3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

louis · 2017-04-18 03:44:52

I think there is now general agreement here that 3D printing (along with Musk's rocket technology) is a bit of a game changer.

Here comes news of an innovative technique that can 3D print a material that "is flexible, elastic, and tough -- similar to rubber. This is the first example of rubber-like or soft materials resulting from lunar and Martian simulant materials. The material can be cut, rolled, folded, and otherwise shaped after being 3D painted, if desired." The amazing part is that it uses 90% Mars and Lunar simulant material. So for a tonne of the stuff, you only need to take 100 kgs of solvents and biopolymers.

Furthermore the material can be fashioned into interlocking building blocks (like Lego) and can be fired to create a hard, ceramic like substance.

This sounds like a major advance. This could be a candidate for a mission one proof-of-concept project.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 145217.htm

Last edited by louis (2017-04-18 12:03:44)

RobS · 2017-04-18 06:50:13

It was on space.com, too. Really cool!

louis · 2017-04-18 07:58:26

Maybe the ceramic version of the material could be used to build a forge or furnace.

Dook · 2017-04-18 09:54:37

3D printing is not a game changer. There are four things that limit your Mars population, they are oxygen, food, water, and habitat but since every new settler will land in a perfect tuna can habitat it makes habitat the least important of them all. And, you need to increase all of those things in order to increase your population. Having a lot of one thing, let's say habitat, but no more oxygen, doesn't help. You have to increase all of them to be able to support one more person.

The 3D printer can't make oxygen, or food, or water. So having it does nothing to increase your population.

Please name all the things we will need on Mars that a 3D printer can make? There should be a lot if it's a "game changer".

Last edited by Dook (2017-04-18 09:55:35)

louis · 2017-04-18 13:04:33

Assertions that are assumptions are not facts. Musk's not so long term plans do not involve "tuna cans" that serve as habitat. His spacecraft will be reusable. So he must be expecting other habitats to be made available.

I think most of us here realise that developing a settlement on Mars means you have to do a lot of things simultaneously and in a co-ordinated fashion. However, you do have to prioritise as well. Water is the key resource we need to identify in short order. With that we can produce oxygen and produce a feedstock for methane. We don't immediately need to start on habitat construction but we do need to make an early start on proofs of concept. We do need to develop material production in order that with 3D printers we can produce spare parts without having to bring the full range of parts to Mars. Beyond that, we need to expand our small scale industrial infrastructure until we are able to construct a range of habitats and farm habs, as well as produce energy generation equipment.

Dook wrote:

3D printing is not a game changer. There are four things that limit your Mars population, they are oxygen, food, water, and habitat but since every new settler will land in a perfect tuna can habitat it makes habitat the least important of them all. And, you need to increase all of those things in order to increase your population. Having a lot of one thing, let's say habitat, but no more oxygen, doesn't help. You have to increase all of them to be able to support one more person.
The 3D printer can't make oxygen, or food, or water. So having it does nothing to increase your population.
Please name all the things we will need on Mars that a 3D printer can make? There should be a lot if it's a "game changer".

Dook · 2017-04-18 13:40:43

louis wrote:

Assertions that are assumptions are not facts. Musk's not so long term plans do not involve "tuna cans" that serve as habitat. His spacecraft will be reusable. So he must be expecting other habitats to be made available.
I think most of us here realise that developing a settlement on Mars means you have to do a lot of things simultaneously and in a co-ordinated fashion. However, you do have to prioritise as well. Water is the key resource we need to identify in short order. With that we can produce oxygen and produce a feedstock for methane. We don't immediately need to start on habitat construction but we do need to make an early start on proofs of concept. We do need to develop material production in order that with 3D printers we can produce spare parts without having to bring the full range of parts to Mars. Beyond that, we need to expand our small scale industrial infrastructure until we are able to construct a range of habitats and farm habs, as well as produce energy generation equipment.

Dook wrote:
3D printing is not a game changer. There are four things that limit your Mars population, they are oxygen, food, water, and habitat but since every new settler will land in a perfect tuna can habitat it makes habitat the least important of them all. And, you need to increase all of those things in order to increase your population. Having a lot of one thing, let's say habitat, but no more oxygen, doesn't help. You have to increase all of them to be able to support one more person.
The 3D printer can't make oxygen, or food, or water. So having it does nothing to increase your population.
Please name all the things we will need on Mars that a 3D printer can make? There should be a lot if it's a "game changer".

Assumptions are not facts? Exactly, the assumption is that a 3D printer is a game changer for a Mars colony. So, please list all the essential things that a Mars colony could make with a 3D printer. So far you haven't even thought of a single thing.

The 3D printer CANNOT make: oxygen, food, water, computer mother boards, insulated wires, plastic greenhouse panels, solar panels, or anything longer than about a foot.

So, if you ship the raw materials from the Earth you could use a 3D printer to make some hard metal parts, brackets, but those things are the least likely to break and, if you're going to ship the raw materials from the Earth why not just make the part on the Earth and ship it to Mars?

Musk doesn't want to use a tuna can and his spacecraft will be re-useable? It is more efficient to re-use spacecraft to put things into Earth orbit. It's just not more efficient to re-use spacecraft to put things on Mars.

So you think we need water to produce oxygen? But the Moxie makes oxygen from Mars CO2 so if your tuna can has two Moxie's built in, one to operate and one as a backup, then you don't need to collect water on Mars. Which, you can't do anyway because water only exists for about 6 minutes each day.

We're going round and round. You guys are thinking of water in Earth terms. The way you have to think of it is this, there is no water on Mars, there's only dirty salty ice.

louis · 2017-04-18 16:33:54

I don't need to think of a single thing - I can just follow the research. But clearly if we take suitable metal and plastic powders we can 3D print a wide range of spare parts on Mission 1 - a boon when you're 100 million Kms from Earth.

You have been involved on other threads where I have referenced printing of computer chips and PV panels, technologies which are now maturing.

This is interesting:

"
Printed Electronics

PARC has developed jet-printing processes for organic semiconductors (including all-printed TFT arrays, pictured) and conductors – resulting in novel functionality and reduced manufacturing costs. These high-performance printed devices are achieved by materials understanding and device design that allows the formation of good dielectric-semiconductor and semiconductor-metal interfaces. [video example] The printed transistors have exceptional performance for polymers, and meet all requirements to address displays. Our a-Si, low-temperature polysilicon (LTPS), and organic semiconductor TFTs – which have the advantage of low-temperature deposition and low-elastic modulus – have also been applied to various radiation detectors, including x-ray, ultrasound, and neutron imaging."

http://www.parc.com/services/focus-area … e-and-LAE/

They are further along this road than you think.

Of course 3D printers use powders and similar materials. They can't print atoms.

It's safest to assume you can 3D print just about anything and then ask what is it you can't print?

Dook wrote:

louis wrote:
Assertions that are assumptions are not facts. Musk's not so long term plans do not involve "tuna cans" that serve as habitat. His spacecraft will be reusable. So he must be expecting other habitats to be made available.
I think most of us here realise that developing a settlement on Mars means you have to do a lot of things simultaneously and in a co-ordinated fashion. However, you do have to prioritise as well. Water is the key resource we need to identify in short order. With that we can produce oxygen and produce a feedstock for methane. We don't immediately need to start on habitat construction but we do need to make an early start on proofs of concept. We do need to develop material production in order that with 3D printers we can produce spare parts without having to bring the full range of parts to Mars. Beyond that, we need to expand our small scale industrial infrastructure until we are able to construct a range of habitats and farm habs, as well as produce energy generation equipment.

Dook wrote:
3D printing is not a game changer. There are four things that limit your Mars population, they are oxygen, food, water, and habitat but since every new settler will land in a perfect tuna can habitat it makes habitat the least important of them all. And, you need to increase all of those things in order to increase your population. Having a lot of one thing, let's say habitat, but no more oxygen, doesn't help. You have to increase all of them to be able to support one more person.
The 3D printer can't make oxygen, or food, or water. So having it does nothing to increase your population.
Please name all the things we will need on Mars that a 3D printer can make? There should be a lot if it's a "game changer".
Assumptions are not facts? Exactly, the assumption is that a 3D printer is a game changer for a Mars colony. So, please list all the essential things that a Mars colony could make with a 3D printer. So far you haven't even thought of a single thing.
The 3D printer CANNOT make: oxygen, food, water, computer mother boards, insulated wires, plastic greenhouse panels, solar panels, or anything longer than about a foot.
So, if you ship the raw materials from the Earth you could use a 3D printer to make some hard metal parts, brackets, but those things are the least likely to break and, if you're going to ship the raw materials from the Earth why not just make the part on the Earth and ship it to Mars?
Musk doesn't want to use a tuna can and his spacecraft will be re-useable? It is more efficient to re-use spacecraft to put things into Earth orbit. It's just not more efficient to re-use spacecraft to put things on Mars.
So you think we need water to produce oxygen? But the Moxie makes oxygen from Mars CO2 so if your tuna can has two Moxie's built in, one to operate and one as a backup, then you don't need to collect water on Mars. Which, you can't do anyway because water only exists for about 6 minutes each day.
We're going round and round. You guys are thinking of water in Earth terms. The way you have to think of it is this, there is no water on Mars, there's only dirty salty ice.

Dook · 2017-04-18 17:54:53

louis wrote:

louis

Clearly if we take metal and plastic powders we can make a wide range of parts? Then it should be easy to name those parts. I named many essential things it won't make. When are you going to name all the things it will make?

I'll give you one thing a 3D printer can make, it will make about a foot of wire. Now, that could be important if we have a unit where a wire is rubbing against something and shorts out. But, the wire your 3D printer will make won't have insulation so we can't use it. Also, your 3D printer will only be able to make wire about 1 foot long. And since we'll have to ship the copper from the Earth to use in your 3D printer why wouldn't we just send extra wire already made?

You have referenced 3D printers making computer chips in other threads? No, you did not. The link you provided was to a chip assembly machine that puts chips into motherboards. That was not a 3D printer and I told you it wasn't. They're not the same thing.

There isn't one machine that can make everything or even close to everything. These links you are providing are to machines that make one specific thing. It takes many machines to make all the parts for a computer. It takes many machines to make all the parts for a Moxie. There isn't one machine that can make them.

It's safe to assume you can 3D print just about anything? Yeah, if you just call every machine a 3D printer even when it's not a 3D printer.

We're going round and round. You're ignoring reality.

Last edited by Dook (2017-04-18 17:58:16)

louis · 2017-04-19 02:46:34

The list would be endless but examples might include plastic pipes and joints for plumbing, plastic fan parts, batteries, electric motor parts, rover parts, nuts, bolts, screws, tools for the farm hab, geology tools, and kitchen tools.

On Mission One, a lot of this would be experimental. They might not require these desperately, since we would be looking to mount a failsafe mission. But I think we would also be experiment with creating the metal and plastic powders. 3D machines plus ISRU powders = independence day for Mars.

I particularly liked the rubber/ceramic substance that can be used for printing and which (potentially, only simulant material has been used of course to date) uses 90% Mars material.

Computer circuits can be printed...whether you call it 3D printing may be moot but it's the functionality that is key here.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/106 … t-flexible

I would accept this might be further down the line but what I am saying is we have reason to be optimistic that if we start a Mars Mission now then a lot of these print technologies will be available and mature in 10-20 years time.

You should take a look at what is being 3D printed:

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/106 … t-flexible

Dook wrote:

louis wrote:
louis
Clearly if we take metal and plastic powders we can make a wide range of parts? Then it should be easy to name those parts. I named many essential things it won't make. When are you going to name all the things it will make?
I'll give you one thing a 3D printer can make, it will make about a foot of wire. Now, that could be important if we have a unit where a wire is rubbing against something and shorts out. But, the wire your 3D printer will make won't have insulation so we can't use it. Also, your 3D printer will only be able to make wire about 1 foot long. And since we'll have to ship the copper from the Earth to use in your 3D printer why wouldn't we just send extra wire already made?
You have referenced 3D printers making computer chips in other threads? No, you did not. The link you provided was to a chip assembly machine that puts chips into motherboards. That was not a 3D printer and I told you it wasn't. They're not the same thing.
There isn't one machine that can make everything or even close to everything. These links you are providing are to machines that make one specific thing. It takes many machines to make all the parts for a computer. It takes many machines to make all the parts for a Moxie. There isn't one machine that can make them.
It's safe to assume you can 3D print just about anything? Yeah, if you just call every machine a 3D printer even when it's not a 3D printer.
We're going round and round. You're ignoring reality.

Antius · 2017-04-19 06:44:26

Nothing is the answer to everything.

But from what I understand of 3D printing (admittedly limited), these devices are useful because they allow a relatively small device to produce a huge variety of shaped components, without the need for economies of scale. The required inputs are feedstock and a CAD file. There are obvious limitations to such a device: it will tend to be optimised to a single feedstock so cannot print complex items made from different materials. One could not produce an electric motor as a single output and a circuit board would require more than one manufacturing process. Hardened tools would be difficult, as they would require both the 3D printing of steel and subsequent heat treatment.

But imagine having a machine that can make any shaped item you may desire out of polyethylene. That would clearly be a huge asset to a Mars base, even if it isn’t the solution to everything. The same is true if we could print small complex components out of aluminium. If you can 3D print complex moulds, then steel tools can be cast using carbonyl decomposition. A combination of these machines, using a variety of different feedstock would take a Mars base a long way towards self-sufficiency.

louis · 2017-04-19 08:01:34

Mostly right I think, but my understanding is that some (admittedly larger) 3D printers do operate with a range of feedstocks - and can print objects that combine metals and plastics for instance.

They are definitely working on circuitry. We're used to seeing copper wire in plastic tubes, but 3D printing might favour the wiring being "embedded" in a non conductive material.

Am going to look up carboynl decomposition!

Antius wrote:

Nothing is the answer to everything.
But from what I understand of 3D printing (admittedly limited), these devices are useful because they allow a relatively small device to produce a huge variety of shaped components, without the need for economies of scale. The required inputs are feedstock and a CAD file. There are obvious limitations to such a device: it will tend to be optimised to a single feedstock so cannot print complex items made from different materials. One could not produce an electric motor as a single output and a circuit board would require more than one manufacturing process. Hardened tools would be difficult, as they would require both the 3D printing of steel and subsequent heat treatment.
But imagine having a machine that can make any shaped item you may desire out of polyethylene. That would clearly be a huge asset to a Mars base, even if it isn’t the solution to everything. The same is true if we could print small complex components out of aluminium. If you can 3D print complex moulds, then steel tools can be cast using carbonyl decomposition. A combination of these machines, using a variety of different feedstock would take a Mars base a long way towards self-sufficiency.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-19 10:12:00

Louis-

When I first started reading about 3-D metal printing, my first thought was use of metal carbonyls. The are indeed, Hazardous Materials, since upon decomposition, liberate Carbon Monoxide. In a way, I was disappointed, since mixed carbonyls could give rise to alloy printing. The current technology is just the beginning, and another few years should see amazing advances.

Dook · 2017-04-19 10:31:43

louis wrote:

louis

A 3D printer can make plastic pipes? It can. But the plastic would have to be brought from the Earth so why not just ship plastic tubing pre-made on the Earth? The shipped weight would be exactly the same.

Plastic fan parts? It can make a fan blade and housing, the bearing and plastic material would have to be brought from the Earth.

A 3D printer can make batteries? No, it can make a plastic battery case. I'm not sure that it can make the panels inside but, even if it can, you would still have to ship all the raw materials from the Earth. Also, if I have the parts to assemble a battery I would just sit and do it myself, it would take about half a minute to put some panels into slots in a plastic battery case.

A 3D printer can make electric motor parts? It will make the case, the rotor, and the wires for it, which is a lot. The 3D printer won't spin the wires onto the motor so you would need another machine for that. Also, the 3D printer can't make the bearing so that has to come from the Earth.

Shipping all the raw materials to make something on Mars is exactly equal in weight to shipping the thing already pre-made. You're not saving any weight.

On mission one a lot of this would be experimental? They're not going to take a 3D printer with them on mission one, or mission two, or mission three. They're not going to Mars to make things, they're going to explore. They can't land empty and start making stuff they will need.

3D machines plus powders equals independence for Mars? No, it doesn't because a 3D printer just doesn't do enough. It can't do anywhere near what you think it can.

Computer circuits can be printed? There is a machine that makes chips. There is another machine that assembles the chips onto the board. They're not 3D printers. They don't just spray a computer motherboard into existence. There's also another machine that cuts the disk for a hard drive, and another machine that polishes it, and another machine that installs the bearing and another machine that installs the polished wheel onto the hard drive motor, this goes on and on and on.

We have reason to be optimistic? We do so let's wait for all these great things to get finished so we can have everything done for us when we step off the lander.

Your link is to a computer circuit that was printed. That's great, but it's one tiny component of a computer. That 3D printer did not print a computer.

Dook · 2017-04-19 10:40:52

Antius wrote:

Nothing is the answer to everything.
But from what I understand of 3D printing (admittedly limited), these devices are useful because they allow a relatively small device to produce a huge variety of shaped components, without the need for economies of scale. The required inputs are feedstock and a CAD file. There are obvious limitations to such a device: it will tend to be optimised to a single feedstock so cannot print complex items made from different materials. One could not produce an electric motor as a single output and a circuit board would require more than one manufacturing process. Hardened tools would be difficult, as they would require both the 3D printing of steel and subsequent heat treatment.
But imagine having a machine that can make any shaped item you may desire out of polyethylene. That would clearly be a huge asset to a Mars base, even if it isn’t the solution to everything. The same is true if we could print small complex components out of aluminium. If you can 3D print complex moulds, then steel tools can be cast using carbonyl decomposition. A combination of these machines, using a variety of different feedstock would take a Mars base a long way towards self-sufficiency.

Where are you going to get the feedstock? You're going to have to move Martian regolith, separate the material, discard the excess silicon and iron. Sift it to get the right size particles so they don't clog the machine, then store all these materials into bins for future use.

Just so you can make what? A Mars colony would need oxygen, food, water, and shelter for survival and the population would be limited by those same things. 3D printers can't make oxygen, food, or water. They can make a shelter but you're talking about huge amounts of material and the material has to be processed.

Having more metal components doesn't expand your base.

Antius · 2017-04-19 14:46:24

Dook wrote:

Where are you going to get the feedstock? You're going to have to move Martian regolith, separate the material, discard the excess silicon and iron. Sift it to get the right size particles so they don't clog the machine, then store all these materials into bins for future use.
Just so you can make what? A Mars colony would need oxygen, food, water, and shelter for survival and the population would be limited by those same things. 3D printers can't make oxygen, food, or water. They can make a shelter but you're talking about huge amounts of material and the material has to be processed.
Having more metal components doesn't expand your base.

Correct. Metal and plastic components cannot be eaten, but they can be used to make pressurised greenhouses that can be used to grow food and turn CO2 into oxygen. Likewise with water and shelter. Producing the basics of life on Mars requires a long chain of systems.

Plastic monomers can be manufactured in sabatier reactors from water and co2. Iron can be produced by hitting iron rich regolith with hot CO and separating the reduced metal using a magnet. The crude iron can then be purified further by conversion to metal carbonyl or by putting it into an electric furnace.

Of course, no one here has all the answers because this is an internet chat room for bored engineers. That doesn't mean answers do not exist.

Last edited by Antius (2017-04-19 15:01:19)

Dook · 2017-04-19 19:43:36

Antius wrote:

Dook wrote:
Where are you going to get the feedstock? You're going to have to move Martian regolith, separate the material, discard the excess silicon and iron. Sift it to get the right size particles so they don't clog the machine, then store all these materials into bins for future use.
Just so you can make what? A Mars colony would need oxygen, food, water, and shelter for survival and the population would be limited by those same things. 3D printers can't make oxygen, food, or water. They can make a shelter but you're talking about huge amounts of material and the material has to be processed.
Having more metal components doesn't expand your base.
Correct. Metal and plastic components cannot be eaten, but they can be used to make pressurised greenhouses that can be used to grow food and turn CO2 into oxygen. Likewise with water and shelter. Producing the basics of life on Mars requires a long chain of systems.
Plastic monomers can be manufactured in sabatier reactors from water and co2. Iron can be produced by hitting iron rich regolith with hot CO and separating the reduced metal using a magnet. The crude iron can then be purified further by conversion to metal carbonyl or by putting it into an electric furnace.
Of course, no one here has all the answers because this is an internet chat room for bored engineers. That doesn't mean answers do not exist.

Metal and plastic components can be used to make pressurized greenhouses on Mars? Yes, if all of the materials are shipped from the Earth.

How much does the raw plastic weigh that you can use in a 3D printer on Mars to make a greenhouse panel? Maybe 10 or 15 pounds.

Now, how much does that same fully assembled plastic greenhouse panel weigh? 10 or 15 pounds. They weigh the same. So why ship raw material when you can ship the finished product from the Earth?

You can use metal and plastic to get you water on Mars? Uhh, how?

You can use metal and plastic to get you shelter? Okay, but every new group of settlers will land in a perfect habitat so that's the one thing we don't have to spend time and effort on.

Plastic can be manufactured from water and oxygen? So, you're going to waste essential water and oxygen to make plastic that could be shipped from the Earth? Where are you going to get the water from?

Iron can be produced by hitting iron oxide with hot CO? Where are you going to get the CO from?

Iron would be separated further in an electric furnace? So, you want to spend a whole lot of launches to get infrastructure on Mars just so you can use the essential supplies of oxygen and water to make shelter that they don't need?

How does iron get you oxygen, water, or food?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-19 20:52:16

Dook wrote:

Iron can be produced by hitting iron oxide with hot CO? Where are you going to get the CO from?

Carbon Monoxide is a by product of the Moxie unit.

Reaction: 2 CO2 ----------------------------> O2 + 2 CO
catalyst; heat

Reduction of Fe3O4 (Iron Oxide)

Reaction: 4 CO + Fe3O4------------------->3 Fe + 4 CO2

Dook · 2017-04-19 21:36:35

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Dook wrote:
Iron can be produced by hitting iron oxide with hot CO? Where are you going to get the CO from?
Carbon Monoxide is a by product of the Moxie unit.
Reaction: 2 CO2 ----------------------------> O2 + 2 CO
catalyst; heat
Reduction of Fe3O4 (Iron Oxide)
Reaction: 4 CO + Fe3O4------------------->3 Fe + 4 CO2

Carbon monoxide is a by product of the Moxie unit? It is, but the Moxie's are not designed to store it. Two mini-Moxie's would be built into the tuna can, they would be turned on at Mars to produce breathing oxygen.

So, you would have to add in a carbon monoxide storage tank in the tuna can or, on Mars, attach a hose to the Moxie external vent and connect it to a tank on the surface to get CO.

Then you have to transfer CO from that tank to another more portable tank and somehow heat the CO then spray it onto your iron oxide.

So, all of this gets you some iron ore that needs more melting and pouring into a cast to make what exactly?

Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a reasonable or rational thing to do.

Last edited by Dook (2017-04-19 21:38:46)

louis · 2017-04-20 01:43:58

With CO2 and water you can make plastics. The processing might be more complex than on Earth, but it is possible, with maybe a small amount of additive brought from Earth where necessary for convenience's sake.

We won't be seeking to perfect plastics production on Mission One but there is no reason why, within a few years, we would be continuing to lug quantities of plastic (or metal) powder to Mars when we could be bringing in 3D printers, laptops, PV panels, RTGs, LED lighting systems...and humans of course.

Dook wrote:

louis wrote:
louis
A 3D printer can make plastic pipes? It can. But the plastic would have to be brought from the Earth so why not just ship plastic tubing pre-made on the Earth? The shipped weight would be exactly the same.
Plastic fan parts? It can make a fan blade and housing, the bearing and plastic material would have to be brought from the Earth.
A 3D printer can make batteries? No, it can make a plastic battery case. I'm not sure that it can make the panels inside but, even if it can, you would still have to ship all the raw materials from the Earth. Also, if I have the parts to assemble a battery I would just sit and do it myself, it would take about half a minute to put some panels into slots in a plastic battery case.
A 3D printer can make electric motor parts? It will make the case, the rotor, and the wires for it, which is a lot. The 3D printer won't spin the wires onto the motor so you would need another machine for that. Also, the 3D printer can't make the bearing so that has to come from the Earth.
Shipping all the raw materials to make something on Mars is exactly equal in weight to shipping the thing already pre-made. You're not saving any weight.
On mission one a lot of this would be experimental? They're not going to take a 3D printer with them on mission one, or mission two, or mission three. They're not going to Mars to make things, they're going to explore. They can't land empty and start making stuff they will need.
3D machines plus powders equals independence for Mars? No, it doesn't because a 3D printer just doesn't do enough. It can't do anywhere near what you think it can.
Computer circuits can be printed? There is a machine that makes chips. There is another machine that assembles the chips onto the board. They're not 3D printers. They don't just spray a computer motherboard into existence. There's also another machine that cuts the disk for a hard drive, and another machine that polishes it, and another machine that installs the bearing and another machine that installs the polished wheel onto the hard drive motor, this goes on and on and on.
We have reason to be optimistic? We do so let's wait for all these great things to get finished so we can have everything done for us when we step off the lander.
Your link is to a computer circuit that was printed. That's great, but it's one tiny component of a computer. That 3D printer did not print a computer.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-20 08:11:25

Dook-

You really need to stop superimposing your preconceived ideas on the statements of others, and in effect altering what was stated in legitimate response to your ongoing questions. Most of your statements are run through your "tuna can" filter as being the only way in which any Mars exploration will take place. That concept is now 27 years old, and to date, neither SpaceX nor NASA have presented anything resembling "tuna can" Habitat modules; nor have they been remotely suggested for space vehicles. Musk has presented his Interplanetary Transport system, but nothing in the way of permanent structures for Mars surface. NASA is simply mired in the SLS system, which has (again!) been postponed for the first flight. I seriously doubt that the first Martian pioneers will be stuck in Tuna Can Habitats, but will be in something resembling the Bigelow expandable shelters, subsequently buried under regolith.

The points many here are making simply extend the Zubrin, "Mars Direct" concept of In Situ Resource Utilization. Many of the concepts being presented here can be found in the ongoing works of Robert Zubrin, such as "Entering Space," and "Mars Direct." These seminal works serve to illustrate the evolution which has taken place in the original concept in light of Elon Musk/SpaceX.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-04-20 08:13:09)

Dook · 2017-04-20 09:21:31

louis wrote:

Louis

So, to you, lugging a quantity of plastic powder to Mars to make something on Mars is somehow less weight than lugging the thing already made on the Earth?

It's not less weight.

The plastic powder and the pre-made plastic greenhouse panel are exactly the same weight.

Dook · 2017-04-20 09:34:01

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Dook-
You really need to stop superimposing your preconceived ideas on the statements of others, and in effect altering what was stated in legitimate response to your ongoing questions. Most of your statements are run through your "tuna can" filter as being the only way in which any Mars exploration will take place. That concept is now 27 years old, and to date, neither SpaceX nor NASA have presented anything resembling "tuna can" Habitat modules; nor have they been remotely suggested for space vehicles. Musk has presented his Interplanetary Transport system, but nothing in the way of permanent structures for Mars surface. NASA is simply mired in the SLS system, which has (again!) been postponed for the first flight. I seriously doubt that the first Martian pioneers will be stuck in Tuna Can Habitats, but will be in something resembling the Bigelow expandable shelters, subsequently buried under regolith.
The points many here are making simply extend the Zubrin, "Mars Direct" concept of In Situ Resource Utilization. Many of the concepts being presented here can be found in the ongoing works of Robert Zubrin, such as "Entering Space," and "Mars Direct." These seminal works serve to illustrate the evolution which has taken place in the original concept in light of Elon Musk/SpaceX.

Stating an opinion is not superimposing.

What preconceived idea do I have?

The tuna can is not the only way a Mars mission will take place. We could use a cylinder. See, now you're the one superimposing preconceived ideas on others. You really need to stop.

The tuna can concept is 27 years old? So is Mars In-situ. So is staying on Mars 500 days instead of 30. I'd love to hear your great idea to improve on them?

Neither SpaceX nor NASA have presented anything resembling a tuna can? The Deep Space Module is a tuna can. Are you under the impression that the Red Dragon's bullet shape is some radical new design concept that is vastly superior to the tuna can just because of it's shape?

You seriously doubt that the first Martian pioneers will be stuck in tuna can habitats? The shape of the habitat is hardly important. It could be a sphere, a cylinder, or a bullet shaped habitat, either one works the same.

louis · 2017-04-20 18:03:48

As has already been pointed out, if you don't adopt this approach, you have to take all essential spare parts with you. Powders plus 3D printing means you don't have to take the full range of spare parts.

Dook wrote:

louis wrote:
Louis
So, to you, lugging a quantity of plastic powder to Mars to make something on Mars is somehow less weight than lugging the thing already made on the Earth?
It's not less weight.
The plastic powder and the pre-made plastic greenhouse panel are exactly the same weight.

Dook · 2017-04-20 18:17:01

louis wrote:

As has already been pointed out, if you don't adopt this approach, you have to take all essential spare parts with you. Powders plus 3D printing means you don't have to take the full range of spare parts.
Dook wrote:
louis wrote:
Louis
So, to you, lugging a quantity of plastic powder to Mars to make something on Mars is somehow less weight than lugging the thing already made on the Earth?
It's not less weight.
The plastic powder and the pre-made plastic greenhouse panel are exactly the same weight.

So the powders weigh less than the part they make?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-20 19:09:57

Powder for a few parts weighs less that taking the entire mechanism in duplicate.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-04-18 03:44:52

3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#2 2017-04-18 06:50:13

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#3 2017-04-18 07:58:26

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#4 2017-04-18 09:54:37

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#5 2017-04-18 13:04:33

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#6 2017-04-18 13:40:43

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#7 2017-04-18 16:33:54

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#8 2017-04-18 17:54:53

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#9 2017-04-19 02:46:34

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#10 2017-04-19 06:44:26

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#11 2017-04-19 08:01:34

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#12 2017-04-19 10:12:00

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#13 2017-04-19 10:31:43

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#14 2017-04-19 10:40:52

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#15 2017-04-19 14:46:24

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#16 2017-04-19 19:43:36

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#17 2017-04-19 20:52:16

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#18 2017-04-19 21:36:35

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#19 2017-04-20 01:43:58

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#20 2017-04-20 08:11:25

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#21 2017-04-20 09:21:31

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#22 2017-04-20 09:34:01

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#23 2017-04-20 18:03:48

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#24 2017-04-20 18:17:01

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#25 2017-04-20 19:09:57

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

Board footer