18
$\begingroup$

As space factories/space colonization gradually move from science fiction to visible reality, one important question is how we can produce the parts we need in space. It is conceivable that if we copy the machining equipment on the ground, we will encounter all kinds of problems, such as the lack of a stable ground with sufficient quality, the lack of sufficient cooling water, the debris will not fall to the ground and float around, and so on.

If we attempted to manufacture parts in space, how would our machining methods and machining equipment differ from the ground, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of space machining.

Improve this question
New contributor
Raymond Coulson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ By the time we're sending milling machines to space, I think we can just stick them in a rotating habitat and pretend they're on earth. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel B
    Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ What kind of space habitat are you asking about? The limitations on a Lunar or Martian base will be a bit different than those on something like the ISS which are different than an on asteroid base which are different than on a Von Braun Wheel which are different than on a Stanford Torus. $\endgroup$
    – Nosajimiki
    Commented yesterday

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
29
$\begingroup$

Traditional subtractive manufacturing (milling, turning, grinding) faces some challenges in space.

Microgravity will make it difficult to deal with cuttings, particularly grinding swarf and grinding grit. If the operations are performed inside a pressurized hull, suction and filtration could be used. Ferrous cuttings can be gathered using a magnet. Depending on the abrasive used, grinding grit and sludge are sometimes magnetic as well.

Aluminum is not magnetic, but eddy currents induced by AC current can generate temporary magnetic fields. Eddy current separators are used to recover aluminum for recycling. This could, in principle, be used to manage aluminum swarf.

The difficulty of dealing with fine particulates would necessitate closed-circuit air supply for humans, if they are present during operations.

One of the potential advantages of manufacturing in space is the ease of access to hard vacuum. This is the ultimate “inert gas” which would prevent oxidation of hot metal surfaces. A downside is the lack of convective cooling. However, during dry cutting operations most heat removal is provided by cuttings, not air. Vacuum would necessitate cutting fluids with low vapor pressure rather than water-based metalworking fluids.

If cooling issues are not dealt with (for example, by reducing cutting speed) accelerated tool wear will occur and thermal expansion may cause measurement errors in high precision machining.

Because vibration and distortion of machine tools are the enemy of precision, machine tools have traditionally been over-built with cast iron being the material of choice. This is why industrial machine tools bear a resemblance to Marvel Comics characters. Such designs do not mesh well with the mass-controlled design of spacecraft. Machine tools would need to be re-designed with rigidity through shape rather than mass.

Raw materials will be significantly more expensive in space-based manufacturing. This will increase the value of recycling off-cuts and swarf. It will also increase the attraction of additive manufacturing over traditional machining.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
7
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Regarding hard vacuum - what about cold welding? At what point does that become a negative rather than a positive (no oxidation, etc)? $\endgroup$
    – fyrepenguin
    Commented 2 days ago
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Cold welding is potentially a problem with unlubricated high precision surfaces under load. Machines designed and operated to avoid this combination of risks should function normally. Molybdenum disulfide and Tungsten disulfide are dry lubricants suitable for use in a vacuum. $\endgroup$
    – Woody
    Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ To cool a machine tool with a liquid in zero gravity and in space vacuum would be very difficult. How to pump the fluid in a cooling loop? $\endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Uwe ... good point. In microgravity, liquid cooling would likely be limited to cooling passages in the tool bits, unless the process is completely submerged. $\endgroup$
    – Woody
    Commented 2 days ago
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Would there be a need for balance shafts to reduce the torque exerted on the space vehicle when starting/stopping the machine? $\endgroup$
    – Andrew Morton
    Commented 2 days ago
10
$\begingroup$

Additive manufacturing (contrasting Woody's great answer) may actually benefit from being in space.

Being in a hard vacuum would alleviate issues with uneven cooling (since thermal radiation would - in a shadowed environment - be the only heat loss (and far more controlleable) in a hard vacuum, as well as allowing waste-gasses to just vent. Metal-based additive manufacturing would also benefit greatly from operating in a hard vacuum which would allow pausing the printing process (with thermal management) and way cheaper printers due to not requiring an inert gas source / environment and no or lower degradation of stored raw resources.

Some powder or liquid-based techniques would suffer or be unusable but liquid-based ones could also massively expand in capability, especially in regards to not being confined to layers because you can just move and spin the surface-tension-based resource pool as desired.

You'd further loose the necessity for support structures unless you're machining extremely flimsy parts.

The massively reduced weight demand (both in machines* and resources) would further favour additive manufacturing in space over subtractive. The ability for most resources to be recycled on the spot (I think a lot of the liquid-based aren't) makes it even more valuable, since a misprint doesn't mean waiting a month for the next block to cut away from but only an hour or two to shred the waste down.

*=> Since additive machines are subject to far weaker forces than lathes or similar, the required precision can be achieved with far less mass.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ All good points. I agree that additive manufacturing pairs with space much better than machining. However, the question was specifically about turning milling and grinding. $\endgroup$
    – Woody
    Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ Unless you've got a six-axis printhead, you're going to need support structures. Layers printed in mid-air in zero gravity might not fall the way they do on Earth, but they still drift around. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The problems with additive manufacturing in space are the same as on the ground: slow production speeds, low manufacturing accuracy, and limited type of materials. It's useful, but it's not the whole story. As an example, a spacecraft has a damaged line in one of its engines and needs to have a replacement flange machined. it's difficult for 3D printing to create an airtight structure to replace it. Maybe a combination of 3D printing and subtractive manufacturing would be better: 3D print the part and then finish machine it. $\endgroup$
    – Raymond Coulson
    Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark that was already covered in my answer: "unless you're machining extremely flimsy parts." because without external forces like gravity and wind all you need to account for are the forces applied by the print head itself. Things do not magically drift around in space. They stay where they are until a force accelerates them. Yes, each piece needs to have one single fixed starting point tied to something, but that's not what earth-3d-printer people would consider "support structures" (note the s at the end) $\endgroup$
    – Hobbamok
    Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @Woody I kinda overlooked it but my answer is "it'd look like a bad idea in comparison" $\endgroup$
    – Hobbamok
    Commented yesterday
0
$\begingroup$

In space, machining would face several challenges compared to Earth-based methods. One of the biggest issues is microgravity. Without gravity pulling debris and waste materials like grinding swarf to the ground, these particles would float around and could cause problems for both the machines and the astronauts. This would require special solutions like suction or magnetic collection systems to deal with these particles.

Another major challenge is cooling. On Earth, we can use water or air to cool down tools and machines, but in space, this would be much harder. In the vacuum of space, liquids don’t behave the same way, and it would be difficult to pump cooling fluids in microgravity. To deal with this, manufacturers might have to reduce the cutting speed or use new cooling techniques like heat radiation or solid cooling elements.

The design of the machines would also need to change. On Earth, machine tools are heavy and made of materials like cast iron to prevent vibrations and ensure precision. In space, however, the mass of equipment is more strictly controlled, so machines would need to be lighter but still maintain rigidity. This could mean redesigning the machines to rely more on their shape and structure rather than mass to keep them stable during operation.

Additionally, since raw materials would be much more expensive to transport to space, recycling would become more important. Materials like metal scrap or waste could be recycled and reused to make new parts, reducing the need to bring in new resources from Earth.

Given these factors, it might be worth exploring alternative manufacturing methods in space, such as additive manufacturing (3D printing). This method might benefit from the space environment, especially with the absence of air, which could help prevent material contamination and reduce cooling issues. Also, the lower weight requirements for the machinery could make it a more viable option.

So, the question is: Do you think that additive manufacturing will be the most efficient method for space production, or do you think traditional machining methods can still work with the right adjustments?

Improve this answer
New contributor
sipan antar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You appear to have paraphrased a previous answer, In what way is your answer different or add new information? $\endgroup$
    – Woody
    Commented 2 days ago

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.