3D Printing in Space: NASA vs Made in Space
Space exploration has always been a field of innovation, and the use of 3D printing technology has revolutionized the way we approach space missions. NASA and Made in Space are the two leading entities in 3D printing technology in space. In this blog post, we'll compare their technology and see which one has an edge over the other.
NASA 3D Printing in Space
NASA started experimenting with 3D printing in space in 2014 using the Zero-G 3D Printer. The technology used in the printer is Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), which melts plastic filament and deposits it layer by layer to create an object. The printer was launched on a resupply mission to the ISS and successfully printed its first object in space in November 2014.
NASA has since then continued developing its 3D printing technology in space. In 2016, they tested the Refabricator, which is a device that recycles plastic waste and uses it as feedstock for 3D printers. In 2018, NASA tested the Archinaut technology, which can 3D print large structures in space by using robotic arms to deposit material layer by layer.
Made in Space 3D Printing in Space
Made in Space is a company founded in 2010 that specializes in additive manufacturing in space. They have developed multiple 3D printers for use in space, the most successful of which is the Additive Manufacturing Facility (AMF). The AMF uses a technology called Powder Bed Fusion (PBF), which uses a laser to melt and fuse metal powder to create an object.
One of the successful projects from Made in Space is the first 3D-printed metal object in space, a part of a jet engine injector. The part was printed on the AMF and tested on the ground, proving the viability of the technology.
Comparison between NASA and Made in Space 3D Printing
To compare NASA and Made in Space 3D printing technology, we need to look at the advantages and limitations of each technology.
Advantages
NASA's FFF technology has the advantage of being able to print with multiple types of plastic material, including high-performance plastics, which is useful in creating parts with specific properties. NASA has also developed technologies that allow it to recycle plastic waste.
Made in Space's PBF technology has the advantage of being able to print with metal, which is traditionally difficult to print with FFF. PBF can also create complex geometries and shapes that are not possible with FFF.
Limitations
NASA's FFF technology has a limitation in the size of objects that it can print. The printer's build volume is limited, which means larger objects have to be printed in smaller parts and then assembled together.
Made in Space's PBF technology has a limitation in the number of materials it can print with. Currently, the AMF can only print with one type of metal powder at a time.
Conclusion
Both NASA and Made in Space have made significant strides in 3D printing technology in space. They have developed technologies that solve the unique challenges of printing in a zero-gravity environment. Each technology has its advantages and limitations, and the choice of which to use will depend on the specific requirements of the mission.
We hope this comparison helped you understand the differences between NASA and Made in Space 3D printing technology in space. We'll keep following both entities and report back on any new developments.