Analysis of specimens from phase I of the 3D printing in Zero G technology demonstration mission

Abstract

Purpose Human space exploration to date has been limited to low Earth orbit and the moon. The International Space Station (ISS) provides a unique opportunity for researchers to prove out the technologies that will enable humans to safely live and work in space for longer periods and venture farther into the solar system. The ability to manufacture parts in-space rather than launch them from earth represents a fundamental shift in the current risk and logistics paradigm for human space exploration. The purpose of this mission is to prove out the fused deposition modeling (FDM) process in the microgravity environment, evaluate microgravity effects on the materials manufactured, and provide the first demonstration of on-demand manufacturing for space exploration. Design/methodology/approach In 2014, NASA, in cooperation with Made in Space, Inc., launched a 3D printer to the ISS with the goal of evaluating the effect of microgravity on the fused deposition modeling (FDM) process and prove out the technology for use on long duration, long endurance missions where it could leveraged to reduce logistics requirements and enhance crew safety by enabling a rapid response capability. This paper presents the results of testing of the first phase of prints from the technology demonstration mission, where 21 parts where printed on orbit and compared against analogous specimens produced using the printer prior to its launch to ISS. Findings Mechanical properties, dimensional variations, structural differences and chemical composition for ground and flight specimens are reported. Hypotheses to explain differences observed in ground and flight prints are also developed. Phase II print operations, which took place in June and July of 2016, and ground-based studies using a printer identical to the hardware on ISS, will serve to answer remaining questions about the phase I data set. Based on Phase I analyses, operating the FDM process in microgravity has no substantive effect on the material produced. Practical implications Demonstrates that there is no discernable, engineering significant effect on operation of FDM in microgravity. Implication is that material characterization activities for this application can be ground-based. Originality/value Summary of results of testing of parts from the first operation of 3D printing in a microgravity environment.

Development and Mechanical Properties of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene for In-Space Manufacturing Applications

“…In Figure 11, three of these objects are shown: an open-faced 12 mm wrench, a helical gear, and a handrail clamp. Similar objects were printed as test objects in the original 3D printing in microgravity experiments at the ISS [47]. While none of these objects were tested to failure, the objects were much stiffer than their control ABS counterparts.…”

“…Mission safety is increased because spare parts can be made as necessary, even if spare parts have not been shipped to the off-earth location. To ensure that 3D printers and 3D printed materials behave as expected in microgravity environments, several studies have been conducted at the ISS [44][45][46][47]. Test samples were printed at the ISS and samples were sent back to earth for further testing.…”

Progress in Additive Manufacturing of Energetic Materials: Creating the Reactive Microstructures with High Potential of Applications

“…The governing principles of additive manufacturing vary widely from deposition of vaporized substances [14,15] to printing with piezoelectrically ejected droplets [16,17]. Recent breakthroughs in additive manufacturing are associated with the accessibility of 3D printing, which has been successfully applied in diverse fields [18][19][20], including military [16,21] and aerospace [22][23][24][25]. The manufactured formulations here contain the same principal components as those in reactive composites (metals, polymers, and metal oxides), allowing us to hypothesize the usefulness and power of 3D printing for energetics.…”

A closed-form orthotropic constitutive model for fused filament fabrication materials

“…Several limitations are theorized to be reasons driving down commercial demand: long print times [11], coarse surface finish [12], coarse geometric resolution [13], low interlayer bonding strength [14]- [16], and highly anisotropic behavior [17]- [21]. Nonetheless, there are certain applications where FFF is a better fit; for example, the International Space Station operates a FFF machine because it can work in microgravity, the feedstock is relatively nonhazardous, and the printed parts are recyclable [22], [23].…”