Space Station Astronauts Build Objects that Couldn't Exist on Earth (popsci.com) 26
"Aboard the International Space Station right now is a metal box, the size of a desktop PC tower," reports Popular Mechanics. "Inside, a nozzle is helping build little test parts that aren't possible to make on Earth."
The Washington Post reports: Backed by MIT's Space Exploration Initiative, astronauts on board the International Space Station on Friday completed a roughly 45-day experiment using a small microwave-sized box that injects resin into silicone skins to build parts, such as nuts and bolts. Now, after the parts travel back to Earth this weekend, scientists will evaluate the test pieces to examine whether they were made successfully — a process that could take weeks.
If so, it paves the way for astronauts to build huge parts that would be nearly impossible on Earth thanks to gravity and could upgrade space construction.It lets you build and modify space stations "quicker, cheaper and with less complexity," said Ariel Ekblaw, the founder of the Space Exploration Initiative. "It starts to unlock more opportunities for exploration."
The silicone skin is like a balloon filled with resin instead of air, an MIT engineer/researcher told Popular Science — with the resin then cured and solidified by a flash of ultraviolet light. (After which astronauts can cut away the silicone skin.)
The best part? The skin and the resin are both readily available off-the-shelf products.
The Washington Post reports: Backed by MIT's Space Exploration Initiative, astronauts on board the International Space Station on Friday completed a roughly 45-day experiment using a small microwave-sized box that injects resin into silicone skins to build parts, such as nuts and bolts. Now, after the parts travel back to Earth this weekend, scientists will evaluate the test pieces to examine whether they were made successfully — a process that could take weeks.
If so, it paves the way for astronauts to build huge parts that would be nearly impossible on Earth thanks to gravity and could upgrade space construction.It lets you build and modify space stations "quicker, cheaper and with less complexity," said Ariel Ekblaw, the founder of the Space Exploration Initiative. "It starts to unlock more opportunities for exploration."
The silicone skin is like a balloon filled with resin instead of air, an MIT engineer/researcher told Popular Science — with the resin then cured and solidified by a flash of ultraviolet light. (After which astronauts can cut away the silicone skin.)
The best part? The skin and the resin are both readily available off-the-shelf products.
Once and done? (Score:1)
(After which astronauts can cut away the silicone skin.)
That is a huge waste. You make one nut/bolt/whatever, and have to destroy the mold, a mold which can't even be recycled.
This may be the test project, but they have to come up with a better way. Imagine trying to build something in space and there thousands of these discarded molds floating around or needing to be disposed of.
Jumping to conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing the most important part: THIS IS A PROOF OF CONCEPT.
I this case it means that they are going to be testing what will certainly work before moving on the push the limits on the technology. The mature version of this technology may use skins that aren't even made of silicone and are a mere micrometers thick. Furthermore, you are assuming that the molds cannot be recycled. There is nothing that says the molds cannot be melted down and fed into a 3D printer for making molds.
By now, you should realized that you have hastily jumped to conclusions about this technology without giving it the slightest amount of consideration. Please refrain from repeating this mistake in the future as you are polluting the internet and people's minds with your ill-conceived notions.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the thing people are confused about is why is this POC different to resin casting here on Earth?
Its easy to build a blank, create a silicon mold of that blank (easy with two part silicon and a casting box), and then reuse that mold over and over with either two part epoxy resin or UV resin.
And the results are usable in a day or so.
So it would be interesting to see how this POC differs from an everyday process that amateurs do here on earth.
Things like “need to ensure the mold is full with no v
Re: (Score:3)
I think the thing people are confused about is why is this POC different to resin casting here on Earth?
You wrote an awful lot for not having actually RTFA which explains it:
The benefit of building parts like this in orbit is that Earth’s single most fundamental stressor—the planet’s gravity—is no longer a limiting factor. Say you tried to make particularly long beams with this method. “Gravity would make them sag,” says Ekblaw.
Freefall (Score:2)
This is News for Nerds, so can we stop pretending there is no gravity in LEO?
If that were true, the ISS would be somewhere in the Oort cloud by now.
Re: (Score:2)
This is News for Nerds, so can we stop pretending there is no gravity in LEO?
Gravity is being negated and the difference is negligible (ergo, "microgravity"). You have added nothing of value to this conversation by playing the semantics card.
Re: Once and done? (Score:2)
Imagine trying to build a huge space station module, and you have to ship up enough resin to make a 1cm thick wall, and a plastic mould that collapses down to nothing in the fairing. The outside of the mould is opaque, the inside transparent. Once itâ(TM)s up there you pump the thing full of resin to inflate the shape, stick some UV lights inside, turn them on, and boom, new space station module.
No need for nuts and bolts because it all cured as one solid item.
Iâ(TM)m sure using it to make nuts
Couldn't exist on Earth? Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Couldn't exist on Earth? Why? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm guessing it has something to do with micro or zero gravity. Materials react differently in a low-g/zero-g environment, particluarly liquids. Molecules and crystal lattices most likely form in a different manner.
I am not a chemical engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
Re:Couldn't exist on Earth? Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry - the simulation makes copious use of "try" and "catch".
Re:Couldn't exist on Earth? Why? (Score:4)
From TFA:
The benefit of building parts like this in orbit is that Earth’s single most fundamental stressor—the planet’s gravity—is no longer a limiting factor. Say you tried to make particularly long beams with this method. “Gravity would make them sag,”
Re: (Score:2)
If you tried any 3d "fdm" printing, you'd know that gravity can kill many projects. The thing will collapse before it is completed, or "arch" and "bridge" sections will sag and be deformed.
Some techniques (like using multiple materials) help prevent this to a point. But that introduces additional waste, and cannot be done "inside" the shape. (It has to be melted or cut away). Using the same material requires "supports", but those are not perfect, and also leave deformation marks behind.
Anyway, not having to
Re:Any practical application that needs zero gravi (Score:4, Insightful)
It's handy for building stuff in orbit. For use in orbit.
You seem to be thinking about building stuff in orbit to bring back down. There are a fair number of products that are demonstrably superior when made in microgravity, including some that are likely economical now. For example:
https://futurism.com/the-byte/... [futurism.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The article is not convincing. But are there real world applications that justify space production?
How about this. Ship up the silicon mold collapsed. Fill it with resin. End result a 20 m x 30 m cylindrical shell for a space station module way too large to ship up with even Starship. Ship up the equipment to make it habitable.
Foamed metal components are unusually strong for the weight. On the surface of Earth the foam is unevenly distributed, in micro gravity it can be evenly distributed.
Can not be done on Earth? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can, I think the article is conflating two different possibilities though.
1. Parts are expensive and often slow to get in space. If they can 3D print the part rather than making it here on earth, then shipping it up in a transport pod, it can be available faster, and if it fixes the equipment faster, that's a lot of money saved. That's where you'd see a 3D bolt being printed, when a stronger and lighter bolt could be made cheaply on earth, you're looking at a 30+ day delivery delay, possibly.
2. Parts
please provide more (Score:1)
By the way this post was Amazing but can you please write on Natural Formation of Rivers ! [clavick.com]
https://clavick.com/convention... [clavick.com] I Really Appreciate the way you describe the topic, nice keep it up. Clavick [clavick.com] https://clavick.com/ [clavick.com] https://clavick.com/minerals-a... [clavick.com]
Imagine the possibilities (Score:1)
> The best part? The skin and the resin are both readily available off-the-shelf products.
That's so awesome!
Too bad the tooling costs $200 billion.
evaluation takes weeks? (Score:1)
"scientists will evaluate the test pieces to examine whether they were made successfully — a process that could take weeks."
Strange that it would it take so long to figure that out. Also I am skeptical that nuts and bolts made of resin are going to be useful in space.
Puts on flame retardant suit, steps up to the mike (Score:2)
...and says one line--ONE LINE -- to start the ultimate war:
So it *IS* possible to create the perfect woman?
He also contacted Salman Rushdie to ask if he was selling the perfect bunker, or if Mr Rushdie needed a roommate