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!

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.

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.

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

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!

For real

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.

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.

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. 🤞

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.

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.

My sentiment exactly

😂

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!

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.

lol....they go into space, they are all real astronauts.

​@@malahammer Astronots

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....

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.

Make hard hats compulsory.

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?

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.

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.

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??????

The first is what we should be doing, the second the gritty reality.

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.

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.

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

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.

$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.

Shook

remember twitter cost 44 billion 😅😅

I bet not.

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

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

How is 3D printing patented? The reason it's not big is because it's not cost effective.

Haha, congrats!

You're fifth.

@@TomorrowsBuild Thanks! That made my day. Keep it up mate

@@heidirabenau511 Yup, whoops

SpaceY is a joke.

NASA developed a lunar EVA suit that generates an energy force field to repel the lunar dust. it's so cool.