Major cool factor....

TMT

NASA funds research into self-building spaceships
Technology News Blog

Considering the difficulties of getting even relatively small
spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon into orbit, the idea of launching
larger interplanetary craft from Earth's surface seems especially
daunting. To address this, NASA thinks that future spacefaring
vehicles could actually construct themselves after they've launched
using onboard 3D printers, eventually transforming into ships much
larger and more complex than anything that could ever be built on the
planet.

The space agency recently awarded $100,000 to a project called
SpiderFab that aims to study this concept and ultimately produce
designs for such a craft. In theory, a small vehicle could launch in a
rocket carrying the raw materials needed by an onboard 3D printer.
Unlike fully-assembled craft, it wouldn't need to be designed to fold
up or built to withstand the extreme forces involved in liftoff and
ascent into space.

NASA thinks the concept could also be expanded to create a spaceship
that would find its own raw materials once in space, such as metal
from asteroids or even spare parts from defunct satellites. In
addition to building vehicles, the technology could be used to
construct massive radio telescopes and other hardware of a scale and
complexity that could never be launched from Earth.

Just imagine a space station that could "print" itself, without the
need for astronauts or multiple, expensive trips to bring loads of
components into orbit. Or maybe just a giant space baby like the one
seen in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

This article was written by Randy Nelson and originally appeared on
Tecca

In article e204c1ab-9ece-48df-a2bc-2f1b4598d283
@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

Major cool factor....

TMT

NASA funds research into self-building spaceships
Technology News Blog

Considering the difficulties of getting even relatively small
spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon into orbit, the idea of launching
larger interplanetary craft from Earth's surface seems especially
daunting. To address this, NASA thinks that future spacefaring
vehicles could actually construct themselves after they've launched
using onboard 3D printers, eventually transforming into ships much
larger and more complex than anything that could ever be built on the
planet.

While I'm all for advances in technology, this makes it clear that NASA
simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

If spacecraft are to be "constructed" using 3d printers, you still have
to get the mass needed into orbit.

The problem is that it still costs vastly too much to get a pound of
mass into orbit. As long as we are throwing away a multimillion dollar
booster on each launch, that will continue to be the case. The fuel
cost for an Apollo launch, at today's prices, would be about 5 million
dollars. To put that in perspective, a Falcon 9 launch costs 54 million
dollars to put up less than 1/10 the payload.

The Space Shuttle was a blunder that should never have been built. NASA
should have followed the Air Force model and gone by small steps. Get
the thermal protection system working right. Get the engines working
right. Get each individual piece working right, then put them together
in a slightly scaled up package and get that working right. Then scale
it again. But instead NASA in their arrogance assumed that their
untried engines and their untried thermal protection system and their
untried solid rocket boosters and the rest would all work just as
predicted, and when they didn't it was a disaster.

The space agency recently awarded $100,000 to a project called
SpiderFab that aims to study this concept and ultimately produce
designs for such a craft. In theory, a small vehicle could launch in a
rocket carrying the raw materials needed by an onboard 3D printer.
Unlike fully-assembled craft, it wouldn't need to be designed to fold
up or built to withstand the extreme forces involved in liftoff and
ascent into space.

NASA thinks the concept could also be expanded to create a spaceship
that would find its own raw materials once in space, such as metal
from asteroids or even spare parts from defunct satellites. In
addition to building vehicles, the technology could be used to
construct massive radio telescopes and other hardware of a scale and
complexity that could never be launched from Earth.

Just imagine a space station that could "print" itself, without the
need for astronauts or multiple, expensive trips to bring loads of
components into orbit. Or maybe just a giant space baby like the one
seen in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

This article was written by Randy Nelson and originally appeared on
Tecca

How about we just shoot NASA and give their budget to DARPA, that
actually seems to do useful things with it?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article e204c1ab-9ece-48df-a2bc-2f1b4598d283
@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

Major cool factor....

TMT

NASA funds research into self-building spaceships
Technology News Blog

Considering the difficulties of getting even relatively small
spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon into orbit, the idea of launching
larger interplanetary craft from Earth's surface seems especially
daunting. To address this, NASA thinks that future spacefaring
vehicles could actually construct themselves after they've launched
using onboard 3D printers, eventually transforming into ships much
larger and more complex than anything that could ever be built on the
planet.

While I'm all for advances in technology, this makes it clear that NASA
simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

If spacecraft are to be "constructed" using 3d printers, you still have
to get the mass needed into orbit.

The problem is that it still costs vastly too much to get a pound of
mass into orbit. As long as we are throwing away a multimillion dollar
booster on each launch, that will continue to be the case. The fuel
cost for an Apollo launch, at today's prices, would be about 5 million
dollars. To put that in perspective, a Falcon 9 launch costs 54 million
dollars to put up less than 1/10 the payload.

The Space Shuttle was a blunder that should never have been built. NASA
should have followed the Air Force model and gone by small steps. Get
the thermal protection system working right. Get the engines working
right. Get each individual piece working right, then put them together
in a slightly scaled up package and get that working right. Then scale
it again. But instead NASA in their arrogance assumed that their
untried engines and their untried thermal protection system and their
untried solid rocket boosters and the rest would all work just as
predicted, and when they didn't it was a disaster.

The space agency recently awarded $100,000 to a project called
SpiderFab that aims to study this concept and ultimately produce
designs for such a craft. In theory, a small vehicle could launch in a
rocket carrying the raw materials needed by an onboard 3D printer.
Unlike fully-assembled craft, it wouldn't need to be designed to fold
up or built to withstand the extreme forces involved in liftoff and
ascent into space.

NASA thinks the concept could also be expanded to create a spaceship
that would find its own raw materials once in space, such as metal
from asteroids or even spare parts from defunct satellites. In
addition to building vehicles, the technology could be used to
construct massive radio telescopes and other hardware of a scale and
complexity that could never be launched from Earth.

Just imagine a space station that could "print" itself, without the
need for astronauts or multiple, expensive trips to bring loads of
components into orbit. Or maybe just a giant space baby like the one
seen in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

This article was written by Randy Nelson and originally appeared on
Tecca

How about we just shoot NASA and give their budget to DARPA, that
actually seems to do useful things with it?



I do not disagree with your assesment of the shuttle (although hindsight is
usually more accurate than foresight), But I would not hold up DARPA as a
paradigm of wise spending. They fund way more wacky, useless stuff than
NASA. Most large corporations that fund their own research are no better;
their bad decisions are just hidden from public view (and usually covered up
inside the company as well).

Regarding the 3D printer project. It is not necessarily as silly as the
above article makes it sound. Here is a better summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/earl...spiderfab.html

The point is to make kilometer scale objects that could never be launched,
such as large interferometer baselines or long baseline radio telescope
arrays. The 3D printing can also be used to reduce weight by making more
complex truss patterns the same way they make lighter 3D printed bicycles.

$100,000 is not a lot of money for an engineering project, so it may be just
an early proof of concept study.

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article e204c1ab-9ece-48df-a2bc-2f1b4598d283
@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

Major cool factor....

TMT

NASA funds research into self-building spaceships
Technology News Blog

Considering the difficulties of getting even relatively small
spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon into orbit, the idea of launching
larger interplanetary craft from Earth's surface seems especially
daunting. To address this, NASA thinks that future spacefaring
vehicles could actually construct themselves after they've launched
using onboard 3D printers, eventually transforming into ships much
larger and more complex than anything that could ever be built on the
planet.

While I'm all for advances in technology, this makes it clear that NASA
simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

If spacecraft are to be "constructed" using 3d printers, you still have
to get the mass needed into orbit.

The problem is that it still costs vastly too much to get a pound of
mass into orbit. As long as we are throwing away a multimillion dollar
booster on each launch, that will continue to be the case. The fuel
cost for an Apollo launch, at today's prices, would be about 5 million
dollars. To put that in perspective, a Falcon 9 launch costs 54 million
dollars to put up less than 1/10 the payload.

The Space Shuttle was a blunder that should never have been built. NASA
should have followed the Air Force model and gone by small steps. Get
the thermal protection system working right. Get the engines working
right. Get each individual piece working right, then put them together
in a slightly scaled up package and get that working right. Then scale
it again. But instead NASA in their arrogance assumed that their
untried engines and their untried thermal protection system and their
untried solid rocket boosters and the rest would all work just as
predicted, and when they didn't it was a disaster.

The space agency recently awarded $100,000 to a project called
SpiderFab that aims to study this concept and ultimately produce
designs for such a craft. In theory, a small vehicle could launch in a
rocket carrying the raw materials needed by an onboard 3D printer.
Unlike fully-assembled craft, it wouldn't need to be designed to fold
up or built to withstand the extreme forces involved in liftoff and
ascent into space.

NASA thinks the concept could also be expanded to create a spaceship
that would find its own raw materials once in space, such as metal
from asteroids or even spare parts from defunct satellites. In
addition to building vehicles, the technology could be used to
construct massive radio telescopes and other hardware of a scale and
complexity that could never be launched from Earth.

Just imagine a space station that could "print" itself, without the
need for astronauts or multiple, expensive trips to bring loads of
components into orbit. Or maybe just a giant space baby like the one
seen in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

This article was written by Randy Nelson and originally appeared on
Tecca

How about we just shoot NASA and give their budget to DARPA, that
actually seems to do useful things with it?



I do not disagree with your assesment of the shuttle (although hindsight is
usually more accurate than foresight), But I would not hold up DARPA as a
paradigm of wise spending. They fund way more wacky, useless stuff than
NASA. Most large corporations that fund their own research are no better;
their bad decisions are just hidden from public view (and usually covered up
inside the company as well).

DARPA funds "silly stuff" but they don't spend billions on single
programs that turn out to be crap.

Regarding the 3D printer project. It is not necessarily as silly as the
above article makes it sound. Here is a better summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/earl...spiderfab.html

The point is to make kilometer scale objects that could never be launched,
such as large interferometer baselines or long baseline radio telescope
arrays. The 3D printing can also be used to reduce weight by making more
complex truss patterns the same way they make lighter 3D printed bicycles.

$100,000 is not a lot of money for an engineering project, so it may be just
an early proof of concept study.

I don't have a problem with the notion of a 3d printer as an orbital
fabricator, but NASA does not have their eye on the ball. They're
looking for glory when what's needed is a Jeep.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:06:42 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Major cool factor....

TMT

NASA funds research into self-building spaceships Technology News Blog

Considering the difficulties of getting even relatively small spacecraft
like the SpaceX Dragon into orbit, the idea of launching larger
interplanetary craft from Earth's surface seems especially daunting. To
address this, NASA thinks that future spacefaring vehicles could
actually construct themselves after they've launched using onboard 3D
printers, eventually transforming into ships much larger and more
complex than anything that could ever be built on the planet.

The space agency recently awarded $100,000 to a project called SpiderFab
that aims to study this concept and ultimately produce designs for such
a craft. In theory, a small vehicle could launch in a rocket carrying
the raw materials needed by an onboard 3D printer. Unlike
fully-assembled craft, it wouldn't need to be designed to fold up or
built to withstand the extreme forces involved in liftoff and ascent
into space.

NASA thinks the concept could also be expanded to create a spaceship
that would find its own raw materials once in space, such as metal from
asteroids or even spare parts from defunct satellites. In addition to
building vehicles, the technology could be used to construct massive
radio telescopes and other hardware of a scale and complexity that could
never be launched from Earth.

Just imagine a space station that could "print" itself, without the need
for astronauts or multiple, expensive trips to bring loads of components
into orbit. Or maybe just a giant space baby like the one seen in "2001:
A Space Odyssey."

This article was written by Randy Nelson and originally appeared on
Tecca

Oh boy. NASA in charge of the software that's gonna keep us from being
supplanted by machine-based life. Why do I not feel comforted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neu...Neumann_probes

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:00:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

In article e204c1ab-9ece-48df-a2bc-2f1b4598d283
@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

Major cool factor....

TMT

NASA funds research into self-building spaceships Technology News Blog

Considering the difficulties of getting even relatively small
spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon into orbit, the idea of launching
larger interplanetary craft from Earth's surface seems especially
daunting. To address this, NASA thinks that future spacefaring vehicles
could actually construct themselves after they've launched using
onboard 3D printers, eventually transforming into ships much larger and
more complex than anything that could ever be built on the planet.

While I'm all for advances in technology, this makes it clear that NASA
simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

If spacecraft are to be "constructed" using 3d printers, you still have
to get the mass needed into orbit.

The problem is that it still costs vastly too much to get a pound of
mass into orbit. As long as we are throwing away a multimillion dollar
booster on each launch, that will continue to be the case. The fuel
cost for an Apollo launch, at today's prices, would be about 5 million
dollars. To put that in perspective, a Falcon 9 launch costs 54 million
dollars to put up less than 1/10 the payload.

I think NASA's point is that the mass needed for a spacecraft that's
constructed in space is a lot lower than the mass needed for a spacecraft
that's constructed here, then needs to withstand 6 or 8 or 10 g's, or
whatever.

But your point about launch costs is well taken. Do you happen to have
about 60km of really strong cable lying around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:00:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

In article e204c1ab-9ece-48df-a2bc-2f1b4598d283
@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

Major cool factor....

TMT

NASA funds research into self-building spaceships Technology News Blog

Considering the difficulties of getting even relatively small
spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon into orbit, the idea of launching
larger interplanetary craft from Earth's surface seems especially
daunting. To address this, NASA thinks that future spacefaring vehicles
could actually construct themselves after they've launched using
onboard 3D printers, eventually transforming into ships much larger and
more complex than anything that could ever be built on the planet.

While I'm all for advances in technology, this makes it clear that NASA
simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

If spacecraft are to be "constructed" using 3d printers, you still have
to get the mass needed into orbit.

The problem is that it still costs vastly too much to get a pound of
mass into orbit. As long as we are throwing away a multimillion dollar
booster on each launch, that will continue to be the case. The fuel
cost for an Apollo launch, at today's prices, would be about 5 million
dollars. To put that in perspective, a Falcon 9 launch costs 54 million
dollars to put up less than 1/10 the payload.

I think NASA's point is that the mass needed for a spacecraft that's
constructed in space is a lot lower than the mass needed for a spacecraft
that's constructed here, then needs to withstand 6 or 8 or 10 g's, or
whatever.

But your point about launch costs is well taken. Do you happen to have
about 60km of really strong cable lying around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

You need more than 60km. The center of mass of the thing has to be
beyonde Clarke orbit--that means that it has to be more than 25,000
miles long.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:48:00 -0700, "anorton"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
ain.local...
In article e204c1ab-9ece-48df-a2bc-2f1b4598d283
@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

Major cool factor....

TMT

NASA funds research into self-building spaceships
Technology News Blog

Considering the difficulties of getting even relatively small
spacecraft like the SpaceX Dragon into orbit, the idea of launching
larger interplanetary craft from Earth's surface seems especially
daunting. To address this, NASA thinks that future spacefaring
vehicles could actually construct themselves after they've launched
using onboard 3D printers, eventually transforming into ships much
larger and more complex than anything that could ever be built on the
planet.

While I'm all for advances in technology, this makes it clear that NASA
simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

If spacecraft are to be "constructed" using 3d printers, you still have
to get the mass needed into orbit.

The problem is that it still costs vastly too much to get a pound of
mass into orbit. As long as we are throwing away a multimillion dollar
booster on each launch, that will continue to be the case. The fuel
cost for an Apollo launch, at today's prices, would be about 5 million
dollars. To put that in perspective, a Falcon 9 launch costs 54 million
dollars to put up less than 1/10 the payload.

The Space Shuttle was a blunder that should never have been built. NASA
should have followed the Air Force model and gone by small steps. Get
the thermal protection system working right. Get the engines working
right. Get each individual piece working right, then put them together
in a slightly scaled up package and get that working right. Then scale
it again. But instead NASA in their arrogance assumed that their
untried engines and their untried thermal protection system and their
untried solid rocket boosters and the rest would all work just as
predicted, and when they didn't it was a disaster.

The space agency recently awarded $100,000 to a project called
SpiderFab that aims to study this concept and ultimately produce
designs for such a craft. In theory, a small vehicle could launch in a
rocket carrying the raw materials needed by an onboard 3D printer.
Unlike fully-assembled craft, it wouldn't need to be designed to fold
up or built to withstand the extreme forces involved in liftoff and
ascent into space.

NASA thinks the concept could also be expanded to create a spaceship
that would find its own raw materials once in space, such as metal
from asteroids or even spare parts from defunct satellites. In
addition to building vehicles, the technology could be used to
construct massive radio telescopes and other hardware of a scale and
complexity that could never be launched from Earth.

Just imagine a space station that could "print" itself, without the
need for astronauts or multiple, expensive trips to bring loads of
components into orbit. Or maybe just a giant space baby like the one
seen in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

This article was written by Randy Nelson and originally appeared on
Tecca

How about we just shoot NASA and give their budget to DARPA, that
actually seems to do useful things with it?



I do not disagree with your assesment of the shuttle (although hindsight is
usually more accurate than foresight), But I would not hold up DARPA as a
paradigm of wise spending. They fund way more wacky, useless stuff than
NASA. Most large corporations that fund their own research are no better;
their bad decisions are just hidden from public view (and usually covered up
inside the company as well).

Regarding the 3D printer project. It is not necessarily as silly as the
above article makes it sound. Here is a better summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/earl...spiderfab.html

The point is to make kilometer scale objects that could never be launched,
such as large interferometer baselines or long baseline radio telescope
arrays. The 3D printing can also be used to reduce weight by making more
complex truss patterns the same way they make lighter 3D printed bicycles.

$100,000 is not a lot of money for an engineering project, so it may be just
an early proof of concept study.


Thats actually a VERY good idea, if they can make it work properly.

Spinning kilometer sized objects in direct sunlight..does seem fraught
with some dangers however.

Gunner

--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:48:00 -0700, "anorton"

I do not disagree with your assesment of the shuttle (although
hindsight is
usually more accurate than foresight),

The failure was in not foreseeing that the USSR would soon fall.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm
"Although the KH-12 was originally designed to be place into orbit
(and perhaps serviced and refueled in orbit) by the Shuttle,..."

What did you think drove the Shuttle's design requirements???

siv54

Tim Wescott wrote:

I think NASA's point is that the mass needed for a spacecraft that's
constructed in space is a lot lower than the mass needed for a
spacecraft that's constructed here, then needs to withstand 6 or 8 or
10 g's, or whatever.

But lifting the manufacturing machinery means you have to build a minimum
number of ships to break even. Maybe 10 or maybe 100.


But your point about launch costs is well taken. Do you happen to
have about 60km of really strong cable lying around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

60 km? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I crossed out what I started to write about 45,000 miles (2 * geosync orbit)
after looking at the article.

The article made me think...

OK, the counterweight means it can be shorter than 45,000 miles, and I guess
it can move (reel itself in) to keep the center of mass in place.

Giant Weed Whacker!

I crossed out what I wrote when I realized you meant 60,000 miles. Right?

Thinking of a weed whacker, the chance of a collision with another satellite
is much greater than sat-to-sat. We rely a great deal on the fact that sats
at the same altitude are at the same speed.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

anorton wrote:

The point is to make kilometer scale objects that could never be
launched, such as large interferometer baselines or long baseline
radio telescope arrays.

I wonder what a large optical telescope array could see with long exposures
and massive image processing.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

Thinking of a weed whacker, the chance of a collision with another
satellite is much greater than sat-to-sat. We rely a great deal on
the fact that sats at the same altitude are at the same speed.


Not if their eccentricity and inclination differ.

jsw

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
anorton wrote:

The point is to make kilometer scale objects that could never be
launched, such as large interferometer baselines or long baseline
radio telescope arrays.

I wonder what a large optical telescope array could see with long
exposures and massive image processing.

It could resolve more stars into disks instead of points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...esolved_images
but there is a huge gap between imaging stars and imaging planets.

The search for planets by measuring stellar dimming from occultation
puts limits on the likelihood of many massive unknown dark objects
orbiting the stars we have checked.

jsw

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

Thinking of a weed whacker, the chance of a collision with another
satellite is much greater than sat-to-sat. We rely a great deal on
the fact that sats at the same altitude are at the same speed.


Not if their eccentricity and inclination differ.

Not many satellite orbits are very eccentric, but there is still a much
greater chance of collision than between 2 satellites.

If the orbit is inclined the elevator still cuts across it twice a day.

My point is that collision avoidance would be a concern much more often than
with other satellites. You would never avoid a collision thanks to
altitude.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Not if their eccentricity and inclination differ.

Not many satellite orbits are very eccentric, but there is still a
much greater chance of collision than between 2 satellites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit