crazy than arbitrary wrongness, THEN I am certainly wrong.I thought being crazy is about the processes by which one arrives at his beliefs.
Ps: I got to write two latin words.That’s something.
by Marcos Marin
4th Ignoratio elenchi of the day, you’re on a roll! =) here we go:
“still counts as crazyness.”
–my joke “so UFO nuts aren’t as nuts?” is very different from the joke “so UFO nuts aren’t nuts?” — the former never suggests nor even implies they are not counted as crazy. =)
Craziness, just as intelligence, can have maaaany different definitions… In fact, their boundaries are not at all clear…
“Ps: I got to write two latin words.That’s something.”
– something crazy? hehehe just kidding…
by Mr.X
“4th Ignoratio elenchi of the day, you’re on a roll! =) ”
Untrue.
Yeah, but I guess you’d have shunned me if I said “sorry, we were arguing semantics because I, who writes less than perfect English, didn’t understand your English (because it is less than perfect).”
“so UFO nuts aren’t as nuts?”
+
“the former never suggests nor even implies they are not counted as crazy. ”
Are you sure?I see politicians use this all the time.The euro isn’t that bad.It could be worse.The euro is good.It is necessary.We call it “piece by piece”, or “salami tactic”.
Christians do this all the time.
That’s why I wrote evolves into.
“Craziness, just as intelligence, can have maaaany different definitions… In fact, their boundaries are not at all clear…”
Which means we probably used different premises.
“It’s not at all clear 1 less crazy statement do not make for a less crazy overall set.”
Yeah.Ignoratio elenchi.
You said:
Less crazy statement- less crazy set.
A true statement is less crazy than a wrong statement, irrespective how we arrived at it.
People are as nuts as their set is crazy (else you’d be stating irelevant things).
Therefore, they’re not as nuts as we thought.
This means only the content of the set counts.
Which means socrates, hobbes etc were crazy compared to the guy at walmart.
Since without formal education, they certainly believed lots of things we know to be wrong.
In retrospective, we may find out: We all were crazy.
I disagree, and think about processes instead.
by Marcos Marin
“Untrue.”
Sorry, I should’ve said AT LEAST 4th, since you probably are also doing it elsewhere and IRL. But I obviously meant within our conversations AND the ones I counted.
– If your English is less than perfect, how can you judge mine is too?
“Are you sure?I”
Yes.
” see politicians use this all the time.”
I’m no politician.
“The euro isn’t that bad.”
= does not imply.
“It could be worse.”
= does not imply.
“The euro is good.”
= does imply (actually infers!)
“It is necessary.”
= does not imply.
“We call it “piece by piece”, or “salami tactic”.”
– 5th.
“Christians do this all the time.”
I’m no Christian.
“That’s why I wrote evolves into.”
– When?
“Which means we probably used different premises.”
– Maybe. But I assert nothing of your definition, actually I tried to include it in the myriad possibilities.
“Yeah.Ignoratio elenchi.”
Then why would you bother to counter-argue?
“You said:”
Let’s assume I did.
“Which means socrates, hobbes etc were crazy compared to the guy at walmart.”
– And you claim to understand pareto optimality or even it is somehow an easy concept… Tell me, how do you compare 2 sets for craziness?
“Since without formal education, they certainly believed lots of things we know to be wrong.”
– Are you sure? Not all people are as arrogant as me and you. Some may actually acknowledge they KNOW THEY KNOW NOTHING. You are the one who knows all the quotes right? Who said that? Oh yeah.. SOCRATES DID.
“In retrospective, we may find out: We all were crazy.”
– Yes.
“I disagree, and think about processes instead.”
– Still crazy though.
by Mr.X
“If your English is less than perfect, how can you judge mine is too?”
Easy, it’s a matter of degree.Btw: To use your set analogy, we are not talking about the same elements.
“” see politicians use this all the time.”I’m no politician.”
True but besides the point.You don’t need to be a politician to use the same trick.I won’t bore you with Latin this time:)
““The euro isn’t that bad.”
= does not imply.“It could be worse.”
= does not imply.”
No.Piece by piece the judgement will be changed.We are speaking about intention.I see, you surely are not a politician^^
““It is necessary.”
= does not imply.”
You still didn’t get my point.
““We call it “piece by piece”, or “salami tactic”.”
– 5th.”
You still didn’t get my point.
““Christians do this all the time.”
I’m no Christian.”
Shall I bore you with latin?Another fallacy.Why am I not surprised?
““That’s why I wrote evolves into.”
– When?”
Yesterday.
““Yeah.Ignoratio elenchi.”
Then why would you bother to counter-argue?”
Yes, why?
““Which means socrates, hobbes etc were crazy compared to the guy at walmart.”
– And you claim to understand pareto optimality or even it is somehow an easy concept… Tell me, how do you compare 2 sets for craziness?”
Your memory again?I said what you wrote was easy to understand.Strawman.
““Since without formal education, they certainly believed lots of things we know to be wrong.”
– Are you sure? Not all people are as arrogant as me and you. Some may actually acknowledge they KNOW THEY KNOW NOTHING. You are the one who knows all the quotes right? Who said that? Oh yeah.. SOCRATES DID.”
According to Plato.And?Doesn’t change the fact, that he said things we today think untrue.Shall I use my google skills for you?
““I disagree, and think about processes instead.”
– Still crazy though.”
Which is what I said.The difference is, my assessment holds them to be even more crazy than yours, all else being equal.
by Marcos Marin
Dude, are you deliberate dumb or you practice the discipline?!
It is a step in the right direction though to admit something you do not understand is easy to understand, congratulations.
“all else being equal.”
EXACTLY. That’s the point. See? Was that so hard, “strawman”?
btw, you dont have to believe politicians’ sophisms, so yeah, keep repeating to yourself others do not “get your point”, you may one day become just like them.
by Mr.X
@Marcos:
If I am the one who is dumb, why did you bring up a quote that exatly proved one of my points?Why didn’t you notice that your quote is nonsensical?
It is a matter of fact that your reading skills lack.
““all else being equal.”
EXACTLY. That’s the point. ”
Why did you you disagree then.Oh well:
“keep repeating to yourself others do not “get your point”,”
Don’t confuse others with yourself.Idiot.
by Mr.X
@Marcos: “It is a step in the right direction though to admit something you do not understand is easy to understand, congratulations.”
Come on, if you really were smart (^^) you’d notice that the quality of “being easy to understand” is relative.Haha.It’s like talking to a kid, except kids can be smarter than one expects:)
Like a kid trashing trains together sometimes, at other times like a boulder.Oh wait, you said this to others^^
by Marcos Marin
1) No it doesn’t
2) You provide no evidence (again)
3) Because you used it in the wrong place. Notice my quoting of your ad hominem, that’s where you should’ve used it. Wrong place + Not noticing = very dumb.
4) See how “reflecting back” what others say doesn’t work dummy?
by Mr.X
1) No it doesn’t
Of course it does.I said they believed many things that are wrong, and if you think the set of beliefs, and their truth is relevant for them being crazy, they are crazy.
I quoted you.
“2) You provide no evidence (again). ”
Hypocrite.
“3) Because you used it in the wrong place. Notice my quoting of your ad hominem, that’s where you should’ve used it. Wrong place + Not noticing = very dumb.”
My ad hominem? I used what in which wrong place?Where is your evidence.
“4) See how “reflecting back” what others say doesn’t work dummy?”
Again, just a claim and an ad hominem.
You’re quite amusing.
by Marcos Marin
“Come on, if you really were smart (^^)”
So I guess I again make you prove that, thanks!;-)
“you’d notice that the quality of “being easy to understand” is relative”
6th Ignoratio elenchi from you (AT LEAST 6th so you dont “strawman” the argument and say it is untrue again, LOL)
You still admitted to be DUMB, HOWEVER relative it is, you logico-philosophical cripple! HAHAHA so dumb, omg…
“Oh wait, you said this to others^^”
– But with evidence;-) you pseudo-scientific boulder.
Again, it doesnt work to simply reflect arguments without due evidence, sorry to frustrate you and Bri’s futile hope for revenge MWAHAHAHA
by Marcos Marin
No you didn’t.
As amusing as throwing artistic masterpieces or engineering feats to the zoo animals.
by Mr.X
“6th Ignoratio elenchi from you (AT LEAST 6th so you dont “strawman” the argument and say it is untrue again, LOL)”
Lol.Haha.What an idiot you are.Of course, why did I presume you would hold consistent beliefs.Sorry, my fault.You said the thing was easy understandable, but this can only be said in relation to something else.
Here is your garbage, highlighted for you:
“It is a step in the right direction though to ADMIT something you do not understand IS easy to understand, congratulations”
Do you need more help, smarty pants^^
Btw: Where did I do this… haha.
“You still admitted to be DUMB, HOWEVER relative it is, you logico-philosophical cripple! HAHAHA so dumb, omg…”
Well, quote me?I just answered your drivel.
Btw: If you were right, now we’d be two.Or is your memory lacking (AGAIN).
““Oh wait, you said this to others^^”
– But with evidence;-) you pseudo-scientific boulder.”
Pseudo-scientific?I was claiming to do science?Lol.You didn’t give any evidence for your claims.More claims don’t constitue evidence.
Of course, you’re the big mister Scientist^^Now look up that word.I won’t learn another language just for you, talking about your IDIOlect.
“Again, it doesnt work to simply reflect arguments without due evidence, sorry to frustrate you and Bri’s futile hope for revenge MWAHAHAHA”
Well, arguments?Since you dislike google, I won’t tell you to look up “argument”.
Besides, I didn’t reflect your garbage.Maybe you should just start again, to fully write out your responses, so that I can again show how you nonsensical they are.
Remember, when you claimed to have stated lots of complexity with your pareto remark.^^
Revenge? I already kicked your ass.^^
You were gone for two days, and then you started attacking me again, on the flying car thing.There, you got owned again (Mr.ballony).
Shall I provide a link to 4chan- it would be more fitting for you- troll!?
Ps: What has Bri to do with this?I guess you’re in love with him^^
by Mr.X
“As amusing as throwing artistic masterpieces or engineering feats to the zoo animals.”
I will stop throwing.Didn’t know you don’t want to posses art.
by Mr.X
@Marcos:
“So I guess I again make you prove that, thanks!;-)”
At least my claims can be proved.Thanks for admitting I was right.
by Marcos Marin
You are falling into incoherent mumblings again, Mr.X:
1) “You said the thing was easy “;
+
2) “you claimed to have stated lots of complexity”
As you moronically put it: “memory?logic?duh?”=)
every round making ever more an ass of yourself… you think you convince who with this kind of paradoxical incoherence?
you indulge in incoherent mumblings for days in the delusion of intellectual achievement then wonder why nobody EVEN NOTICED your flying car joke was even a joke until I came around and let you explain it? haha, why dont you try a full Deutschebag joke next time? hahahahahaha
Ps.: You were the one bringing my posts to Bri up, why are you taking his pains as yours then when you gor plenty of your own? LoL
by Mr.X
@Marcos:
” Are you sure? Not all people are as arrogant as me and you. Some may actually acknowledge they KNOW THEY KNOW NOTHING. ”
Well.Speak for yourself.I know that I don’t know many things (ask Bri,
I don’t “know” how the universe came into existence, on a deep level- although he still wanted me to conjure up something).
But I also know that it is not possible to know nothing the way you claim.
Knowing that ones doesn’t know is knowing something.I hope you see what I mean.Besides, I also know my name (and maybe, yours too).
So, you see, Aristotle could have helped Socrates out on this (if they’d meet!?).
by Roland
A nut from the UFO tree is still a nut.
by Marcos Marin
Indeed!
Question is, are they AS nuts, or just the same?
by Bri
If you actually look at all the UFO stuff, you’d have to be nuts to not think they come here.
by Mr.X
@Bri: Why?Could you give an “executive summary” style, well , summary!?
by Bri
While I’m not sure of what you mean by executive style summary. I have been looking at UFO stories of late. There have been a few articles on this site referring to alien life and UFO,s. It made me curious to see what is on the Internet about the subject. I guess the most credible sources are the governments of the world( not necessarily the US, which still hides a lot of information.). During WWII pilots from all sides reported seeing ” foo fighters” as they became called here. The US thought that they were German or Russian, the Germans thought they were US or Russian, the Russians thought they were German or US. If you check out all the information and physical evidence, it’s hard not to believe. One British declassified report happened at a Us British NATO base with the largest stockpile of nukes. It’s famous in UFO circles cause it happened over three nights and left physical evidence. One happened in Canada and the local people thought it was a floundering ship at sea. The Roysl Canadian Mounties came and everybody tried to rescue the sailors. Instead the could see the glowing ship under water, but couldn’t get to it. Eventually another UFO came and rescued them.. Another favorite of mine is a documentary about the shapes of the crafts. They show pictures taken in almost every decade of the different style of ships and point out that there is no way that they could all have the same exact models to fake the photos and that the people were all ordinary people. Sooooo much info. Stanton Friedman is an excellent source. Look up his story and follow where that leads. It’s hard to say that it could possibly be a hoax. They even buzzed the white house in 52. Caught on radar, seen by fighter pilots, seen by people on the ground. From the radar they have calculated that they could fly at 1800 miles an hour and do right angle turns. A fascinating subject, particularly the abductiees. Hard to not believe.
by Mr.X
Thanks.I will look into it.
by Marcos Marin
@Bri
Read everything I wrote here, I never imply otherwise… how could I? Mwahahahaha
by Bri
As you say there are different levels of craziness. If you are confronted with truth and think otherwise, are you crazy? If you are confronted with lies and think it’s truth, are you crazy? Maybe both are just defferent levels of crazy. There are many UFO nuts who really don’t believe, they just get into the scene, and play it for what it’s worth. The Vedas of India are full of UFO stories. They write of a star wars like galaxy filled with alien cultures. You could say that they are some of the earliest UFO nuts the town of Phenoix Arizona saw a huge UFO. Even the mayor. Just a bunch of UFO nuts. It’s hard not to believe. So who is crazy. The one that see’s and believes, or the one who hears about it and doesn’t believe? With all the information out there it’s hard not to believe, or should I say you’d have to be nuts not to believe. Until a little green man comes down to shake your hand, it’s still just a belief.
by Mr.X
“The one that see’s and believes, or the one who hears about it and doesn’t believe?”
The craziest is the one who hears and believes:)
by Mr.X
@Bri: If you believe in UFO’s as being from other species…They must be vastly more advanced than we to travel here.Right?
If that is true, didn’t they already have their singularity?
by Mr.X
Ps: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4079
by Bri
I’d still like to know how The Dogan from Africa can know about a neutron star, or what the Nurenberg woodcut shows, since it’s been described as an air battle. Do I believe in UFOs? Of course! They are unidentified flying objects! Do I think they are from an alien race. Yes, there are too many indications of their proof. I haven’t seen a big bang, or en electron either. There are too many indications of it’s truth. As for the skeptic or The Amazing Randi, they don’t believe in psychic phenomenon, where as I live with it. Anytime someone wants to set me up tu take that test, I’d gladly take it. It would be like taking candy from a baby. I’d love to take his million dollars. I’ve said that before and I am and have been actively trying to have that happen. The Templeton foundation’s charter is to prove or disprove these issues. I’ve tried to contact them, there has been no response. I will continue to try with them and any other real scientific organization. Anyone who wants to help, that would be great. Even if you don’t believe, then you would love to prove me wrong. Go ahead. Truth is truth.. Amara has the power to make the introductions. I don’t think you all want to know the truth. Just set it up and try and prove me a liar. With thier certification I would take Randi’s challenge a make a million dollars! Honestly, I know that there is no way that I could lose. What I would show, I play with everyday.
by Editor
Hint: have you checked out our crop-circle logo?
by Bri
That was made by aliens too!!!! Woooowww! You should upload it to UFOTV!!!
by Mr.X
I saw some guys, they threatened me after suggesting ALIENS landed on their HEADS!
It is a mean world.
by Editor
Uh, yeah, that’s …. interesting
by Mr.X
Yeah.There is a wild variety of haircuts out there.
by Editor
I can’t do that, Dave
by Marcos Marin
@Bri
As I said, Bri. I could NEVER suggest otherwise!;-)
by Mr.X
Never? So you’re just being irrational.
by Bri
These 3D printers are just reaching the level of detail for useful manufacturing of large scale objects. There was an article recently that showed a formula race car shape, created at the scales necessary for chip manufacturing. At this time it is impractical to do manufacturing at that level. The number of atoms that would have to be placed in perfect arrangements , is staggeringly large. You would need massively parallel ” print heads” on a molecular scale.. It’s hard to conceive of how small the molecular scale is, in comparison to everyday manufacturing and materials. The metallic powders used in 3D printing are still large aggregates of atoms. In comparison they are like huge boulders as apposed to dust.
by Ante
Melting metals is the missing piece in the puzzle for 3D printing microchips, right? Although, I assume combining different materials in printed objects is still an issue. Someone with a bit of expertise help me out here, please :)
by A4i
A semiconductor chip has base layer and metallic layer. Te base layer is where transistors are fabricated out of pure silicon crystal, sliced like a sheet of paper (thin substrate). Every single transistor is a complex 3D structure, made of chemically different layers. Copper wiring (metallic layer), on top of the base layer, connects all transistors in vastly complex electronic circuit. Well, you can say that semiconductor manufacturing process is 3D printing, where on silicon substrate transistors and wires are printed by advanced lithography. Even a beam of electrons can be used, substituting light in the lithography process. So , SLM on steroids, several orders of magnitude more complex , than melting powder with lasers and you can produce K20 GPU. That’s 7.1 billion transistor and corresponding interconnect on a a postage stamp.
by Gorden Russell
Oh well, when we send 3D printers out with robots to operate them, we will just have to send along a large supply of GPU chips for them to install in all the robots and printers they assemble. When you get a large enough force of robots in space, they can build the photo-lithography plant to make more processors.