Opportunities and Challenges in Additive Manufacturing used in

Space sector: A Comprehensive Review

Kashif Ishfaq 1, Muhammad Asad 1, Muhammad Arif Mahmood 2,3, Mirza Abdullah 1,
Catalin Pruncu 4,*
1
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Engineering and
Technology, Lahore, 54890, Pakistan

2
Laser department, National Institute for Laser, Plasma and Radiation Physics (INFLPR),
Magurele-Ilfov, 077125, Romania

3
Faculty of Physics, University of Bucharest, Magurele-Ilfov, 077125, Romania

4
Department of Design, Manufacturing and Engineering Management, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK.

*
Corresponding author

Email: catalin.pruncu@strath.ac.uk

Address: Design, Manufacturing and Engineering Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1

1XJ, Scotland, UK.

1
Abstract

Purpose:
3D printing is an additive manufacturing technique that uses metallic powder, ceramic, or
polymers to build simple/complex parts. The parts produced possess good strength, low weight,
excellent mechanical properties and are cost-effective. Therefore, efforts have been made to make
the adoption of 3D printing successful in space so that complex parts can be manufactured in space.
This saves a considerable amount of both time and carrying cost. Thereof the challenges and
opportunities that the space sector holds for additive manufacturing is worth reviewing to provide
a better insight into further developments and prospects for this technology.

Design/Methodology:
The potentiality of 3D printing for the manufacturing of various components under space
conditions has been explained. Here, we have reviewed the details of manufactured parts used for
zero gravity missions, subjected to on-board ISS conditions and with those manufactured on earth.
Followed by the major opportunities in 3D printing in space which include component repair,
material characterization, process improvement, and process development along with the new
designs. The challenges like space conditions, availability of power in space, the infrastructure
requirements, and the quality control or testing of the items that are being built in space are
explained along with their possible mitigation strategies.

Findings:
These components are well comparable with those prepared on earth which enables a massive
cost saving. Other than the onboard manufacturing process, numerous other components as well
as a complete robot/satellite for outer space applications were manufactured by additive
manufacturing Moreover, these components can be recycled on board to produce feedstock for the
next materials. The parts produced in space are bought back and compared with those built on
earth. There is a difference in their nature i.e., the flight specimen showed a brittle nature, and the
ground specimen showed a denser nature.

Originality:
The review discusses the advancements of 3D Printing in space and provides numerous
examples of the applications of 3D printing in space and space applications. The paper is solely
dedicated to 3D printing in space. It provides a breakthrough in the literature as a limited amount
of literature is available on this topic. The paper aims at highlighting all the challenges that additive
manufacturing faces in the space sector and also the future opportunities that await development.

Keywords: Additive Manufacturing; 3D Printing; Spacecraft; NASA; Implementation Barriers;

Sustainability
1. Introduction
3D Printing also known as additive manufacturing (AM) is a relatively novel technique used
for the production/manufacturing of all sorts of products. This technique produces near net-shaped

2
parts with great accuracy in one complete piece. It was first introduced in 1983 patented by Charles
Hull for Stereolithography. This laid the foundation stone for being the present-day modern
manufacturing technology [1]. 3D printing enables researchers and manufacturers to develop
lightweight, low volume, strong and complex items with a reduced cost as compared to the
traditional manufacturing processes. Therefore, 3D printing is considered the most viable approach
to traditional industrial production techniques [2–4]. This process can be incorporated in all fields
including medicine, engineering, aerospace, outer space, automotive, biological systems, and food
supply chain [5–9]. AM is not limited to just metals but ceramics, polymers, and composites can
also be used for 3D printing [10,11]. The AM process works on the layer-by-layer deposition
method [12]. The 3D-printing technology comprises three types of techniques based on primer’s
material such as solid-, liquid-, and powder-based processes as demonstrated in Figure 1 [13]. Out
of all, powder-based processes are popular and significantly employed in 3D printing because of
high throughout, high post-printing processability, and high scalability [14–17]. A 3D printer using
metallic powder as a starting base material follows a 3D model made on computer software and
prints the final part by depositing layer over layer and consequently building the whole product as
one complete piece [18–20]. The schematic of the additive manufacturing layer-by-layer
deposition process (direct metal laser sintering) in schematic form is shown in Figure 2 with all
the components of the additive manufacturing unit.

Figure 1. Classification of Additive Manufacturing.

The most common types of additive manufacturing processes include selective laser sintering
(SLS) and fused deposition modeling (FDM). Other than these two, Direct Metal Laser sintering
(DMLS), electron beam melting (EBM), and selective laser melting (SLM), laser additive
manufacturing (LAM), and precision metal deposition are other commonly used types of additive

3
manufacturing [18–22]. 3D printing is gaining more attention and interest of the people due to its
shorter implementation time and flexibility in manufacturing [23]. Despite the growing interest,
Luke Johnson et al. reported that there are still many gaps that need to be bridged in the field of
additive manufacturing such as the qualification and certification (Q&C) of the manufactured
products [24]. Tanisha Pereira et al. reported that in comparison to the conventional manufacturing
and the additive manufacturing processes the latter one is preferred when production quantity is
low, and complexity is high. For a high volume production with lesser costs, conventional
machining is preferred [25].

The focus now on 3D printing in space is becoming very noticeable [26,27]. NASA, Space X,
and the European space agency are working on different prototypes and products which could be
developed in space. A 3D printer has also been sent onboard to the international space station (ISS)
which enables the astronauts to manufacture different components on their own with the help of
that 3D printer making them self-sufficient. The astronauts can now even print their edible meals.
Hunter Williams et al. [28] reported that although the powder bed fusion technique may not be
suitable for microgravity situations however they do show some promising results for potential
applications on the moon and mars. Christo Dordlofva et al. reported that additive manufacturing
will now be used to produce components for space application having variable stiffness; using
different materials build anisotropic products while reducing the time required to produce the part
[29].

Figure 2. A schematic of additive manufacturing DMLS process; reproduced from [30].

N. Labeaga-Martinez et al. conducted a study to choose the best possible additive manufacturing
technique to establish a permanent base on the moon which would save the tremendous cost of
bringing the material from the earth. The working material, in this case, would be the regolith and

4
the process that gave the most promising results was the powder bed fusion. This shows that
additive manufacturing can indeed be used not only aboard space crafts but also on the surface of
the moon [31]. Kevin D. Grossman et al. studied the usability of ferrosilicon obtained from regolith
as a working substance to be used in additive manufacturing for in-space manufacturing. The
results showed that regolith obtained ferrosilicon is more compatible and more suitable for the
process rather than the pure ferrosilicon in terms of properties, strength, and being able to be drawn
into wires for feedstock [32]. NASA has partnered with a research company COSM to design an
electron beam 3D printing system for in-space manufacturing using autonomous robotic control
[33]. This is how advanced 3D printing is and how quickly it is being utilized for space
applications. William J. O’Hara IV et al. wrote that the current deployment of 3D printers in space
is limited to just pay loads however this is not the end. In future the 3D printing will play its role
from architecture to complete manufacturing of colonies and space exploration crafts in just a
matter of time. Currently the items being developed on board the ISS are sent back to earth for
analysis and testing so that the technology can be made better and more efficient [34]. In 2014
NASA sent the first 3D printer in space, the samples manufactured in microgravity conditions
were then compared with those prepared on earth. After the comparison adjustments were made
for the microgravity phase 2 operations that enabled more precision and control over the
manufacturing settings [35]. Figure 3 explains the applications and uses of in-space manufacturing
3D printers, also explains the recycling of materials. How additive manufacturing is employed in
space applications and being promoted has been explained in the next sections.

5
 Figure 3. Key areas of Space Manufacturing.

1.1. Application of AM in NASA and Air force

Sunil C. Joshi et al. [36] reported that NASA and the European Space Agency are now
considering that different parts for space crafts and their daily use materials should now be
manufactured in space by 3D printing because just transporting a single brick into space costs
NASA 2 million USD. This research is also being tested for Mars. The D-Shape technology is the
technology in review that is mainly used for building different blocks and structures, even a
complete building can be manufactured by this technology. The initial pilot programs for this
technology have been completed and passed. Another technique that is being used is contour
crafting which also has showed promising results in its trial runs. On the moon, the abundantly
available Sulphur can be used as the binding material in this technique. NASA is also focusing on
the 3D printing of food in space which means now even food can be prepared using this technology
and would serve the purpose in long manned missions to Mars or even to the moon where normal
food storage and carrying is a huge issue. Enea Sacco et al. [37] reported that NASA first launched
a 3D printer in space in 2014 and then FDM was used to manufacture some specific items using
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) as the working material. The counterparts of these items
were prepared on earth and the properties of both were compared to see the results. This paved a
way for NASA to manufacture things using AM in space making it very helpful, cost-effective,

6
and efficient for space operations. Other than the techniques are being used NASA is using AM to
manufacture parts that cannot be manufactured using normal conventional methods. The different
products manufactured in space using a 3D printer are depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Compilation of the objects printed at ISS.

CRP USA [38] along with the Kentucky space station developed a cube sat that was launched
into orbit in 2013 as part of the NASA ElaNa IV mission. Many components on the launched cube
sat were made using additive manufacturing selective laser sintering technology. The components
manufactured were made to be tough, cheap, robust, and able to bear fatigue and lightweight. The
same facility developed an additive manufactured propulsion system for small satellites. The
additively manufactured parts are one complete art not multiple parts in one part like the ones
prepared conventionally. A picture of the CubeSat Kaysat-2 satellite that was prepared by 3D
printing is shown in Figure 5.

7
 Figure 5. CubeSat Kysat-2; reproduced from [38]; with permission from Elsevier.

NASA at the Glenn Research Centre located at Lewis Field has prepared many spacecraft
propulsion components using additive manufacturing. There are components for small CubeSats,
large rocket propulsion systems, aircraft gas turbines, and hybrid propulsive systems. Using the
titanium alloy Ti6Al4V the facility using additive manufacturing produced an RL-10 engine for a
spacecraft. Similarly, a rocket engine was manufactured. A rocket laser injector was successfully
manufactured using selective laser melting and then tested. Turbine blades have been
manufactured at a much-reduced cost and having excellent mechanical properties and fatigue
strength [39]. HC Starck solutions which is a firm working with NASA has reported that using
additive manufacturing to prepare different rocket and spacecraft parts has not only reduced the
time involved in manufacturing but has also significantly reduced the cost and the material
wastage, now one part can be manufactured completely as a whole in just under three weeks
whereas manufacturing it conventionally took about six months and three-four pieces had to be
joined to make one part. Moreover, complex and hollow shapes can be built with ease requiring
no difficult machining operations [40]. For the air force, the Glenn Research Centre completed
research with Aero-jet Rocket dyne on liquid rocket gaseous hydrogen/liquid oxygen (GH2/LOX)
injectors and other structural components to be used for an RL-10 rocket [41].

1.2. Importance of Mass

Additive manufacturing (AM) has a significant role in the spacecraft sector [42]. Practically,
everything in the space industry is uniquely designed which enhances the roots of AM in advanced
manufacturing technology. Moreover, the use of AM technology in space structure has started
because of its wide diversity in application mainly due to two reasons. The first reason is saving
of mass by about 40% to 90% [43]. Infect, mass is proportional to the cost (more heavy-weight
spacecraft consume more fuel and power). Secondly, AM technology can produce intricate
contours faster than the conventional manufacturing process. This will result in the reduction of
production and fabrication time from approximately one year to four months [44]. There are wide
ranges of materials employed commonly in aircraft applications, such as [45]:

8
 • Ceramic-composite material
• Carbon composites
• Kapton
• Teflon
• Alloys of Aluminium (Al) & Titanium (Ti)
• Glass
• Stainless steel
• Nickel (Ni)-based Superalloys
• And plastics etc.

There are some materials used in small quantities like silver and gold, so they do not add too much
weight. Plastic by nature does not high weight so they do not contribute high weight to spacecraft
[46]. However, the main structural elements of spacecraft are made up of different alloys of Al-,
Ni-, Ti- and Steel which is usually heavy in size. The said alloys are used based on the AM method
employed and the physical characteristics of the material [47]. Though from the spacecraft industry
point of view, mostly Ti- and Ni-based alloys are preferred because of their inherent attributes like
tensile strength, sensitive tolerances, and resistance towards oxidation or reduction [48–50]. So
far, spacecraft are made by conventional approach, but now the 3D-printing technique has become
popular to reduce its cost magnificently by saving the mass for spacecraft [51]. Cost related to the
product is an important consideration for every industrial sector when they launch or design their
product [36]. Thus, for achieving the low cost and lightweight material for spacecraft, research
has been presented their work on it.

Sacco et al. [37] assumed that orbitals appear as circles for their work only. For this purpose,
they computed the mass ratio (initial mass 𝑚𝑜 without fuel burn and final mass 𝑚𝑓 after fuel burn).
When a spacecraft is moving with velocity 𝑣 in an orbit of radius 𝑟 then velocity associated with
the orbital is computed by using equation 1. The researchers proposed that whenever the velocity
of spacecraft is varied from original velocity 𝑣 to ∆𝑣 then fuel must be utilized. This ∆𝑣 is
evaluated from equation 2 which are known as the Tsiolkovsky equation or Ideal rocket equation.
Then the ratio of mass is calculated with the help of equation 3.

(1)
𝐺𝑀
𝑣= √
𝑟
𝑚𝑜 (2)
∆𝑣 = 𝑣𝑒 ln ( )
𝑚𝑓
𝑚𝑜 ∆𝑣 (3)
( ) = exp ( )
𝑚𝑓 𝑣𝑒

Where, v, G, M, ve, r, and ∆v represented the speed of spacecraft, Gravitational constant (6.67x10-
11 3 -1 -2
m kg s ), the mass of earth, exhaust velocity of spacecraft, radius of a circular orbit, and change
9
 𝑚𝑜
in velocity respectively. ( ⁄𝑚𝑓 ) proportion indicating mass ratio. Equation 3 expressing that if
the mass of spacecraft is increased then it raised the magnitude of ∆𝑣 which requires more fuel to
burn thus lead to high cost. The graphical relationship of final velocity and mass ratio is
demonstrating in Figure 6. On contrary, lower mass can reduce the cost of spacecraft significantly
as tabulated in Table 1. The cost provided in this table only belongs to launch spacecraft from earth
to orbit.

Figure 6. Final velocity as a function of mass ratio computed from equation 3.

3D printing method provides long-term benefits in making lightweight, stable, improved, and
intricate geometries which decrease product life cycle expenses [52]. It also can diminish
unnecessary wastes, resources, process-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emission per unit of gross
domestic product (GDP) [53,54]. In spacecraft sectors, 3D printing has saved fuel prices and a
kilogram of material by the US $3000 [55]. It has been noted that for air traffic high purchase-to-
fly ratio (20:1) is quite common, but with the aid of 3D printing, we can reduce this ratio up to 1:1
which results in less wastage of material and minimum demand of raw material [56].

Table 1. Expenses for low earth orbital (LEO) using space launch system (SLS) and Falcon Heavy
(FH) [57].

Mass to Cost (US $) to launch to Cost (US $) per Cost (US $) per
Vehicle
LEO LEO Metric Ton Kg
SLS 70 600 M 8.57 M 8,570
FH 53 158 M 2.97 M 2,970

In addition to the above discussion, AM technology provides extensive benefits to the space
industry as concluded by National Research Council (NRC) [58,59].

10
• The development of new materials and products can easily be made in one day under
microgravity.
• Logistics and planning for new advancements changed rapidly.
• AM can alter the space market.
All the above ideas emphasize decreasing the manufacturing time along with the cost. There is
some hindrance to implementing the new methodology in the space sectors. Approval of the
documentation for executing the 3D printing process may take many years as these projects as too
much critical and expensive. For example, the Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource
Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) project was approved in 2011 and
carried out by NASA in 2016 [60]. In this new era, technology is developing very fast, especially
in AM, time frame from the document’s authorized to the accomplishment of the project, meaning
that it is very hard to the fulfillment of newly developed automation on the OSIRIS-REx
spacecraft.

To launch the spacecraft into space prescribed large investment. The minimum approximate
value of cost to launch the spacecraft to LEO and FH has already been mentioned in Table 1, it
indicates that launching a spacecraft of higher mass will too much cost as compared to the lighter
one. The capital investment corresponding with the development, manufacturing, verification, and
certification of the payload before execution is prohibited, which may cause approximately 290
million USD [61]. The cost of spacecraft industry mostly associated with the intended mission,
launching of the space vehicle in orbit requires permanent monitoring raised the cost of millions
of USD per year [62]. The spacecraft mission needed high cost and high lead time that is why most
space sectors rely on hit and trial methodology. Some space sectors like NASA, European Space
Agency (ESA), Boeing, Airbus, and Lockheed Martin are the most potential participants who resist
applying modern technologies due to high financial and human costs. Hence, AM provides design
freedom, mass reduction, and time-saving opportunities that make it a strong candidate for research
for advanced technologies [63,64]. Therefore, AM is now considering an important factor for the
exploration of the human space sector [43,65].

2. Additive Manufacturing in Space

The use of AM technique in space requires attention to small details such as zero gravity and
dealing with manufacturing in such an environment. Heng Gu et al. [66] reported that gravity
played a vital role when the laser metal deposition technique was used to develop objects for use
in space. Gravitational effects resulted in a dripping-shaped deposition. When the gravity was
switched from 1g or 2g to 0 the melt pool dynamics were dominating and the same was the
behavior of the deposition irregularity that it became more prominent. The contact angle also
showed a similar result that it increased from 93° to 99.3° 0.974 with the aspect ratio decreasing
from 1.369 to 0.974. Without gravity, the liquid metal would be able to form a sphere having an
increased contact angle with a low aspect ratio and a high melt pool volume, and a higher surface
area. Figure 7 portraying that for the first layer deposition melt pool volume was small and

11
remained in a stable stage for the different gravitational values. For the second layer deposition,
the melt pool volume increased due to the heat accumulation.

Figure 7. Evaluation of melt pools for different gravity values; reproduced from [66].

A total of 21 different parts have been successfully manufactured using additive manufacturing
at the international space station and the lessons learned from those manufacturing have been
incorporated in future manufacturing. The recycling technique has also been introduced where
already printed 3D parts are recycled and used again for new manufacturing in space; this reduces
the cost of material, reduces the need for new material, and promotes sustainability. While working
in space the researchers and NASA combined are working on completely manufacturing
exploratory vehicles, crafts using additive manufacturing in space, or at least the majority of the
components so that the international space station could be self-sufficient [67]. The focus of in-
space additive manufacturing now lies in the technological development and understanding of the
physics as to how the microgravity situations affect the printed material characteristics. The further
goals for space manufacturing include the performance of extrusion-based additive manufacturing,
on-demand manufacturing onboard the ISS from CAD files, and replacement of feedstock material
when needed. The research continues on how to make 3D printing in space more common and
with the same properties/characteristics as those on earth [68].

Software Used in AM

Different researchers have used different soft wares for example Numan Yanar et al. used
Autodesk Mesh mixer and Blender to make a 3D model for their research on the fabrication of
membranes [69]. The picture of the modeling from the Autodesk mesh mixer is shown in Figure
8. P. Gaudenzi et al. made use of CAD, CAM, and CAE files for the development of their models

12
for small satellite structures and then, later on, performed the structural analysis using ANSYS
[70]. Enrico Hilpert et al. developed a metal mirror for space applications and for this purpose the
team made use of Surface Evolver software that helped in achieving a minimum energy
distribution and then later on performed FEA analysis using ANSYS [71].

Figure 8. Autodesk Mixmesher; reproduced from [69].

Recycling in Space

NASA and the air force now focus on sustainability and recycling in space. The main focus is
to use off-earth resources. The part once printed by a 3D printer onboard the space station or
spacecraft can then be reused as a filament for a new part, in this way sustainable manufacturing
is achieved and recycling can be done [72]. The process diagram for recycling in space for 3D
printing is illustrated in Figure 9. The figure clearly shows how an original oriented part can be
reused after recycling. In terms of in-space manufacturing, the objective as previously mentioned
is to recycle the already available 3D printed components. For this purpose, the goal is to fly an
In-space Recycler on ISS in 2016 that will enable the astronauts to manufacture components on
their own while using the previous components as stock feed [72]. Miranda Fateri et al. did a
feasibility study on the additive manufacturing of recyclable materials in space. It was concluded
that the solvent cast direct-write (SC-DW) method using Polyvinyl Alcohol is a suitable material
for additive manufacturing and recycling in space. The material properties were almost the same
after being recycled and re-manufactured. This study also proved that recycling is possible in space
and should be done on all space missions [73].

Figure 9. Recycling in Space for 3D Printing.

13
Zero Gravity Phase 1 Mission

Humans have explored the moon and low earth orbit. They have established orbiting
laboratory, 200 miles above the earth named the International Space Station (ISS) that helps the
researchers to explore the space in a safe environment. In 2014, NASA launched a 3D printer to
the ISS to check the additive manufacturing and the conditions required. The fused filament
fabrication (FFF) printer was used in ISS. In the ISS facility material acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene (ABS) was used for fused deposition modeling (FDM). In phase 1 operation fourteen
components (twenty-one specimens) were printed and compared with earth-based printed
components [74]. In 2014 a 3D printer was installed on the International Space Station. In
November 2014 and December 2015, the first round of additive manufacturing printer operations
was performed. The primary purpose of the mission is to demonstrate the important operational
functions of the printer on the International Space Station and to evaluate the impact of
microgravity on material results using the FFF process by manufacturing mechanical properties
test articles, and functional tools. A total of 47 specimens; out of which 22 were ground and 25
were flight components were manufactured during phase operations [35,75,76]. The tests
conducted included the following:

• To identify any anomalies that may be present, damage, de-lamination, warping or curling,
and other deviation that may occur between the flight and ground components
photographic and visual observations were done
• The mass and density were calculated so that no unwanted material expansion occurs
during the extrusion process in microgravity conditions.
• Structured light scanning is used to scan the structures that have been prepared and these
scans are utilized to create a computer-aided design (CAD) model of components for
comparison and volume calculations
• To determine the internal structure and investigate the defects X-ray and computer
tomography (CT) scans were performed
• Optical and scanning electron microscopies were performed to examine details of the areas
between layers of the specimen
• Destructive tests were performed which followed the ASTM standards. The flexural,
tensile, and compression testing were done on ground base and zero-gravity flights that
indicated that the tensile and flexure when compared resulted that the flight prepared
samples were stronger and stiffer than the ground specimens. In terms of compression,
results showed that ground samples possess stronger properties as compared to flight
components and are less dense than flight components.

The general results for the earth and zero-gravity flight base components was that the denser
location of the built tray for space flight tensile printed results in a supplementary buildup of ABS
material at the base of printed components that artificially strengthens the specimens. The SEM

14
analysis showed a negative result in terms of the zero-gravity effect on specimen structure for both
ground and zero-gravity flight specimens [75].

Figure 10 shows the comparison of a fiber slump in the ground prepared and the space prepared
sample from additive manufacturing as explained in the aforementioned paragraph. The analysis
results do not show the effects of microgravity on both the samples, but the observed difference
could be due to the manufacturing process condition difference between the two samples.
Similarly, Figure 11 indicating the difference between the ground specimen and the flight
specimen. It can be seen that for ground specimens there are open central fibers and are denser.
For the flight specimen, the fiber agglomeration is on the sides and the bottom. The samples depict
a brittle nature.

Figure 10. Comparison of a fiber slump in the ground prepared and space prepared sample;
reproduced from [35].

Figure 11. Fracture Surface Comparison of ground Specimen (L) and the flight specimen (R); reproduced
from [76].

Zero gravity phase II mission

15
 In 2016, 2nd phase mission for the zero-gravity mission took place. The phase II mission mainly
focused on the effect of microgravity for controlled and specific additive manufacturing processes
onboard the International Space Station on a fused filament fabrication printer or the FFF printer
[75]. In this phase, 43 different specimens were printed. Different tests were performed to verify
the properties of printed components which included mechanical testing, photographic and visual
inception, two-dimensional x-ray, three-dimensional computed tomography, optical microscopy,
scanning electron microscope, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. T Prater et al. [75] in
their paper focused primarily on the results of phase 2 for zero-gravity 3D printing operations that
showed the effects of microgravity in a much clearer manner.

Emergency Repairs in Space

In 1970, the Apollo 13 Command Module on its way to Moon faced a terrible accident in terms
of failure. The lives of the crew members were at stake and they were eventually compelled to
make use of the Apollo Lunar Module lifeboat. The problem occurred that the lithium hydroxide
canisters for the command module were different from the ones used for the lunar module and did
not adjust in the same socket. On the ground, with the help of the engineering team, the astronauts
fabricated a makeshift adapter that helped them in the adjustment of the socket. In 2013, Made In
Space, Inc., engineering staff with continuous effort was able to design an adapter for the lithium
hydroxide canister and the team was able to print and display its operation by the end of the day
using a 3D printer as represented in Figure 12.

Figure 12. (a) Percentage of failed parts and components on ISS that were candidates for repair
and (b) parts manufactured by additive manufacturing.

3. Technical challenges for 3D printing in Space

16
 AM technology has been widely utilized in various applications like agriculture, biomedical,
spacecraft, aerospace, and automotive industries as said earlier [77]. Although 3D – printing is one
of the most flexible and superb techniques in additive manufacturing, it has certain challenges in
space. One significant drawback linked with the feedstock used in 3D printing that remains in
liquid phase rather than in powder form so it would levitate everywhere in the regime. But NASA’s
Langley Research Centre said that the help of Electron beam Freeform Fabrication (EBFF) could
minimize the said issue [78]. In 3D printing, layer-by-layer material is produced to develop a 3D
part. But due to less gravity present in space, the material does not stick properly and float over
the surface which results in the uneven thickness of the final print [79]. Additionally, microgravity
also affects the heat flow causes thermal problems aside. The most important factor is the quality
of parts which are also compromised in space due to temperature variations (either too hot or too
cold) in space. Some more barriers toward the implementation of 3D-Printing in space are also
provided in the Figure 13.

Figure 13. Some common barriers of design for AM technology in space.

Usually, 3D printing is applied for prototypes but cannot feasible for mass production. In AM
sector, engineers are doing a lot of research and development to explore techniques, material types,
system utilization and inspect the complexity of the integrated system. But there are still many
areas that need to be highlighted before 3D printing can be applied in production for the space
industry. These areas constitute barriers for 3D printing to utensils in a space environment.
Moreover, the schematic diagram for AM technology to standardize various components by
ASTM and ISO showed in Figure 14 elaborated the role of future requirements for advanced
technology in AM sector.

17
 Figure 14. Plan for propulsion engine development SOURCE Courtesy, NASA.

3.1. Material Development & Characterization

In AM, different types of homogeneous and heterogeneous material mixtures are utilized, but
there is still needed advanced material in space for specific techniques and rigorous environment.
The study on advanced physical-based models of 3D printing is continuing to understand and
probe material characteristics as well as upgrade the material configuration [80]. An outstanding
mastery of elemental physics certainly ushers to anticipate modeling, designers, engineers, and
technologists to approximate the fundamental properties of parts during the design phase to
achieve the right outcomes [81]. Moreover, the systems of AM process employed single material
at a time but multi-layered materials which enhance the functionality of both plastics [7] and metals
[82]. But such multi-layered materials are limited in use because of uncertainty at material
interface and deficiency of design software [83].

3.2. Process Framework and Benchmarking

Different techniques are required for process monitoring and closed-loop feedback which is
responsible for consistency, uncertainty, uniformity across machines [84]. In machines, sensors
are utilized for nondestructive evaluation and predict timely defect detection, especially thermal
control [85]. To manufacture the desired component there should be a clear understanding of
design SOPs, manufacturing process, and their property relationship. Variation in the
manufacturing process while utilizing the same initial material can alter the properties of the end
product. For example, the thermal energy may vary depending upon input power genesis, energy
density, and the system’s environment. For this purpose, a clear interpretation of AM planning,
simulation, and detailed analysis procedure can optimize the level of production system before
going to start actual prototyping via AM methodology. The literature reported that savings can be

18
retrieved by adopting a design flow process, such as 30%, 25%, and 15% reduction in the total
cost of production, optimized material cost, and quality control has been secured before
manufacturing [86].

3.3. Precision & Resolution

Additive manufacturing is progressively utilized in production strategy with the capacity to
inspire an upheaval in manufacturing because of its design freedom and its ability to deliver
customized parts with the use of proficient materials [87]. However, precision and resolution of
the parts is a major challenge remain which may lead to shrinkage; work in anxieties and dross
development at overhanging structures as shown in Figure 15 [88], and robustness. Additionally,
post-handling operations are frequently required such parts which have high surface integrity and
greater porosity. The precision and accuracy of the part depend upon the different additive
manufacturing technologies. Small features that a printer can print term as its resolution.
Resolution measured unit per length, such as dots per inches/centimeters [89].

Figure 15. Deformation occurred in the overhanging structure due to tensile stresses and dross
building [89]; published under open-access license.

Accuracy can be defined as how precisely a 3D printer can print the material. If a command is
processed by the 3D printer to manufacture a cubic shape of exactly 10 centimeters on each side,
19
then accuracy defined in terms of these questions; what will be the exact size of the cube? Will its
printed layers of the surface be perpendicular to each other? Will the diagonal of the part be equal
in dimensions? It is expected that the 3D printer’s precision must be equal to its resolution. But
shrinkage effect, axis asymmetrical, and servo system error cannot be ignored, and it may affect
the accuracy of the desired components/parts. For example, it is highly difficult to obtain parts
with exact dimensions by a xerographic printer (A dry photographic as well as photocopying
technique) because shrinkage occurred in the process that limits accuracy but it did not affect the
resolution [90]. In AM methodology, beam and processing path can cause thermal stresses in the
finished product. The change in resolution of the part reverted the flow of heat transfer and thus
disperse, thereby roughness of the part got affected. 3D scaffolds were developed and
characterized [91]. For this purpose, a nozzle-based rapid prototyping system was used to
combine polylactic acid and a bioactive CaP glass to fabricate 3D biodegradable scaffolds with
two patterns (orthogonal and displaced double layer). Scanning electron microscopy and micro-
computer tomography showed that 3D scaffolds had completely interconnected porosity, uniform
distribution of the glass particles, and a controlled and repetitive architecture. Surface properties
were also assessed, showing that the incorporation of glass particles increased both the roughness
and the hydrophilicity of the scaffolds. Mechanical tests indicated that compression strength is
dependent on the scaffold geometry and the presence of glass. Figure 16 shows the final orthogonal
structures for both PLA/PEG and PLA/PEG/G5. Both polymeric and composite scaffolds showed
well-defined structures with pore size ∼375 ± 25 μm in the axial view and strut width ∼75 ± 5 μm.
The total spacing between the struts axes was therefore ∼500 μm. In the case of the material with
G5 glass, a fairly homogeneous distribution of the particles within the matrix was observed. The
glass was well incorporated and embedded by the polymer (Figures 16(b) and (d)) adding an
interesting topography to the scaffold surface.

20
Figure 16. SEM micrographs of 3-D printed scaffolds with ORTH pattern: (a & c) top view of
PLA/PEG; (b & d) cross-sectional view of PLA/PEG/G5 [91]; with permission from Elsevier.
3.4. Space Environment
Based on the AM techniques and capabilities, there are some barriers when manufacturing in
the space environment. Additive manufacturing techniques utilize electron beams as an energy
source, i.e., it designed to operate in a vacuum. To benefit from additive manufacturing in space,
first, have a clarification of fundamental technical issues that might have to encounter in space that
is the impact of zero gravity or minimal gravity on production methods and characteristics of the
end product. In systems where gravity is not a control variable, all techniques suffer various
challenges in manufacturing processes. In the skiving of gravity, strain forces become prominent
in system performance, and further research is required for the process to control fluid or flow
conditions. A zero-gravity environment will not impact only process parameters and 3D printing
techniques, but also affect the mechanical properties and topography of the final product.
Potentially, the lack of gravity could be useful in providing a more creative and flexible positioning
system. The replacing a linear motion system with a rotating system (harmonic drive), component

21
generation may require a completely new approach to positioning (for example, the transition from
a Cartesian coordinate system to a polar coordinate system) [92].

3.5. Modern Design tools & Software

In the modern era, AM technology is used largely manually. Such as a CAD model is made,
cut for 3D printing, and afterward moved to the printer utilizing, say, a USB stay with the records.
The results are observed on the display of the 3D printer, while quality is checked after pursuing
the printing is finished. This manual method is only preferable when limited numbers of
components need to be developed. Now every industry is facing challenges toward the designing
and manufacturing of parts due to the shifting of the application landscape towards mass
production where the requirement of tools and software are significantly higher [93].

Additive manufacturing technologies require modeling software and computer-aided design

(CAD), a standard file format is required for communication between the design and
manufacturing facility. In a 3D printer, STL is considered a standard file format. There is still a
need for research and demand of new CAD tools which can easily be utilized for optimization of
shape, material behavior and attributes, and design structures. The established standard in AM
ensures printer to printer and specimen to specimen repeatability. The standardized database,
qualification at a 3D printer or process level ensure the final product qualification and verification
requirements. Strict certifications are necessary for space hardware as it has to perform complex
operations and face rigorous environmental conditions. Space Systems Engineering (SSE) is a
nubile and multiplex discipline with a traditional approach to all programmatic and engineering
design changes. Certification is critical for developing AM for its use in the spacecraft industry
[94].

3.6. Quality, verification, validation, and testing of 3D-printer

Additive manufacturing techniques require certain criteria for component quality, process
verification, and functional verification which are executed in space; either it is a manned or
unmanned mission. Component certification requires verification in a space environment where
harsh environment and deterioration due to the special white-light state are taken under
consideration. In AM process, fault detection and monitoring help to determine the final
component's material properties, component performance, and quality. The sensitivity of the
process to space environments, including microgravity and thermal conditions, must be perfectly
characteristic to ensure reproducibility and therefore component quality enhanced [5].

3.7. The infrastructure of 3D Printing in Space

When transferring any technique of additive manufacturing to a space environment, it is
important to consider the level of infrastructure that must be built to support the production
capability especially considering the constraints of space. The equipment and manufacturing
process define the required infrastructure. For example, a platform that is stable enough to meet
the constraints of processing technology, that is, to reduce the effect of external forces caused by

22
rotational or vibrational forces. The main parameter which must be kept in mind while developing
the infrastructure is the development of energy supply, storage, and distribution systems. The
means of exchanging data with mission control and other stations on earth is also an important
consideration. Proper thermal sensors are required to be installed at the ISS or spacecraft that
regulate the temperatures to which the electronic components are exposed. In space, manufacturing
processes require a degree of independence over that used in ground operations [95].

3.8. Power availability in space

To operate manufacturing facility support systems and manufacturing processes power is a
fundamental need. Solar and nuclear power systems are present in space to meet the power
requirement. Power storage batteries that operate in space are available. The 3D printers consume
electricity in different ways depending on the certain deposition methods and the heating types,
such as plastic is heated by laser technology or a metallic powder energizing by an electron beam.
Energy exhaustion ranges from a few hundred watts for electric heaters and some kilowatts for
electron beam systems. However, the total consumed power is equal to the time taken by heat,
deposition of material, and most importantly efficiency of the printer. Hence, power availability
to run the AM technology smoothly is a challenging barrier for space applications [96].

4. Conclusion
This review provided a comprehensive picture regarding the 3D printing in space and space
applications by making use of the data available from NASA and other space organizations from
overall world-wise. 3D printing now is identified in its use in almost all applications and
components manufacturing related to space applications and outer space. The trials used to
additive manufacturing satellites and other aerospace components enabled to manufactured
components at an industrial scale and tested for general use in the space sector. Most of the
software used includes CAD and ANSYS for finite element analysis. Feasibility studies have been
conducted to study the use of space materials for 3D printing onboard components and colonies
on the Moon and Mars. For additive manufacturing to be used successfully in space parameters
requirements it is necessary to keep in mind the power supply, material availability, energy storage,
and distribution system, and some heat/thermal sensors that will limit the temperature to which
components will be exposed. The printer should be capable enough to manufacture any component
in space for emergency repairs. For the zero-gravity missions’ phase 1 and phase 2, different
components were manufactured and analyzed using different mechanical testing means and
compared with those prepared on earth. The drawbacks of the phase 1 mission were incorporated
in phase 2 and progress was made. The results of the comparison show that space manufactured
materials are more brittle whereas the ground samples are open fibers and denser. Recycling in
space has also become an essential part of all space missions where one component is recycled
and reused as feedstock for the next component to be manufactured. This makes the space
craftwork in a sustainable environment and is self-sufficient.

5. Future Recommendation

23
 It is suggested that additive manufacturing should be used as a compulsory tool for
manufacturing novel parts in space operations. More work needs to be done in terms of onboard
space manufacturing. This can be done while simulating 0g and 1g or 2g environment here on
earth and then manufacturing components at an industrial scale for the space sector. Similarly,
research needs to be done on other components such as food items, daily use items and even living
accommodation on the moon that could be manufactured using 3D printing.

Acknowledgements

Muhammad Arif Mahmood acknowledges with thanks the European Union’s Horizon 2020
(H2020) research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie, agreement No.
764935.

24
References

[1] A. Mitchell, U. Lafont, M. Hołyńska, C. Semprimoschnig, Additive manufacturing — A

review of 4D printing and future applications, Addit. Manuf. 24 (2018) 606–626.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.038.
[2] D. Bak, Rapid prototyping or rapid production? 3D printing processes move industry
towards the latter, Assem. Autom. 23 (2003) 340–345.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01445150310501190.
[3] T.J. Horn, O.L.A. Harrysson, Overview of current additive manufacturing technologies and
selected applications, Sci. Prog. 95 (2012) 255–282.
https://doi.org/10.3184/003685012X13420984463047.
[4] T.D. Ngo, A. Kashani, G. Imbalzano, K.T.Q. Nguyen, D. Hui, Additive manufacturing (3D
printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges, Compos. Part B Eng.
143 (2018) 172–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012.
[5] W. Gao, Y. Zhang, D. Ramanujan, K. Ramani, Y. Chen, C.B. Williams, C.C.L. Wang, Y.C.
Shin, S. Zhang, P.D. Zavattieri, The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing
in engineering, CAD Comput. Aided Des. 69 (2015) 65–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2015.04.001.
[6] N. Lebaal, Y. Zhang, F. Demoly, S. Roth, S. Gomes, A. Bernard, Optimised lattice structure
configuration for additive manufacturing, CIRP Ann. 68 (2019) 117–120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.04.054.
[7] F. Bechmann, Changing the future of additive manufacturing, Met. Powder Rep. 69 (2014)
37–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0026-0657(14)70135-3.
[8] P. Cao, Z. Fan, R.X. Gao, J. Tang, Harnessing multi-objective simulated annealing toward
configuration optimization within compact space for additive manufacturing, Robot.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 57 (2019) 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.10.009.
[9] L. Scime, J. Beuth, Using machine learning to identify in-situ melt pool signatures
indicative of flaw formation in a laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process,
Addit. Manuf. 25 (2019) 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.11.010.
[10] F. Calignano, D. Manfredi, E.P. Ambrosio, S. Biamino, M. Lombardi, E. Atzeni, A. Salmi,
P. Minetola, L. Iuliano, P. Fino, Overview on additive manufacturing technologies, Proc.
IEEE. 105 (2017) 593–612. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2016.2625098.
[11] R. Bogue, 3D printing: The dawn of a new era in manufacturing?, Assem. Autom. 33 (2013)
307–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/AA-06-2013-055.
[12] E.S.A. Nasr, A. Al-Ahmari, K. Moiduddin, CAD Issues in Additive Manufacturing,
Elsevier, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-096532-1.01015-3.
[13] W.S. Tan, S.R. Suwarno, J. An, C.K. Chua, A.G. Fane, T.H. Chong, Comparison of solid,
liquid and powder forms of 3D printing techniques in membrane spacer fabrication, J.

25
 Memb. Sci. 537 (2017) 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.05.037.
[14] C.A. Chatham, T.E. Long, C.B. Williams, A review of the process physics and material
screening methods for polymer powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Prog. Polym.
Sci. 93 (2019) 68–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.03.003.
[15] W.E. Frazier, Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2014 236.
23 (2014) 1917–1928. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11665-014-0958-Z.
[16] S.A. Khairallah, A.T. Anderson, A. Rubenchik, W.E. King, Laser powder-bed fusion
additive manufacturing: Physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores,
spatter, and denudation zones, Acta Mater. 108 (2016) 36–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTAMAT.2016.02.014.
[17] S.F.S. Shirazi, S. Gharehkhani, M. Mehrali, H. Yarmand, H.S.C. Metselaar, N. Adib Kadri,
N.A.A. Osman, A review on powder-based additive manufacturing for tissue engineering:
Selective laser sintering and inkjet 3D printing, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 16 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1468-6996/16/3/033502.
[18] J.G. Michopoulos, A.P. Iliopoulos, J.C. Steuben, A.J. Birnbaum, S.G. Lambrakos, On the
multiphysics modeling challenges for metal additive manufacturing processes, Addit.
Manuf. 22 (2018) 784–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.06.019.
[19] A. Goulas, R.A. Harris, R.J. Friel, Additive manufacturing of physical assets by using
ceramic multicomponent extra-terrestrial materials, Addit. Manuf. 10 (2016) 36–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.02.002.
[20] M. Attaran, The rise of 3-D printing: The advantages of additive manufacturing over
traditional manufacturing, Bus. Horiz. 60 (2017) 677–688.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.011.
[21] B. Nagarajan, Z. Hu, X. Song, W. Zhai, J. Wei, Development of Micro Selective Laser
Melting: The State of the Art and Future Perspectives, Engineering. 5 (2019) 702–720.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.07.002.
[22] M. Vaezi, H. Seitz, S. Yang, A review on 3D micro-additive manufacturing technologies,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67 (2013) 1721–1754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-
4605-2.
[23] M. Chalvin, S. Campocasso, V. Hugel, T. Baizeau, Layer-by-layer generation of optimized
joint trajectory for multi-axis robotized additive manufacturing of parts of revolution,
Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 65 (2020) 101960.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2020.101960.
[24] L. Johnson, M. Mahmoudi, B. Zhang, R. Seede, X. Huang, J.T. Maier, H.J. Maier, I.
Karaman, A. Elwany, R. Arróyave, Assessing printability maps in additive manufacturing
of metal alloys, Acta Mater. 176 (2019) 199–210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2019.07.005.
[25] T. Pereira, J. V. Kennedy, J. Potgieter, A comparison of traditional manufacturing vs

26
 additive manufacturing, the best method for the job, Procedia Manuf. 30 (2019) 11–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.003.
[26] A. Paolini, S. Kollmannsberger, E. Rank, Additive manufacturing in construction: A review
on processes, applications, and digital planning methods, Addit. Manuf. 30 (2019) 100894.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100894.
[27] M. Lopatriello, P. Gasbarri, C. Paris, A. Brotzu, S. Paiano, Thermo-mechanical
characterization of a carbon micro-fibre reinforced polymer for additive manufacturing in
space applications, Proc. Int. Astronaut. Congr. IAC. 9 (2015) 6758–6766.
[28] H. Williams, E. Butler-Jones, Additive manufacturing standards for space resource
utilization, Addit. Manuf. 28 (2019) 676–681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.06.007.
[29] C. Dordlofva, A. Lindwall, P. Törlind, Opportunities and challenges for additive
manufacturing in space applications, Proc. Nord. Nord. 2016. 1 (2016).
[30] S.S. Gill, H. Arora, Jidesh, V. Sheth, On the development of Antenna feed array for space
applications by additive manufacturing technique, Addit. Manuf. 17 (2017) 39–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.06.010.
[31] N. Labeaga-Martínez, M. Sanjurjo-Rivo, J. Díaz-Álvarez, J. Martínez-Frías, Additive
manufacturing for a Moon village, Procedia Manuf. 13 (2017) 794–801.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.186.
[32] K.D. Grossman, T.S. Sakthivel, L. Sibille, J.G. Mantovani, S. Seal, Regolith-derived
ferrosilicon as a potential feedstock material for wire-based additive manufacturing, Adv.
Sp. Res. 63 (2019) 2212–2219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2018.12.002.
[33] U. Ab, NASA funds system for 3D printing in space, Met. Powder Rep. 72 (2017) 434–435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mprp.2017.10.024.
[34] W.J. O’Hara, J.M. Kish, M.J. Werkheiser, Turn-key use of an onboard 3D printer for
international space station operations, Addit. Manuf. 24 (2018) 560–565.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.029.
[35] T. Prater, N. Werkheiser, F. Ledbetter, D. Timucin, K. Wheeler, M. Snyder, 3D Printing in
Zero G Technology Demonstration Mission: complete experimental results and summary
of related material modeling efforts, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 101 (2019) 391–417.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2827-7.
[36] S.C. Joshi, A.A. Sheikh, 3D printing in aerospace and its long-term sustainability, Virtual
Phys. Prototyp. 10 (2015) 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2015.1111519.
[37] E. Sacco, S.K. Moon, Additive manufacturing for space: status and promises, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 105 (2019) 4123–4146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03786-z.
[38] F. Cuoghi, The space additive revolution of CRP USA, Reinf. Plast. 60 (2016) 211–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repl.2016.01.007.

27
[39] A. Misra, J. Grady, R. Carter, Additive Manufacturing of Aerospace Propulsion
Components, Addit. Manuf. Conf. (2015) 21.
[40] H.C. Starck Solutions, An Introduction to the Space Applications of Additive
Manufacturing, (2019).
[41] J.M. Waller, R.L. Saulsberry, B.H. Parker, K.L. Hodges, E.R. Burke, K.M. Taminger,
Summary of NDE of additive manufacturing efforts in NASA, AIP Conf. Proc. 1650 (2015)
51–62. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914594.
[42] D. Ritz, T. Misuri, H. Raiji, G. Pace, R. Valentini, Dario Hadavandi, A. Pasini, Additive
Manufacturing Techniques Applied to the Space Industry, in: 69th Int. Astronaut. Congr.,
2018.
[43] T. Ghidini, An Overview of Current AM Activities at the European Space Agency, Present.
to 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. Appl. Glob. Summit 2013. (2013).
[44] S.A.M. Tofail, E.P. Koumoulos, A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Bose, L. O’Donoghue, C.
Charitidis, Additive manufacturing: scientific and technological challenges, market uptake
and opportunities, Mater. Today. 21 (2018) 22–37.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.001.
[45] J. Dennison, An Overview of the Dynamic Interplay between the Space Environment &
Spacecraft Materials, Presentations. (2015).
[46] D. Rosato, D. V Rosato, M. v Rosato, Plastic Product Material and Process Selection
Handbook, Elsevier, 2004.
[47] N. Hopkinson, R.J.M. Hague, P.M. Dickens, Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial
Revolution for the Digital Age, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470033991.
[48] A. Uriondo, M. Esperon-Miguez, S. Perinpanayagam, The present and future of additive
manufacturing in the aerospace sector: A review of important aspects, Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Eng. 229 (2015) 2132–2147.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410014568797.
[49] F.C. Campbell, Manufacturing technology for aerospace structural materials. [electronic
resource], Elsevier Science, 2006. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-85617-
495-4.X5000-8.
[50] T.J. Nijdam, R. van Gester, Service experience with single crystal superalloys for high
pressure turbine shrouds, NLR-TP-201 (2011) 27–28.
[51] Capabilities & Services | SpaceX, (n.d.).
[52] V. Petrovic, J. Vicente Haro Gonzalez, O. Jordá Ferrando, J. Delgado Gordillo, J. Ramon
Blasco Puchades, L. Portoles Grinan, Additive layered manufacturing: Sectors of industrial
application shown through case studies, Int. J. Prod. Res. 49 (2011) 1061–1079.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903479786.

28
[53] M. Baumers, C. Tuck, R. Wildman, I. Ashcroft, R. Hague, Energy inputs to additive
manufacturing: Does capacity utilization matter?, 22nd Annu. Int. Solid Free. Fabr. Symp.
- An Addit. Manuf. Conf. SFF 2011. (2011) 30–40.
[54] M. Kreiger, J.M. Pearce, Environmental life cycle analysis of distributed three-dimensional
printing and conventional manufacturing of polymer products, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 1
(2013) 1511–1519. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc400093k.
[55] P. Reeves, Example of Econolyst Research—Understanding the Benefits of AM on CO2,
Econolyst Ltd. (2012).
[56] M. Gebler, A.J.M. Schoot Uiterkamp, C. Visser, A global sustainability perspective on 3D
printing technologies, Energy Policy. 74 (2014) 158–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.033.
[57] D.L. Skran, Battle of the Collossi: SLS vs Falcon Heavy, (2015).
[58] N.R. Council, 3D printing in space, Natl. Acad. Press. Washington, DC. (2014).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17226/18871.
[59] M. MOLITCH-HOU, 3d printing has its place in martian settlements, according to NASA,
(2016).
[60] Brown DC, NASA to launch new science mission to asteroid in 2016, (2011).
[61] G.S. Phones, The cost of building and launching a satellite, (2015).
[62] I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker, Introduction and Basic Principles BT - Additive
Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital
Manufacturing, in: I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker (Eds.), Springer New York, New York,
NY, 2015: pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2113-3_1.
[63] T.K. Imken, T.H. Stevenson, E.G. Lightsey, Design and Testing of a Cold Gas Thruster for
an Interplanetary CubeSat Mission, 2015.
[64] D. Horst, C. Duvoisin, R. Vieira, Additive Manufacturing at Industry 4.0: a Review, Int. J.
Eng. Tech. Res. (2018).
[65] J.Y. Wong, A.C. Pfahnl, 3D printing of surgical instruments for long-duration space
missions, Aviat. Sp. Environ. Med. 85 (2014) 758–763.
https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.3898.2014.
[66] H. Gu, L. Li, Computational fluid dynamic simulation of gravity and pressure effects in
laser metal deposition for potential additive manufacturing in space, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 140 (2019) 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.05.081.
[67] U. Kingdom, I. Initiative, NASA’s In Space Manufacturing Initiative and Additive
Manufacturing Development and Quality Standards Approach for Rocket Engine Space
Flight Hardware, (2016) 1–16.
[68] R.T. Sataloff, M.M. Johns, K.M. Kost, INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION (ISS) 3D
29
 PRINTER PERFORMANCE AND MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
METHODOLOGY, (n.d.).
[69] N. Yanar, M. Son, E. Yang, Y. Kim, H. Park, S.E. Nam, H. Choi, Investigation of the
performance behavior of a forward osmosis membrane system using various feed spacer
materials fabricated by 3D printing technique, Chemosphere. 202 (2018) 708–715.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.147.
[70] P. Gaudenzi, S. Atek, V. Cardini, M. Eugeni, G. Graterol Nisi, L. Lampani, M. Pasquali, L.
Pollice, Revisiting the configuration of small satellites structures in the framework of 3D
Additive Manufacturing, Acta Astronaut. 146 (2018) 249–258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.01.036.
[71] E. Hilpert, J. Hartung, H. von Lukowicz, T. Herffurth, N. Heidler, Design, additive
manufacturing, processing, and characterization of metal mirror made of aluminum silicon
alloy for space applications, Opt. Eng. 58 (2019) 1.
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.oe.58.9.092613.
[72] N. Werkheiser, Overview of NASA Initiatives in 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing
2014, 2014 DoD Maint. Symp. (2014) 1–28.
[73] M. Fateri, A. Kaouk, A. Cowley, S. Siarov, M.V. Palou, F.G. González, R. Marchant, S.
Cristoforetti, M. Sperl, Feasibility study on additive manufacturing of recyclable objects for
space applications, Addit. Manuf. 24 (2018) 400–404.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.09.020.
[74] T. Prater, Q. Bean, N. Werkheiser, E. Ordonez, R. Ryan, S. Newton, 3D Printing in Zero G
Technology Demonstration Mission: Summary of On-Orbit Operations, Material Testing,
and Future Work, (2019).
[75] T.J. Prater, N.J. Werkheiser, Summary Report on Phase I and Phase II Results From the 3D
Printing in Zero-G Technology Demonstration Mission, Volume II, II (2018).
[76] N. Space, M.M. Symposium, T. Prater, L. Materials, D. Engineer, I. Manufacturing,
NASA’s In-Space Manufacturing Initiative : Initial Results from International Space Station
Technology Demonstration and Future Plans In-Space Manufacturing ( ISM ), (2019).
[77] Ö. Keleş, C.W. Blevins, K.J. Bowman, Effect of build orientation on the mechanical
reliability of 3D printed ABS, Rapid Prototyp. J. 23 (2017) 320–328.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-2015-0122.
[78] E. Goldstein, Just hit print: A manufacturing revolution is unfolding in the area of additive
manufacturing and 3D printing, Aerosp. Am. (2014).
[79] 3D printed copper rocket engine part on way to Mars, Met. Powder Rep. (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mprp.2015.06.021.
[80] D.L. Bourell, M.C. Leu, D.W. Rosen, Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing: Identifying
the Future of Freeform Processing, Univ. Texas Austin. (2009).

30
[81] J.A. Scott, N. Gupta, C. Weber, S. Newsome, Additive Manufacturing: Status and
Opportunities, Sci. Technol. Policy Inst. (2012).
[82] S.K. Everton, M. Hirsch, P.I. Stavroulakis, R.K. Leach, A.T. Clare, Review of in-situ
process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing, Mater. Des. 95
(2016) 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099.
[83] P. Huang, D. Deng, Y. Chen, Modeling and fabrication of heterogeneous three-dimensional
objects based on additive manufacturing, in: ASME Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo. Proc.,
2013. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2013-65724.
[84] W. Liu, J.N. DuPont, Fabrication of functionally graded TiC/Ti composites by laser
engineered net shaping, Scr. Mater. 48 (2003) 1337–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-
6462(03)00020-4.
[85] J.P. Moore, C.B. Williams, Fatigue characterization of 3D printed elastomer material, in:
23rd Annu. Int. Solid Free. Fabr. Symp. - An Addit. Manuf. Conf. SFF 2012, 2012.
[86] N.P. Avdelidis, T.H. Gan, Non-destructive evaluation (NDE) of Composites: Infrared (IR)
thermography of wind turbine blades, Non-Destructive Eval. Polym. Matrix Compos. Tech.
Appl. (2013) 634–648. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857093554.4.634.
[87] B.C. Hardee, Improving Wind Blade Manufacturability, Energy Manuf. (2011) 61–63.
[88] Additive Manufacturing: Strategic Research Agenda, 119 (2014) 460–493.
[89] W. A., M. J., R. R., B. M., D.B. D., M. M., T. G., S. J., C. A., S. S., B. M., C. S., S. P., S.
A., T. L., Witvrouw A. Meterlkova J. Ranjan R. Bayat M. De Baere D. Moshiri M. Tosello
G. Solhied J. Charles A. Scholz S. Baier M. Carmignato S. Stavroulakis P. Shaheen A. Thijs
L., in: ASPE Euspen Summer Top. Meet. ’Advancing Precis. Addit. Manuf., Berkeley,
California, USA, 2018.
[90] Print Resolution: What Is It And Why Is It So Important?, Chilliprinting. (2017).
[91] T. Serra, J.A. Planell, M. Navarro, High-resolution PLA-based composite scaffolds via 3-
D printing technology, Acta Biomater. 9 (2013) 5521–5530.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2012.10.041.
[92] J. Foust, Relativity Space aims to 3D print entire launch vehicles, Sp. News. (2017).
[93] H. Proff, A. Staffen, Challenges of Additive Manufacturing Why companies don’t use
Additive Manufacturing in serial production, Deloitte. (2019) 24–25.
[94] T. Swanson, T. Stephenson, Additive Manufacturing: Ensuring Quality for Space
Applications, in: 2nd Annu. Addit. Manuf. Gov., 2014.
[95] D. Wells, N.M.S.F. Center, A. Huntsville, Standardization in Additive Manufacturing:
Challenges in Structural Integrity Assurance, in: Symp. Fatigue Fract. Addit. Manuf. Mater.
Components, United State, 2017.
[96] ASTM, A370: Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel
31
Products, 2014.

32