XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design   
      
   In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:   
   > On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >   
   >>In sci.physics Jeff Findley  wrote:   
   >>> In article , jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com   
   >>> says...   
   >>>> > Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized   
   >>>> > parts.  These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone   
   >>>> > from the design.  They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due   
   >>>> > to their complex shapes.  I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts   
   >>>> > from management types.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things   
   >>>> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design   
   >>>> without the expense of 3D printing.   
   >>>   
   >>> True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's   
   >>> not the entire aircraft.   
   >>>   
   >>> If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be   
   >>> pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed   
   >>> 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>>> 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".   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?   
   >   
   > Marketing types certainly do.  Consumers have always bought toasters   
   > based on their looks.  After all, the thousands of different designs   
   > all do the same thing.   
      
   And all look about the same.   
      
      
   --   
   Jim Pennino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)