3D printer

[RustyLugNut]

The light sensitive epoxy allowed rapid laser printing and fine detail. The objects were not used directly but provided the "master model" for soft molding techniques ( urethane rubber or silicon were largely used ).

I have looked at the current crop of "hobby level" 3D printers and they have come a long way. Even though the model volume is quite small, the resolution is workable. Speed is an issue. But the price has dropped to near that of a mid line refrigerator. PLA and ABS materials are useful for low stress objects and if more strength is needed, simply soft cast a mold from your object and you can use poured resins such as polyester, epoxy or even low temperature casting metals ( zinc/silver alloys ). Depending on the geometry of your object, you may be able to set and compress reinforcing fibers into your mold and vacuum inject your matrix resins.


In the outside chance you need several hundred count of your object, you can mold it in an epoxy/metal material and send it to an injection molding shop with a wide range of industry plastics at your disposal.

[Daox]

I did this to make a few parts. 3d printed the mold, then poured my parts with two part urethane. Worked great!

[oil pan 4]

One of the most extreme applications I can think of is to print a portable detachable muzzle sound suppressor for 22 long rifle.

[freebeard]

Extreme?

When we went to the Moon, something made us come back, break the molds and burn the blueprints.

40 years later the last remaining F-1 engine was disassembled, 3D scanned, reassembled and tested

NASA resurrects its most powerful rocket engine after 40 years, for science! | ExtremeTech

The methane trubo-pump has been tested:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...rs-lander.html

22LR ain't rocket science. Here's something to get started:

3D Printable Rocket Nozzles Part 1: The Math | Bill Waters

[oil pan 4]

Yeah rocket nozzles...

I don't have to beat around the bush, its all legal for me.

I was wondering why nasa needed a few billion dollars to develop a new heavy lift engine when we already have the most powerful and most reliable ever thought of.
(unless they needed that money to develop a bigger solid fuel rocket)

I was very busy in early 2013 I didn't know any of this had gone on.

[Xist]

Daox, did you ever make an MPGuino case?

[Daox]

Nope, I haven't taken the time to design one yet.

[freebeard]

I was wondering why...

That is actually one of the most important questions of our times. Why?

Not why we went, but why we left and didn't go back,

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I was wondering why nasa needed a few billion dollars to develop a new heavy lift engine...

Maybe for the same reason most of us aren't driving cars with engines designed in the mid-60s?

[freebeard]

Being a statistical outlier, I drive a car with an engine designed in the 1930s.

Setting aside the whole Apollo 18 scenario; the beginnings are also interesting. Looking for a neutral voice on the subject I find:

Did Yugoslav space technology sold by Tito put America in space?

TLDR: Kennedy bought the Apollo program wholesale from Marshall Tito.

From my own recollection at the time, Yugoslavia was the most prosperous 'Soviet satellite' at the time, and the ex-Nazis were blowing up American rockets left and right on the launch pad (to throw the race to Bolesheviks) until the program was taken away from them.

Back ontopic:


http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/