Talk:3D-printed spacecraft

Yet another 3D printed rocket engine

The BE-4, announced only on 17 Sep 2014 and apparently in the third year of a development program, is yet another rocket engine with 3D printing involved. It is a very large engine (> 500,000 lbs. thrust), and will be used in a new Atlas-derivative rocket, with the new methane-engine booster from Blue Origin. Here is a source for the 3D printing claim: Space News: ULA To Invest in Blue Origin Engine as RD-180 Replacement. N2e (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Name

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to title this article "3D printing in aerospace industry" or something similar? 3D printed spacecraft is something that doesn't exist, as article itself points out. Also note that all of the articles about 3D printing do not put hyphen after the 3D. So instead of "3D-printed spacecraft" you should have "3D printed spacecraft". SkywalkerPL (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments, on the TWO separate ideas expressed above, follow: N2e (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Renaming

Well, maybe "3D printing in aerospace industry" might be better, but if so, I would think it would only be for a while. As soon as enough different stuff is added to that article, then splits would occur and, if current trends continue, we'll see the redir of "3D-printed spacecraft" go back to being an article at some future time.

That said, recommend you propose a single change in a new section and see if a consensus can be gained. I certainly would not oppose such a consensus if others all felt a more general article (for now) would be best.

I'll also note that "3D printing in spacecraft" might be an alternative to "3D printing in the aerospace industry". It would definitely be broader than "3D-printed spacecraft", but not as broad as "3D printing in the aerospace industry". Just a thought. N2e (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any article covering 3D printing in other parts of aerospace industry, and I disagree that "it would only be for a while" as by all means it seems we're nowhere near 3D printing an entire spacecraft, it's only individual parts or frame. Therefore I propose a move. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

hyphen in the current name

I'm not an English expert, and would have to do a bit of research, but I think "3D printing" is correct when used that way, while when a compound adjective is made, as in "3D printed" and placed as a modifier in front of a noun, then "3D-printed" is correct.

So maybe best to see where your first idea goes, and then deal with the hyphen issue afterwards? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

---

3D-printed spacecraft → 3D printing in the aerospace industry – "3D printing" is without hyphen (per: other articles in Category:3D printing). Article does not discuss 3D printed spacecraft, it doesn't even discuss 3D printing of parts for spacecrafts alone. It's discussing printing parts for rockets and spacecrafts. It'd be beneficial to change title into one appropriate to the content and expand article with additional mentions of 3D printing in other disciplines of aerospace industry, such as 3D printing of parts for Airbus A350 XWB, as we currently have no dedicated article to cover a topic of non-rocket or spacecraft 3D printing despite of the fact that it's all on topic of Aerospace and Aerospace manufacturers. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC) SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. There are several issues here. First, 3D printing is just a manufacturing technology. We don't have articles dedicated to casting, machining, forming, fabricating, painting, etc. etc. specifically in aerospace. What makes 3D printing more notable than these? Then, what makes aerospace sufficiently notable to warrant an article independent from 3D manufacturing generally? The fact that it happens does not establish notability, we need sources to explain why it is a special case for the 3D printer (as opposed to what benefits 3D printing brings to aerospace). Without such sources, trimming the "look, here's another one" fanboy trivia and merging into 3D printing#Space would be better. Thirdly, the proposed title is poorly worded.Not only is it ungrammatical (missing a "the", but it is clumsy [proposal changed]. It if must exist as an independent article, "3D printed aerospace components" would be both cleaner and more grammatical. Finally, if the broadening of focus is agreed, then whether or not this article remains independent, the sections at 3D printing#Space and 3D printing#Aircraft should be merged into 3D printing#Aerospace. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"What makes 3D printing more notable than these?" - I can't answer this question, only popped here because I noticed title that's different than the content.

"Without such sources, trimming the "look, here's another one" fanboy trivia and merging into 3D printing#Space would be better." - I disagree. If something is not notable it should be removed. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to create a list of use-cases for certain manufacturing processes as this only goes towards infinity. It'd be better off to collect only the most important "firsts".

I think we are saying much the same thing here. I'm really just adding that the important "first" alone would not sustain its own article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So... WP:AFD? I don't know, I think that important "firsts" might be enough to sustain an article, but I'd need to do some more research before making up my mind if it'd be put up on a vote for deletion. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Not only is it ungrammatical" Damn... ok, I'll correct it to at least be grammatically correct.

"3D printed aerospace components" - I thought about that, but IMHO limiting the scope to components alone isn't really future-proof.

SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment—I see your point on the "just another manufacturing technology", but note that additive manufacturing is both rather new/novel and is quite notable to regular folks who are not involoved in the esoteric industry. So I guess it is rather understandable that this article was created as an expansion when the main 3d printing article got too large.

On the scope question, I'm not really seeing why all aircraft and atmospheric vehicles would necessarily go/fit with the spaceflight-related ones. Moreover, as to future-proofing conversation above, it seems that 3D printing is slated to play a particularly significant role in off-planet manufacturing (say in space, as at ISS, or later on extra-terrestrial bodies), something that is rather different for all other modes of transportation (rail, wheel vehicle, ship, aircraft) that have now and will have access to all terrestrial manufactuiring resources, and don't suffer from the ultra-high-cost of $2000+ per kg to get material up out of Earth's gravity well and to anyplace in space where they might be needed. Also, the article points to spacecraft that are fully 3d printed; i.e., not merely 3d printing of component parts. This seems particularly notable for a wiki article, and in a way that I haven't seen aircraft moving to.

In short, it seems to me okay for now to just have a diff article for notable aviation/atmospheric parts that are 3d printed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answer N2e! I'll try to answer on the topics you touched:

"why all aircraft and atmospheric vehicles would necessarily go/fit with the spaceflight-related ones" - Because it's all an aerospace industry.

"it seems that 3D printing is slated to play a particularly significant role in off-planet manufacturing" - that also falls under aerospace industry. In fact all currently developed landers and early plans for space mining (that you mentioned) are done by aerospace companies, such as Planetary Resources (related)

"Also, the article points to spacecraft that are fully 3d printed" - which one is that? All I see are components and a single mention that 3D printing is being used for structure and fuel tanks for the spacecraft. I can't see any mention of 3D printed spacecraft. If there is a 3D printed spacecraft than it should be clearly pointed out in the article and sourced. And in that case I guess you'd also want to remove all of the content that doesn't talk about said 3D printed spacecraft(s), as right now article talks about everything that's 3D printed in spaceflight-related activities, even parts of rocket engines that never were designed to leave the atmosphere.

"and in a way that I haven't seen aircraft moving to" - see this as an example

SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Skywalker, thanks for the thoughtful response.

You said:

• " ' why all aircraft and atmospheric vehicles would necessarily go/fit with the spaceflight-related ones ' " - Because it's all an aerospace industry."

I'd say that "by industry" is certainly one way to organize things in Wikipedia articles, but by no means the only way. "By industry" brings in a certain economic perspective into the matter, which is one of my interests, but "by technology" or "by the domain of use" (e.g. in outer space vs in an atmosphere) are others. In this case, even with my strong interest in the economics of spaceflight and the changes in the "industry" that new competitive market process forces are causing to emerge, I'm thinking that the domain (space vs atmospheric aviation) may be the more important distinction for this particular new technology.

Maybe one way to get going is for someone to compile a few draft subsections of what might go into an article that talks about notable and reliably sourced 3d printing stuff in the "in an atmosphere" part of the aerospace industry in a sandbox somewhere. Then, if a consensus is achieved here (I mean like, to date, there's just two of us talking; no reason why many others might not drop by and weigh in, say with an RfC), then it might be added to this article. If not, and if it meets WP:GNG, then it would just be an appropriate new article on 3D printing in aviation, or some such appropriate name. Either way, the encyclopedia is improved. And even if two articles, it would always be open to merging in the future if the situation warranted it then. N2e (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'm fine with anything that brings a title of this article in line with content. Part of the reason why I put this proposition up is for other people to see and express their opinion, sadly that didn't work out exactly as expected... I'll make an additional post on Talk:3D printing, perhaps it'll help us getting more opinions on a subject.

I understand what you are coming from with working by the domain, though personally I think that expanding scope of this article would significantly increase it's notability, as currently it's questionable whether current scope would sustain its own article - most of this information could easily be integrated into 3D printing without any need for a separate article, just like 3D printing#Medical doesn't have it's own article. That's the problem that Steelpillow already touched, earlier before. Obvious alternative would be to turn this article into a list, an equivalent of List of 3D printed weapons and parts, with carefully selected title, as content-wise this article doesn't contain any information that would go beyond a simple list (unlike 3D printed firearms which focuses on an effects of 3D printing in it's own domain).

But we are going a little bit off topic here. I agree with your suggestion about preparing content for other branches of aerospace industry - however I won't be able to do anything until after middle of next month, as I'm currently on a holiday. Though if either you or any other fellow wikipedian is interested - feel free to work on it and share the link. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Passing comment (I'm taking a long wikibreak but saw I had been mentioned). There is all the difference in the world between manufacturing for space and manufacturing in space. The two topics must not get muddled together in a common treatment. But the question as to what makes 3D printing worth singling out remains valid in both cases. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why not rename to 3D-printing of spacecraft components

... which is what it is actually describing. Why is it notable? presumably it is the materials and tolerances rather than the use of the components ( unless we were talking about 3d-printers to operate in zero-g ) perhaps we should call it 3D-printing of high specific strength components to include aero parts too eg in titanium ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)