Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Not only that 3D printing allows to build engines and parts that aren't possible of feasible with current metallurgy techniques.

If you have an Eclipse Phase style Cornucopia machine all you need to worry about is energy and raw materials. Nano and molecular assemblers/disassemblers can manufacture anything you need as long it meets the size and mass requirements and you have the blueprints for it.

Inter arma enim silent leges

Gonna try to avoid molecular building. The most fantastic things will be FTL and Artificial Gravity.

Though now that I think about it, a ship designed to test out a FTL drive should be quite well designed with plenty of redundancies and failsafes correct?

Yes, many of them specially on propulsion, life support, fuel and radiation shielding.

Inter arma enim silent leges

So theoretically if the ship had the onboard factories needed and it was to crash land, would any of the refineries and printers survive?

And from what I suggested on Exoskeletons seems to have gotten no response. So I guess that's just fine.

If it was designed to be a space only space craft? Not at chance in hell, any kind of structural breach during atmospheric entry would destroy it and then there is the collision with the ground.

If the space craft was designed to make a land fall even if only as an emergency procedure maybe if the thrusters managed to reduce the landing velocities then it would have a change.

Inter arma enim silent leges

Well considering the Protagonist of the story doesn't get to one of the Escape Pods, then landing if emergency it is.

If we're talking emergency gear then yes, a 3d printer isn't just good, it's damn near essential. If Space Engineers is anything to go by being able to fabricate a large number of tools and machinery can lead to anyone creating a semi-permanent habitat on almost any god-forsaken rock they end up on.

It'll just take a while to get set up.

So there would have to be smaller refineries and 3D printers stuck with the Escape pods.

Alternately, the crew bails out in an escape pod or life boat of some sort, and their first order of business is getting to the wreckage of their ship to see what survived the crash.

Robinson Crusoe all over again. IN SPACE!!!

So basically The Martian ?

Only better equipped and possibly better prepared.

Who watches the watchmen?

Depends on how you view it. But I will say the Martian was a inspiration and made me ask "What if the situation was different?"

And possibly with company.

Well since Interstellar, Matt Damon has been kicked off to space fairly often and people had either willingly or unwillingly be send to rescue him.

That would be a nice typecast running gag.

Inter arma enim silent leges

But that runs smack into the issue of finance. See, regardless of which method is used for the combustion chamber, a rocket is expensive, tens-of-millions of dollars a pop (~61-62 million for a Falcon 9), so actually getting a big enough run to require the extremely expensive set-up costs for such a specialised line could be quite difficult. Probably cheaper to go with 3D printers, and just buy another printer every now and then.

My rules on Robinsonade In Space

1. . Make sure you can breathe.
2. . Make sure you can have water.
3. . Make sure you can eat.
4. . Make sure you are protected from environment.
5. . Make sure you can survive for quite a lobg time. Triple the time projection needed to have your ass hauled off planet (most likely, if you lost on some red tapes but found by patient loved ones)
6. . Then build (better?) beacon.

Matt Damon has already been typecast as a Badass in Distress. Three times they've had to send rescue parties to save him: Saving Private Ryan, Interstellar, and The Martian.

I now fully expect them to make a sequel to Tropic Thunder where a bunch of Hollywood types have to actually rescue Matt Damon, who has been stranded in some inhospitable place while filming a movie.

"So, I'm still alive. YOU FREAKING ASSHOLES. YOU LEFT ME BEHIND! I'M CALLING MY AGENT!"

Maybe Matt Damon doesn't want to be saved.

Except that has nothing to do with the issue of mass production vs 3D printing. The expense of a rocket engine makes it impossible to mass produce. You'd bankrupt yourself before getting the first rocket off the line. That's why Space "X" was developing the reusable rocket, mass production is completely off the table.

No, you'd use traditional production techniques when you want a couple thousand or million of something. Like bullets or drones.

@R Bomber Which is pretty much true of most survival situations except for the matter of shelter.

@Echoing Maybe he likes saving more than being saved?

edited 8th Feb '16 7:39:32 AM by Belisaurius

The planet the crew will land on will be habitable. But empty. Confusing them to their luck in finding a Goldilocks Zone planet.

And by empty the only life they find are what appear to be trees.

Sorry, what? Can we compare this with your earlier statement? Can you please explain why sou seem to have done a complete 180?

Actually, maybe it's better to take this thing from the start:

• (you) While it's tempting to just 3D print everything it's actually faster to use modern manufacturing techniques like stamping, lathing, and welding. I recommend using 3D production techniques to retool your production lines and make custom prototypes while leaving massed production to said lines.
• (me) Actually, 3D printing is already taking over for some projects, like rocket engines, because it's quicker and cheaper to print combustion chambers than machine them in the traditional way.
• (you) That's because most of the components are one-off parts. If you were trying to make a couple thousand rockets a production line is better.
• (me) But that runs smack into the issue of finance. See, regardless of which method is used for the combustion chamber, a rocket is expensive, tens-of-millions of dollars a pop (~61-62 million for a Falcon 9), so actually getting a big enough run to require the extremely expensive set-up costs for such a specialised line could be quite difficult. Probably cheaper to go with 3D printers, and just buy another printer every now and then.

Can you see now why I'm confused? At first you seem to be against 3D printing in favour or traditional methods when manufacturing rocket engines, but you seem to have completely reversed tack.

edited 8th Feb '16 9:36:45 AM by MattII

3D printing is already getting faster than traditional production lines, but of you replace a traditional production line with a line of 3D printers you could get a very precise and fast production line that certainly wouldn't require a different factory and production line for each part.

Inter arma enim silent leges

Okay all Escape pods will come with miniature printers in case of emergency. I'll call em recyclers as they can recycle material from the ship.

The first day and night for the crew is spent seperated, cold, and worried.

@Matt

It's a matter of scale and speed. A hydralic stamper can turn an aluminum sheet into a car door in a matter of seconds while a 3d printer might take an hour.

However, that stamping die is only going to be good for making that exact model car door. If you want to make any changes to the final product you either need a new stamping die or add an additional process afterwards.

It's the same with injection molding. Pour the material in and let it cool for a bit and you can have a crank shaft in maybe a few minutes. Need it longer by a few inches? Your out of luck.

The production line system excels at creating tons of identical objects at a rapid rate. However, tooling up a production line takes time and resources. 3D printing is slow since you need to build it layer by layer, effectively adding maybe a thousand steps what should only take about half a dozen steps. On the other hand, you're already to go for just about any shape you can imagine.

So if you need a million bolts, nuts, and washers for a space ship, all of which need to be intercompatable for emergency repair, then you want a production line. Need two or three structural parts? 3D print it.

Mass production like that is relatively good for simple production via one shot parts machines. However it requires a lot of different machines to make the whole product. Even worse if there any flaws in any part of the production process it is expensive to correct it. It is also typically expensive to introduce new or notably components into the process. Finally there is a limit on accuracy of the process. The final kicker is how much room those manufacturing lines take up. Space saving is not what I would call traditional manufacturing.

3d printing can do mass manufacturing and it can do it in less space and far more accurately then mass manufacturing. Sure you may need a 1,000 screws but if you need those screws to have tight tolerances 3d printed screws are a far better choice.

Who watches the watchmen?