Totally Off Topic Use of 3D Printer

<http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printed-moon-base-2013-2
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 4, 8:55 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net> wrote:

Earth-orbiting lasers would be cheaper. No losses due to scattering by air.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just scattering material - every which way.
Martin
On 2/5/2013 9:23 AM, Father Haskell wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:07:11 -0600, Martin Eastburn
--topposting corrected--

They'd likely be operated in a spun environment if in space.
I wonder if the moon's light gravity would be sufficient, or if they'd have to slow things down considerably to allow 3D printer work on the surface.
-- Newman's First Law: It is useless to put on your brakes when you're upside down. --Paul Newman
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Electrostatic attraction would probably take care of that problem: negative charge on the substrate, positive charge on the particles...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Right. So you don't build, you excavate. Do the foundation work here, then send up the plumbing, electrical, and trim crews.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.