3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

Dook · 2017-04-20 20:31:12

Oldfart1939 wrote:

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

But that was not the question. Does the whole mechanism often break or do certain components, maybe, I don't know, ones that have the most moving parts, tend to break more often than other parts, I don't know, like maybe the frame of the mechanism?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-20 20:38:36

No, the question was whether the powder weighed less than the part, which failed to identify the part...

A supply of metal powder and a single CD-ROM disc holding the printer instructions for all the parts of a device is why the printer, CD, and powder together contain a complete parts house.

Dook · 2017-04-20 20:57:15

I don't have to identify the part, any part, metal or plastic, the powder that makes it is equal in weight to the component already made.

Last edited by Dook (2017-04-20 20:57:51)

Antius · 2017-04-21 07:26:38

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, 3D printing only makes any sense if it can make use of insitu resources. Otherwise, it is unlikely to save mass and cost because spare components will always be lighter than the combined powders and the printer needed to make them, as you have correctly suggested.

Discussions on printers, habitat construction, etc., are only relevant when we are discussing options for long-term bases or human colonisation of Mars. Short-term Mars Direct type missions will make propellant and breathing gases and maybe grow a little food, but are unlikely to attempt the manufacture of anything else, unless part of a proof of principle demonstration. But for long-term bases, constructed at a single site, insitu resource utilisation becomes attractive as anything the base can make for itself is something that does not need to be shipped from Earth. The larger the base becomes in infrastructure and people, the more desirable and profitable that becomes and for a colonisation effort it will be essential in virtually all goods.

Dook · 2017-04-21 09:32:22

Antius wrote:

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, 3D printing only makes any sense if it can make use of insitu resources. Otherwise, it is unlikely to save mass and cost because spare components will always be lighter than the combined powders and the printer needed to make them, as you have correctly suggested.
Discussions on printers, habitat construction, etc., are only relevant when we are discussing options for long-term bases or human colonisation of Mars. Short-term Mars Direct type missions will make propellant and breathing gases and maybe grow a little food, but are unlikely to attempt the manufacture of anything else, unless part of a proof of principle demonstration. But for long-term bases, constructed at a single site, insitu resource utilisation becomes attractive as anything the base can make for itself is something that does not need to be shipped from Earth. The larger the base becomes in infrastructure and people, the more desirable and profitable that becomes and for a colonisation effort it will be essential in virtually all goods.

Even if they did use Mars resources in their 3D printer, which would require huge investments of time, power, add risk, and add many launches to get the equipment to Mars, the 3D printer still doesn't make sense because it can't make the things you really need like oxygen, food, and water. Nor can it make the components that you need most like solar arrays, plastic greenhouse panels, batteries, or high failure parts like electric motors or computer hard drives and computer motherboards.

The 3D printer can make brackets. That's fine if you have a high need for brackets.

It is attractive that a growing Mar base can provide for itself? It is but the limits on growth are oxygen, food, water, and then shelter. Just providing more shelter doesn't allow you to increase your population AND every settler lands in a perfect shelter anyway so it's not a need at all.

The larger the base becomes in infrastructure and people the more desirable and profitable? The first settlements infrastructure needs are mini-Moxies for oxygen, WAVAR units for water, greenhouses for food, shelter, as I've pointed out, they arrive in. Those are the things that limit growth, not iron manufacturing or sulfur production. Wasting time and power on those things increases risk and takes away from growing food and maintaining life support systems.

louis · 2017-04-21 12:44:58

Thanks Oldfart! It's been stated quite a few times but not sure some want to hear it!

Oldfart1939 wrote:

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

Dook · 2017-04-21 13:19:27

Why did you think that an entire Moxie would need to be replaced on Mars? Or an entire WAVAR unit instead of just fixing or replacing the one component that caused the malfunction?

Name the high failure parts (that means things that have moving parts) on a Moxie or WAVAR that can be fixed with a 3D printer?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-21 18:21:05

No. I don't have to do that, since most parts breakage is unanticipated. I couldn't name any of the parts in most of these devices (and neither could you). Your answers continue to be disingenuous, deflecting and asking additional questions rather than giving credence to clearly stated and factual replies.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-21 19:39:57

Insitu materials use comes in lots of methods and processes depending on what is wanted .

This link covers Four Options for Mars ISRU Ascent Propellant Production and The Chemistry of Mars ISRU
http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/fil … ers.V2.pdf

So where is the water is covered in this document and there opion as to where we should try to get it. Covered is In Situ Water Extraction from Mars Soils.

Mars ISRU for Production of Mission Critical Consumables – Options, Recent Studies, and Current State of the Art

Dook · 2017-04-21 20:28:12

Oldfart1939 wrote:

No. I don't have to do that, since most parts breakage is unanticipated. I couldn't name any of the parts in most of these devices (and neither could you). Your answers continue to be disingenuous, deflecting and asking additional questions rather than giving credence to clearly stated and factual replies.

Most part breakage is unanticipated? It is but for critical components that lives depend on a high time use is adopted. The component is replaced before it's expected failure rate depending on either number of uses or number of years. You don't know what parts are more likely to fail because you don't have the experience so I will teach you, no charge, this time.

Components that have moving parts and electronics fail much more often than hard components like cases, brackets, and vent tubes that carry almost no pressure.

Most of the parts for the Moxie are: an imager, an inlet tube, vent tube, purge tube, electronics box, two accumulators, a pump, a condenser, a heat strap, a cryocooler, a sensor, storage tank, two buffer tanks, a SOXE, a dust filter, and a case.

Most of the parts for the WAVAR are: a dust filter, a plastic fan, two DC pumps, a rack and pinion gear set, zeolite bed, large case, microwave (magnetron, waveguide, and antenna), a condenser (made of aluminum), a desorption chamber, a variable aperture valve (has to be controlled by an electric motor) an inlet tube, and an exhaust duct.

So, which parts can your 3D printer make?

SpaceNut · 2017-05-17 22:37:39

NASA Awards $100,000 in 3D-Printing Habitat Competition

NASA's Centennial Challenges program and Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, the 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge aims "to foster the development of technologies to manufacture a habitat using local indigenous materials with, or without, recyclable materials,"

SpaceNut · 2017-05-28 12:59:31

Repost with another link:

Dave_Duca wrote:

This looks a good spot to put the Article Link into.
http://www.livescience.com/59130-nasa-3 … wards.html
Since this Topic mentions SHELTER....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2017-04-20 20:31:12

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#27 2017-04-20 20:38:36

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#28 2017-04-20 20:57:15

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#29 2017-04-21 07:26:38

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#30 2017-04-21 09:32:22

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#31 2017-04-21 12:44:58

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#32 2017-04-21 13:19:27

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#33 2017-04-21 18:21:05

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#34 2017-04-21 19:39:57

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#35 2017-04-21 20:28:12

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#36 2017-05-17 22:37:39

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

#37 2017-05-28 12:59:31

Re: 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics!

Board footer