How is 3D printing "not living up to its promise"? What are you on about? We have 3D printed titanium bicycles, 3D printed bridges, 3D printed houses, home printers that can print ultra hard polycarbonate an nylon carbon fibre, and even ultra flexible elastic filaments. It's one of the fastest growing hobbies too. Kind of a bs way to start a video
The year is 1957 and President Eisenhower said I commissioned NASA TO BUILD A MILITARY BASE ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON! Where is the military base in 2023 it is still on the drawing board because they never made it to the moon.
Gotta say, the ludicrous claim that 3D printing had somehow faded away made me nearly give up on this video. It's literally everywhere now. 3D printed rockets, 3D printed mechanical components, 3D printed prototyping, 3D printed art installations, etc. 3D printing has untapped potential still, but it's strongly integrated into modern life now.
@@mastahfrederique1147 The very first image was of 3D printing a small plastic component. And then when he returns to the subject and again shows components being printed. Every single statement about 3D printing not doing what it actually has done was over the top of plastics or metal printing video clips. He even cites specific non-construction things as examples, but again, of things that were successful. He has a few cherry picked articles from Medium (the one actually claiming it didn't pan out) and BBC (a weird shoephone project someone did). And when he does pivot to construction he says "though it really hasn't caught on there either" - very clearly saying he doesn't think it's caught on in manufacturing. There is zero room to claim he just meant for construction. I get that he's ignorant of the subject because his focus is on construction. But he needed to do his homework on it rather than go with his gut feeling. And literally just one Medium headline from 2019 (and I do mean "headline" since the actual article undermines his statements here). He was focused on the construction aspect and didn't realize he built the framework of his video on a false premise. While it's an understandable mistake, it's still a very significant one. It undermines his credibility talking about other things when he shows himself to be wrong about something so obvious (particularly when he throws up the headline of an easy to look up Medium article that contradicts him so strongly).
@@MZ99698 I'm actually not one of them, but as common as they are becoming that would be a safe guess. But the promise of 3D printing that was brought up in the video wasn't home printing of toys and craft projects. It was as part of manufacturing. I like knowing how things are made, and over the past 10 years that has gone almost exclusively to 3D printing for the prototyping phase.
Wdym? 3D printing has absolutely exploded on earth. 3D printed rockets. More startups with housing companies. Increased tech with 3D metal printing. A huge amount of new medical applications. It’s huge. It’s not as much in the main spotlight because it’s a common occurrence but I assure it’s absolutely everywhere.
I think the article it was referencing was more talking about mass production of 3D printed parts vs traditional manufacturing. but the tech is developing so fast I wouldn't be surprised if the article was out of date
I had the same confusion - but I get the general thing they mean - it did feel like some years ago it was saying it was going to be a gigantic revolution - But I feel like most technologies are like this, where they have their initial concepts, a bunch of R&D, prototypes arise - and then massively burst into the public eye, being told its right around the corner and will change everything... and then the hype dies down. Everyone goes "what happened to the cool new tech?" It never went anywhere. The general public just has a severe lack of patience and understanding that new technology takes time. It fills me with annoyance everytime I hear someone say that nuclear fusion is a scam because they don't understand just how hard of a problem it is to solve. But slowly, silently, the technology becomes more available, more established, and changes more and more and more, until suddenly everyone looks back and is like "oh dang I didn't even notice that technology came around, when did that happen?" Fittingly it definitely happens in spaceflight, where the public only glances over at space when something is again, in the mainstream news, and they seem baffled about all the stuff that's happened, when it was going on this whole time. Oh yes, and thank you for mentioning Relativity's 3d printed rocket. It is launching for the first time next month, and I have no doubt that they will be a big player in the future.
I was questioning it too but then at around 2:40 he states the way we thought it was going to be Remember when it first came out we believed it was going to literally change everything and take over but in reality it just became a useful tool.
The transition into the sponsorship was very smooth, but I can't deny I'm sad that it's for a company like Masterworks which in my opinion preys on people's lack of financial literacy.
How was it smooth, it’s was some fearmongering BS. They made it sound like the US was defaulting on its debt due to bankruptcy. When in reality it’s just political infighting.
@@bobbyaxelrod5959 Yeah, thats niche, as are all the other parts where theres only going to be 10-50 of those parts ever made. It’s nowhere near a whole rocket either, the majority of parts would still be made from conventional methods.
Does anybody else just want this to be a thing now!? Watching a live feed of the printer printing the future house for astronauts gardens and research how cool!
I am not keen about using chemical resins for binding regolith. You have to ship many tons of resin even if it only represents 10% of the mass. I have actually looked at this problem, and the best solution I believe is to use molten regolith printing. You ship enough solar panels to generated the required power, then use an electrically heated molten regolith to print your buildings.
Editing on this one was excellent, especially the intro. You covered come really interesting points and challenges, and I'd not even thought about having to consider things don't stick together like on Earth.
I thought it was fine, as a spaceflight fan this whole video, while well researched in some places, had the marks of being reported on by people who don't usually cover space (interstellar is not a synonym for space y'all). What I found perplexing was the brief clip at the beginning of Mars One - it's hard to call it a scam because I don't recall it asking for money from everyone, but it was definitely deceitful - but I'm just confused as to why it was included, because that was ages ago, like 2015 or something that was in the news.
3D printing structures sounds challenging if using natural resources of the planet. Sounds like "trouble" for the printer. Gotta invent steel/concrete balloons. Inflate the structure and once it's exposed to a specific environmental change (light, air, etc.), it solidifies and makes that structure permanent.
Tomorrow's Build kind of said something to the effect of "why is NASA spending all of this money on this unproven thing" in the video - which isn't really reflecting what this actually looks like. NASA operates via giving out contracts. They need something done, like getting spacesuits for the Artemis III landing mission, or the human landing system, and they'll ask companies to submit proposals. NASA then looks at said proposals, and selects usually several (unless their funding does not allow it). Selecting multiple things adds redundancy. NASA also likes investing in new technologies, trying to explore how different new strategies may improve their work. In the case of the 3d printing on the Moon, this is just another one of those things that NASA is funding in some amount to explore the idea. NASA has not put out a more formal contract round to build Artemis surface bases, but many companies have been putting together a number of concepts that could potentially be used for all this. One such is actually inflatable habitats, like you seemed to think of in some sense. NASA already has an inflatable module called BEAM on the ISS right now, and it's worked quite well. It seems like these will feature prominently in future space stations. Despite what you'd assume, these are actually stronger modules than their traditional metal counterparts, better at resisting micro-meteorite impacts. I can fully imagine making a big inflatable module, and covering it with lunar regolith with some kind of support structure to make a base. So yeah, tons of ideas floating around, and I doubt any one of them will be the single way things are done - as we expand our presence on the Moon and later Mars, I'm sure many new ideas will be used.
While 3D printing may not have revolutionized the construction industry yet, many others are implementing it in transformative ways, Relativity Space out in Long Beach, Calif. is 3D printing rockets. The technology is still moving pretty fast in other sectors, we may see it coming back around into construction in surprising ways. Great episode, thanks for the work.
I'm glad you mentioned it, as I'm surprised that they didn't. They are however, a construction channel, not general technology. Can't wait for GLHF to launch soon. 🤞
3D printing has definitely caught on! I use it almost everyday at work. Mostly for prototyping and bulling jigs in the engineering field. Life without 3D printing would be going backwards. Maybe we haven't seen it catch on for building, but building is a tiny insignificant part of 3D printing!
Its not huge in building, but the people with the funds and will are definitely starting to use it. I suppose by the time we get to the point of building moon and mars bases (potentially this decade for moon bases) it will definitely be a big part of the space industry.
The last time a person visited the moon was in December 1972, i wouldnt hold my breath , plus its looks like its full of craters because it is , best of luck making a shield for that problem
@@Xer405 what's impressive about the Artemis program is that it has survived multiple administrations, starting with the Obama one. The credit to Trump is not for starting it, but not axing it because it wasn't started by him.
ESA have been experimenting with using focused sunlight to sinter regolith to build structures layer by layer. Their method doesn't require any binder material to be brought from Earth.
This is what I love about spaceflight technology, while the US is mostly in the news for launching the rockets, it requires efforts from people all over the world in government agencies, commercial companies, universities, etc, to get all this stuff working. Artemis is going to be so exciting, because it will be a much more international program than Apollo ever was.
If spaceX has shown us anything. Its not the money, its the will and direction. And Elon Musk, IMO, has lost his way. He is having too much fun being political. And forgot he wanted to die on Mars.
I hope that if they use this successfully on the moon that they will also build basements and sub-basements to protect people further from the drastic temperature changes.
John…..for dem clever engineers that’s a minor detail!!! Too insignificant to pay attention to!!! They’ve got skyscrapers,flying cars, UFO ports,fields of corn in mind!!! I think a lunar Olympic sis five years away!! That NASA is such a clever lot!!!!!
Since the 80s I keep hearing promises humans will have a base on the moon or Mars within a decade. So if I have to guess it will not happen in my lifetime.
Not sure how old you are, but I'm sure it will happen sooner than you think, especially with the amount of money invested in space now. If NASA doesn't, China will. That's only if a billionaire doesn't beat them both to it...
The 80s saw a massive cut in funding and we also had no private space companies at that time. I’d be much more hopeful for it nowadays with all the resources we have!
I don't know where the 2026 date originates. It might just be a small tech-demo or something? Anyway the first actual planned component of the lunar base camp is the unpressurized LTV (lunar terrain vehicle) rover, set to launch as part of Artemis 5, no earlier than 2028. After that comes the pressurized RV/camper van-style Habitable mobility platform, that astronauts can actually live in, without space suits. It is set to launch on Artemis 7, in 2030. Finally the first stationary moonbase will be the Foundational surface habitat, a small, likely non-3D-printed, stationary base. It will allow a crew of four to stay on the lunar surface for up to 60 days and will likely be landed in a single piece as part of Artemis 8, set to launch in 2031. However all these dates rely on SLS reaching one flight per year from Artemis 4 on, and many of these plans are still relatively vague.
Patty….with all your energy, why not help with a beach cleanup than space colonies that no sane person would want to live in??? Can you imagine just how hard sex would be in a spacesuit????
What about the structural/design differences of building something in that much lower gravity? That may be one of the reasons why 3d printing has a much better use case on the moon, you need much less material and that material doesn't need to be anywhere near as strong.
It's never going to happen. This is just a distraction from the real problems we face. Remember how Russia was getting badly beat in Ukraine? Well, this comes from the same geniuses. And even if we didn't have the real world problems we have this still would never happen. You'd have to look into the obstacles. They never tell you about the ones that can never be gotten around.
@@asdf3568ot necessarily, radiation can be blocked by burying the structures, or filling them with sand or water. A water filled balloon is a very good radiation blocker for example.
@@rowlos123 Yeah but that's still material. And especially it has to be able to sustain heavier loads. Which makes it a challenge. Perhaps it's easier to, like you say, bury it. Another option is to build it in a crater. But then how do you get out of the crater?
@@bunsw2070 I get the feeling friend, speaking bluntly, that you do not really follow spaceflight current events. It is a difficult problem to be sure, but there is so much money and manpower in the world. There are far worse things to do with it than devote a tiny portion ($30 a year for Americans in taxes) than send stuff to space. The costs are decreasing, we are getting closer. We have been living in space on the ISS since 1999. I see no reason why we can't live on the Moon. And further, the technologies we get from space, like the mentioned, do a great deal to help humanity. There's also stuff like research into cancer treatments, agricultural experiments, materials science experiments, etc, that are done on the ISS. As we build more space stations and have a base on the Moon, it'll only mean more places to do this incredibly beneficial work. And finally, spaceflight is inspirational. It is unifying. It is something that shows what humanity can do. You mentioned the war in Ukraine. During this war, American and Russian crew members on the ISS, despite the awful conflict on the ground, have remained committed to working together on their research. Artemis will be even bigger, as it won't just be Americans going to the Moon, but Europeans, Canadians, and I'm certain eventually people from all over the world. It will show that we can work together. So I encourage you, look into some of this stuff that's going on in spaceflight. In the midst of so much awful stuff going on in the world, spaceflight is so hopeful. It shows humanity literally rising above our petty squabbles.
The Moon has continually captivated me in ways that Mars never could, and I cannot explain the reason. Despite humanity's desire to explore the Red Planet, I have been left enamored by the barren landscape of our neighboring celestial body.
The Moon is very interesting because it's something we can just look up in the night sky and see clearly - it is fascinating thinking that people could walk on, and live on that round thing in the sky. The timeline they mentioned in the video, 2025, is the political NASA statement, but in reality we sadly probably won't land until at least 2026, as a lot of things have to come together, notably the spacesuits being one, to land on the Moon. The glorious thing though is that it _is_ coming together, there _is_ the momentum to get this program to that great return, and onward. We have everything we need, and most importantly NASA finally has the political support for this that they haven't had since Apollo. Most importantly, commercial space has lowered the cost enough, and increased the amount of activity in space, to the point that I am certain we will keep our foothold on the Moon. It will actually happen, and continue developing.
The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day. Don't forget to take an extra pair of woolly socks with you.
If you’re going to put adverts or sponsor messages in you videos then do everybody the courtesy of making it clear. It came across as misleading and underhand.
Why you don't use pre built module sections and use 3D printing to apply hardening sealant? The other problem is how to anchor foundations on a surface full of lunar dust. Other available building technology is using inflatable frames to build crenosphere domes. If this can help, please hire me for a ground mission support job. Thanks.
Inflatable surface bases are a great idea indeed - and then you could use 3d printing for assistance in constructing a shell around them to protect from radiation. It doesn't have to be just one design, but I'm sure many of these concepts will be used in some fashion.
Question: Meteorite impacts on the moon are much more likely and violent since the moon doesn’t have any significant atmosphere to burn up even smaller meteorites. How do we plan to negate this risk?
Watching this video I was struck by two points that you did not mention but which would have a crucial impact for building structures on the Moon: (i) A lot of construction methods on Earth rely on using water. Whilst there IS water on the Moon, it will probably not be available for earlier missions and also there will be competing demands to use it for drinking, manufacturing oxygen and rocket fuel. (ii) You mentioned not being able to take large amount of material to build structures to the Moon but you failed to mention that you would not be able to take the Labour. Proposed Missions I have seen all rely on automated manufacturing- often before the human astronauts arrive. For this 3-D Printing would be ideal particularly as it would be done by robotic vehicles/machines.
Well the bases are not something for the early missions. This video makes it sound like the astronauts would be living in the 3d printed structure, which they almost certainly wouldn't at first. I need to look into this more, but it sounds like this is simply a demonstration mission for the 3d printing. Early landing missions wouldn't be long enough to necessitate a base, and would have the crew living out of the human landing system craft. Formal base building would likely not start until the early 2030s, when we are finally thinking about establishing a permanent presence on the surface.
I could imagine if they did a 3-D printing operation on the moon I could see them figuringow how to keep it in an orbit and construct a satellite that people could just inhabit
I still think they need to bring stuff from earth to make it work. The outer structure could be made from regolith but there is no way for them to make reusable oxygen/water without machines from Earth to have some of the foundations of living on the moon.
@@CHMichael uh.... do you not understand just... how all of that stuff works? You can't just push the ISS to the Moon. It would be such a complicated difficult, expensive effort - and in the end, the ISS is not made for being a Moon base, where the radiation is more intense. I also don't see what benefit you'd get from putting Hubble on the Moon. Just build a new Moon base, this is not kerbal space program where we can just stick a rocket engine on the back of a space station module and boost it to the Moon.
Structures on the surface of the moon will be pelted with meteors. In order to have a safe base on the moon, it will need to be underground. It's ok to have surface access points, with windows, etc, but the bulk of the base, the part that's important not to get destroyed, will need the protection of being underground. To build permanent moon facilities, the order should be 1) energy infrastructure, solar and/or nuclear, 2) mining of necessary materials, water, etc. 3) manufacturing, and finally 4) human habitation.
Blue Danube! Seems sketchy. How are they turning regolith into concrete? Need water? It might be there. In fact, it most likely is. I feel like the best habitats would be repurposed rockets and inflatables. Not too difficult to imagine. You could also use very tough material that normally wouldn't inflate on earth because of the pressure/gravity. I like the idea of a lunar colony, but what is it's purpose? It's simply too dangerous/difficult for a vanity project. Especially considering our current world situation.
It could help us make rockets on the moon and launch them from the moon, we can make rocket fuel from water so crafts sent to the moon could refuel and go even farther. Helium 3 mining could be viable for fusion power in the future. These rockets that can travel further distances would help us get to mars more easily. Space telescopes in low earth orbit have been effective but it is nothing compared to proposed lunar observatories. They would help us see parts of our solar system and universe we never understood. Study on the moon would help us better understand how we could colonize mars or spend longer and longer times in space. Advancements in scientific understanding improves and leads to innovation on earth. Just look at the ISS and all that NASA and other countries have developed as well as discovered through space exploration. Industrializing the lunar surface would yield tremendous knowledg eof production methods in low gravity environment it would be one of the first steps to truly reaching beyond the safety of earth and into the cruel and unforgiving universe. Launching anything from the moon is simply easier, if we could fabricate modules on the moon, modules for lets say space stations and sent them into LEO then it would be more cost effecient. Really a lunar colony is an investment. Many materials desirable for their malleability, strength or conductivity can only be created in a vacuum. Analysis of stuff like biological crystal growth would be optimal for lunar study. 3d printing organs parts has been discussed as something that would be done more easily in zero or low gravity due to how on earth high gravity pulls down and collapses the delicate complicated structure being built.Its a sign of our scientific advancement really if we are able to achieve this.
You're right saying that we could repurpose rocket stages or use inflatable habitats, they're definitely an option. I like though that NASA puts money towards these experimental type solutions. In terms of the _why_ of doing a lunar base - You give NASA $30 a year (if you're an American). I would gladly give them a hundred if I could. While scientific exploration doesn't seem to visually benefit the taxpayer a lot, I can assure you, in terms of government giving back to the people, NASA does much better than other government agencies. They briefly mentioned a few technologies that exist or were improved due NASA, the computer mouse, memory foam, etc - but there are just abundantly more. Digital cameras, scratch free lenses, tennis shoes, the jaws of life, and the biggest, giving a shot in the arm to the semiconductor industry - note the fact that PCs first starting coming out after we went to the Moon. And this isn't even factoring in the plethora of great research done on the ISS, like research into cancer and other biomedical applications. The point being, space gives us really hard problems, and in creating tools to solve those problems, we can then use those tools to solve problems back home. Early on, a moon base would just be a scientific research station. I really hope that in the 2030s we can get to the point where it's continuously inhabited, like the ISS is now. But overtime, we may perhaps see it being used as the gas station to the rest of the solar system, harvesting its water ice in order to make rocket propellant. In the end, all I have to say is, the general public who doesn't follow spaceflight constantly sees the word "billions" and feels sick to their stomach, asking why this is being done rather than solving world hunger. The complexity of problems like world hunger, cancer, etc are whole different complex problems, but it suffices me to say, they will not be solved exclusively by money, and in fact, too much money may make the problems worse. Billions of dollars is a lot to an individual, but not to a government. There are much worse things that humanity can do than spend a half a percent of its money (which we don't) on spaceflight. I argue that beyond all the technologies it gives, all the jobs its creates, space is simply inspirational. So much crap is going on in the world today, but space stuff is so cool. Show a picture of the Carina nebula from the James Webb space telescope, and I venture to say nearly everyone would find it really beautiful looking. Artemis I say, will be especially inspirational, because it will be the first time that women, people of color, and non-americans in general will go to the Moon. I know some people have flinched seeing NASA say that cause they think of political stuff going on today - but really I see it as now _everyone_ is getting to go into space now. I think that will send a strong message to humanity when they can start seeing their country going into space - and seeing that these astronauts from all these different countries can get along, work together, and be great friends. Even in the midst of the awful war in Ukraine, the cooperation you see between American and Russian crew on the ISS really feels so simple, and again, inspiring. I think we can't overlook the impact of this.
Iglus to the Moon. Or use other repetitive geometrical forms. Make them by melting regolith into molds using solar power which is available at 100% on the moon.
There is timeline issue with what the expert informs in the video, he states that the technology is 50 years away from been tested on the moon, and in the other hand you have a 2035 timeframe to build some kind of habitat on the south pole. Probably is not going to be 3D printing, and it will not be as big or as expensive once they are in orbit, never the less, it sounds more like 3D printing marketing than a real doc clip about the progress in the matter.
Surface bases won't work on the moon, because of the intense radiation. The moon orbits well outside the protective magnetic shielding provided by Earth's core. Space Station, and other low earth orbiting habitats, and craft get a way with it because they orbit inside the protection of the magnetic belts. But, even low earth orbiting crews must take shelter, or abandon their stations in the event of a CME from the sun. Also, you can't produce and pour liquid based compounds in zero pressure environments, like on the moon. You also have the plus/minus 250 degree temperature variable to deal with. One side of the structure is being baked, whilst the other is being frozen right after anything comes out of an extruder. It just can't possibly work in that environment. You MUST dig into the lunar surface with tunneling machines. Once you have an area dug out, underground, you can seal the tunnel with an airlock, create a pressurized and controlled environment in which you can then use your 3D printing machines to sculpt the interiors of each habitable volume. Such structures must be underground to protect crews, crops and livestock from cosmic radiation and MMOD strikes. The only "base" related structures that should be on the surface should be launch and landing platforms, and temporary logistics transfer structures. That is THE ONLY way to safely and efficiently colonize the moon. The same goes for Mars, too. No ifs, ands or buts. Full stop.
@@AlbertaGeek ...And what of the MMOD problem? I think I'd feel better knowing there was at least an hundred feet of solid rock between habitat, and the surface.
@@ThomasGrillo _"And what of the MMOD problem"_ A valid concern. Just so happens that there's a NASA study on that problem one can find online. It's called _Meteoroid Risk Assessment of Lunar Habitat Concepts._ Given what they know from the flux of micrometeoroids, and using hypervelocity impact tests, on a model of a structure with an external surface area of 330m^2, the PNP (Probability of No Penetration) with a concrete wall 10cm thick over a period of 20 years approaches 1.0. In the study, the wall is considered "penetrated" if the penetration depth exceeds 1/3 the thickness of the wall. With results like that, a few meters of processed regolith seems like it would be adequate protection for a small initial base. That may be orders of magnitude less than what it would take to make you "feel better", but then manned space exploration is not for the faint of heart.
Now that is a little pessimistic I would say. I doubt We'll get Artemis II in 2024, but if it happens in 2025, I could see Artemis 3 happening 2027. Like, the rockets are being built. It's going to happen. Never underestimate the momentum of a bunch of lobbyists who really want the big orange rocket to fly. It may be slow, but it WILL fly.
@@WasatchWind According to NASA's official schedule Artemis 2 launches 2024. This year 2023 (in abt 3 days since this comment) they will announce the astronauts for Artemis 2.
@@freddyd1783... I know. I'm saying I think that Starliner 1, the first operational flight, could launch after Artemis 2 seeing how many delays Starliner gets.
So if we're 3d printing buildings nkw what happens to construction workers? I was thinking to pursue a career in building and construction but it wont matter now I guess if we're 3d printing everything
Tomorrow's Build, this was a very good video, but with a noticeable "oops!", which lies at 1:19. At the beginning, you stated the subject was to be re. colonizing the moon, but at 1:19 you as much as said that this an interstellar interest, when that flight will be in interplanetary space, since interstellar space takes us beyond our planets and on to Alpha Centauri, and its 2 sister stars. I just checked on the name for the space between here and the moon, and it's cislunar.
If you're interested in this topic, I recommend looking at channels like Everyday Astronaut, Scott Manley, or Joe Scott who are covering this amazing revolution in space.
Should be underground bases on the moon. First they find out what the average creator depth is and then dig at least that deep and then to where it would be safe to handle such an impact.
Will NASA ship enough resin to build structures out of lunar dust? I wanted to hear that ICON figured out how to use lasers to melt lunar dust into a glass and bake whole structures.
Baking glass…..bake whole building structures???? Where is that god damned oven coming from….where is the power to run it?? Where are the maintenance people?? OH!!!!!!! IT’S AI AGAIN IS IT??????
50 years might be a bit far off for an estimate on technological maturity but I agree that 2026 or whatever it's estimated at for first construction is premature.
The moon's surface is made of moon dust, you can't really dig tunnels. Furthermore we do not have a clear understanding of what lies below that moon dust.
An important consideration of what NASA needs to get built on the Moon or Mars is that it needs shielding thick enough to dampen harmful radiation. The habitat itself, the pressurized livable space will be shipped from Earth. What is unaffordable is the shielding that goes on top of it. Like a glasis on a Napoleonic era fortress, the earth embankment to dampen the impact of artillery. That is just piled-up soil. The structure of the fort itself is made of stone or bricks, the usual building materials. So, 3D printing in space is basically limited to piles of regolith on top of the actual habitat. There is no such a need on Earth.
Like the program. As long as we have to send materials/ supplies to the moon, permanent habitation does not make sense. It currently cost about $100 million to send 4 asternuts to the ISS. SLS/ Artemis cost over $4 Billion to send asternuts to the moon. I agree that we must get most of the materials from the moon itself.
I love hearing about these insanely cool ideas. $100 Billion and the moon is colonized, $.5 Billion and homelessness is solved for 2 years, etc. Really brings in to perspective just how much money we’re giving Ukraine 😂
"How Much Would It Cost to End Homelessness in California for Good? About $8 billion per year, according to a new housing needs assessment - or less than 3% of the state budget." That is just one year, for California, so I am not sure where you got that 0.5B from.
@@snuffeldjuret I would rather our government spend $8 Billion a year on homelessness rather than the $854 Billion a year we spend on the US war machine.
@@snuffeldjuret heard someone on CNN say it, can’t remember who’s study they were quoting. I’m sure someone could find another study that says we’re both wrong
I never thought about a meteorite falling onto such a building on the Moon... It gotta have some level of protection that can be fixed in a matter of days...
Offside construction is very often the best option on earth and a better option than 3D printing on site. What we need on the moon though is radiation shielding, which needs electrons. Conveniently the amount of electrons in a material is proportional to the mass of the material. Mass is also a big problem to be faced when sending stuff into space. So to make this realistic, we need to create structures from material already on the site, with as few people on site as possible. 3D printing ticks those boxes.
For radiation shielding I think it's well more viable to just cover the building with regolith, or make your building near the wall of a crater, or maybe a cave.
@@piraterubberduck6056 I didn't said build, I said cover the building. Instead of building thick structures, just design them to be buried in a thick layer of regolith mass. That would offer enough radiation and micrometiorites protection and it would be way easiert to achieve. There are many designs that follow that principle, the calculations of how thick were already made.
We are decades away from developing the AI and robotics needed to do all this. We haven't even developed the robotics to explore and map the available lava tubes yet. Those tubes are the only thing that will protect us for a long time. We need to develop the robotics to explore and map those tubes. Then we need autonomous robotics to clear and level the floor of those tubes in order to establish inflatable habitats. It's not as sexy as 3D printing structures, but for now, it's the only long term solution for surviving on the moon. Get that done first.
On reflection, they've got to dig up various minerals so wouldn't it be great if the excavation happened to have the "value added bonus" of being easily adapted into a cave? Alas, I think that that would be just a bit too fairy tale and you can imagine all types of experts poo-pooing it for inefficiency, cost, time wasting and so on.
The moon is mostly made of dust and small rocks. Digging in it won't give us something stable. Tunnelling machines are also way more complex than 3D printing machines. This is the easier option.
it's vastly more complex to dig tunnels, especially with the nature of the surface, it's easier to build habitats in craters to shield from radiation and temperature
Yeah, because astronauts landed in 2025 will have to wait a decade before getting a location where to live and where to work... That's how you use the brain for a comment
To the people wondering why, as they put it, this or that amazing idea about doing something in space, specifically on the Moon has not been done yet? Except for the brief glimpse of Mars One they showed at the beginning, which was honestly rather deceitful, it usually boils down to a few things: -Spaceflight is hard. Very hard. -Spaceflight has been very expensive. -Human spaceflight has been intensely political We have not gone back to the Moon, despite being completely technologically capable, because of NASA being tossed about in the wind by every change in presidential administration, and congress mandating this or that rocket technology be used for jobs programs. But the good news at least is that things are changing. Commercial spaceflight is reducing the cost of spaceflight big time, concurrently, NASA has finally achieve bipartisan support for Artemis, as well as various international partners, and a lot of innovation is happening to help make spaceflight technology more reliable and regular than it's been in the past. It will still go slower than we would like. Even with all the money in the world, it involves a lot of starts and stops, prototyping, failures, etc. Even in completely successful, on track programs, caution and redundancy are built in to make sure that expensive delicate hardware, and even more delicate humans, are being taken care of. The timeline of getting humans back on the Moon by 2025 is likely not going to happen, because of difficulty in getting all of the elements of the landing mission ready - the human landing system, the EVA suits, and of course, the infamously slow space launch system rocket - but it WILL happen, if not in 2026, 2027. I have full confidence that we will be back on the Moon by the end of the decade, and this time, have much more sustainable architecture to keep going, rather than brief Apollo program in the 60s.
For oxygen, we need plants and algae in greenhouses. Hydrogen combined with oxygen will give us water. In addition to solar panels, we need lenses to focus sunlight and turn water into steam power. Lander modules can be made into the shape of a drill bit that can burrow into the moon once they are connected to an external rotating "drill" on the moon and become a habitat in itself.
3d Printing has been hampered on Earth because a few rich companies started another company about 30 years ago with the sole purpose of buying up companies working on 3d printing and then sitting on the patents. Please go research this and make a video about how the rich are keeping you poor on purpose. We are still in the beginning of the 3d printing revolution as those old patents expire and new players with more forsight are NOT selling out to 3M or Dupont.
3D printing has fulfilled its role as intended. Prototyping and making one of a kind inventions. It’s not supposed to replace mass assembly line projects. That was never what the technology was intended to do.
As a kid I hated that "not another boring space launch" scene in the Simpson 😟lol...I was like what the hell you just say,....thems fighting words hahahaha
A: 3D printers need a lot of servicing. Who is going to do that? (Cleaning the muck away etc...) B: How are you going to get the bloody massive 3D printer there for a full sized habitat? C: How are you going to power and feed it? You cant suck regolith up. There is no air. It needs to be mechanically done. D: How are you going to fuse the base to the ground? Put air in it and the exterior vacuum will rip the base soil away. Because it's porous. Conclusion: It's a dumb idea. The only way you could feasibly do it on the moon is send a giant boring machine. As it bores, the regolith is transported to the surface to be stored. Next stage on the bore machine is a heat welder that fuses the side walls as it goes down. On top of the bore machine is a 3D printer. When the bore machine reaches safe depth, it pins itself to the base of the pit. The 3D printer then extends and starts creating the cap, or roof. The bore machine is designed for easy disassembly. On it are the required airlocks and desired equipment to finish the base. The struts from the 3D printer can be taken off and used as con rods from the outer rim of what is left of the bore machine to the roof, securing it. During all this, the central power cable to the exterior is left in place and is sealed in the centre of the roof. The intake chute for the 3D printing regolith is left there as the new hatchway. MOONBASE!
How much power does the icon 3d regolith lavacrete printer consume, and what power options will be available to them battery and solar, a dozen or more mini reactors?
Possibly by having an inflatable habitat inside. They've already demonstrated an inflatable habitat on the ISS, and these things are actually stronger than traditional rigid modules.
I believe that spaceships, are created by some sort of 3d printing, but, i also believe they are grown like crystals. I think that these two concepts come together some how.
Purchase shares in art from Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol and more - www.masterworks.art/tomorrowsbuild
How is 3D printing "not living up to its promise"? What are you on about?
We have 3D printed titanium bicycles, 3D printed bridges, 3D printed houses, home printers that can print ultra hard polycarbonate an nylon carbon fibre, and even ultra flexible elastic filaments. It's one of the fastest growing hobbies too.
Kind of a bs way to start a video
Get right on that.
The NFT grift is over, give it up, guys.
The year is 1957 and President Eisenhower said I commissioned NASA TO BUILD A MILITARY BASE ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON! Where is the military base in 2023 it is still on the drawing board because they never made it to the moon.
Masterworks is a SCAM!
Gotta say, the ludicrous claim that 3D printing had somehow faded away made me nearly give up on this video. It's literally everywhere now. 3D printed rockets, 3D printed mechanical components, 3D printed prototyping, 3D printed art installations, etc.
3D printing has untapped potential still, but it's strongly integrated into modern life now.
Right, but this is a construction channel. In the world of construction, it still hasn't quite caught on.
@@mastahfrederique1147 The very first image was of 3D printing a small plastic component. And then when he returns to the subject and again shows components being printed. Every single statement about 3D printing not doing what it actually has done was over the top of plastics or metal printing video clips. He even cites specific non-construction things as examples, but again, of things that were successful. He has a few cherry picked articles from Medium (the one actually claiming it didn't pan out) and BBC (a weird shoephone project someone did).
And when he does pivot to construction he says "though it really hasn't caught on there either" - very clearly saying he doesn't think it's caught on in manufacturing.
There is zero room to claim he just meant for construction.
I get that he's ignorant of the subject because his focus is on construction. But he needed to do his homework on it rather than go with his gut feeling. And literally just one Medium headline from 2019 (and I do mean "headline" since the actual article undermines his statements here).
He was focused on the construction aspect and didn't realize he built the framework of his video on a false premise. While it's an understandable mistake, it's still a very significant one. It undermines his credibility talking about other things when he shows himself to be wrong about something so obvious (particularly when he throws up the headline of an easy to look up Medium article that contradicts him so strongly).
Someone owns a 3D printer 😂
@@MZ99698 I'm actually not one of them, but as common as they are becoming that would be a safe guess.
But the promise of 3D printing that was brought up in the video wasn't home printing of toys and craft projects. It was as part of manufacturing. I like knowing how things are made, and over the past 10 years that has gone almost exclusively to 3D printing for the prototyping phase.
@@MZ99698 guy is absurd. We use 3d printed molds to inject into plastic now. Saves 10s of thousands in time and materials.
Wdym? 3D printing has absolutely exploded on earth. 3D printed rockets. More startups with housing companies. Increased tech with 3D metal printing. A huge amount of new medical applications. It’s huge. It’s not as much in the main spotlight because it’s a common occurrence but I assure it’s absolutely everywhere.
I think the article it was referencing was more talking about mass production of 3D printed parts vs traditional manufacturing. but the tech is developing so fast I wouldn't be surprised if the article was out of date
I had the same confusion - but I get the general thing they mean - it did feel like some years ago it was saying it was going to be a gigantic revolution -
But I feel like most technologies are like this, where they have their initial concepts, a bunch of R&D, prototypes arise - and then massively burst into the public eye, being told its right around the corner and will change everything... and then the hype dies down. Everyone goes "what happened to the cool new tech?" It never went anywhere. The general public just has a severe lack of patience and understanding that new technology takes time. It fills me with annoyance everytime I hear someone say that nuclear fusion is a scam because they don't understand just how hard of a problem it is to solve.
But slowly, silently, the technology becomes more available, more established, and changes more and more and more, until suddenly everyone looks back and is like "oh dang I didn't even notice that technology came around, when did that happen?"
Fittingly it definitely happens in spaceflight, where the public only glances over at space when something is again, in the mainstream news, and they seem baffled about all the stuff that's happened, when it was going on this whole time.
Oh yes, and thank you for mentioning Relativity's 3d printed rocket. It is launching for the first time next month, and I have no doubt that they will be a big player in the future.
It’s not
@@WasatchWind The Gartner Hype Cycle is real and nobody can escape it
I was questioning it too but then at around 2:40 he states the way we thought it was going to be
Remember when it first came out we believed it was going to literally change everything and take over but in reality it just became a useful tool.
The transition into the sponsorship was very smooth, but I can't deny I'm sad that it's for a company like Masterworks which in my opinion preys on people's lack of financial literacy.
a scam in other words.
How was it smooth, it’s was some fearmongering BS. They made it sound like the US was defaulting on its debt due to bankruptcy. When in reality it’s just political infighting.
This transition was on par with the ones of @PolyMatter
Dang! The transition got me, I was like: "How is credit card debt related to 3d printing on the moon..." then, ooooohhh it's an ad.
That's the American way! It's how big corporations were built!!! Slap an insurance policy on it!
Saying 3d printing didn't take off is a weird statement
It's pretty niche still.
Did it?
@@grantmccoy6739so niche that a whole 3D printed rocket is launching in like the next month. Yeah super niche.
@@bobbyaxelrod5959 Yeah, thats niche, as are all the other parts where theres only going to be 10-50 of those parts ever made. It’s nowhere near a whole rocket either, the majority of parts would still be made from conventional methods.
Should probably read the article he showed on screen when he said that
Does anybody else just want this to be a thing now!? Watching a live feed of the printer printing the future house for astronauts gardens and research how cool!
For real
I am not keen about using chemical resins for binding regolith. You have to ship many tons of resin even if it only represents 10% of the mass. I have actually looked at this problem, and the best solution I believe is to use molten regolith printing. You ship enough solar panels to generated the required power, then use an electrically heated molten regolith to print your buildings.
Editing on this one was excellent, especially the intro. You covered come really interesting points and challenges, and I'd not even thought about having to consider things don't stick together like on Earth.
I thought it was fine, as a spaceflight fan this whole video, while well researched in some places, had the marks of being reported on by people who don't usually cover space (interstellar is not a synonym for space y'all). What I found perplexing was the brief clip at the beginning of Mars One - it's hard to call it a scam because I don't recall it asking for money from everyone, but it was definitely deceitful - but I'm just confused as to why it was included, because that was ages ago, like 2015 or something that was in the news.
3D printing structures sounds challenging if using natural resources of the planet. Sounds like "trouble" for the printer. Gotta invent steel/concrete balloons. Inflate the structure and once it's exposed to a specific environmental change (light, air, etc.), it solidifies and makes that structure permanent.
Tomorrow's Build kind of said something to the effect of "why is NASA spending all of this money on this unproven thing" in the video - which isn't really reflecting what this actually looks like.
NASA operates via giving out contracts. They need something done, like getting spacesuits for the Artemis III landing mission, or the human landing system, and they'll ask companies to submit proposals. NASA then looks at said proposals, and selects usually several (unless their funding does not allow it). Selecting multiple things adds redundancy. NASA also likes investing in new technologies, trying to explore how different new strategies may improve their work.
In the case of the 3d printing on the Moon, this is just another one of those things that NASA is funding in some amount to explore the idea. NASA has not put out a more formal contract round to build Artemis surface bases, but many companies have been putting together a number of concepts that could potentially be used for all this.
One such is actually inflatable habitats, like you seemed to think of in some sense. NASA already has an inflatable module called BEAM on the ISS right now, and it's worked quite well. It seems like these will feature prominently in future space stations. Despite what you'd assume, these are actually stronger modules than their traditional metal counterparts, better at resisting micro-meteorite impacts. I can fully imagine making a big inflatable module, and covering it with lunar regolith with some kind of support structure to make a base.
So yeah, tons of ideas floating around, and I doubt any one of them will be the single way things are done - as we expand our presence on the Moon and later Mars, I'm sure many new ideas will be used.
@@WasatchWind Wow...GO NASA...and its contractors 👍🏽😁
Or just use existing lava tubes instead.
While 3D printing may not have revolutionized the construction industry yet, many others are implementing it in transformative ways, Relativity Space out in Long Beach, Calif. is 3D printing rockets. The technology is still moving pretty fast in other sectors, we may see it coming back around into construction in surprising ways. Great episode, thanks for the work.
I'm glad you mentioned it, as I'm surprised that they didn't. They are however, a construction channel, not general technology. Can't wait for GLHF to launch soon. 🤞
3D printing has definitely caught on! I use it almost everyday at work. Mostly for prototyping and bulling jigs in the engineering field. Life without 3D printing would be going backwards. Maybe we haven't seen it catch on for building, but building is a tiny insignificant part of 3D printing!
Its not huge in building, but the people with the funds and will are definitely starting to use it. I suppose by the time we get to the point of building moon and mars bases (potentially this decade for moon bases) it will definitely be a big part of the space industry.
Let's master flying farther than 400 miles then we can dream about the moon. It's been 51 years since we travelled that far into space.
My sentiment exactly
don't worry. It will be postponed over and over again in the wait of the IIIWW which will remove NASA from any liability
nah that tintin reference at the beggining made my day, earned a sub.
Looking up and seeing cities in the moon. Things I can't wait to see in my lifetime.
The last time a person visited the moon was in December 1972, i wouldnt hold my breath , plus its looks like its full of craters because it is , best of luck making a shield for that problem
its not happening
@@MegamanTheSecond it is
@@MegamanTheSecond It is. Unlike what some people say we had this project going since trump got into office.
@@Xer405 what's impressive about the Artemis program is that it has survived multiple administrations, starting with the Obama one. The credit to Trump is not for starting it, but not axing it because it wasn't started by him.
ESA have been experimenting with using focused sunlight to sinter regolith to build structures layer by layer.
Their method doesn't require any binder material to be brought from Earth.
This is what I love about spaceflight technology, while the US is mostly in the news for launching the rockets, it requires efforts from people all over the world in government agencies, commercial companies, universities, etc, to get all this stuff working. Artemis is going to be so exciting, because it will be a much more international program than Apollo ever was.
My dad worked on our launch pads back in the early 50s, and they were real astronauts.
lol....they go into space, they are all real astronauts.
@@malahammer Astronots
That sound is $93 Billion being flushed out into space.
Imagine if NASA had the same budget as the US military for just a year.
I'd settle for the same budget as the Space Force :D
@@snuffeldjuret The space force and nasa's budgets are nearly identical.
@@freddyd1783 I know.
isnt the reason we were able to go to the moon was because NASAs budget was similar to the military one?
If spaceX has shown us anything. Its not the money, its the will and direction. And Elon Musk, IMO, has lost his way. He is having too much fun being political. And forgot he wanted to die on Mars.
Good stuff! Let's DO it!
I hope that if they use this successfully on the moon that they will also build basements and sub-basements to protect people further from the drastic temperature changes.
John…..for dem clever engineers that’s a minor detail!!! Too insignificant to pay attention to!!! They’ve got skyscrapers,flying cars, UFO ports,fields of corn in mind!!! I think a lunar Olympic sis five years away!! That NASA is such a clever lot!!!!!
Since the 80s I keep hearing promises humans will have a base on the moon or Mars within a decade. So if I have to guess it will not happen in my lifetime.
Not sure how old you are, but I'm sure it will happen sooner than you think, especially with the amount of money invested in space now. If NASA doesn't, China will. That's only if a billionaire doesn't beat them both to it...
The 80s saw a massive cut in funding and we also had no private space companies at that time. I’d be much more hopeful for it nowadays with all the resources we have!
Well maybe you should've been advocating for it in congress then because clearly it fell out of favor because of shitty leadership.
I know right. Everyone is fkin busy with stealing each other's resources, instead doing something meaningful.
I don't know where the 2026 date originates. It might just be a small tech-demo or something?
Anyway the first actual planned component of the lunar base camp is the unpressurized LTV (lunar terrain vehicle) rover, set to launch as part of Artemis 5, no earlier than 2028.
After that comes the pressurized RV/camper van-style Habitable mobility platform, that astronauts can actually live in, without space suits. It is set to launch on Artemis 7, in 2030.
Finally the first stationary moonbase will be the Foundational surface habitat, a small, likely non-3D-printed, stationary base. It will allow a crew of four to stay on the lunar surface for up to 60 days and will likely be landed in a single piece as part of Artemis 8, set to launch in 2031.
However all these dates rely on SLS reaching one flight per year from Artemis 4 on, and many of these plans are still relatively vague.
THIS WAS SO COOL HAHA!!! Huge fan of the channel and a huge space nut, this episode was the greatest 🤣
I agree with everything you said but after seeing your logo I have to say it Go Dolphins!
Patty….with all your energy, why not help with a beach cleanup than space colonies that no sane person would want to live in??? Can you imagine just how hard sex would be in a spacesuit????
@@keithgainey7853 Go Bills! (Born and raised in Buffalo!, retired to FL, but still a Bills😀 fan.
I also agree....
What about the structural/design differences of building something in that much lower gravity? That may be one of the reasons why 3d printing has a much better use case on the moon, you need much less material and that material doesn't need to be anywhere near as strong.
It's never going to happen. This is just a distraction from the real problems we face. Remember how Russia was getting badly beat in Ukraine? Well, this comes from the same geniuses. And even if we didn't have the real world problems we have this still would never happen. You'd have to look into the obstacles. They never tell you about the ones that can never be gotten around.
You need way more to block out the radiation
@@asdf3568ot necessarily, radiation can be blocked by burying the structures, or filling them with sand or water. A water filled balloon is a very good radiation blocker for example.
@@rowlos123 Yeah but that's still material. And especially it has to be able to sustain heavier loads. Which makes it a challenge. Perhaps it's easier to, like you say, bury it. Another option is to build it in a crater. But then how do you get out of the crater?
@@bunsw2070 I get the feeling friend, speaking bluntly, that you do not really follow spaceflight current events. It is a difficult problem to be sure, but there is so much money and manpower in the world. There are far worse things to do with it than devote a tiny portion ($30 a year for Americans in taxes) than send stuff to space. The costs are decreasing, we are getting closer. We have been living in space on the ISS since 1999. I see no reason why we can't live on the Moon.
And further, the technologies we get from space, like the mentioned, do a great deal to help humanity. There's also stuff like research into cancer treatments, agricultural experiments, materials science experiments, etc, that are done on the ISS. As we build more space stations and have a base on the Moon, it'll only mean more places to do this incredibly beneficial work.
And finally, spaceflight is inspirational. It is unifying. It is something that shows what humanity can do. You mentioned the war in Ukraine. During this war, American and Russian crew members on the ISS, despite the awful conflict on the ground, have remained committed to working together on their research. Artemis will be even bigger, as it won't just be Americans going to the Moon, but Europeans, Canadians, and I'm certain eventually people from all over the world. It will show that we can work together.
So I encourage you, look into some of this stuff that's going on in spaceflight. In the midst of so much awful stuff going on in the world, spaceflight is so hopeful. It shows humanity literally rising above our petty squabbles.
The Moon has continually captivated me in ways that Mars never could, and I cannot explain the reason. Despite humanity's desire to explore the Red Planet, I have been left enamored by the barren landscape of our neighboring celestial body.
The Moon is very interesting because it's something we can just look up in the night sky and see clearly - it is fascinating thinking that people could walk on, and live on that round thing in the sky. The timeline they mentioned in the video, 2025, is the political NASA statement, but in reality we sadly probably won't land until at least 2026, as a lot of things have to come together, notably the spacesuits being one, to land on the Moon.
The glorious thing though is that it _is_ coming together, there _is_ the momentum to get this program to that great return, and onward. We have everything we need, and most importantly NASA finally has the political support for this that they haven't had since Apollo.
Most importantly, commercial space has lowered the cost enough, and increased the amount of activity in space, to the point that I am certain we will keep our foothold on the Moon. It will actually happen, and continue developing.
The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day.
Don't forget to take an extra pair of woolly socks with you.
Wow, maybe one minute worth of useful information in an 11-minute video.
Agreed. Most of these videos are a soaky mess of stock footage and some unrelated random rambling.
Interesting Platform Thanks for Update
Man said dont invest in stocks backed by real world products, you'll lose money. Buy into an art pump and dump instead
😂
Good Tintin and Méliès references are appreciated. Beauty is in the little details like this.
We should’ve had this 50 years ago
If you’re going to put adverts or sponsor messages in you videos then do everybody the courtesy of making it clear. It came across as misleading and underhand.
Why you don't use pre built module sections and use 3D printing to apply hardening sealant? The other problem is how to anchor foundations on a surface full of lunar dust. Other available building technology is using inflatable frames to build crenosphere domes. If this can help, please hire me for a ground mission support job. Thanks.
Inflatable surface bases are a great idea indeed - and then you could use 3d printing for assistance in constructing a shell around them to protect from radiation. It doesn't have to be just one design, but I'm sure many of these concepts will be used in some fashion.
@@WasatchWindSierra Space is developing inflatable material for a space station, I believe it could work for the moon as well.
best method to make a colony is to send small collapsible buildings that can be grounded and then deployed.
Question: Meteorite impacts on the moon are much more likely and violent since the moon doesn’t have any significant atmosphere to burn up even smaller meteorites. How do we plan to negate this risk?
Watching this video I was struck by two points that you did not mention but which would have a crucial impact for building structures on the Moon:
(i) A lot of construction methods on Earth rely on using water. Whilst there IS water on the Moon, it will probably not be available for earlier missions and also there will be competing demands to use it for drinking, manufacturing oxygen and rocket fuel.
(ii) You mentioned not being able to take large amount of material to build structures to the Moon but you failed to mention that you would not be able to take the Labour. Proposed Missions I have seen all rely on automated manufacturing- often before the human astronauts arrive. For this 3-D Printing would be ideal particularly as it would be done by robotic vehicles/machines.
Well the bases are not something for the early missions. This video makes it sound like the astronauts would be living in the 3d printed structure, which they almost certainly wouldn't at first. I need to look into this more, but it sounds like this is simply a demonstration mission for the 3d printing. Early landing missions wouldn't be long enough to necessitate a base, and would have the crew living out of the human landing system craft.
Formal base building would likely not start until the early 2030s, when we are finally thinking about establishing a permanent presence on the surface.
Stupendous episode! Stellar editing whole way through!
"There's something you need to know about Jack....." -hello tomorrow-😂
I could imagine if they did a 3-D printing operation on the moon I could see them figuringow how to keep it in an orbit and construct a satellite that people could just inhabit
I've been wearing a Cerec Blue Block printed tooth crown for longer than this video's been out.
Workin' fine.
I still think they need to bring stuff from earth to make it work. The outer structure could be made from regolith but there is no way for them to make reusable oxygen/water without machines from Earth to have some of the foundations of living on the moon.
Let's push iss , hubble and other satellites to the moon to be used. We already but plenty of energy into getting it part of the way.
@@CHMichael those were designed to orbit an object not to land on the moon in a freak accident leading to the death of 5-8 crew members.
There's water on the moon. But yeah, some stuff will have to be brought.
@@CHMichael uh.... do you not understand just... how all of that stuff works? You can't just push the ISS to the Moon. It would be such a complicated difficult, expensive effort - and in the end, the ISS is not made for being a Moon base, where the radiation is more intense. I also don't see what benefit you'd get from putting Hubble on the Moon.
Just build a new Moon base, this is not kerbal space program where we can just stick a rocket engine on the back of a space station module and boost it to the Moon.
How about plants and algae?
Structures on the surface of the moon will be pelted with meteors. In order to have a safe base on the moon, it will need to be underground. It's ok to have surface access points, with windows, etc, but the bulk of the base, the part that's important not to get destroyed, will need the protection of being underground. To build permanent moon facilities, the order should be 1) energy infrastructure, solar and/or nuclear, 2) mining of necessary materials, water, etc. 3) manufacturing, and finally 4) human habitation.
Blue Danube!
Seems sketchy. How are they turning regolith into concrete? Need water? It might be there. In fact, it most likely is. I feel like the best habitats would be repurposed rockets and inflatables. Not too difficult to imagine. You could also use very tough material that normally wouldn't inflate on earth because of the pressure/gravity.
I like the idea of a lunar colony, but what is it's purpose? It's simply too dangerous/difficult for a vanity project. Especially considering our current world situation.
It could help us make rockets on the moon and launch them from the moon, we can make rocket fuel from water so crafts sent to the moon could refuel and go even farther. Helium 3 mining could be viable for fusion power in the future. These rockets that can travel further distances would help us get to mars more easily. Space telescopes in low earth orbit have been effective but it is nothing compared to proposed lunar observatories. They would help us see parts of our solar system and universe we never understood. Study on the moon would help us better understand how we could colonize mars or spend longer and longer times in space. Advancements in scientific understanding improves and leads to innovation on earth. Just look at the ISS and all that NASA and other countries have developed as well as discovered through space exploration. Industrializing the lunar surface would yield tremendous knowledg eof production methods in low gravity environment it would be one of the first steps to truly reaching beyond the safety of earth and into the cruel and unforgiving universe. Launching anything from the moon is simply easier, if we could fabricate modules on the moon, modules for lets say space stations and sent them into LEO then it would be more cost effecient. Really a lunar colony is an investment. Many materials desirable for their malleability, strength or conductivity can only be created in a vacuum. Analysis of stuff like biological crystal growth would be optimal for lunar study. 3d printing organs parts has been discussed as something that would be done more easily in zero or low gravity due to how on earth high gravity pulls down and collapses the delicate complicated structure being built.Its a sign of our scientific advancement really if we are able to achieve this.
You're right saying that we could repurpose rocket stages or use inflatable habitats, they're definitely an option. I like though that NASA puts money towards these experimental type solutions.
In terms of the _why_ of doing a lunar base - You give NASA $30 a year (if you're an American). I would gladly give them a hundred if I could. While scientific exploration doesn't seem to visually benefit the taxpayer a lot, I can assure you, in terms of government giving back to the people, NASA does much better than other government agencies. They briefly mentioned a few technologies that exist or were improved due NASA, the computer mouse, memory foam, etc - but there are just abundantly more. Digital cameras, scratch free lenses, tennis shoes, the jaws of life, and the biggest, giving a shot in the arm to the semiconductor industry - note the fact that PCs first starting coming out after we went to the Moon.
And this isn't even factoring in the plethora of great research done on the ISS, like research into cancer and other biomedical applications. The point being, space gives us really hard problems, and in creating tools to solve those problems, we can then use those tools to solve problems back home.
Early on, a moon base would just be a scientific research station. I really hope that in the 2030s we can get to the point where it's continuously inhabited, like the ISS is now. But overtime, we may perhaps see it being used as the gas station to the rest of the solar system, harvesting its water ice in order to make rocket propellant.
In the end, all I have to say is, the general public who doesn't follow spaceflight constantly sees the word "billions" and feels sick to their stomach, asking why this is being done rather than solving world hunger. The complexity of problems like world hunger, cancer, etc are whole different complex problems, but it suffices me to say, they will not be solved exclusively by money, and in fact, too much money may make the problems worse.
Billions of dollars is a lot to an individual, but not to a government. There are much worse things that humanity can do than spend a half a percent of its money (which we don't) on spaceflight. I argue that beyond all the technologies it gives, all the jobs its creates, space is simply inspirational. So much crap is going on in the world today, but space stuff is so cool. Show a picture of the Carina nebula from the James Webb space telescope, and I venture to say nearly everyone would find it really beautiful looking.
Artemis I say, will be especially inspirational, because it will be the first time that women, people of color, and non-americans in general will go to the Moon. I know some people have flinched seeing NASA say that cause they think of political stuff going on today - but really I see it as now _everyone_ is getting to go into space now. I think that will send a strong message to humanity when they can start seeing their country going into space - and seeing that these astronauts from all these different countries can get along, work together, and be great friends.
Even in the midst of the awful war in Ukraine, the cooperation you see between American and Russian crew on the ISS really feels so simple, and again, inspiring. I think we can't overlook the impact of this.
Iglus to the Moon. Or use other repetitive geometrical forms. Make them by melting regolith into molds using solar power which is available at 100% on the moon.
I'll believe it when it happens. NASA has had plans like this since the 1950s.
There is timeline issue with what the expert informs in the video, he states that the technology is 50 years away from been tested on the moon, and in the other hand you have a 2035 timeframe to build some kind of habitat on the south pole. Probably is not going to be 3D printing, and it will not be as big or as expensive once they are in orbit, never the less, it sounds more like 3D printing marketing than a real doc clip about the progress in the matter.
Surface bases won't work on the moon, because of the intense radiation. The moon orbits well outside the protective magnetic shielding provided by Earth's core. Space Station, and other low earth orbiting habitats, and craft get a way with it because they orbit inside the protection of the magnetic belts. But, even low earth orbiting crews must take shelter, or abandon their stations in the event of a CME from the sun. Also, you can't produce and pour liquid based compounds in zero pressure environments, like on the moon. You also have the plus/minus 250 degree temperature variable to deal with. One side of the structure is being baked, whilst the other is being frozen right after anything comes out of an extruder. It just can't possibly work in that environment. You MUST dig into the lunar surface with tunneling machines. Once you have an area dug out, underground, you can seal the tunnel with an airlock, create a pressurized and controlled environment in which you can then use your 3D printing machines to sculpt the interiors of each habitable volume. Such structures must be underground to protect crews, crops and livestock from cosmic radiation and MMOD strikes. The only "base" related structures that should be on the surface should be launch and landing platforms, and temporary logistics transfer structures. That is THE ONLY way to safely and efficiently colonize the moon. The same goes for Mars, too. No ifs, ands or buts. Full stop.
Nah. A few meters of regolith piled on top of an inflated structure will provide all the radiation protection needed.
@@AlbertaGeek ...And what of the MMOD problem? I think I'd feel better knowing there was at least an hundred feet of solid rock between habitat, and the surface.
@@ThomasGrillo _"And what of the MMOD problem"_
A valid concern. Just so happens that there's a NASA study on that problem one can find online. It's called _Meteoroid Risk Assessment of Lunar Habitat Concepts._
Given what they know from the flux of micrometeoroids, and using hypervelocity impact tests, on a model of a structure with an external surface area of 330m^2, the PNP (Probability of No Penetration) with a concrete wall 10cm thick over a period of 20 years approaches 1.0. In the study, the wall is considered "penetrated" if the penetration depth exceeds 1/3 the thickness of the wall.
With results like that, a few meters of processed regolith seems like it would be adequate protection for a small initial base. That may be orders of magnitude less than what it would take to make you "feel better", but then manned space exploration is not for the faint of heart.
This needs to happen sooner rather than later.
hahahaha the iPhone shoe. love it. Another fantastic Tomorrow's Build video. This channel is so underrated.
Thanks Sir
Nasa will consider themselves grateful if they can launch another SLS by 2026. Lmao
Now that is a little pessimistic I would say. I doubt We'll get Artemis II in 2024, but if it happens in 2025, I could see Artemis 3 happening 2027. Like, the rockets are being built. It's going to happen. Never underestimate the momentum of a bunch of lobbyists who really want the big orange rocket to fly. It may be slow, but it WILL fly.
@@WasatchWind According to NASA's official schedule Artemis 2 launches 2024. This year 2023 (in abt 3 days since this comment) they will announce the astronauts for Artemis 2.
@@freddyd1783... I know. I'm saying I think that Starliner 1, the first operational flight, could launch after Artemis 2 seeing how many delays Starliner gets.
So if we're 3d printing buildings nkw what happens to construction workers? I was thinking to pursue a career in building and construction but it wont matter now I guess if we're 3d printing everything
Chinese: We're exploring space for the benefit of humankind.
Americans: We're in a space race.
The first is what we should be doing, the second the gritty reality.
Tomorrow's Build, this was a very good video, but with a noticeable "oops!", which lies at 1:19. At the beginning, you stated the subject was to be re. colonizing the moon, but at 1:19 you as much as said that this an interstellar interest, when that flight will be in interplanetary space, since interstellar space takes us beyond our planets and on to Alpha Centauri, and its 2 sister stars.
I just checked on the name for the space between here and the moon, and it's cislunar.
Wow this is so exciting!!😃
It's so funny that you use clip's from the Simpson's. In reality it more like THE EXPANSE.
If you're interested in this topic, I recommend looking at channels like Everyday Astronaut, Scott Manley, or Joe Scott who are covering this amazing revolution in space.
Should be underground bases on the moon. First they find out what the average creator depth is and then dig at least that deep and then to where it would be safe to handle such an impact.
Will NASA ship enough resin to build structures out of lunar dust? I wanted to hear that ICON figured out how to use lasers to melt lunar dust into a glass and bake whole structures.
Baking glass…..bake whole building structures???? Where is that god damned oven coming from….where is the power to run it?? Where are the maintenance people?? OH!!!!!!! IT’S AI AGAIN IS IT??????
Space was always cool brah.
Tighten up.
50 years might be a bit far off for an estimate on technological maturity but I agree that 2026 or whatever it's estimated at for first construction is premature.
❤ great video mate wonderful 🇦🇺🏁👏👏👏
Why they dont dig underground tunnels and bases?
Because it would be like digging tunnels in a dry sand pit. This would take much much bigger and heavier machines and would cost a lot more.
The moon's surface is made of moon dust, you can't really dig tunnels. Furthermore we do not have a clear understanding of what lies below that moon dust.
@@noahgeerdink5144 harder moon dust, most likely.
Dunno. Ask Harry Stamper.
What a great time to be alive!
necesitamos una agencia espacial Latinoamericana
I'm sure NASA will have the movie set & CGI ready by '26
An important consideration of what NASA needs to get built on the Moon or Mars is that it needs shielding thick enough to dampen harmful radiation. The habitat itself, the pressurized livable space will be shipped from Earth. What is unaffordable is the shielding that goes on top of it. Like a glasis on a Napoleonic era fortress, the earth embankment to dampen the impact of artillery. That is just piled-up soil. The structure of the fort itself is made of stone or bricks, the usual building materials. So, 3D printing in space is basically limited to piles of regolith on top of the actual habitat. There is no such a need on Earth.
Like the program. As long as we have to send materials/ supplies to the moon, permanent habitation does not make sense. It currently cost about $100 million to send 4 asternuts to the ISS. SLS/ Artemis cost over $4 Billion to send asternuts to the moon. I agree that we must get most of the materials from the moon itself.
I love hearing about these insanely cool ideas. $100 Billion and the moon is colonized, $.5 Billion and homelessness is solved for 2 years, etc.
Really brings in to perspective just how much money we’re giving Ukraine 😂
$200 billion a day in Afghanistan. For 20 f****** years.
Yeah, let's keep things in perspective.
"How Much Would It Cost to End Homelessness in California for Good? About $8 billion per year, according to a new housing needs assessment - or less than 3% of the state budget."
That is just one year, for California, so I am not sure where you got that 0.5B from.
@@snuffeldjuret I would rather our government spend $8 Billion a year on homelessness rather than the $854 Billion a year we spend on the US war machine.
@@snuffeldjuret heard someone on CNN say it, can’t remember who’s study they were quoting. I’m sure someone could find another study that says we’re both wrong
@@tanks4nuthin964 yeah lets not go for what some rando said on notoriously bad channel cnn :P.
I never thought about a meteorite falling onto such a building on the Moon... It gotta have some level of protection that can be fixed in a matter of days...
Offside construction is very often the best option on earth and a better option than 3D printing on site. What we need on the moon though is radiation shielding, which needs electrons. Conveniently the amount of electrons in a material is proportional to the mass of the material. Mass is also a big problem to be faced when sending stuff into space. So to make this realistic, we need to create structures from material already on the site, with as few people on site as possible. 3D printing ticks those boxes.
For radiation shielding I think it's well more viable to just cover the building with regolith, or make your building near the wall of a crater, or maybe a cave.
@@LordSesshaku try building a sand castle with fine dry sand.
@@piraterubberduck6056 I didn't said build, I said cover the building. Instead of building thick structures, just design them to be buried in a thick layer of regolith mass. That would offer enough radiation and micrometiorites protection and it would be way easiert to achieve.
There are many designs that follow that principle, the calculations of how thick were already made.
We are decades away from developing the AI and robotics needed to do all this. We haven't even developed the robotics to explore and map the available lava tubes yet. Those tubes are the only thing that will protect us for a long time. We need to develop the robotics to explore and map those tubes. Then we need autonomous robotics to clear and level the floor of those tubes in order to establish inflatable habitats. It's not as sexy as 3D printing structures, but for now, it's the only long term solution for surviving on the moon.
Get that done first.
why dont we just dig cave structures ???? or is that to simple
On reflection, they've got to dig up various minerals so wouldn't it be great if the excavation happened to have the "value added bonus" of being easily adapted into a cave?
Alas, I think that that would be just a bit too fairy tale and you can imagine all types of experts poo-pooing it for inefficiency, cost, time wasting and so on.
The moon is mostly made of dust and small rocks. Digging in it won't give us something stable. Tunnelling machines are also way more complex than 3D printing machines. This is the easier option.
Because the moon is hollow
@@jacksonc2956 What, like Gorgonzola?
Come on! Someone had to say it.
it's vastly more complex to dig tunnels, especially with the nature of the surface, it's easier to build habitats in craters to shield from radiation and temperature
Buying my first telescope next year 🎯
This probably won't happen for another decade.
They said, each decade. For the next four subsequent decades.
Yeah, because astronauts landed in 2025 will have to wait a decade before getting a location where to live and where to work... That's how you use the brain for a comment
I agree. This will definitely happen this decade.
Longer. The entire moon is covered with razor sharp regolith dust.
Maybe but it seems to be much more possible now
cordless power tool, yea we would never have thought about that without space
To the people wondering why, as they put it, this or that amazing idea about doing something in space, specifically on the Moon has not been done yet? Except for the brief glimpse of Mars One they showed at the beginning, which was honestly rather deceitful, it usually boils down to a few things:
-Spaceflight is hard. Very hard.
-Spaceflight has been very expensive.
-Human spaceflight has been intensely political
We have not gone back to the Moon, despite being completely technologically capable, because of NASA being tossed about in the wind by every change in presidential administration, and congress mandating this or that rocket technology be used for jobs programs.
But the good news at least is that things are changing. Commercial spaceflight is reducing the cost of spaceflight big time, concurrently, NASA has finally achieve bipartisan support for Artemis, as well as various international partners, and a lot of innovation is happening to help make spaceflight technology more reliable and regular than it's been in the past.
It will still go slower than we would like. Even with all the money in the world, it involves a lot of starts and stops, prototyping, failures, etc. Even in completely successful, on track programs, caution and redundancy are built in to make sure that expensive delicate hardware, and even more delicate humans, are being taken care of.
The timeline of getting humans back on the Moon by 2025 is likely not going to happen, because of difficulty in getting all of the elements of the landing mission ready - the human landing system, the EVA suits, and of course, the infamously slow space launch system rocket - but it WILL happen, if not in 2026, 2027. I have full confidence that we will be back on the Moon by the end of the decade, and this time, have much more sustainable architecture to keep going, rather than brief Apollo program in the 60s.
“Real assets like art”
..."real as NASA's $93 billion worth project's fart."
You guys are going to wait for this for a loonng time lol
I bet not.
Asking NASA what they know is like asking KFC for the secret recipe we all know but it will never be officially revealed
Yep there’s no chance that this will fail 😂😂😂😂😂
Hell of a way to waste what will end up being way more than $93b 👍
remember twitter cost 44 billion 😅😅
For oxygen, we need plants and algae in greenhouses. Hydrogen combined with oxygen will give us water. In addition to solar panels, we need lenses to focus sunlight and turn water into steam power. Lander modules can be made into the shape of a drill bit that can burrow into the moon once they are connected to an external rotating "drill" on the moon and become a habitat in itself.
Maybe they should start the terraforming project here on earth first with Sahara desert for example
tbh great idea
Building on the moon != terraforming. Those are two completely different things that are not related in any shape what so ever.
Terraforming the Sahara means brazil dries up.
@@Monkeymeep what?
@@grantmccoy6739 yeah, seems logic. It's all connected
THIS WOULD BE SO COOL
_I bet you are watching this with one leg over the other !_
Shook
I have been to Sydney opera house. It's not just a 'funny shape'; there is some serious engineering structure behind it.
3d Printing has been hampered on Earth because a few rich companies started another company about 30 years ago with the sole purpose of buying up companies working on 3d printing and then sitting on the patents. Please go research this and make a video about how the rich are keeping you poor on purpose. We are still in the beginning of the 3d printing revolution as those old patents expire and new players with more forsight are NOT selling out to 3M or Dupont.
How is 3D printing patented? The reason it's not big is because it's not cost effective.
thanks
Love the videos and the channel. Don't love promoting essentially a scam company as a sponsor :(
3D printing has fulfilled its role as intended. Prototyping and making one of a kind inventions. It’s not supposed to replace mass assembly line projects. That was never what the technology was intended to do.
I am the fourth comment woohoo!
Haha, congrats!
You're fifth.
@@TomorrowsBuild Thanks! That made my day. Keep it up mate
@@heidirabenau511 Yup, whoops
Oh wow this sounds exciting.
btw... made possible by SpaceX
SpaceY is a joke.
As a kid I hated that "not another boring space launch" scene in the Simpson 😟lol...I was like what the hell you just say,....thems fighting words hahahaha
"How ON EARTH do you build ON THE MOON?"
A: 3D printers need a lot of servicing. Who is going to do that? (Cleaning the muck away etc...)
B: How are you going to get the bloody massive 3D printer there for a full sized habitat?
C: How are you going to power and feed it? You cant suck regolith up. There is no air. It needs to be mechanically done.
D: How are you going to fuse the base to the ground? Put air in it and the exterior vacuum will rip the base soil away. Because it's porous.
Conclusion: It's a dumb idea. The only way you could feasibly do it on the moon is send a giant boring machine. As it bores, the regolith is transported to the surface to be stored.
Next stage on the bore machine is a heat welder that fuses the side walls as it goes down.
On top of the bore machine is a 3D printer. When the bore machine reaches safe depth, it pins itself to the base of the pit. The 3D printer then extends and starts creating the cap, or roof.
The bore machine is designed for easy disassembly. On it are the required airlocks and desired equipment to finish the base.
The struts from the 3D printer can be taken off and used as con rods from the outer rim of what is left of the bore machine to the roof, securing it.
During all this, the central power cable to the exterior is left in place and is sealed in the centre of the roof.
The intake chute for the 3D printing regolith is left there as the new hatchway.
MOONBASE!
You say a setence with "NASA" and "by 2026" and we all think "will be 20 more years behind Elon and Jeff"
That was a smooth transition to sponsorship! lol
How much power does the icon 3d regolith lavacrete printer consume, and what power options will be available to them battery and solar, a dozen or more mini reactors?
How will they make them air tight?
Possibly by having an inflatable habitat inside. They've already demonstrated an inflatable habitat on the ISS, and these things are actually stronger than traditional rigid modules.
Starship is looking good. So this will happen. Just need a bit more time! Before 2040 without any doubt!
I believe that spaceships, are created by some sort of 3d printing, but, i also believe they are grown like crystals. I think that these two concepts come together some how.
I think we should some how renewed of sense of space innovation