Opinions on 3D Printing, aka Additive Manufacturing

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

dr wogz

Fly caster
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
7,637
Reaction score
3,037
Location
Land of Poutine!
Who said anything about it being “superior”?
Neil,

While not necessarily discussed or mentioned in this thread, I have seen it in other threads, and other posts on other forums, where someone buys a [cheap] 3D printer, and think they can rival (or beat) modern industrial manufacturing..


I had a friend a few years ago spout off about how he & a friend were going to get a 3D printer 'and put China out of business': they were going to canvas all the bars in an area of Montreal, and start producing custom 'take home' shot glasses.. Their thoughts were that 3D printing is fast, cheap & simple, and that it could rival etched glass, cheap enough that thy could be 'give aways' / promotional items for the bars.. "They would make a million!!" [drunken dreams]


Maybe I did speak out of turn.. sorry!
 

lakeroadster

Live to Build . . . . . . Build to Live
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
3,651
Reaction score
2,798
Location
Central Colorado
What gets me / what I don't quite fathom, is how someone can balk at the 12 hrs it takes to put together & teh material contained in a "kit": paper tube, ply fins, epoxy, styrene NC, etc.. and think a 12hr print PLA 3D printed rocket is equal or superior..
Not equal or superior... just different.

That was the original intent of this thread. "Are 3d printed rockets really scratch built"?


Scratch Build As Defined By TRF.jpg
 
Last edited:

Aslansmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
57
As others have said, if you're building from SOMEONE ELSES 3D designs, it's a kit build. And that's fine. I've designed a few 3D rockets myself and love it when I see someone else has built a copy. The repeatability of the design is one of the goals.

But a lot of my rockets are several iterations into the design process and, as has been pointed out, there is some work and art in the design process that should be accounted for. I believe most, if not all the 3D printed rockets in the "Scratch built" category are posted by the designer and in that sense, they are scratch built.

For additional consideration, many of my designs use common household found items. Many are Pringles can based, for instance, some use paper towel tubes. To me, using "found" materials is the epitome of scratch building.

But realistically, there should be a "3D modelled" category, under which both original designs and remakes can be posted.

My designs are all found at: https://www.thingiverse.com/aslansmonkey/designs, btw. If you build one, post a photo.
 

jqavins

Growing the beard back
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
7,113
Reaction score
3,825
Location
Howard, NY
I had a friend a few years ago spout off about how he & a friend were going to get a 3D printer 'and put China out of business': they were going to canvas all the bars in an area of Montreal, and start producing custom 'take home' shot glasses.. Their thoughts were that 3D printing is fast, cheap & simple, and that it could rival etched glass, cheap enough that thy could be 'give aways' / promotional items for the bars.. "They would make a million!!"
OK, this was foolishness. But it's easy enough to fathom: ignorance of the technology combined with
[drunken dreams]

That was the original intent of this thread. "Are 3d printed rockets really scratch built"?View attachment 484169
You're asking if 3D printing is not scratch building. And then, it seems, that you're taking it as writ that 3D printing is not building. If that's so, well, of course if it's not building then it's not scratch building.

But actually, as the discussion in this thread makes plain, there is room for debate on the first point. Is 3D printing (a form or method of) building? If not, then it can't be scratch building. If so, then there's the second question of is it scratch building. And if you're unshakably certain that it's not building, then why ask the question? I suspect that may be what Neil meant in saying that asking it is folly. I would say instead that asking it is fine if you're purpose is to open a debate, but expecting consensus is folly.

there is beauty in imperfection...
A matter of opinion. My opinion varies day by day, but I generally feel that there's grater beauty in perfection.

i thought you were referring to that other meaning of "dong"...

(at least up here, it means something very different!!)
What, the sound of a bell? How could 3D printed shot glasses make a million bells ring? ;)
 

Howitzer

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
13
I enjoy the design process of 3D printing and the fact that I can incorporate more of my career into my hobby to make myself more valuable is a big plus. 3D printing is the future of manufacturing. If its good enough for spacex its good enough for me. My printer has been handy for making jigs and little parts for mounting, oh and nose cones.

I use it to make the build process easier and more fun. Arguing about what is scratch built and what isnt as far as a 3D printer is concerned is silly. Ill build my birds how I want lol.
 

lakeroadster

Live to Build . . . . . . Build to Live
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
3,651
Reaction score
2,798
Location
Central Colorado
And then, it seems, that you're taking it as writ that 3D printing is not building.
My backwoods education taught me that a "?" at the end of a sentence means it's question.

It seems what I wrote isn't what you read.

"Are 3d printed rockets really scratch built"?
The question was clear. It morphed into something else.

What U red ain't watt eye writ
 
Last edited:

jqavins

Growing the beard back
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
7,113
Reaction score
3,825
Location
Howard, NY
I read the question, question mark an all. I also saw, in post #62, where you point to the word "building" as if the presence of that word supports your opening proposition* that 3D printing a rocket isn't scratch building. It supports the proposition only if 3D printing isn't building.

I also read in post #1 where you expressed your love of manual machining. Many of us, including myself, also love manual machining, but the presence of that sentiment in that place seems to imply a belief that only manual work is "building".

And in post #11 where you say "Sure, you're doing the "scratch design" but the "built" portion is being done by your printer, not you", ruling the printing out as building by the rocketeer, scratch or not.

* And yes, that clearly was the proposition. The offering of a question was a opening of a discussion started from the proposition that it is not.

Wut ewe roat shows an underlying assumption, the assumption of a particular answer to a question not explicitly asked, to wit, "Is 3D printing building?"
 

dr wogz

Fly caster
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
7,637
Reaction score
3,037
Location
Land of Poutine!
A similar argument in high school:

A band like Kraftwerk / Depeche Mode / Fat Boy Slims - are they musicians or technicians? they don't play traditional musical instruments, but program & sample, usually on a computer..
 

Pappy

old man with time on his hands
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
162
Reaction score
243
Location
Tampa Bay
are they musicians or technicians?
interesting discussion. much of this thread has focused on semantics, which is fun but equates with a language exercise rather than the far more compelling philosophical aspects of this thread.

digital vs analog.

at a base level, i would offer that if a player can't pick up their instrument on a street corner and play something, then the term 'musician' is a bit... optimistic.

hybrid term 'digital musician' is more accurate in this case, indicating the need for technology, however, it can be effectively argued that anyone making music is a musician, anyone creating art is an artist.

is a singer a musician? how 'bout the drummer? (old player joke: what do you call the person who hangs out with musicians? the drummer. *rimshot)

pink floyd would not be the same without the tech. would they still be magnificent? of course they would, no question.

my sister loves depeche mode. urg... lol

i am reminded often, by my own behaviors as well as by those of my fellows, that we are all the monkey pissed off that the other monkey got the grape and we got the cucumber. :)
 

jqavins

Growing the beard back
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
7,113
Reaction score
3,825
Location
Howard, NY
hybrid term 'digital musician' is more accurate in this case, indicating the need for technology
And is "digital musician" really any better when sampling, looping, overlaying, etc. can all be done with analog technology, and has been for decades.
old player joke: what do you call the person who hangs out with musicians? the drummer. *rimshot
And if you piss off the drummer with a derogatory joke at his expense, who provided the rimshot? (Perhaps the singer demonstrated musicianship by intoning "bah-dum ching".)
 

Pappy

old man with time on his hands
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
162
Reaction score
243
Location
Tampa Bay
oops... meant to edit, not create... might as well make use of this text area since we can't delete... band i was in (local philly band no one ever heard of) had many drummers. not 'spinal tap' many, but many. miguel had the most outrageously odoriferous feet, and we refused to practice with him unless he put his sneaks on. then there was pete, with the body leotard with the lightning bolt. still makes me smile how different he was on stage from the rest of us. then there was mad mike, of double bass and almost limitless tolerance to nasal friction and chemical compounds, who died in a skydiving accident, which surprised no one. rip mike.

not dissing drummers. the good ones are rare, the bad ones are fun. love them all.
 
Last edited:

NateB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
2,369
Reaction score
2,676
Location
NE Indiana
You guys haven't mentioned the bass player yet, they always get left out.
 

Pappy

old man with time on his hands
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
162
Reaction score
243
Location
Tampa Bay
and electric violin players. ..
ever hear of Bond? saw them at a music convention. they were amazing...

You guys haven't mentioned the bass player yet...
excerpt from 'Little known secrets of having a successful opening act for other, more successful opening acts'

(The Bass Player)... "This guy/gal is the glue and the buffer that keeps everybody from beating on each other and flying off in different directions. they need to be at every practice, on-time, and sober enough to see what's going on around them. The bassist helps carry all the amps, tape the cables and makes sure that roadies are treated well and included in ****. they should also know how to use a tuner..."
 

Attachments

manixFan

Not a rocket scientist
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
2,440
Reaction score
1,615
Location
TX
Imagine taking a rocket that you designed and 3D printed to the RSO table. On your flight card, you marked ’scratch’ instead of ’kit’. But the RSO argues with you that it’s not scratch built because it’s 3D printed. Would it be correct to mark it as a kit?

To me, that’s the argument in a nutshell. I guess some will argue a 3rd category- 3D printed - is needed. But at what proportion does a rocket qualify as 3D printed? Who decides?

It’s a silly game of semantics.


Tony
 

Aslansmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
57
The first two are my Pringles Snake Eye rocket. Two Pringles Cans, a BT-60 and a BT-50. Everything else is 3D printed. I designed this in Tinkercad, printed it, assembled it, and flew it. To me it's scratch built. But if someone else followed my plans on Tinkercad, I guess it'd be a kit to them. Personally, I think what makes a 3D rocket a "Scratch Build" is the DESIGNING it part. If you're printing someone else's design, that's a kit.

The last little rocket is the Fallout rocket (from New Vegas, I think). Someone else designed the rocket as a 3D print model. I took their design, uploaded it into Tinkercad, and made it a flying rocket with an 18mm core. Even though I did a little modification work, I'd personally call this a kit as the major DESIGN work was done by someone else.

Oh, and I did design one set of parts specifically to be put into "kits" so that we could have a build day with relatives. Though I designed all those, what everyone built that day was (to them anyway) definitely a kit.

I'd be interested in knowing how many people who actually DESIGN and PRINT their own 3D parts would call what they do a "kit" vs "Scratch built". I bet most of us would go with the former. I also wonder how many people who don't own 3D printers (or do any cad designing) would think the opposite.

To me it doesn't really matter though. I enjoy the design process, probably more than the actual flying. And I'd be happy with whatever it would be "officially" counted as because I know I designed and built it. I'm just as thrilled when someone else builds my designs, btw.

If my RSO chose to argue the point I'd just say "Whatever dude, mark it how you want, I just want to fly the damn thing."
 

Attachments

KenECoyote

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
434
Funny story...I had started 3D printing a rocket "kit" and came upon this thread. 🤣

I've read much, but also skimmed through some. This is interesting since I never really gave deep thought into the definition of "scratch-building", yet I feel I've done a lot of it.

I'd agree with the OP that if you download files you didn't create and print out a rocket, it's not scratch-built.

In my opinion (don't flame me please lol), it's scratch-built if:
1) you thought up the design - which is significantly different from anything you're gathering *AND*
2) you build it yourself

The other parts aren't as important to me. I've had some scratch-built RC cars that made it into RC car magazines and let me tell you that at points I'd spend most waking hours for weeks/months trying to find some way to make a part out of something else. Like using a paperclip and thumbtacks to make small butterfly valves on a model engine that has moving parts. To me the rocket/model is a scratch-build even though the parts are something else/pre-made (ex. The Wright bros used bicycle parts). :)
 
Last edited:

KenECoyote

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
434
I just Googled "from scratch" and it comes up with:
"from the very beginning, especially without utilizing or relying on any previous work for assistance. "

So it somewhat supports my points above....if you get your idea from "scratch" and you then "build" it, you've scratch built it!
 

lakeroadster

Live to Build . . . . . . Build to Live
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
3,651
Reaction score
2,798
Location
Central Colorado
Imagine taking a rocket that you designed and 3D printed to the RSO table. On your flight card, you marked ’scratch’ instead of ’kit’. But the RSO argues with you that it’s not scratch built because it’s 3D printed. Would it be correct to mark it as a kit?

To me, that’s the argument in a nutshell. I guess some will argue a 3rd category- 3D printed - is needed. But at what proportion does a rocket qualify as 3D printed? Who decides?

It’s a silly game of semantics.


Tony
Just mark your LPR as High Power then.... is that semantics?

Adding categories isn't a bad thing. Sometimes when new technology arrives, categories may need to be adjusted.
 
Top