/sci/ - Science & Math

They have a Starship in their legit render.

This stuff is wild

>>12766184
landing pad

>>12766190

>>12766181
>They have a Starship in their legit render.
Okay, show is over. That's how you know it's a scam.

>>12766191

>>12766190
that google chrome symbol kek

>>12766194

>>12766200

>>12766193
Idk man its on the NASA page the OP posted plus SLS isn't doing too hot..

>>12766202
Top down render

>>12766199
I AM NOT LIVING IN A GOOGLE SHACK!

>>12766205
Wait why are they shaped like doughnuts?

>>12766193
tomorrow starship SN10 will land correctly

>>12766179
Now let's get a move on and actually make this happen.
I hope NASA remembers how to do that.

>>12766200
>accumulation
I hope they plan to do an automatic cleaning system or powder or it will fill after 2-3 launches

>>12766200
>accumulation
I hope they plan to do an automatic cleaning system of powder or it will fill after 2-3 launches

>>12766223
I think Deviation would be the best desu

>>12766227
yeah I think too but I don't fully understand what is their idea of deviation

>>12766181
>>12766179
>starship in the official render

The project is with ICON a 3d printing company from Texas that has been trying to develop construction tech for earth and have printed some buildings so far.
>https://youtu.be/is2UVodNphY
And SEArch+ who won the the Design competition with pic related as well as did well with the Ice House, Ice home, Xhouse1 and Xhouse2
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4pxp5AGeNE&t=94s
>https://vimeo.com/349338189
>https://vimeo.com/270253145
>https://vimeo.com/315160229

>>12766230
Me either desu

>>12766231
>implying the starliner won't be shuttling cargo to the moonbase

>>12766247
Meme companies that can’t meet safety standards on earth, or do work cost competitively
But hey let’s do it on the moon lol

>>12766256
ICON met safety standards, the other company is basically a research company that NASA liked for their designs. Also who else would they pick?

Did someone say print? Keep this thread up, ill be back to shitpost when i wake up

>>12766296
lol

>>12766273

>>12766205
I like the layout of this, its like an installation from a bond movie. Seems very aesthetic and modern, perfect for the moon. Are they planning greenhouse domes?

>>12766225
nah, they just need a space janitor with a shovel and a broom clearing that trench. its how you create job opportunities

>>12766336
>Fucking jannie on the moon is making more than me and he gets government benefits
God i hate my life

>>12766339
our brave janitors dedicate their lives to public service and do so with no remuneration. they should be recognised with a park or statue.

>https://youtu.be/a9cmTJw5cf0
proof of company actually printing homes

>>12766356
like 90% of it isn't printed at all lmao

>>12766357
Does windows and a roof even matter in this situation? also I think leaving holes is another proof of conccept

>>12766214
lunar patrol hq

>>12766253
it will, just not launched by sIs

>>12766214
Looks lite the ring is the hab and that the middle could be used as a domed courtyard.

>>12766388
>>12766253
I think you mean Orion but yeah

>>12766350
Yes well they did do it for free

>>12766381
Kek

So this actually looks very SpaceX like. What are the chances of NASA sharing this with SpaceX?

>>12766179
>NASA plans
That’s all they do. Where does all the money go, because all I have ever seen where low quality pictures and movies with not particularly smart people trying to explain physics to children.

>>12766495
>where low quality
were

>>12766247
You forgot BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group which has fone some real off the wall projects

>>12766495
A building company, a major architecture firm and a research group teamed up to get this done with cooperation from NASA in the south. This isn't a competition or research test, this looks like contract work which means its going to happen

>>12766336
https://i.imgur.com/kYVEeEZ.gifv

>>12766510
>like contract work which means its going to happen
yeah, and will be done in 30 years, you know how government projects work today.

>>12766253
>stariner
>cargo
u wot m8

>>12766510
It’s always playing with peoples imagination. There are CGI imagines and movies about, how things are allegedly going to look. And if you look closely enough you can easily see even the things allegedly currently going on are CGI.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KYMuxmygS78

>>12766601
kek
star wars kid has a job now? to be honest, im impressed

>>12766707
>being schizo on /sci

>>12766804
So you say this isn’t CGI?

>>12766859
No him, but yes. Take your meds.

>>12766707
Listen m8... artists just guess at what things will look like. It isnt a promise of what anything actually will look like and is very rarely even close to reality. Including the artist(s?) who made these images for NASA.

>>12766179
APOLOGISE

>>12766184
why did they make the dude in the bottom right look like Hank Hill

>>12766317
thought that guy was taking a shit at first
>>12766336
I'd do it

>>12767028
PropaneLOx confirmed

>>12766995
For what? This contract was announced in October

>>12767028
He makes rockets and rocket accessories

>>12766179
Why do moon habs always look cooler than mars habs? Is it the dust? I think its the dust

>/sfg/ btfo by proontfags
So fucking based

>>12767852
It's because "just yeet more supplies at the moonbase so they can build faster" is a reasonable thing with Falcon Heavy (or Starship or any other sufficiently powerful rocket) and has a much faster delivery cycle. Mars bases have to build iteratively and have painfully short transfer windows by comparison.

>>12766247
tunnels with surface level nodules seem far better.

>>12766179
Why can't we take the ISS and plant it on the moon, theres your moon base. It's literally as easy as that.

>>12766707
You are more retarded than you know, friend. You don't even know what a greenscreen is meant to be like, but you feel confident enough to have strong opinions about this stuff. A greenscreen does not have a grid pattern. Here is what they were filming with it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iginxrFn3jg

>>12768198
No they really dont

>>12768292
Good luck landing the ISS on a planetary body

>>12768018
I think its the colors and the lighting to be honest. It just looks so clean in comparison

>>12766179
This is cool as shit. How are you guys not more excited for this?

Is this really going to happen? Are we actually going to colonize the moon?

>>12768599
More like permanent science base. I think NASA realizes the starship is going to work and they are planning accordingly. Also fleshing out construction printing tech is in NASA's best interest

>>12766179
o-ooOHH FUCK IS THAT, IS THAT A PROONTER I SEE?
I-I'm IM, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH I'M GONNA PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONT OH OHHH OHH FUCK I'M PROOOOONTING!

>>12768693
We are going to proont all over the moon's face anon. Its going to be glorious

>>12766179
That kelly clarkson clip really shows how little normies know about anything space related

I'm actually proonting something myself.

>>12768716
Haven't you learned yet Anon, normoids are literally mentally deficient.

>>12768736
It still surprises me i can't help it

>>12768736
It's what the jews want. Midwits are the perfect subjects to strip down the souls of.

>>12768735
What?

>>12768739
Its just so surprising

>>12766179
I don't get one bit about moon bases. What is the point of bulding base on a celestial body that has literally no protection from meteorites? I mean, moon is literally our little meteor shield.

>>12768780
Because it's fucking cool.

>>12768771
Sooner or later that will give way to exhaustion, at this point outside of very simple very basic social interactions necessary for work and general civility I try and ignore normoids as much as humanly possible.

>>12768780
Test bed for tech, its close in case of problems. Its a good science base and it inspires normies.

>>12768792
Same.

Interesting, is this dome supposed to make like. Courtyard for the building?

>>12768783
>>12768795
these are good, but just too obvious a reasons. I thought that I might be missing some actually important bit but it seems it is just as simple, as what I already had in the back of my head. Well, thanks for saying this at least I know this shit is just to get some knowledge before setting off to Mars for good.

>>12768819
Here is a few more pics of that dome system. Would actually be a great thing for long term habitation

>>12768830
>this shit is just to get some knowledge before setting off to Mars for good.
Exactly, thats what NASA has planned anyway, SpaceX is going directly to mars but there is also a lot of scientific opportunities on the moon that would be different than LEO so NASA is for sure interested.

>>12768831

What are the odds that spacex can also use this company?

>>12766179
Imagine starships landing and supplying a bunch of pinecones and doughnuts

>>12768884
Elon better go with printing. SpaceX aesthetics practically require it

Nice that looks better than the ESA moonbase and i loved the ESA moonbase design (pic related)

>>12768994
Imagine ESA and NASA making moonbases

Soon

>>12766899
>believing in psychiatry as a science
Back to plebbit

>>12767246
>meme image
Heh, amusing as I remembered Wash Post is owned by Bezos.

>>12769190
Ugh i conveniently forgot that

>>12768819
>>12768831
>>12768846
>>12768922
>>12768994
>>12768999
All cgi just like the real pics and movies.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V0KZa0EkwTc&list=PLEzivhxtxgbsirqrt6Gk8royLtMQHNmSg&index=27

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=skIq1C_3VjI

>>12766179
they don't plan to print on the Moon. They're just funding the development of the technology. Also why the fuck are you posting anything from dezeen? They're just a shitty industrial design blog. Throw that crap in the trash.
>>12766190
>>12766191
>>12766194
>>12766202
It's entirely possible that this could become obsolete as we understand rocket plume transport better. Second that seems to require quite a bit construction work on the Moon. That they are doing some CFD work is nice though.
>>12766210
that's a landing pad anon.
>>12766221
Looks like an awful lot of landed mass anon. Goddamn I hate industrial designers so fucking much. Learn what a fucking truss is.

>>12769261
Watch the fucking videos you dumb nigger

>>12769261
Wow that second video is amazing, I feel like I lost IQ points listening to him. He doesn't understand the moon's rotation, and he doesn't see the clouds moving even though they clearly do. He also apparently thinks it's just permanently daytime on the north pole during the summer, if he thinks it should be pointed directly at the camera

Do you go looking for these videos just to mess with people?

>>12769282
>they don't plan to print on the Moon
Yeah they are...

>>12769308
have they funded a mission to print stuff on the Moon?

>>12769318
Artemis 3

>>12769295
>he doesn’t understand.
I don’t care about him. It’s the video.
>moon's rotation
Would do you mean? The orbit and the allegedly synchronized rotation?
>pole during the summer, if he thinks it should be pointed directly at the camera
Elaborate.
>>12769294
>watch
And?

>>12769337
the link you provided from NASA does not say that.

>>12769338
Also I don’t get how he is wrong about the shadow. There should be one visible on the lower side of the moon. If the video is taken at the time they alleged.

>>12769338
>And?
The tech has already been tested irl

>>12769359
Which tech?

>>12769338
>Would do you mean? The orbit and the allegedly synchronized rotation?
Yes. See this webm I made just now. The moon is clearly rotating. It just rotates significantly slower than the Earth, since the same side is always facing us

And I'm not sure what I need to elaborate about the north pole part. If it was pointed directly at the camera, it would always get the same amount of light, which is just not the case. The day is much longer in the summer, but the sun still rises and sets even in the Arctic. There is nothing inconsistent about the Earth's angle, it's exactly as it should be

>>12769346
I'm not the op but in the nasa link
>As part of the Artemis program, NASA has a concept for the core surface elements needed to establish a sustained presence on the Moon
It is obvious that this is the plan for their lunar habitats. It may not be artemis 3 but it is the artemis program and by the time artemis 3 launches this tech should be well developed. These guys are getting NASA and airforce contracts. This shit will be fleshed out

>>12769392
Printing load bearing habitable structures

>>12769416
This guy is arguing that rockets and satellites are fake, I don't think he cares about the 3D printing stuff very much

>>12769398
>The moon is clearly rotating. It just rotates significantly slower than the Earth, since the same side is always facing us
It doesn’t rotate in this cgi.
> If it was pointed directly at the camera, it would always get the same amount of light, which is just not the case
If it was the day they claim it was there should be a shadow on the moon, but there isn’t.
The clouds aren’t moving.
>there is nothing inconsistent
There is if it was taken at the dare they claim.

>>12769428
>It doesn’t rotate in this cgi.
Did you even look at my webm? It's the same pictures that the guy in the video is talking about. It's clearly rotating

>The clouds aren’t moving.
Yes they are. Just compare these areas

>If it was the day they claim it was there should be a shadow on the moon, but there isn’t.
I have no idea what this is about. A shadow from what?

>>12769418
Even, if we believe the current narrative. Why can’t humans leave LEO? Which isn’t even 1 percent of the official distance between earth and the moon?
Where we allegedly went to 50 years ago. I‘m interested in 3D printing, but I don’t get, how it should change anything.

>>12769446
>Why can’t humans leave LEO?
And who told you this? If your source of information is awful videos like the ones you posted earlier, you're being lead horribly astray

>>12769439
>Did you even look at my webm? It's the same pictures that the guy in the video is talking about. It's clearly rotating
It isn’t. It’s roughly 140 degree earth rotation and the moon isn‘t really rotating at all.
>yes they are
That’s perspective and not real change
>I have no idea what this is about. A shadow from what
From the moon itself.

>>12769454
>you're being lead horribly astray
>your source of information
Wrong. I‘m familiar with astronomy 1 and 2.

>>12769466
>It isn’t. It’s roughly 140 degree earth rotation and the moon isn‘t really rotating at all.
I don't know where did you get the 140 degrees from, but the Moon rotates 28 times slower than the Earth, so in the same time it would only rotate 5 degrees, pretty much the small change visible on the video (and the Moon isn't even visible the whole time, so the apparent change would be even less)

>>12769412
Read the rest anon:
>>which emphasizes mobility to allow astronauts to explore more and conduct more science. NASA is considering putting in place a lunar terrain vehicle, habitable mobility platform or lunar RV, and surface habitat on the Moon by the end of the decade.
Pic related is the actual concept. They mention using PROOOONTING for building 'future infrastructure,' not any of the core elements of the concept they mention And until they actually put contracts on paper to build stuff going to the Moon they don't have any plans to print stuff on the Moon.
>> tech should be well developed
>>This shit will be fleshed out
Anon, stuff doesn't always work out. The aerospace industry is also very conservative. Take it easy anon.

>>12769466
The moon should be casting a shadow on itself? What. Can you just go away

>>12768433
The ISS is a bunch of modules that can be easily assembled/disassembled. It was built one module at a time. Just take it apart and land each module on the moon and reassemble it.

>>12769477
>140 degrees from,
It’s probably more. But it’s an estimate.
>28 times slower than the Earth
Well it’s 27,33 but yes approximately.
>rotate 5 degrees,
Yes and that can’t be seen.
>even less
And you don’t even see the 2 or 3 degrees. Not to mention the earth would have to rotate a lot more before the moon would have moved so far along the orbit.

>>12769510
You know, you could fire up Space Engine and see how this situation looks like

>>12769480
>go away
I will if you explain me the why. And don’t try to claim I don’t get it. Show it.

>>12769517
>just look at space engine
You get that I‘m not somebody without a clue about celestial mechanics? I can easily calculate it. The space engine data is meaningless. It’s the same computer generated motions/pictures.

>>12769510
Now you're just being willfully blind (who am I kidding, that was from the start). Just look at a protractor and see if you can see how much 2 or 3 degrees really are, and if you'd notice an object moving by that much.

>>12769520
You're not interested in learning anything, you have made up your mind about this stuff and are using poorly made videos as evidence for it, even after I showed you how it gets all it's claims wrong. Your posts are just unpleasant noise

>>12769529
>Now you're just being willfully blind
That’s your claim.
>if you'd notice an object moving by that much
You would. And what does it matter? The camera is out further. Moon is 1/3 of the Earth, which also means there would have been more rotation of the earth and moon on top of it.
>>12769536
>poorly made videos
Okay. The videos are from official sources. But I agree they are poorly made.

>>12769569
What is the Youtube user "Ya OughtaLearn" an official source of?

>>12769588
I like your humor.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBG-f3c5EU
This is.

>>12769588
I mean in case it wasn’t humorous
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=DMdhQsHbWTs&feature=emb_title

>>12769614
How much meth do I have to consume to start getting on this wave length about the world?

>>12769667
>How much meth do I have to consume to start getting on this wave length about the world?
I never did consume any of it. But I can tell you I would need to consume a lot the believe in dark matter and dark energy. And even massive amounts couldn’t make me accept the premises added on Einstein’s field equations to believe in the Big Bang.

>>12769418
Wtf really?

>>12769697
If you aren’t intelligent enough to understand what I argue for it’s certainly an uphill battle for you.

bullish for my 3d printing stocks?

>>12769697
Did you not see the first video?

>>12769710
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KVUQDH8jq2M

Is 3D printing really that effective for building structures? My experience with printers is making small prototype parts, I can't imagine making structures with them

>>12769720
It‘s all about your imagination. Because there is nothing else. You just need to believe.

>>12769479
The habitation module in the concept you posted is the commercial landers already contracted. That was also back before the printing was announced. Artemis wants a permanent presence on the moon, and that is why they are contracting this company. The original competition was to see if it was worthwhile and NASA decided it was. The company and its partners have already demonstrated design as well as proof of concept. They are a lot further along than you think.
>and surface habitat on the Moon by the end of the decade.
The end of the decade is when artemis 3 should be launching...
>Anon, stuff doesn't always work out
Correct however this company already prints houses on earth, the team its paired with printed a structure that held water and their designs have impressed NASA and beat out other competition. This contract is more significant than just research grant and it uses current tech. We will see a test printed hab when we go to the moon. The astronauts will rely on the landers and rovers to live in and when the base is made it will be printed

>>12769710
>>12769702
Lol no i just ignored it because i figured it was the same tired argument against printing

>>12769720
Yes its effective in remotely pouring cement without a mold. Its basically being used because its the easier and less equipment/labor heavy process. Especially once they get it sown it'll be very efficient to build your structures on different bodies prior to landing people there. Also the research into it should really make a difference in construction on earth.

>>12769742
>I just ignored you because I‘m so immersed in my illusions and fantasies about 3D printing
That makes it even worse, but you won’t get it anyway. So you probably should just forget about it.

>>12769758
You can't honestly believe you're going to convince anybody on /sci/ about this garbage

>>12769739
>>They are a lot further along than you think
that's great anon, can you show me a video where they take their printer to some volcano in hawaii and have robots scoop up dirt and print something, all with minimal human assistance? Have they tested this in a vacuum chamber? And can they print shit basically using all lunar resources rather than importing a bunch of plastic or water?

>>12769776
No. Probably I will need a thread with more intelligent people. Maybe along the lines of different coordinate systems of something like that.

>>12769780
>have robots scoop up dirt
NASA swampworks has been developing a rover that does this for around a decade. Its called RASSOR
>https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2016/10/03/rassor-marco-polo-demonstrate-resource-utilization-on-mars/
>https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/tag/rassor/
This video is a swampworks engineer talking about it as well as the printing and collaborations they have for the project. this video was 3 years ago
>https://youtu.be/OQt1oG21h4I
this is a video of the old design like a decade ago
>https://youtu.be/d3zRvl2LYJ4
if you search youtube for this past year you will find all the design change proposals for the buckets. Which NASA has crowdsourced just like they did for the 3D printing.
>https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nasa+rassor&sp=EgIIBQ%253D%253D
Its definitely a challenge but its been in the works for a long time and is further along then people think.

>all with minimal human assistance?
Yes that is what They attempted to do in the 3d printing challenge, same with Swampworks but we will highlight the challenge because it was done under crazy time restraints with the goal of being entirely autonomous or remote.
>https://youtu.be/J1TWlNWHrsw
>https://youtu.be/axnuLepJufs
>https://youtu.be/PNPg6pqNYg8
>https://youtu.be/axnuLepJufs
The company contracted for the lunar base designs has already been printing homes on earth with minimal human assistance
>https://youtu.be/9MZcuMjZ2vU
>https://youtu.be/NZ-xxwgoT5g
Its also being done in plenty of other places.
>https://youtu.be/69HrqNnrfh4
>https://youtu.be/qQgu9x_gKQA
This one is being done with an arm similar to the one proposed
>https://youtu.be/wMoZUyy8FWQ
so the minimal assistance tech is there

>>12770204
wont the excavator be prone to get blocked by small rocks?

Reminder that "flat Earth" and "space is fake" conspiracies are propped up by the feds to poison the well and discredit attempts at exposing what they do.
Hide and ignore.

>>12769780
>>12770204
>Have they tested this in a vacuum chamber
It was really needed for the ISS so they have tested in micro gravity
>https://www.nasa.gov/content/international-space-station-s-3-d-printer
>http://cdwvideo.liveclicker.com/?v=1452592158
As for in a vacuum also yes they have proven it with tests on earth
>https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/3d-printing-in-the-vacuum-of-space-now-possible-from-made-in-space-55309

>And can they print shit basically using all lunar resources rather than importing a bunch of plastic or water?
Yes they can
Penn state did it with simulated Marscrete. check out this video that talks about it.
>https://youtu.be/iVDY5m2lx3w
Mooncrete has been around for a very long time and also can work in printers. Some designs do consider polymers or water(ice can most likely be found on both the moon and mars) but others do not. I am not sure what this moon base program is considering
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283048239_Advances_in_manufacture_of_Mooncrete_-_a_Review
>https://features.miami.edu/2019/moon-landing/using-mooncrete-for-building-blocks-on-the-moon/index.html
>https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/technology/2017/07/mooncrete-nasa-discovery-could-pave-the-way-for-future-extraterrestrial-building-1025975w
pic related is mooncrete made decades ago and they already have practice printing concrete. This video is the company meant for the moonbase printing at camp pendleton.
>https://youtu.be/pJP2EK3uBlI

So basically as shown this technology is already here, has shown proof of concept and is available to NASA. It just has to be put together and polished into a single project. That project is the ICON- BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group-SEArch+ collaboration with NASA. Since the first landing on the moon is not for another 4 to 5 years at least that means that this project has the better part of a decade to flesh out their plan. That makes this project not only doable but Probable.
>https://youtu.be/yu0aYuF-y9E

>>12770256
Its most likely going to be scaled up but they are also testing other bucket designs.

>>12770204
>>12770273
Thanks for this anon, im headed down the rabbit hole

>>12769780
Here is a better video about Swampworks
>https://youtu.be/j0TPJQSmAHU
Also I should add that this tech is very important for NASA because it will lead to being able to make tools, engines and other parts insitu. NASA for sure will print habs, who knows about SpaceX but I really think they should.

>>12770273
>>12770204
sure, they've got robots to scoop up dirt, but those robots didn't pour that dirt into a printer and print something. Digging dirt is one thing, unloading it and moving it around into your printing equipment is another. Did you know that systems that handle granular materials are extremely unreliable and basically have to be built at scale in the environments they operate in?

>>>https://www.nasa.gov/content/international-space-station-s-3-d-printer
>http://cdwvideo.liveclicker.com/?v=1452592158
As for in a vacuum also yes they have proven it with tests on earth
>https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/3d-printing-in-the-vacuum-of-space-now-possible-from-made-in-space-55309
that's not the same as a printing concrete

>>Penn state did it with simulated Marscrete
keyword being SIMULATED.
>>water(ice can most likely be found on both the moon
we know it's there, we don't know how easy it is to extract or how to extract it. Until we do a mission to investigate just how much water ice we can reasonable extract, we can't even consider building with. Until then water is a rare resource on the Moon.The mooncrete you linked seems to require a lot of water. The concrete icon's printing ain't mooncrete. The pic related you posted needs water to work and that printing process has been hypothesized to work in a vacuum, but not tested to work in a vacuum. One of your links mentions sulfurcrete, which is pretty high TRL, surprisingly, but how the fuck you get the sulfur is anyone's guess.
>>12770317
>>it will lead to being able to make tools, engines and other parts insitu.
hopefully. One of the things they don't tell you about additive manufacturing is that postprocessing is a bitch. Printing itself may be completely autonomous, but digging stuff out of powder and removing supports ain't
>> who knows about SpaceX but I really think they should.
SpaceX is a rocket company.

>>12769477

The moon is tidally locked with earth, it does not rotate about it's axis with respect to us. It wobbles a little bit. The moon orbits the earth with a 27 day period. From a solar perspective you could say that it rotates once every 27 days as it is not tidally locked to the sun. However it's angular momentum about it's axis is not preserved throughout it's rotation (part of why it wobbles) so I'm not sure if that should even count as rotating.

>>12770432
>but those robots didn't pour that dirt into a printer and print something
Did you even watch the videos?
>that's not the same as a printing concrete
and?
>keyword being SIMULATED.
Are you retarded? We know the composition of Lunar and Martian regolith which means we can make the EXACT SAME THING here on earth. Also the pic I posted was of real lunar concrete
> Until then water is a rare resource on the Moon
okay? the moon is relatively close and easy to get to, shipping extra water and composites isn't going to be an issue.
>The concrete icon's printing ain't mooncrete
Oh really? what is it then? give me a source.
>but not tested to work in a vacuum.
Other printing has been proven to work which means it is likely.
>but how the fuck you get the sulfur is anyone's guess.
Sulfur is present on the Moon in the form of the mineral troilite, (FeS) and could be reduced to obtain sulfur. Also mars is Sulfur rich which those designs were meant for.
>Printing itself may be completely autonomous, but digging stuff out of powder and removing supports ain't
source?
>SpaceX is a rocket company.
Again are you retarded? Elon Musk has been entirely transparent about his goal and the goal for SpaceX. That goal is to build a large colony on mars by 2050. The starship which is currently in testing is meant for that exact purpose. Elon has said he hopes that he can use other companies for the infrastructure on mars but at the end of the day the decision of who to go with and what to build is entirely up to Elon Musk/SpaceX.
>https://youtu.be/5seefpjMQJI

>>12770524
You really should stop replying to the sperg. He's not arguing in good faith.

But on a similar thread of thought. Why not do E beam 3d printing on luna. You already have the deep vacuum, and all this fine powder lying around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r75eo7axfNw

I have a feeling that structures will gradually resemble this instead. Triangles are much stronger, and as construction/fabrication technology improves there's no reason not to do a standard bunker that can withstand the hit of a stray rocket or car.

>>12766356
Doesn't look like a well-designed house. To roof, how will it avoid bending when shit lands on top of it etc

>>12769720
China already builds highrise buildings with their climbing scaffold 3d printers, even mansions are on display at the companies demo yard

>>12768999
>treadmill
I don't get all of this. Moon's gravity is so weak, if humans aren't training 2-4 hours a day they'll become weak and fragile.
All these images try to be comfy, but it's fucking awful imho.

>>12770543
>You really should stop replying to the sperg. He's not arguing in good faith.
That's true I probably shouldn't
>Why not do E beam 3d printing on luna. You already have the deep vacuum, and all this fine powder lying around.
Really interesting anon thank you for this

>>12766181
>mk1 render
How fucking long are these retards who make renders gonna be willfully ignorant of what starship actually looks like

>>12770546
Are Triangles a good shape for pressurization? Also I don't really think bunkers are necessary/

>>12770548
>o roof, how will it avoid bending when shit lands on top of it etc
What are you trying to ask here? its a slanted metal roof, stuff should slide right off. Also its a very basic house because on earth they are trying to make affordable housing (in other words for the very poor)

>>12770524
>>Did you even watch the videos?
did you read even read what I wrote? The robots didn't put the dirt into the printer and the printer didn't run on its own without human assistant. People had to put stuff into the printer to make it work. Worse yet, the mixing equipment may need to be pressurized...
>>which means we can make the EXACT SAME THING here on earth
lolno. It's hard to figure out regolith properties we care about for mining, construction, and printing like flowability and frictional properties without actual samples of the regolith. For the moon at least we have a bunch of returned regolith, for Mars, we sort of have to guess. Granular material properties depend on
>>other printing
IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESS! Printing concrete and plastic are totally different things!
>>source?
for making crap at high res, you have to remove supports of some sort
https://www.protolabs.com/services/3d-printing/selective-laser-sintering/
direct metal laser sintering even requires removal of metal supports. Damn, you really do have too much PROONTING on the brain if you don't know about support material.
>>troilite could be reduced to obtain sulfur.
and it's like 1% of regolith. And if you've got iron, why bother with the sulfur? Make stuff out of metal. Now go read "Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing"
>>12770543
cause regolith ain't conductive. Lunar free iron has a pretty high concentration though, something like 1% in places IIRC, and you could separate it out easily with a magnet. But lunar regolith is jagged as fuck, so it'd be best to process it into round particles, cause low flowability is bad for EBM. On earth we use a plasma torch for that, but I don't like it for the Moon because of the need to import gases. Perhaps if you use mm-waves you could spherulize a falling stream of free iron particles. Maybe troilite ain't that awful of conductor too

>>12770560
The moon will never be inhabited long term by anything other than a military or science presence so working out everyday like that isn't a concern. These images have to portray space and design and that is much easier to do by drawing a treadmill and a table and monitors than to try to draw the ISS internals which is what it would most likely look like

>>12770612
meant to say that granular material properties are influenced by gravity, which is a bit hard to simulate here on earth. And yeah, even though we know what Mars is made of, we couldn't get the mole probe on InSight to work on Mars.

>>12770612
>ain't

>>12770612
>The robots didn't put the dirt into the printer
Watch the videos
>For the moon at least we have a bunch of returned regolith, for Mars, we sort of have to guess. Granular material properties depend on.
And we are talking about lunar regolith so you have no point
>Printing concrete and plastic are totally different things!
It does not matter, it is enough to make an educated hypothesis.
> if you don't know about support material.
Sls has not been needed in any of the designs proposed
>And if you've got iron, why bother with the sulfur? Make stuff out of metal.
Go read their reasoning please.

>>12770612
>cause regolith ain't conductive.
Interdesting, that makes it easier to do analysis via grounds penetratingly radar to find areas or chucks of high metallicity.

And yes magnetic separation of magnetic (electrically conductive) material should be trivial.

I was under the impression that conductivity was required for electron beam imaging, that it was detrimental for x-ray analysis and it was not necessary for heating.

>>12770668
>>Watch the videos
I don't know what fucking videos you're talking about, but that happened in none of them. Not a single one. I mean, maybe there was CGI of it, but it didn't happen IRL.
>>It does not matter, it is enough to make an educated hypothesis.
it's COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT! COMPLETELY! Concrete IS VERY VERY DIFFERENT FROM PLASTIC! The properties of concrete flows are inherently different than plastic flows. Molten plastics are shear thinning! Concretes are typically shear thickening! Concrete with all that fucking water's gonna outgas lots! That shit might even fucking freeze because of all the outgassing!

>>12766707
this videos are so tiresome
you can literally see the space station with a good enough camera and zoom lens you absolute mong
Not to mention 1000 other ways to fucking check these things

>>12770588
Doesn't look slanted to me.

>>12770613
That makes sense. So they just have to sell it to the public. What a shame, I want to go there badly.

>>12766179
I've been wondering but what's the point of human habitats for commercial purposes like interplanetary research and mining? We can already build robots that are capable of doing so. They also don't need food, it doesn't matter if they die, they don't complain or suffer from social problems or threaten the mission.
Of course i think interplanetary human travel would be interesting for tourism or for people who want to live there for personal preference, but isn't it just an unnecessary expense otherwise?

>>12770810
No. Robots are far, far less capable of doing scientific work than people. They also need human oversight for any moderate degree of industrial capacity.

>>12770823
>Robots are far, far less capable of doing scientific work than people.
Why? Robots can be equipped with every tool. We even have Robots that can control biomimetic hands like humans can with the help of A.I.. But even if that is not enough, you could also keep sending probes back to earth that the Robots have collected every month or so to do the scientific work here on earth. Both is easier and cheaper than making a habitat fit for humans.

>>12770902
They just can't use their tools as well as a human can. The most extensive work that we've done on other planets is ground samples. Even those regularly fuck up. A man with a trowel could in under a week do what a regular rover takes it's entire operational lifetime to accomplish.
I'm not the best person to explain it all, so you should probably go ask /sfg/ about it. Someone in there could give you a much better answer.

>>12770581
>I don't really think bunkers are necessary
the radiation on Mars surface is about 250 mSv/year
not great, not terrible

that's more than 10 times above the long-term limit for radiation workers under normal circumstances or about 2-3 times the radiation aboard ISS
or to put it practically, 1-5% higher risk of getting cancer (normally it's about 40% chance)
>>12770902
the problem is with signal delay, which can be 3-22 minutes, depending on Earth-Mars positions
imagine playing Forklift Simulator at 3-20 frames per HOUR
you need people on Mars to do anything with biomimetic hands
a dozen of rovers and return-sample missions isn't cheaper option than a couple of dudes

>>12770914
>They just can't use their tools as well as a human can.
We've already got A.I. controlled hands that can solve a rubics cube and accurately throw and catch objects mid-air and when it comes to legs we have both quad and bi-pedal robots like the ones from boston dynamics who can run, jump etc.
> The most extensive work that we've done on other planets is ground samples.
Yes, but you have to consider that the mars rover is almost 20 years old. The robotics from back then and now is like day and night.

>>12770935
>the problem is with signal delay, which can be 3-22 minutes, depending on Earth-Mars positions
Correct, but that's only a problem if you have to control every single movement of the Robot manually like on the rover. Thanks to A.I. you only have to tell the robot what the general goal is, for example move from A to B, or move Object A into B position, or pick up object A and position B etc. and the A.I. will calculate how to do it themselves as long as you have trained the A.I. to do it. Giving an A.I. a command to do something every 20 minutes is a LOT faster than doing a just single movement every 20 minutes.
>a dozen of rovers and return-sample missions isn't cheaper option than a couple of dudes
Even if it wasn't cheaper (which i doubt since Robots need barely any infrastructure), it would still be safer in case the mission fails. With just a single death on mars you would lose a lot of trust in the public and financers.

>>12766412
>>12766221
>>12766179
do the "pinecone scales" do anything?
why use such a complicated shape instead of smooth like >>12766296 for example

>>12766179
>build this structure to protect from radiation
>slap a 5G antenna on top of it
uh huh

>>12771558
>5G
>harmful radiation
Please put your tin foil hat back on and move to >>>/x/

>>12766179
Oh... oh god I'm going to coom

>>12766191
>>12766190
>>12766184
Omfg if I could do CAD for the moon colonies fuuggghh

>>12772304
So the difference is where you write the numbers?

>>12770779
I have no doubt if starship becomes normal then space tourism will become a thing but i think the moon will be a short term stay for anyone who isn't a scientist

>>12770810
>>what's the point of human habitats for commercial purposes
space porn. On the Moon, it should be possible to fuck in the air, which should create plenty of new fetishes. Once we have lunar industries we can start building big microgravity fuck domes. You see in microgravity, surface tension becomes the dominant force rather than gravity, meaning space creampies and cumshots are 150% more erotic than their earth counterparts.

>>12770902
Look at the rover performance vs moon landing performance

>>12770972
>like the ones from boston dynamics
They are still less capable than a human
We aren't quite there yet anon especially when it comes to things like mining

>>12772426
>Space Porn
Unironically, this could be done thanks to coomer's money. Thanks, coomers

>>12766179
Hopefully they manage to fake pictures better.
The moon landing hoax was too obvious.

>>12773044
I don't want to see those kikes in space

Hello? Yes, i would like to contract some of your printers please

>a contract for moon base habitats is given to the commercial sector with teamwork help from NASA
>the process has already been in testing for over a decade and they are getting close to it being finished
>/sfg/ isn't excited about it because the technology was a pop sci meme in the 90s/early 2000s
>/sfg/ would rather have the 60s concepts than a much easier and better process
You guys are such fucking faggots sometimes.

>>12766179
man why don't we just spend like a gazillion monies into space agencies?
Most of our current everyday tech and other things have trickled down from inventions necessary to make space exploration possible

>>12766179
Thunderf00t busted this.

>>12773510
That would mean its food then

>>12773531

>>12773506
Yes

>>12773503
It just doesn't feel real to me, I automatically feel like anything to do with NASA will take decades

>>12773634
Well like this anon showed >>12770524
That swampworks has already been developing it for at least a decade, mooncrete has really been researched since the moon landings. NASA did 3 3d printing competitions, they just did a bucket competition for the digging rover and they hired this construction company paired with 2 architecture firms to build off everything they have come up with. The Artemis program won't even land people on the moon until the end of this decade so that is at least 20 years that they will have been working on this. We just are lucky that we are basically through NASA's long term bullshit/they are now being rushed by SpaceX.

>>12773662
>The Artemis program won't even land people on the moon until the end of this decade
I suppose this is what it is, it's just too far away to make me actually excited. It's cool, but it's a decade away

>>12773768
>but it's a decade away
Its 7-9 years maybe. Starship could push it faster but the point is that it will be the first structures on the moon and it will happen this decade.

>>12766179
oh cool

>>12773807
Yeah check out this too
>>12770204
>>12770273

>>12773662

>>12773961
Hilariously true

>>12773961

>>12774014
I really like this one, we should spread this everywhere

Actually excited bros this means moon base this decade

>>12773503
Bricks
And dumping thousands of tons of regolith on top is the way I am insistent on

>>12774643
Literally the dumbest option with nothing to gain from it.

Bump

>>12774674
You are just jealous of my moon catacombs

>>12774766
Idc as long as you stay in your holes

>>12771207
It's provocative

>>12768780
The Moon is the ultimate high ground regarding Earth. Can't allow another superpower to arrive first.

>>12774843
Kek

>>12766336
does he work for free though?

>Lajoie shivered. “At her age? It scares me to think of it. She’s below the age of consent. Statutory rape.” “Oh, bloody! No such thing. Women her age are married or ought to be. Stu, is no rape in Luna. None. Men won’t permit

Can't wait to be a loonie and leave behind the idiotic earthworm customs.

>>12776714
Obviously. Jannies don't get paid

>>12766179

I swear I would sign a document in which I accept to die only to have the possibility to march towards the final frontier.
Fuck this gay earth where the main problem is saving dumb people from themselves, let me die while I face the cosmic abyss.

Funny, I started "playing" world end economica last night.

>>12777109
Same desu

>>12766205
I love the crop circle aesthetic

>>12777109
Then you'd be seething that you aren't getting (much needed) Earth gibsmedat.

>>12774014
brutal mogging, hopefully Elon Chan makes it a reality and gets there first.

>>12767028
>>12767246
Looks like the surfer really did take him up on that offer;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1FLRlVnHJQ

>>12766179
It already happened
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z9yNHIolnM

>>12777432
Absolutely mogged. Check out these manlets trying to emulate the king

>>12778018
LMAO it's all fucking Falcons wtf.

>>12766179
>Proont
What is this gibberish?

>>12778612
>>12766179
I see you meant to write
>print
go fuck yourself

>>12778088
Literally every single one.
>>12778612
Its the future

>>12766642

>>12766642
As if it'll ever fly

Proonting is the future

>>12783303
it's just another manufacturing process with advantages and disadvantages. Future manufacturing processes that have less disadvantages may be so different from printing that they can't be called printing. Robotics and automation have the possibility of letting us do what we currently do with additive manufacturing except with other processes like CNC and welding. In addition, on the Moon/other bodies, once a large industrial base is developed other processes besides additive manufacturing might be used.

>>12783474
Yeah but additive manufacturing is beneficial in situations where space suits are neccesary. Also mars is not an end point, so printing will be really good for outposts. I do think that even with a large industrial base additive manufacturing will still be the major method off earth

>>12783772
Maybe in some intermediate stages of space-faring like the next couple of generations. Once you can mine hydrogen and metals in space, that shit is worthless. It is also very expensive. I didn't watch the videos, do they go into how filler can be made with material on the moon?

>>12766179
>no atmosphere
>no water
>no plants
>no energy sources other than the sun, which is literally pure radioactive cancer rays over there


Sounds smart

>>12783856
>stages of space-faring like the next couple of generations
Which is where the process will be fleshed out and become more efficient than other methods
>It is also very expensive
For now
> do they go into how filler can be made with material on the moon
Yes

>>12783860
Wrong on all counts

>>12766367
you're only assuming they didnt put the windows in mid print, but trust me, the same number of guys it takes to set up that printer and feed it, could frame that little shit shack in less time than it takes to set up and print.

printing homes is retarded, but this is the perfect tech for space

>>12783772
prove it's actually beneficial when space suits are necessary. Hard vacuum makes certain process like electron beam welding better.

>>12784149
The only difference is that little printer can run all day and night without bitching about union breaks. Soon, even the illegals will be out of jobs.

>>12783860
Stop being smart the CGI says it’s all true. Just like the nice pictures from space. They have to create in a photo laboratory.

haha

>>12784267
Automated hands off construction is easier and less risky than construction in EVA

>>12785494
Kind of like it

>>12784149
>but trust me, the same number of guys it takes to set up that printer and feed it, could frame that little shit shack in less time than it takes to set up and print
Well not in space if their plan works

>>12784149
>but this is the perfect tech for space
Exactly, however i think their printing homes was the perfect proof of concept for the short term. I think that company never actually had that in mind for a real money maker

>>12785566
hands off construction does not need to be printing.

>>12785603
For now the difference is size makes printing more viable but i am in support of any automated process. I do think bricks are as good with pressure either

>>12785640
it's a construction process which is highly automated, is not printing, and does not require people. Other such construction processes might be developed in the future. I think some process for robotically welding together metal sheets might make sense when you have more infrastructure in place.

>>12785667
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SK0K9KK8X0E

OH GOD OH FUCK IM PROONTINGGGG

>>12785683
How can space be fake when you've got plenty of space in ur anus from all those cocks going up ur butt. Now ligma balls

>>12785683
Satellite balloons exist? What does it have to do with proonting?

>>12785667
>is not printing
Printing is literally the best technology for space construction.

>>12786263
yeah sure faggot. Nanoracks wants to cut up and weld spent rocket stages into space stations.
https://nanoracks.com/outpost/
https://aeronauticsonline.com/company-plans-to-test-space-station-construction/
The demo mission's scheduled for June.

>>12786393
k, I'll believe it when I see it

>>12783474
>it's just another manufacturing process with advantages and disadvantages.
yes the manufacturing process of space exploration

>>12786666
Quads of truth

>>12786666
prove it faggot.

>>12786713
see
>https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/releases/2020/nasa-looks-to-advance-3d-printing-construction-systems-for-the-moon.html

>>12786713
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>12786722
Why don't you kill yourself

>>12786719
that proves nothing. Why don't you explain it yourself faggot?

>>12786737
Why don't you read it. There is plenty in this thread already to tell you why

>>12786757
so all you can do is just parrot off links and tell people to read them? Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?

>>12786771
Can you not read a thread?

>>12768780
A moonbase will be hands down the best place for construction and testing of all kinds of space habitation and transportation technology due to a solid ground, low gravity environment. If we ever want to do things in our solar system beyond Earth, the likeliness of which depending on who you ask, a moonbase will be a necessity.

>>12786800
already read it. Already read the article too. >>12768780
travel time's short so you can iterate faster. A lot of bodies in the solar system don't have an atmosphere. If we can figure out how to live on one airless rock, we can conquer all of them.

>>12785667
Recall that all of the equipment and most of the resources also have to fit into a rocket ship and not weigh too much. Automation isn't the only issue to face.

>>12786961
but anon, you can just PRRROOOOOOONNNNT more equipment once you have the printers up.

>>12786965
even better!

>>12786965
I mean you can...

Why not just settle down in the lava tubes on the moon? You can proooooont all you want there, make a big ramp up. you also at the same time avoid the issue of dust being kicked up by landings

>>12787251
Why not just proont on the surface and keep your landing pads further away from your buildings. Lava tubes just seem like extra work and risk.

>>12787251
the problem with landings is that you can sand blast stuff in orbit.

>>12787016
What is the ticker for rocketlab?

>>12766356
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUdnrtnjT5Q

>>12787601
Based, seems like everyone is working on printing

>>12766356
>>12787601
fuck em' they're all just shitty ripoffs of the contour crafting process. You do know what contour crafting is PROOOOOONT fag? Contour crafting is the superior way of printing concrete. But basically no one does it because it's easier to just shit out concrete from a nozzle and people give you money because of PROOOOOOOONTing hype. So the superior PROOOONTing process is stagnating.

>>12789590
>contour crafting process
Are you retarded? Thats literally the type of printing the company that got contracted is doing. Did you even look at the links provided in this thread?

>>12789674
nope, you're retarded neither of those processes is contour crafting. Contour crafting is patented and neither of those companies own the patent for it.

>>12766193
More like, "It's NASA, that's how you know its a scam"

Elon's gonna be walking around on Mars before NASA even gets their stupid fucking money sucking SLS abomination into orbit.

>>12789693
Then its a dead technology

>>12786393
I'll take 5 ounces of nanocrack please

>>12789752
it is objectively superior to just dragging a nozzle. The layering effects are so bad with other processes. Using a trowel with contour crafting helps get rid of layer effects. Contour crafting was where all the hype with PROOOOOOONTING came from. Don't give these fucking PROOOONTING posers any attention.
>>12789761
ligma balls

>>12789778
Its still printing. Also if that process is locked away and not used then we really shouldn't care about it

>>12789879
crap printing process will always be crap.

>>12766179
Based. What a time to be alive. Humanity colonizing the moon.

>>12789904
They literally work well, they aren't bad just because they aren't your flavor of choice.

>>12789985
And mars

>>12790030
The layering is disgustingly bad! Neither of those processes can make roofs, so they are technically just printing walls rather than houses. You seem to have fetishized printing so much you can't seem to see the disadvantages. And the disadvantages must be addressed so that PROOOOOONTING is practical and competitive. And come on anon, can't you at least learn enough about these processes to enumerate their advantages without straight up parroting links? You should actually learn about these processes rather than shilling if you really care about them.

>>12766205
this pleases papa nurgle

>>12790282
>Neither of those processes can make roofs
K

>>12790335
Kek

>>12790282
>cherry picking a random image
What is the point of shilling like this?

I really like the designs, both the pinecone and the doughnuts. It brings a futuristic look to the otherwise boring remote research base.

>>12766179
Same, i just think people won't admit it because it deals with printing

>>12790629
Meant to reply to>>12790497

>>12790338
where's the roof for ai space factory's hab? I can't seem to find it online. AI space factory's hab uses plastic, which is a different process. Those processes you posted videos of do not print the roof. You can also see that in ICON's video they handle overhangs by putting a board down.
>>12790369
here, have an image from one of those videos. The layering is still fucking bad. And as you can see from the image you posted, the layering is still quite bad.

>>12790700
>where's the roof for ai space factory's hab?
I was talking about the penn state hab. AI Spacefactory uses a window for the top.
>AI space factory's hab uses plastic, which is a different process.
No it uses corn based polymer with concrete and swapworks has considered that process as well.
>in ICON's video they handle overhangs by putting a board down.
For their cheap housing on earth, their moonbase design has a printed roof and you can see the printed model he is holding in the kelly clarkson video.

>>12791061
>> corn based polymer
polymer is another word for plastic. I wasn't even talking about the moonbase stuff. That house printing video is pretty fucking irrelevant to printing stuff on the Moon. That process may not work in a vacuum, even if it does it still requires lots of water. Concrete's like 10% water, which again is hard to obtain on the moon. And why bring a bunch of water to the Moon when you could bring an equivalent mass of habitat? Polymer's even worse, because there's basically no way to make it on the Moon. Like where do you even get the carbon?

>>12790700
The layering looks fine what are you talking about?

>>12791109
>polymer is another word for plastic
No shit anon, im saying its a mixture it isn't just plastic
> I wasn't even talking about the moonbase stuff.
Then how are you relevant
>That house printing video is pretty fucking irrelevant to printing stuff on the Moon.
No it isn't, its showing the companies experience with printing structures.
>which again is hard to obtain on the moon.
Not at the poles
>And why bring a bunch of water to the Moon when you could bring an equivalent mass of habitat?
Because that does nothing to help develop the technology.
>Polymer's even worse, because there's basically no way to make it on the Moon.
Wrong watch the Q&A video from swampworks
What are you even trying to argue here? 3D printing has been tested in low g, has been tested in a vacuum and has been used to build parts, equipment and structures. NASA is interested in furthering this tech and has contracted a company with 2 other firms to develop a moonbase that they will attempt to make. NASA has already been working for a long time on automation of both the printer and the resource gathering, they have tested a bunch of different materials and they are going to use that expertise on the base concept. Its happening so try to get over it.

>>12791119
do PROOOOOONT fags really? It looks like shit. It's supposed to be barely noticeable at all. Like fuck, that RMS roughness has gotta be millimeters! Look at pic related, you can barely even notice the layers!
>>12791171
>>Not at the poles
yes, even at the poles. Water ice only exists in significant quantities in permanently shadowed regions(PSR). It's hard to power stuff in PSRs cause they're dark. We also don't know what form the ice is in which may make it difficult to extract. We cannot design mining equipment until we know what form it is in. Whether it's deep underground or just a thin layer of frost require very different mining equipment. Plus it's more valuable as rocket propellant than use in structures.
>>Because that does nothing to help develop the technology.
if the tech requires shipping up a bunch of mass from earth or pissing away valuable resources why develop it at all?
>>Wrong watch the Q&A video from swampworks
just watch the fucking video is that all you can say? And like there are a bunch of fucking videos here, which fucking one, and at which fucking time? Citations motherfucker, haven't you ever heard of them? I'm calling bullshit though. The Moon has FUCK ALL carbon, so how the fuck are you making hydrocarbon polymers!
>>3D printing has been tested in low g, has been tested in a vacuum
DIFFERENT PROCESSES THAN THOSE USED TO PRINT CONCRETE, YOU FUCKING RETARD!
>>on automation of both the printer
if that was true, maybe you could send me some publications on it? ntrs.nasa.gov find it faggot. Just moving dirt around ain't easy either faggot:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20050198938
>>Its happening
they've funded development of a concept. That concept may not necessarily work out.
>> develop a moonbase that they will attempt to make
no. they are not developing a moon base, they are investigating a concept. NASA hasn't put down money

>>12791250
so I'm reading this: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170004640/downloads/20170004640.pdf
and it seems like PROOOOOOOONTing on the Moon is a fucking meme. Using cement with water is fucking stupid, even if you can get the water, which as of right now we're not entirely sure we can, it's better to use it for propellant. Sure, you can PROOOOOOOOOONT in a plastic dome and recover some water, but a big amount of water ends up in your concrete. So that leaves us with sulfur crete. First off, sulfurcrete is unstable at 140 C, and structures on the Moon in the sun could get that hot. So you gotta bury sulfurcrete structures in regolith. But the real problem's getting the sulfur which chapter 4 of the above talks about. There ain't fucking much of it. Extracting significant amounts requires mining regolith that's enriched in it, energy intensive processing, or both. Troilite has to be heated to 750-1300 C to get significant amounts of it. The requirement for sulfur enriched soils means that printing is for the most part fucked if NASA doesn't want to build a Moon base in a region enriched in sulfur. Sure sulfur may be present at 1% weight in permanently shadowed regions, but we know FUCK ALL about those. Sintering may not be a meme though. Just get dirt hot! Fucking done, no crazy extraction or anything.

>>12791250
>Look at pic related, you can barely even notice the layers
You act as if something similar won't be the design. The other examples you posted were for low cost housing, i guarantee the people at swampworks have done more research on this than you or I have(see pic related). I also have no doubt that ICON BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group and SEArch+ together will know about contour crafting as well as layering specifics. If you look at the designs proposed the layering is not visible like the low cost icon houses. Its literally a collaboration with 2 architecture firms a construction company and swampworks. I really think they will come up with a decent product.

>>12791563
>>i guarantee the people at swampworks have done more research on this
if they have, then perhaps you could link me some of their publications?
>>see pic related
How many times do we have to go through this, printing concrete is different from printing powder held together by plastic. That prints basalt powder or basalt fiber held together by plastic:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20180002949/downloads/20180002949.pdf
30% by mass plastic. If you're making anything big on the Moon, you'll need to take a lot of plastic with you. If you have to use basalt fiber, you'll have to melt rock.
>> If you look at the designs proposed the layering is not visible like the low cost icon houses
that means nothing. If you're using a crap process, you're gonna get crap results.

>>12791250
>It's hard to power stuff in PSRs cause they're dark.
If you aren't using nuclear then sure i guess
>Plus it's more valuable as rocket propellant than use in structures.
I agree with this and it may not be the process they end up using however that is what this project is about.
>if the tech requires shipping up a bunch of mass from earth or pissing away valuable resources why develop it at all?
It may be unavailable on the moon but it could be available on mars or somewhere else. The moon is a test bed, also they may want to test their automation, structure design and other parts of the process while they figure out other materials to use. Also who is to say what they are actually going to use? We have no idea.
>just watch the fucking video is that all you can say?
Listen motherfucker, half of the questions you asked have been answered in the different sources provided in this thread. If you want to argue about this shit i suggest you go through the material. No one had to hold your fucking hand, they've already given you sources.
>DIFFERENT PROCESSES THAN THOSE USED TO PRINT CONCRETE
How different? What process is planned for the moonbase? Give some sources.
> That concept may not necessarily work out.
No but it is promising enough for multiple government programs to fund it together. Its already been crowdsourced 4 times, worked of for over a decade, has had multiple projects to flesh out parts of the technology and they are still very interested/putting money into it. This link has some good sources on it.
>https://www.nasa.gov/oem/surfaceconstruction
>NASA hasn't put down money
They have for the development and a concept. They have put a decade of swampworks resources to it, they funded 3 3d printed hab competitions, one resource gathering competition, and they have offered a spot for lunar testing if the concept is up to snuff. This is on top of the processes being supported by other government and defense organizations.

>>12791824
So basically they have put a lot more attention and resources into this than normal which means a great deal.

>>12791656
>f they have, then perhaps you could link me some of their publications?
Patent No: 9,027,265
IEEE Big Sky 2013, Regolith Advanced
Surface Systems Operations Robot
(RASSOR), 03/02/2013
https://kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov/Partnering-Opportunities/Capabilities-and-Testing/Testing-and-Labs/Granular%20Mechanics%20and%20Regolith%20Operations%20Lab
Honestly just look at the references here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp_Works

>>12791656
>https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20180002949/downloads/20180002949.pdf
>30% by mass plastic. If you're making anything big on the Moon, you'll need to take a lot of plastic with you. If you have to use basalt fiber, you'll have to melt rock
Now i see what you are arguing, the point is that they are testing powders, basalt and concrete. All of which fall under what this board thinks of printing. The whole idea is that the lander is the processing plant, the rover fills the plant with regolith which seperates it and they estimate that they can make plastic in situ on mars. Like I said the moon is the testbed for the tech. Watch this video he talks about it
>https://youtu.be/OQt1oG21h4I

>>12791824
>> No one had to hold your fucking hand, they've already given you sources.
DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT A CITATION IS MOTHERFUCKER?
>What process is planned for the moonbase?
why don't you tell me since you're so obsessed with it?
>>12791867
oh wow, a fucking patent wew. You can say whatever the fuck you want in a patent. What you patent doesn't have to work.
>>The moon is a test bed
>> Like I said the moon is the testbed for the tech.
and it's completely fucking different from Mars. Regolith properties will differ DRASTICALLY. Mars has an atmosphere, the Moon doesn't. So Mars particles are more rounded. Composition's completely fucking different. Testbed argument's shit.

>>12792033
>DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT A CITATION IS MOTHERFUCKER?
If you can look it up yourself when you are given the location of research. Im not going to dig through NASA papers while I'm on my phone

>>12792033
>and it's completely fucking different from Mars. Regolith properties will differ DRASTICALLY
Its really not different enough to matter. If they test a process of collecting regolith with automation, sorting it, processing it into a printable material and printing a structure with automation. Then they can do the same on mars with similar materials. (especially if the polymer they test is similar to the one they can make on mars. Mars having an atmosphere doesn't matter.