XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design
From: fjmccall@gmail.com
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
>> In article , jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...
>>> > Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
>>> > area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
>>> > a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
>>> > be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.
>>>
>>> Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
>>> that big a part of an aircrafts weight.
>>
>> From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source):
>>
>> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can
>> even reach 7%.
>>
>> That's significant in aerospace.
>>
>>> >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?
>>> >
>>> > Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
>>> > the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
>>> > understand the domain.
>>> >
>>> >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.
>>> >>
>>> >> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.
>>> >
>>> > This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
>>> > composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
>>> > hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
>>> > flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
>>> > content.
>>>
>>> An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE
>>> number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well
>>> over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of
>>> composite materials in their construction.
>>>
>>> Note the word "most".
>>
>> How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing
>> processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the
>> same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest?
>
>Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite
>materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still
>trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other
>than camper shells and ski boats.
>
Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in
the real world.
>
>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>
Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for
having your head up and locked.
>>> > I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
>>> > "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
>>> > surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
>>> > further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
>>> > so I ought to know.
>>>
>>> Whoopee. It is still niche.
>>
>> You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the
>> aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester.
>
>I didn't choose the groups and it is being posted to other groups as
>well.
>
You didn't? Do you not know how your newsreader works, or what?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
