Learn about the GrabCAD Platform
Get to know GrabCAD as an open software platform for Additive Manufacturing
Visit our new homepage
Show off your skills and solve real design problems
This Challenge invites you to re-think the CubeSat using additive manufacturing!
The CubeSat is scalable by grouping multiple 1U CubeSat frames in 3U, 6U, or even 12U configurations to provide enhanced functionality in a more complex system. Regardless of configuration, each CubeSat has an interface compatible with a single launch deployment system.
By standardizing the geometry, componentry, and interfaces, the CubeSat model has radically dropped the cost of building and launching a small satellite. But, despite the efficiencies of standardization, the CubeSat remains constrained by traditional manufacturing methodology and the structure contains 30-50 parts including fasteners.
Now that we have the ability to consider additive manufacturing as a valid production manufacturing tool, Stratasys would like to support the development of the CubeSat by utilizing the benefits of additive manufacturing (also known as 3D Printing) to further promote innovation within the CubeSat community.
Many in the community have gravitated to additive manufacturing for building assembly fixtures, composite layup tools, prototypes and non-flight engineering design units, but advances in materials and processes are accelerating and flight components are now possible.
YOU MUST INCLUDE:
1. STL file
2. Renderings
3. Description of your design
YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO INCLUDE:
1. CAD file in any format
2. Additional description or infographic/document describing:
- Explanation of design solution and its advantages
- Additive build process and material selection, and why
- Key requirements considered
- Advantages of your design – what does Additive Manufacturing enable for CubeSat design, and what does your design solution enable for a CubeSat operator?
- State whether any patent application was filed.
JUDGING CRITERIA:
1. Does the design meet the technical requirements given in the Challenge?
2. Technical Feasibility – Is the design buildable, and is the selected material (if not commercially available) feasible?
3. Producibility – The idea is to simplify, so the winning design should be readily producible for scalable manufacturing, and with a reduced part count.
4. Value (Cost x Relative Utility) – The winning design may not be the least expensive to produce, but the more expensive the design, the more relative benefit it must provide.
5. Optimal for Additive Manufacturing – Does the design take full advantage of the benefits of the selected additive manufacturing technique?
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Design either a 1U (10cm x 10cm x 10cm) scalable structure similar to the standard CubeSat model, or an optimized point design at a 3U or 6U increment, using DFAM (design for additive manufacturing) principles.
2. The design should follow the intent of the CubeSat standard as described in the CubeSat Design Specification on www.cubesat.org, but need not meet the technical requirements.
3. The submission should be designed for compatibility with existing CubeSat deployment systems (Reference Spaceflight Industries secondary payload users guide) but need not be fully compliant with the technical requirements.
- Note that the Random Vibe requirement in 4.1.1 is a key driver for the structure.
- Consider focusing on a key design challenge for existing CubeSats to emphasize the value of your design solution:
- Wire routing in a volume-constrained environment.
- Conduction of heat from internal components to the skin.
ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES:
1. Select one of the following Additive Manufacturing techniques:
A) FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING
- Advantages include the ability to utilize composites for greater material customization, current commercial system build volumes up to 36”x24”x36”, little or no material waste, the ability to heat stake fasteners or other components into thermoplastics, and the ability to pause a build for secondary operations.
- Comparative limitations include porosity, build time, and commercial material selection.
B) SELECTIVE LASER SINTERING
- Advantages include the ability to design structures that conventional subtractive manufacturing technologies are unable to replicate due to the self-supporting nature of SLS technology within the build chamber. Current commercial system build volumes up to 27x15x22 inches.
- Comparative limitations include the use of a full chamber of material powder for each build, and material selection.
C) DIRECT METAL LASER SINTERING
- Advantages include the ability to build geometries that are higher in complexity in production grade aerospace metals. Little to no material waste in comparison to conventional CNC machining in certain cases. Current commercial system build volumes up to 9x9x9 inches (4x4x4 inch preferred).
- Comparative limitations include cost and build volume.
2. Select a build material:
- Material does not need to be currently commercially available.
- No unobtainium, but reasonable stretches beyond commercial materials are expected and warranted for this application.
- Focus on environmental requirements – Outgassing, Thermal performance, Thermal Conductivity, Electrical Conductivity/Dissipation.
3. Material Options to consider as a starting point include:
- Thermoplastics such as Nylon, PEI and PEKK, and composites of those materials filled with glass, carbon fiber, or metal powder. Also consider post-processed Thermoplastics (painted, electroplated, or mylar wrapped)
- Metals including Al, Ti, amd 316SSL.
For more information on commercially available materials to start from, see www.stratasysdirect.com
ENTERING THE COMPETITION
The Challenge is open to everyone except employees and families of GrabCAD and the Sponsor. Multiple entries are welcome. Team entries are welcome.
By entering the Challenge you:
1. Accept the official GrabCAD Challenges Terms & Conditions.
2. Agree to be bound by the decisions of the judges (Jury).
3. Warrant that you are eligible to participate.
4. Warrant that the submission is your original work.
5. Warrant, to the best of your knowledge, your work is not, and has not been in production or otherwise previously published or exhibited.
6. Warrant neither the work nor its use infringes the intellectual property rights (whether a patent, utility model, functional design right, aesthetic design right, trademark, copyright or any other intellectual property right) of any other person.
7. Warrant participation shall not constitute employment, assignment or offer of employment or assignment.
8. Are not entitled to any compensation or reimbursement for any costs.
9. Agree the Sponsor and GrabCAD have the right to promote all entries.
If you think an entry may infringe on existing copyrighted materials, please email challenges@grabcad.com
SUBMITTING AN ENTRY
Only entries uploaded to GrabCAD through the "Submit entry" button on this Challenge page will be considered an entry. Only public entries are eligible.
We encourage teams to use GrabCAD Workbench for developing their entries.
Entries are automatically given the tag "cubesat" when uploading to GrabCAD. Please do not edit or delete this tag. Only entries with valid tag will participate in the Challenge.
AWARDING THE WINNERS
The sum of the Awards is the total gross amount of the reward. The awarded participant is solely liable for the payment of all taxes, duties and other similar measures if imposed on the reward pursuant to the legislation of the country of his/her residence, domicile, citizenship, workplace, or any other criterion of similar nature. Only 1 award per person.
All judging decisions are final.
All winners will be contacted by the GrabCAD staff to get their contact information and any other information needed to get the prize to them. Payment of cash awards is made through PayPal. All team awards will be transferred to the member who entered the Challenge.
We will release the finalists before the announcement of the winners to give the Community an opportunity to share their favorites in the comments, discuss concerns, and allow time for any testing or analysis by the Jury. The Jury will take the feedback into consideration when picking the winners.
Winning designs will be chosen based on the Rules and Requirements.
- Entry deadline is June 22, 2015 (11:59pm UTC).
- The finalists will be announced by July 10, 2015.
- The winners will be announced by July 31, 2015.
Void where prohibited.
Awards for TOP 10 places.
- $2,500 cash
- Your design printed by Stratasys Direct Manufacturing (*)
- Makerbot® Replicator® and material pack.
- Featured story in Stratasys online communication and use of your design as an example part in Stratasys trade show and conference appearances.
- $1,000 cash
- Your design printed by Stratasys Direct Manufacturing (*)
- Makerbot® Replicator® and material pack
- $500 cash
- Makerbot® Replicator® and material pack.
- $100 cash
- Makerbot T-Shirt
- 3D Printed Sample Part
(*) Stratasys Direct Manufacturing models will be produced with commercial materials.
Recognizing the need to develop custom solutions for high requirements markets, Stratasys, the world leader in Additive Manufacturing, formed Vertical Solutions teams for key industries. Drawing top technical and management talent from those key industries, Stratasys built teams that speak the language and understand the core challenges of their respective markets. The Aerospace Vertical Solutions Team is sponsoring the Additive CubeSat Challenge, with collaboration from our GrabCAD, Makerbot, and Stratasys Direct Manufacturing colleagues.
Stratasys Ltd. (Nasdaq:SSYS), headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Rehovot, Israel, is a leading global provider of 3D printing and additive manufacturing solutions. The company's patented FDM®, PolyJet™, and WDM™ 3D Printing technologies produce prototypes and manufactured goods directly from 3D CAD files or other 3D content. Systems include 3D printers for idea development, prototyping and direct digital manufacturing. Stratasys subsidiaries include MakerBot, Solidscape, GrabCAD, and Stratasys Direct Manufacturing. Stratasys has more than 3,000 employees, holds over 600 granted or pending additive manufacturing patents globally, and has received more than 25 awards for its technology and leadership.
For more information, visit the company's website at www.stratasys.com
Jordi Puig-Suari
Jonathan Cook
Adam Hadaller
Patrick Price
Jesse Marin
David Espalin
Robert H.
Ben EwingHave an awesome idea for this competition? Want to win cool prizes? Sign-up now to upload your entries.
If you don't receive the email within an hour (and you've checked your Spam folder), email us as confirmation@grabcad.com.
209 comments
REDA DJABRI almost 9 years ago
Hi Ben,
very nice challenge, I work on it ...
Ben Ewing almost 9 years ago
We're excited to see what you and other members come up with REDA DJABRI!
Ben Ewing almost 9 years ago
If you would like a little more background on CubeSat, check out this article: http://www.space.com/29306-cubesats-deep-space-exploration.html
Chris Marshall almost 9 years ago
Am looking forward to seeing what is developed for this, already working on some ideas but am not strong yet with CAD so may have more description of concept than actual design. Looking forward to seeing the Planetary Society launch there first Solar Sail cubesat today and hopefully that will encourage others to get involved with this challenge.
Winston Jennings almost 9 years ago
Here are links to further insights on this program, hope this helps with your projects:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WemOqQh61v4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVzr49NBIa4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM7I-hOon28
Eng Hyd almost 9 years ago
Will you Please tell that you Will manufacture it by Workshop ( CNC , Milling , and other Operations ) or Simply Take 3D Print ?
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Depending on your selected material and process, some secondary or complimentary processes may be required, but the intent here is to utilize an additive manufacturing technology as the primary manufacturing process.
Chris Chapman almost 9 years ago
Hello all, i also have a question on the production of the CubeSat. If we are to choose the 3D printing Method would you have the capability to print the whole frame as one piece or are you limited by space? Thanks Chris
A D almost 9 years ago
He he! Chris want to fold the cube together. Smart idea if the space allows.
Chris Chapman almost 9 years ago
I suppose the better question is what is your available printing area ?
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
The largest build volume is 36" x 24" x 36". That's for the FDM process. You can find volumes for DMLS and SLS on www.stratasysdirect.com.
Kamyar almost 9 years ago
"Don’t be mad if someone (including Sponsor) is already working on or plans to work on something similar. Trust in the selection process!" (how convenient).
The above is from "terms and conditions" for entering a project.
This is a deal breaker for me. Regrettably this has been the challenge related to my graduate work (satellite design).
Orlando Moreno almost 9 years ago
Hi everybody, im not sure I understanding this, entirely.
2. The design should follow the intent of the CubeSat standard as described in the CubeSat Design Specification on www.cubesat.org, but need not meet the technical requirements. Can you explain what your mean by not meet technical requirements.? Thank you.
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
What we are looking for are designs that utilize Additive Manufacturing to make building a Cubesat more efficient. What we are saying with that note is that we are not going disqualify an entrant for not following all the technical requirements of spec. If you did, you couldn't innovate on the structure very much. Of course, it would still be beneficial to be able to interface with existing commercial components and standardized deployment systems, so we wanted to make those documents available as references for those who chose to use them.
Focus on intent, the details are available for reference. Enjoy!
#David almost 9 years ago
@Kamyar - No one really cares
@Stratasys & Co. Nice freaking challenge!!! Great spec (more or less...I'll figure it out), but more importantly, great incentives!!!!. I'm so in this one so the rest of the Grabcad community better get their A-Game on, cuz I'm a comin" full force with ma' Xeon!!! You folks are gonna see some serious FDM astrophysics up in here. Word Is Bond!!!
#David almost 9 years ago
Sorry I missed you Jordi. Thanks for your brain and being the reason this opportunity exists...don't worry, we at Grabcad will make you proud
Orlando Moreno almost 9 years ago
Understood. Thanks Scott.
Ram Mohan Kartha almost 9 years ago
Hey....do anyone know which all profiles COULD NOT be made by 3D printing technique??
A D almost 9 years ago
#David, you are a highlight of your generation.
Oscar Augusto Lara almost 9 years ago
Interesante desafío que gane el mejor!
jonathan frassetti almost 9 years ago
Is there a particular method of attaching the internal hardware pieces to the chasis of the cube? Fasteners, slots, clips, bolts? Thanks for the input.
Achmad Silmi almost 9 years ago
fyi, you can download examples of the model here http://www.cubesatkit.com/content/design.html
jonathan frassetti almost 9 years ago
@Achmad Hey thanks for that link!
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Jonathan - Consider ways to eliminate or integrate those elements into the structure. One of the biggest opportunities here is part count reduction.
Achmad Silmi almost 9 years ago
@Jonathan, your welcome. I saw some entries looks like the model in that website.
mohamed khan almost 9 years ago
this is only for 3D printing ?
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Mohamed - It is. CubeSats are already being manufactured traditionally. The goal of this challenge is to think about how 3d printing could be utilized to reduce part count and make a lighter or more easily produced CubeSat than can be produced traditionally.
mohamed khan almost 9 years ago
Then why do we need pattern on it ? Just for attractive or weight reduction?
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
No need for a pattern, but any way you can take weight out while maintaining the strength and stiffness you are looking for is a good thing.
mohamed khan almost 9 years ago
okay thank you
shubham gupta almost 9 years ago
will we get certificate of participation
??
jonathan frassetti almost 9 years ago
@Mr. Sevcik - I notice that some existing cubesats have rails at the four corners, and other cubes look like they just have a metal chasis...with square feet on all corners. Is this a correct observation?
Orlando Moreno almost 9 years ago
Hi Fellow engineers, I just added a few renderings for my entry. Let me know what you think.
#David almost 9 years ago
@Aristide- how's this: if I place in this challenge, you make a video of how to create a 1/4-20 threaded bolt with mating nut. And If I lose, I'll show you how to do it properly?
@Mr. Jordi and Co. - Is there a standard dimension for the PCBs?
Also I found a website that has publicly available CAD models for a number of items that seem important to the CubeSat design: ANTS antenna covers, Payload adapter plates, Dual separation switch plates, ADACS interface plates, ADACS Payload walls, Plugable Processor Module Plates/Adapters, Remove-Before-Flight Brackets, etc. I'm assuming that we should be considering these elements into the design as they seem to be important or am I off? LMK
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Johnathan - I recommend reviewing the existing design standard at www.cubesat.org and SpaceFlight's payload design guide to answer your questions on the existing design. Look at the purpose of how those rails or feet would be utilized. For this challenge, I recommend retaining the existing interface geometry and then taking your design in the direction of optimization. A number of entries have reduced part count already, but there is still a lot of potential in that regard.
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
David - it is a great idea to consider existing off-the-shelf part designs. We were concerned about overly constraining the challenge, so it is not a requirement to fully accommodate existing off-the-shelf CubeSat parts, but certainly an optimized structure that does accommodate existing PCBs and other components shows increased value and may appeal to the judges. I won't speak for them though.
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Jonathan- Sorry for the misspelling. Responding from my phone this morning.
jonathan frassetti almost 9 years ago
Thank you for the info Scott.
Ben Ewing almost 9 years ago
Hi A D & #David, lets keep things focused on the awesome challenge at hand! If you have any concerns, feel free to email me directly at ben@grabcad.com. Thanks!
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Jedrzej - Thanks for spotting that it went down. I'll contact Spaceflight.
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Here we go. Ben - Can you update the link in the ext?
http://www.spaceflightindustries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SPUG-RevF.pdf
#David almost 9 years ago
No problem Ben. I must say you do do a pretty good job around here keeping everyone in line and focused. I do apologize to everyone for my brash comments earlier.
@ Scott -Thanks for that info. Based on what research I've done, the toughest structure is going to be the one made completely or mostly out of FDM 3D printed material, but that's going to be the one I tackle. I have a few good ideas about standardization for a lot of the available components one would want to put into a CubeSat as well as how to get an economically viable Faraday Shield on that bad boy. One question though that I hope you can answer for me as I can't seem to easily find the answer to: What is that max EXTERNAL dimensions of a 1U CubeSat? In other words: how much protrusion from the 10x10x10 dimension is allowable for say a camera lens that might be incorporated into a design?
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
David - Take a look at SpaceFlight's user guide linked above. Section 4 of that document describes some of the standard CubeSat deployers they use. They link to spec sheets for them which show internal dimensions of the deployer you can design against.
Orlando Moreno almost 9 years ago
I just did an update to my design to include separation springs.
Ernesto Chavez almost 9 years ago
^ As per Scott's comment 14 days ago: "Depending on your selected material and process, some secondary or complimentary processes may be required, but the intent here is to utilize an additive manufacturing technology as the primary manufacturing process."
Ridwan Sept almost 9 years ago
1. If 1U : 10 x 10 x 10 in one model, are 3U configurations means 10 x 10 x 30 as one model or partial model (combine 3 x 1U partially)?
2. Are this challenge goals is to create a standard shape of cube sat for all configurations?
I don't have clear definitions about this challenge goals? Can anyone tell me with simple words to explain the technical requirements, goals and additional guidelines?
And what is bill of materials of cubesat? can I have 3D model for it, so I can imagine more clearly to make cubesat structure?
Best Regards,
Ridwan S
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Ridwan -
1) Yes. You can think of 3U as 10x10x30.
2) The goal is to design a Cubesat frame that takes advantage of the benefits of 3d printing to simplify production. The ideal BOM for the frame could be as short as one line - printed frame. We've left the requirements wide open, and just provided the existing standard and interface document (payload users guide) as reference items so as not to constrain creativity.
Donatas G. almost 9 years ago
(Reference Spaceflight Industries secondary payload users guide)
that link at "TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS" doesnt working
maybe could get updated link ?
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Ben - Can you update the link in the text?
http://www.spaceflightindustries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SPUG-RevF.pdf
mohamed khan almost 9 years ago
We only need to create an structural for cubesats is it?
According to the computer board some hole will be there but as we develop only structure it won't be there, will it be okay?
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
Mohamed - Per the requirements of the challenge, only the structure is required. You aren't required to take other componentry it to account, but doing so would make for a more realistic and potentially valuable entry.
mohamed khan almost 9 years ago
Okay
Mikhail Osanov almost 9 years ago
I have a quick question - what is the access port in the 1U CubeSat Design blueprint? Thank you.
Eugene Dmitriev almost 9 years ago
Hello, there are question to Stratasys: is it possible to print PEKK and PEI using SLS or FDM technologies? Are they "exotic" nowadays? Thanks
Scott Sevcik almost 9 years ago
PEI is commercially available on FDM under the ULTEM brand (SABIC trademark) today. PEKK is not available as an off the shelf product, but has been demonstrated in both SLS and FDM. So both PEI and PEKK are very relevant and perfectly acceptable assumptions for this challenge.
Rosy Asmoro almost 9 years ago
I have design in The CubeSat Challenge Jeremy Rickman & Matthew Pacheco their design is similar to the concept that I created. they have taken my concept I first used the concept of hexa or honeycomb ( beehive ) I'm Entries on 26 May 2015 with this concept. pleasa check. thanks
Best Regards
Rosy Windo.
Rosy Asmoro almost 9 years ago
I hope fellow engineers to respect the work produced Thank's.
Ivan Tilev almost 9 years ago
Dear Rosy Windo I think that the bees had invented honeycomb many years ago and we all are copying their invention, Be happy
Rosy Asmoro almost 9 years ago
Yea but, except for this cube thank you for cheer bro (Ivan Tilev)
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
Rosy, there are a few items on the list that resemble my TACS system also... have a little faith in the system and see where it goes.
Rosy Asmoro almost 9 years ago
I see, look Great bro (Robert)
Rosy Asmoro almost 9 years ago
an Engineer happiness , when their brains appreciated.
Teddy RAMONDENC almost 9 years ago
Thank to Grabcad, Stratasys and Makerbot for this challenge, it was really fun to work on this project.
I wish a lot of courage to the jury who whill have to look one by one each project !
To finish, good luck for all participants
Paolo Minetola almost 9 years ago
@ Rosy Windo and Robert Gorhan. I agree with you when you say that some latest models are modifications of others that were previously uploaded by other participants.
I'm sure the members of the jury will judge the entries in a fair way by considering that the engineer who submitted a certain idea or design earlier is the owner of that concept, regardless of very similar models that were uploaded later on by others. Unfortunately there's no way to prevent intellectual plagiarism when the 3D models are "open".
Many thanks to Grabcad, Stratasys and Makerbot for this exciting challenge and good luck to all the participants!
Rosy Asmoro almost 9 years ago
in this community I respect all the engineers
from all over the world
an honor to know the great engineers like you all
besides challenge I gladly share
but, when the challenges we compete
respecting opponents (submit a first draft ‘idea’ before you)
then you are the real winners
Mr Paolo Minetola Thank's for comment
Mr Jeremy Rickman Nice to know you
Regards,
Rosy
Trifon-Ioannis Lampropoulos (Τρύφων - Ιωάννης Λαμπρόπουλος) almost 9 years ago
Chill out sirs, it is just a cube, not nuclear science
Trifon-Ioannis Lampropoulos (Τρύφων - Ιωάννης Λαμπρόπουλος) almost 9 years ago
And I don't say this in an offensive way. I also participated in this challenge. The thing is that most of GrabCAD members have proven engineering and design skills. It happens all the time to think that you have thought something unique, but others with similar experience and education, have also thought the exact same thing. I don't think that in GrabCAD we have fellow members that maliciously copy or steal ideas of others. I wish luck to all of the participants and congratulations for your devotion to CAD design and effort!
Trifon-Ioannis Lampropoulos (Τρύφων - Ιωάννης Λαμπρόπουλος) almost 9 years ago
hahhahahahha
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
2/3 designs - a copy of a copy of a copy ...
Jeremy Rickman almost 9 years ago
Step 1. Build a 4 sided frame for FDM
Step 2. Reduce part weight and increase rigidity of frame by creating holes.
Step 3. Select hexagon from CAD tool set as ideal shape for holes.
Step 4. Find myself directly accused of plagiarism by someone naively claiming the hexagonal hole as an original idea. Wow!
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
Joking apart. When I posted my first design (plastic, was removed), no one had grooves for internal PCB. After, I began to notice the grooves in the new designs and .. appearing in the designs previously been laid out before me. When I began to see my interpretation of the latches the housing cover (I refused them because of vibration) ... I just was laughing. And yes, no one to my design was not trying to do a two-part housing.
Which indicates this Challenge? Already a lot of people know how to use CAD. But very few can come up with a concept. I do not want scandals and explanation of the relationship with the plagiarist.
I propose to change the rules of future Challenge. Let GrabCad will hide downloaded challenge projects on the site before the deadline. This saves us from such unpleasant moments in the future.
#David almost 9 years ago
@Serhiy and the rest - the truth of the matter is that while there may be some folks on here who may copy or borrow some aspects of a design and incorporate it into their own, it is not as widespread as it appears to be. Anyone who has a bit of design experience and/or has taken part in a number of these challenges can tell you that most designers are well...like most people. They tend to come up with basically the same type of ideas in their own head without having to look at other peoples' work. For instance Zahi Ali uploaded a design called STRATASAT before I uploaded mine called STRATASATT. I had already a week prior to Zahi's submission thought of that name and incorporated it into my model. I did however change it slightly and made it work by turning the SATT part into an acronym before I submitted my design because I know how some of the initiated on here tend to get. Another example is an entry for the VA1 challenge where a designer used the exact same type of design of sockets that I had put into an patent application in 2009. Did he know about it? Absolutely not. But this and the previous example goes to show you how creative folks do all the time come up with similar ideas. I can go on and on, but unless anyone comes up with something radically different and out of the ordinary that someone has copied, unlike honeycomb structures and cut-out grooves (which quite frankly are as elementary as you can get), there doesn't have to be much more said.
Asking to change the rules on Grabcad so that it benefits more the designer doesn't make sense for one simple reason: WE are not the ones paying, the client is. It costs us nothing but our own time to enter, that quite frankly some folks on here would be better served by spending it doing something else.
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
то #David
You say do not paying? I was spent a few days of my life. I spent a lot of intellectual effort and use their own experience. I see the sense in this, but if it is in sport. If your ideas takes without asking- this is not a sport.
Jeremy Rickman almost 9 years ago
@#David
Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion. I agree with you 100%.
Milton almost 9 years ago
If you don't want someone to enter a design that has features you introduced, don't submit your design until the last day.
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
I agree with @Milton completely... thats why I havn't submitted designs for other challenges yet. I do think @Serhiy has a novel idea.
hobbes almost 9 years ago
Lots of great designs. Tough competition. It's a shame too: i would have loved a Makerbot Replicator. :P
As for the concerns about submissions that seem to copy other submissions, please keep in mind the fact that we are also dealing with a very basic shape and specific guidelines that will drive most ideas to be similar by nature.
Consider the fact that many submitted designs feature single panel concepts: a single part that can be printed 4-6 times to form most or all the sides of the cube. Does that mean that every submitted design after the first was just a copy? Absolutely not. Given the challenge constraints, lots of people were bound to think of that. Same goes with faceted, hexagonal, triangular concepts.
One of my first ideas was an expanding cube. Later on, i saw Manfred Ehresmann's Extended Area CubeSat 1U which is the same concept. Of course nobody copied anybody here. It's normal that some people will come up with similar solutions. By the way, Manfred Ehresmann's cube is a really cool design. I recommend you check it out.
Orlando Moreno almost 9 years ago
This was a very fun challenge. When will the winner be announced? My personal favorite is the Rubik Cubesat By Jager Tamas. and the most original was Lotus 12 Petal's . Good Luck to all. can't we all just get along. ? All these comment about honeycombs got me seeing them everywhere, even in my cereal. I went out for a jog and saw 4 different vehicles. A ford, mazda a Honda , and a Saturn, all in the same parking lot. They all had honeycomb design in grill. I went shopping and the shopping cart had the honeycomb pattern also. It is everywhere. lol
BTW a lot of designs seemed similar to Pumpkin Cubesat kit . I saw at least 4 that looked very similar to the files that you can download here. http://www.cubesatkit.com/
Ajay Agrawal almost 9 years ago
#David,well said ,even I agree with your opinion.
some are basic structure which is come up immediately in mind when you look this type of challenges.Y D way my personal favorite wef4 cubesat and JetOnn cubesat
Ben Ewing almost 9 years ago
I'm happy to announce the finalists for Cubesat Challenge: https://grabcad.com/challenges/the-cubesat-challenge/results! We're really excited by the originality that all of these great designs offer. Next the judges will be taking an in-depth look at how each finalist stacked up in terms of the Judging Criteria outlined above. Which one is your favorite? Did we leave anything amazing off the list? See something we should know about? Let us know in the comments! As always, we will also be announcing a selection of honorable mentions along with the winners on July 31st. Cheers!
Eugene Dmitriev almost 9 years ago
Hi Ben, maybe you missed my design CubeSat Smart Frame ? It would be interesting to know what requirement i didn't fulfil.
Simone Morra almost 9 years ago
Do you know why I'm not a finalist?! CubeSat Because it is too much expensive send a makerbot replicator in Italy... Congrats to all
Lucas Lira almost 9 years ago
Congratulations to all the participants in this challenge. I wonder what criteria my project was not to reach the final.
Thank you for an answer.
Cubesat for additive manufacturing
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
Congratulations to all finalists!
I have one question to the judges. Eight judges in different countries. How do you evaluated my project, if the description (pdf file) was downloaded after the deadline only twice?
Simone Morra almost 9 years ago
Hahhahahs ok it was a joke... Tell us the real finalist....
annie almost 9 years ago
Congratulations to all participants who provided greats ideas! I would like a feedback about my desing judges, I had problems with render, so I'm refering to design: 1U Aphelion CubeSat
Thank you!
Eugene Dmitriev almost 9 years ago
The reasoning about the criteria for judges.
1. Compliance with the technical requirements.
Specification of cubesat makes exceptional demands on the accuracy of case design.
Precision of parts manufactured by FDM method is 0.17 mm. Please, explain how you can ensure the accuracy of the size of assembled satellite +/- 0.1 mm when you connect series of a few details with accuracy 0.17 mm?
A conclusion - two interfaced surfaces in the worst case can give error of 0.34mm. If number of the interfaced surfaces will be 3 or 4 and 5? What happen if the accuracy will be +/- 0.85mm?!
You can draw a lot of design options, but if the ultimate accuracy of the design will be much worse than 0.1 mm, is it possible to seriously consider the 3d-printed case for a future satellite?
2. The exceptional structural rigidity.
Explain please how it possible to meet the requirements of vibration resistance of design which is absolutely not indicate a method of mounting a payload of more than 90% of the total weight of the satellite? How then vibration ressistance will be provided?!
This design is a complete solution, or just a pretty picture?
3. One more requirement of the design - temperature stability comparable to aluminum.
How nylon is close to aluminum for the coefficient of thermal expansion? The coefficient of thermal expansion of nylon is ten times more than that of aluminum!
How the satellite casing from nylon will increase by heating it to 80 degrees?
4. Generally accepted standards for the modules is cubesat PC104 format size 96 x 92 mm.
Explain, please how the PC104 module may be installed in the cubesat casing with a wall thickness more then 4 mm and 2 mm respectively?
Explain please, among the results is there at least one design which offers a method of distributing the thermal energy within the satellite?
Please explain why you didn't pay attention to my design, if only it implements the technical requirements?
It is a challenge of engineering ideas or challenge of pretty Lego pictures?
Harrison Steel almost 9 years ago
Hi Ben, thanks for the quick judging!
I was wondering, how much of the assessment was based on adherence to technical guidelines, and how much was for creativity?
I ask because for our design we made sure to stick as close to the CubeSat standard as possible. For example, we made it accommodate standard PC104 boards, and we ensured the corner rails were of appropriate dimensions.
Aside from those technical aspects, we also utilized many unique capabilities of 3D printing, such as varying material thicknesses, as well as printing the whole structure in as few parts of possible, which allowed us to use only a handful of fasteners.
We then demonstrated the feasibility of this approach by actually printing the structure ourselves, on one of your own Stratasys 3D printers.
The model is located here: Adaptable CubeSat Structure for Additive Manufacturing
Rocco Siffredi almost 9 years ago
You fellows are acting like a bunch of children...i'm sure that, had your designs been picked under the same judgement method, you wouldn't be here complaining about how "unfair" it is....
Some of you believe that you're ENTITLED to be a finalist... lets not let our common sense be blinded by our egos, please...
Harrison Steel almost 9 years ago
I believe people are commenting because, as Ben (from GrabCad) said, "See something we should know about? Let us know in the comments!". Obviously there were many entries to review, so they are requesting people bring to their attention any designs they feel would be suitable for consideration.
Orlando Moreno almost 9 years ago
I agree with Harrison, Ben did ask for feedback. And the people who put a lot of work and research like Eugene bring up some very good points. BTW I think the finalist are great choices .Good luck to all the finalists and , great job..
Ajay Agrawal almost 9 years ago
completely agree with Harrison,It's our community we can ask them what ever we feel like,we are a unit and we every one should know his weakness ,I also feel there were so many good entry which do not have very good virtual images but focused to criteria.
judge should give at least give one feedback to every model that why is it not up to there expectation which could help designers to focus on there weakness and it will increase the quality of challenge also
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
Is this normal? Is it serious? What was put demands? Among the finalists there are projects which do not meet the requirements CubeSat Design Specification... compliance - one of the prerequisites for the design.
Now I looked at the topics... JUDGING CRITERIA... TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS... ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES... from which I made a start.
Strange work of judges - "... thanks to all and tell us whom we forgot ..."
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
And further! For me it is fundamentally! I will not ask judges to end the same question - how you can evaluate my project without reading its description?
Ridwan Sept almost 9 years ago
https://grabcad.com/challenges/the-fresh-water-fog-nets-challenge
Salvador Cardenas almost 9 years ago
I like Ajay's suggestion some of us put the time into performing simulations and researching into the structural design of the CubeSat getting feedback would be awesome it would help all of us. I love constructive criticism it makes for better engineers
Rocco Siffredi almost 9 years ago
Some of you are misinterpreting "whining" for "feedback". Just to quote a few of the comments:
"Do you know why I'm not a finalist?! CubeSat Because it is too much expensive send a makerbot replicator in Italy..."
"It is a challenge of engineering ideas or challenge of pretty Lego pictures?"
"Eight judges in different countries. How do you evaluated my project, if the description (pdf file) was downloaded after the deadline only twice?"
"how you can evaluate my project without reading its description?"
These don't sound like constructive feedback...they sound like childish responses out of spite for not getting selected.
All i'm reading is "hey, my entry is clearly the best, so the judges must be blind!"
Complaining about the hours and research you put into your work doesn't justify its selection. You think these finalists just got out of bed one morning and said "hey, I think I'll model a cube for that challenge thing and submit it while I eat breakfast..."?
I'm not a participator, however i am responding because i am tired of seeing this unprofessional behavior on grabcad.
There's probably more than 10 great solutions to any of these grabcad challenges. The judges aren't forced to pick the BEST ones, just their favorites.
#David almost 9 years ago
@ Rocco - While I agree with most of your comments, especially the one: "The judges aren't forced to pick the BEST ones, just their favorites" which quite frankly sums up exactly what the criteria (technical and otherwise) ultimately amounts to, I've never been crazy about folks who are not involved with these challenges (much less anything else around here), offering their personal opinion on these matters. You said: "I'm not a participator, however i am responding because i am tired of seeing this unprofessional behavior on grabcad". You've been on here for what, a month?...just so you know, folks around here DO have a right to express themselves as they see fit, provided of course it is done with a bit of respect. I actually enjoy reading the resulting comments but personally have learned quite a while ago to never expect anything from these challenges no matter how many hours of work I put in. I just try to design something that for the most part works and that the judges can understand. Most importantly though, I try to design something that looks unique and modern and at the end of the day can stand on it's own purely by it's appearance and aesthetic. Most folks don't do that and prefer to try to win these things. That's their choice and if they don't feel that they've gotten a fair deal, it's their inherent prerogative to voice their opinion on that, not yours. That being said, if you'd still rather a less passionate or censored narrative of what's happening on the internet, I'd recommend checking out skirtsformen.com instead.
Rocco Siffredi almost 9 years ago
Orlando, i don't think you quite understand what a troll is. I'm not mindlessly insulting anybody. I'm simply pointing out to some folks here that they need to get off their high horse. You want Stratasys to re-review your design? Fine, just ask them. But if you read the comments I quoted in my previous post, those people were being harsh out of spite, nothing more.
Anyway, those are my two cents. Opinions are like... everyone's got one.
I'm out.
Orlando Moreno almost 9 years ago
Rocco I deleted my previous comment because I am not here to start arguments. My apologies to the Grabcad community.
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
To stop the attack, that my resentment caused solely by the fact that I am not a finalist - I clean my project with this Challenge.
And now I want to say as a person not participating in this Challenge.
This is not the Challenge, this is - Circus. Here's why:
1.From the very beginning was an unpleasant situation with unscrupulous use of other people's concepts. GrabCad not tried to stop this. If you look at the discussion above - yo will see, I was proposed to replace the rules of the Challenges. The essence of the proposal is to show works of the participants only after the deadline. This is a systemic flaw. The situation is always plagiarism occurred including other Challenges. In fact, the body of the satellite was not easy to design. The cubic shape, small dimensions and requirements of the CubeSat Design Specification create many restrictions for engineers. I think that's why the problem of plagiarism so much manifested in this Challenge. And this unpleasant situation will always be repeated to a greater or lesser extent in future, until there will be changes proposed by me.
2. If GrabCad Challenge organized for engineers rather than artists with 3D Max or Photoshop, GrabCad must respect the engineering. Look at the requirements for this Challenge. And now look at the finalists. Among them are several works of non-conforming Challenge requirements!
3. Appraisal system of the Challenge - not transparent. I have already expressed my astonishment with my personal case. Eight judges from different countries evaluated my project without reading its description ... How can this be? I think it's just - the judge did not evaluate my work. 210 participants of the Challenge. Community Manager at GrabCAD Ben Ewing I decided to simplify the work of respected busy people and he chose the candidates. This pre-selection, and Ben Ewing one of the judges, all well, you say my. OK but I must say, the criterias for its selection causes a lot of questions, but had to be based on the requirements of Challenge. If everything is correct, then why do a bunch of text with the requirements of the Challenge? Just for the species? I spent a day just to design a pusher. It is half the size of those that uses СubSat, but its characteristics are within specification CubeSat Design Specification. And such difficult technical decisions in my project was a lot of. What do you think, Ben Ewing see them? I repeat, I'm talking about the example of my project, only because I know more about it than others. There are other non-rated works, they handled serially tolerances of 0.01 mm. Ben seen them? What are the selection criteria have been in the mind of a Ben Ewing? Different beautiful pictures? And here then claimed Engineering? I believe without a change in the evaluation system to transparency and adherence to the rules in the first place by the GrabCad - there is nothing good in the future for participants of the Challenges and for GrabCad.
Believe me, I really expensive grabkad community. Everything that has been written by me, it was written just for this reason. Deleting my project as a proof of my words.
Excuse me for my bad English. And thank you for reading to the end.
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
Much anger I sense in this one.....to the sour side, his grapes have gone.
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
то phillip keane
Sorry, I do not quite understand idioms in English. But I realized it hint at my insincerity in the foregoing me. I assure you, I wrote honestly. And I'm sure that GrabCad Challenge can be sport of engineers instead discussing the shortcomings Challenge or GrabCad. For this to happen necessary very little...
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
You realised incorrectly. I can see that you are totally sincere.
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
Nice chatting to you. Goodbye.
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
Fresh look of a passerby.
I joined your community recently. Quite by accident, from the news websites selling 3D printers, I found out about CubeSat Challenge.
I'm tempted engineer, and have a global reach my development not only in Ukraine but also in many other countries, including the United States.
Of course I became very interested CubeSat Challenge.
Print a 3D printer body of the satellite, it's amazing! And after all it is the leading plastic material 3D printing. The plastic part made by 3D printer less durable than metal, less accurate in size! How to solve this challenge?
I was very surprised, to CubeSat Challenge joined very few serious engineers. Why is that?
The answer became clear after the preliminary announcement of the finalists.
Previously declared evaluation criteria for the jury, were completely ignored. It is primarily concerned the specification Cubesat.
I think many engineers GRABCAD community, a design similar to the design finalists rejected at the beginning of the solution. They rejected the design as an off-specification CubeSat. Indeed, why to design if he deliberately does not correspond to the specification? The satellite with such a casing will not fly into space!
Dear organizers GRABCAD community, similar Judging you alienate thinking people and destroyed a good idea of challenges.
Shouts jury of "Great idea!" is very personal. Judging should be completely formalized, with scores for each item in requirement of the challenge. Winners must gain the maximum scores.
But the impression that the jury did not read what is written in the challenge requirements. As a result, the most striking designs, such as the
CubeSat A2 or CubeSat Smart Frame all dropped out of the finalists.
If someone then suggested design the cardboard box, like this https://www.google.com/get/cardboard/, I think he too would have a prize.
All this is just ridiculous if it were not so sad.
Kerati SANGCHAM almost 9 years ago
It is a hot zone in this area. I can not say more only the functional design of CubeSat is the key to the winners. :-) Good luck for all
Harrison Steel almost 9 years ago
It is difficult to say which side is correct, but there seems a disconnect within the entrants, potentially caused by a lack of communication.
On one side, we observe entrants who focus on the "design", making a flashy and interesting interpretation of what they believe a CubeSat could be, without necessarily giving much heed to the actual physical demands of the device.
On the other, we see entrants that focused on making a realistic and flyable model. This then limits the creativity possible, as the design must be constrained very closely by the CubeSat standard.
Together these mean the entries are split into flash, interesting designs, and somewhat less exciting, but more realistic, ones.
In this case it seems the judging panel has favoured the more interesting looking designs, without placing as much weight on feasibility, which is entirely up to them. However, it is understandable that some might feel hard-done-by as this was not necessarily stipulated in the competition description.
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
to Harrison Steel
We are now really talking about one and the same? Fine art Contests take place on other sites online.
REDA DJABRI almost 9 years ago
Cube Brick is my best one
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
to Reda DJABRI about Cube Brick.
The aerospace industry is very demanding to detail. Unfortunately this design is flawed for several reasons:
1) The choice of material for 3D printing.
Nylon is one of the worst plastics on temperature stability, ten times less than that of aluminum. Satellite body by heating up to 100 degrees will increase in size by about 2 mm.
2) Do not forget, in the case there is a payload weighing more than one kilogram. How to connect the parts into one body, thin plastic latches? Accelerating 10G their break into small pieces.
3) What is the accuracy of 3D printing? If you collect 10 pieces in series, the absolute accuracy deteriorates by 10 times than the original parts.
This is acceptable if stated in the specifications KubeSat accuracy of +/- 0.1 mm?
Ridwan Sept almost 9 years ago
to Konstantine Tupikov.
Thanks for your comments about Cube Brick.
Thanks for your compliment "flawed". I'm very appreciate it.
1) About material "Nylon is one material that's mentioned in the brief of the challenge. And I don't said material must Nylon, please see my statment in design description "Nylon material (or some recommended material that capable with this)".
2) About the strong construction, based on the material and construction. And this is are answered in point 1.
3) The 3D Print Accuracy is based on 3D Printing machined that's they use. More accurate more expensive machine.
Once again, thanks for watching and support my Cube Brick.
About challenge in my mind, challenge judgement is first based on their favourite concept and then the second is about their requirements. Look at several previous challenge in this site.
For the design winners, I think the design will edited to get the final products. I think in every challenge the sponsor will edit the finals winner to get the actuall dimension and else to meet their reality products requirements (because they are not show us all of actual dimension of the products "I think that's is the secret for their company and not show all to us but they just searching the new concept for their products.).
The trial and error still need to every designs. After trial and error we can find the worst segment and upgare it to get the best Result. Such as like the snap fit can be bigger to get more strong, material choice or else
Sorry if my words is hurting some people here. I just want to share my mind. Keep peace don't be mad.
* Sorry for my poor english
Best & Kind Regards,
Ridwan S
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
to Darth Paul. Yes of course, https://grabcad.com/library/functional-cubesat-structure-the-mk-iii-1 fully suitable design. But it is boring and does not bring anything new compared with existing metal case. CubeSat Smart Frame completely different from the existing metallic design. The proposed idea of facing on the elastic properties of the plastics, and provides more vibration resistance, even in comparison with the metal housing.
The allocated large compressive forces turn the entire structure in a monolithic body. Probably the assembly itself is not very technological, but in the design met all the technical requirements at the highest level.
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
Now I am not concerned about the materials. They are secondary. Did none of Grabсad representative reads comments to this Challenge? No one organizer of Challenge or judge did not answer to specific questions...
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
May need to wait for the answer, because is a big difference in the time zone.
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
the third day, went ...
Eugene Dmitriev almost 9 years ago
Konstantine correctly noted the key idea of my concept - to compress inner components by outer rings, herewith supporting on the components themselves.
By noise-like structure of the rings we can modulate the compression force, so get prestressed and very rigid assembly that can maintain its stability at high temperature difference. At the same time, the method of additive manufacturing very is suitable for this scalable design.
In my opinion, very interesting idea is the use of composite tension rings (see last slide). With help of a special equipment for assembly, we could adjust the force of string tension. So we reduce the weight of the structure without compromising strength.
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
weekends are not over yet :)
Jasper Crowe almost 9 years ago
Congratulations to Chris Esser for getting a folding design into the final. Similar to my prior design, but finished off much more cleanly.
hobbes almost 9 years ago
When i saw my design among the finalists, i fist-pumped in the air and shouted YESSSS!...and scared my coworkers :D
Didn't expect to make it this far, though i hoped for it of course, as anybody would.
Thank you, Stratasys/Makerbot! Or is it Straterbot now? :P
-
I'm forcing my friend to 3d print my Kube on his printer for me, as a proof of concept...also to have something on my desk to store pens and pencils!
-
This may get a little TL:DR, so i apologize in advance.
While I applaud the engineers who put a lot of work into calculating the stresses and mechanical properties of their cubesats, i feel that is more work than was required for this challenge's objective. Currently, there is very little information regarding 3D printed cubesats. Most google links, for example, will refer to this Stratasys challenge.
The purpose i personally identified in this challenge was to find a cost-effective, low part count, versatile solution to the on-growing demand for cubesats, and as such, is very experimental. When i designed my Kube, i did it with "function over form" in mind. Those functions are printability, versatility, and part count (therefore less $$$). I admit i didn't worry about any stress tests. The only things i addressed were having a relatively strong frame and a sturdy fastening mechanism. This is a proof of concept, and not a ready-to-fly finished product. I would assume that, if any of our cube concepts were picked for actual use, they would be reviewed and modified by the engineers involved in the cubesat construction and deployment.
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
@hobbes, i did the same thing for my development process. youll notice mine says its still in limited development.
hobbes almost 9 years ago
Robert, i recognize those screen-grabs from the fortus printer. We had one at my old job. Brings back good memories. :)
I'd like to also point out that Robert's cube is a great example that the selection of the finalists wasn't necessarily based on pretty renderings, as the majority of his pictures are information screen-grabs and assembly views. Great job with your design, Rob.
Of course, i'm not saying a good rendering won't help. Packaging helps sell the product.
Kamyar almost 9 years ago
The contest is over - My prediction was and still is that for this particular application, 3D printing is not necessary. It's neither cost effective not practical. The space environment requires structures with NO trapped air. There is no guarantee that the printed product contains NO AIR. This was just a marketing attempt by 3D Systems. Check my resume in GrabCAD to see where I'm coming from.
Kamyar almost 9 years ago
Trapped air expands within the printed part and breaks it apart in vacuum. For those who are not into space vehicles.
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
@kamyar, FDM style products are porous due to their stacking nature. if air is introduced to the system its most likely due to moist filament which shouldn't be a concern unless you're stockpiling material. i haven't done any research on the porosity SLS, DMLS, or polyjet machines but i think further study is needed to proclaim that they are not space worthy.
hobbes almost 9 years ago
I've never seen an FDM part that was airtight without some kind of secondary process. I can't say the same for Polyjet printing, however, and i have no experience with SLS. Right now there's an FDM printer on the ISS, which prints in ABS. Maybe at some point they'll run some tests: print some parts and chuck them out into the vacuum of space. :)
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
While it is correct, you do not want airgaps at all, a NEGATIVE airgap can be specified from the Stratasys Insight software. This is where the filament is allowed to bulge over into the gaps. It also makes stronger parts.
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
The lack of feedback from the jury says that the discussion of the finalists design are not supposed to. This suggests, prizes were distributed before the start of the challenge. Neither the jury nor the corporation Stratasys, from the beginning had no real interest in this project. It was just a new advertising promotion for MakerBot and CubeSat. And it will be no surprise, if the most realistic and thoughtful design as this https://grabcad.com/library/functional-cubesat-structure-the-mk-iii-1 , TopOpt CubeSat
will not be placed by jury in the top three winners.
Let's wait for July 29th :)
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
OUCH, shots fired!
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
:)) Agreed, it said categorically. But, how else you offer to react?
How does this finalsts' design STRATASATT - FDM ONE with this the top pronouncement "Part count can be reduced to improve producibility" ?
How does this finalsts' design Foldable Articulated CubeSat for Additive Manufacturing with this the key pronouncement "Note that the Random Vibe requirement in 4.1.1 is a key driver for the structure"?
Why this design CubeSat A2 is not selected to the top ten finalists by the jury?
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
Сontinue the list?
Rocco Siffredi almost 9 years ago
Please do.
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
Weekends are not over yet :) No Ben Ewing, no other judges...
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
What happened with the supporting legs in this CubeSat AMI and this CubeSat Hexagen design? Where did they go? Its play an important functional role. Supporting legs contains a pushing springs and pushing switches. This is a rather important element of housing. Is it a really good design?
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
This design CubeSat Hexagen offers the skins to make wall thickness of 5 mm. Allegedly due to this, you can implement strong plastic clamps. Calculate what will be volume of the skins? It will be more than 27% of the total volume of the satellite. It's really a good idea?
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
to Darth Paul
You think so? Only the grapes? Can you instead of judges to answer specific questions that I asked earlier? You are sure, you know everything about everything. Answer all of us. We'll get your answer and shut up. Though from you, because judges are hiding.
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
In many designs of the finalists proposed to use thin plastic latches. It is proposed to use point fastener with very high gradients of mechanical stress. It is really suitable solution? Do not forget, the satellite receives from the rocket a big value vibration load. Point bonding by plastic latches suitable solution for the satellite case?!
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
@kon, there is nothing wrong with plastic latches if they're designed properly. i find it a bit silly that you are treating conceptual prototypes as full production models. all designs will have some hurdles and will require some modifications to help the design to work. CONCEPTUALLY the finalists seem sound.
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
For example. By what criteria this design CubeSat A2 losing the finalists designs? It is deprived of all the above mistakes. All it has done beautifully, with grace. Or challenge the jury to choose the best of the worst?
hobbes almost 9 years ago
I've had the chance to 3d print my cube in these last few days. I uploaded some pictures to my project page, The Kube. It's still missing the top and bottom but it's clear to me that fdm printing is plenty strong for the requirements of these cubesats. I stood on top of it, putting my weight (190lbs. ~85kg) on 3 of the 4 pegs. It held without any problems. I also managed to get the cube dimensions pretty close to perfect, with a deviation of less than 0.1mm. This is amazing, considering that it was printed on a 300$ kit printer at 0.4mm resolution, 70mm/s extrusion speed and with only 20% infill. This is literally the bottom end of 3D printing quality...and so, i feel the naysayers are overreacting in regards to the capabilities of 3d printing technology.
-
@Konstantine, you signed up to this website LESS than one week ago (July 10). From what you wrote in your first post, you just discovered this challenge, and it sounds like you have no previous knowledge of cubesats. It also appears that you're not an engineer (please explain what " tempted engineer" means) and there is no way of knowing if you have any knowledge of CAD modeling or designing for manufacturing/3d printing, as you don't have any submitted models. And so i have to ask: do you truly believe you are qualified to negatively critique everyone's models and the challenge itself in the way you have been doing so far?
-
And lastly: i'm no detective, but i sense some similarities between Konstantine's posts and Serhiy, and it's not because they're both from Ukraine..I apologize if that's incorrect.
Kerati SANGCHAM almost 9 years ago
Nice work !!!! :-) LoL
Daniel almost 9 years ago
Good job!! Looking forward to see more of your print :)
https://grabcad.com/library/functional-cubesat-structure-the-mk-iii-1
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
I have a questions for Challenge organizers and judges. They are no answers. But a lot of answers and accusations from the trolls.
I even removed my Challenge project. Stop talking nonsense about the sour grape. Yes, I badly speak English. But you know perfectly well. Maybe you're good to speak ukrainian? Let's speak ukrainian.
Imagine the Olympic Games, the judges stopped take into consideration rules. What will happen then? As a result, the Olympic Games will change the sport into a circus. You are so much like the circus?
hobbes almost 9 years ago
Wow, Philllip Keane's printed cube looks REALLY clean! I'm wondering what printer he used.
I finished printing all my parts today. Pictures posted, including one of me standing on my cube, which is the same way NASA stress-tests all their satellites, of course. For science!
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
Reply to removed comment from Hobbes.
Comment from Hobbes:
@Konstantine, you signed up to this website LESS than one week ago (July 10). From what you wrote in your first post, you just discovered this challenge, and it sounds like you have no previous knowledge of cubesats. It also appears that you're not an engineer (please explain what " tempted engineer" means) and there is no way of knowing if you have any knowledge of CAD modeling or designing for manufacturing/3d printing, as you don't have any submitted models. And so i have to ask: do you truly believe you are qualified to negatively critique everyone's models and the challenge itself in the way you have been doing so far?
And lastly: i'm no detective, but i sense some similarities between Konstantine's posts and Serhiy, and it's not because they're both from Ukraine..I apologize if that's incorrect.
My reply:
Do you need to have a great rating of GRABCAD to be experienced as an engineer?
In order to carefully examine the specifications of the CubeSat need a few years?
In order to understand of a single page the requirements of the CubeSat challange need to be a member of the previous chellenges?
Is my critique of finalists designs was not constructive?
Are these exclusive designs CubeSat A2 and https://grabcad.com/library/cubesat-smart-frame-1are not productive only because both Ukraine?
I am leading engineer of simulation equipment for aviation. Please visit site our company:
http://www.avia-ts.ua/index.php?action_skin_change=yes&skin_name=avia_new_eng#complex
More than half the panel equipment of helicopter simulators Mi-8, Mi-171, Mi-17 (produced by our company for 10 years) is my design, both mechanical and electronic. I consider myself an experienced engineer?
I can not upload on GRBCAD the CAD models of my designs. All it's commercial, and contain elements of "know-how". But I can for example make rendering models, and photos or videos of real devices simulation. If it's someone interesting.
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
Thanks Hobbes. I used a Fortus mc450.
I will also be standing on mine soon! Or I may just use some dead weights, because my body weight is well in excess of the simulation results and I don't want to break my ankle when it buckles :D
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
то c5b46674
Nonsense! My motive is simple - I want changes for the future сhallenges was all according to the rules. You think I like balls to the walls here?
Based on your profile, you are from grabсad?
PS. You have an interesting personal page ...
Ajay Agrawal almost 9 years ago
It is not about to win or lose,this the part of race but the thing is ,most of the entry having almost same spec as per rules to meet the criteria ,but the questation is apart from it what jury considered to choose winner's.
Is it virtual images or more likes or more downloaded or more comment.
By this way we can understood why we failed and we can learn something from it.
that what I personaly wanted.
Olivia almost 9 years ago
I would like to thank everyone for their feedback. If you have any concerns, please email me at olivia@grabcad.com. I would like to keep any further comments on here constructive and positive. Let's remember that all of the finalists worked very hard on their submissions as well!
#David almost 9 years ago
Whoa
Kerati SANGCHAM almost 9 years ago
Wowww..:-)
Konstantine Tupikov almost 9 years ago
It seems the CubSat challenge turned into a challenge of dirigible from the lead.
Let's build the Dirigible from lead!
Let's come up with for a very interesting technical innovations.
Let's come up with a new way to manufacture the finest lead plates, a
new way of soldering lead, the new composition of lead, the new composition safely hydrogen! But we all good understand from the outset, this dirigible will still be a very heavyweight.
Let's answer a simple question, why it is better to make the body of the satellite by 3D printing? What brings this new idea?
But let's be truthful, and carefully consider all the finalists designs.
Is satellite with your housing will be more reliable and cheaper than the existing version, made from metal stamping and milling? Your design has a complex shape, and it's really necessary to do only by additive printing?
Kerati SANGCHAM almost 9 years ago
One more comment I would like to say about this challenge is that the difficulties to select the finalists between industrial and engineering designs. Both are totally the incomparable point of view (in my opinion). As I said, it depends on what the committees are looking for such as a conceptual design concept , quality of render image, functional design, material selections, or the experienced design by satellite engineers etc. The most difficulty of this challenge is how to put those ideas together. However, the result of this challenge at least we gain an initiative conceptual design of CubeSat that would be successful space mission, moreover we should gain more friendship from this challenge. :-)
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
The letter was written. Вut I have delay, I want to translate it with proffessional translator. I will try to find a translator in that weekend.
Who erased the messages of Konstantine Tupikov?
Ben Ewing almost 9 years ago
Serhiy Lonco,
I appreciate you taking the time to write a letter and voice your concerns but as Olivia said, the best way to do this is through email. We want to keep the comments here focused on the finalists entries and constructive. I will be sure to respond to you via email.
Serhiy Lonco almost 9 years ago
to Ben Ewing
I am very happy finally see you chatting Ben...
hobbes almost 9 years ago
1 week left. Good luck everyone!
Rick Tinker almost 9 years ago
Check out Plumis! Made my by myself and working missile defense engineers!
Plumis; CubeSat Design Challenge Submission by Connor Tinker
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
Here is my static load test. I ran out of weights, but it looked fine at 30kg, with the FEA predicting more than double that amount before buckling.
https://youtu.be/fZWCmtsTd2w
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
And here is the fastening of the avionics hardware . It worked better than expected in a lot of ways (but I would make a couple of changes to optimise the design)
https://youtu.be/5IUyyr3FICo
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
DRUM ROLL PLEASE!
Orlando Moreno almost 9 years ago
who won!
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
EVERYONE! we all get a trophy! a very firm handshake.
hobbes almost 9 years ago
anybody else have butterflies in their tummies?
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
i have butterflies and coffee in my tummy...not a wise combination
Ben Ewing almost 9 years ago
The winners have been announced: https://grabcad.com/challenges/the-cubesat-challenge/results. Congratulations to the winners! There were so many amazing solutions for this tough challenge. To pick the winners, the judges took an in-depth look at how each finalist stacked up in terms of the judging criteria and rated them from 1 to 10 in each category (10 being criteria fulfilled, 1 being unfulfilled). Thank you to everyone who participated in this exciting challenge!
hobbes almost 9 years ago
Awww, so close! I would have loved a Makerbot Replicator!
-
Congratulations to my enemi..i mean, my opponents. :D It was exciting to be selected among the top 10. Even at fifth place, this will be a good piece for my portfolio.
-
I'd like to thank Grabcad and Stratasys for this contest. I hope to see another challenge from Stratasys soon, as I would love another opportunity to win a Makerbot Replicator.
-
To the top 3 winners: congratulations! Just make sure you use show those Replicators some love. Print something every day!
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
very strange grading criteria. I don't understand how I only got 8 for feasibility and producability when I have actually created a physical model . it is both highly feasible and producable.
I'm not sure how I only got 7 for value as well. in terms of materials, it uses far less than any other entry. its cheaper to build and has less mass, which translates directly into launch cost savings. maybe u have a different understanding of the word "value".
one of the winners has a design close to 200 grams for a 1U ! that's double the mass of an aluminium structure!!! at 20 thousand dollars per kilogram to Low Earth Orbit, I would say that is not particularly good value. with 200 grams of mass you either lose payload budget or you pay extra to carry the extra plastic. very puzzling indeed.
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
*throws cubesat out of window.
but congrats to the winners anyway
Eugene Dmitriev almost 9 years ago
Phillip is the man who have invented printing of cubesat structure. Why he is at the end of the list now?
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
I didn't quite invent it. I think university of Bologne were the first, although they used ABS and put it on a balloon. theirs was never designed for spaceflight.
whatever. I won't be a sore loser over it. it just seems odd that I received a low score for feasibility when an actual prototype exists. it is feasible and manufacturable, by definition and as demonstrated by its existence lol.
the value thing is annoying as well. considering that ANY plastic satellite would need to use ULTEM or Windform, all of the winning designs would cost more to manufacture than mine if using the correct materials, and they all would cost more to launch because they are ALL heavier structures.
they cost more to manufacture and more to launch, or you compromise on payload budget. I'm not sure how that is "good value". not in any language or on any planet, lol
rant over.
Fred Co almost 9 years ago
The balance between tradeshow-worthy and flight-worthy has created quite a bit of controversy. Perhaps Stratasys can reach into their marketing budget and award printers to all the finalists.
hobbes almost 9 years ago
I like Fred's thinking. I second that motion! :D
Robert Gorhan almost 9 years ago
/\ so much that...
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
I concur! obviously :)
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
feel free to nitpick mine as much as you like. mine is boring to look at, I don't care . I didn't design it to look pretty. it is optimal. and given that this is an ongoing project for me (which does not end with this contest) I can guarantee that there isn't a single valid criticism of the design that I haven't considered a dozen times before.
given the chance to redesign it , I would not sacrifice the mass savings just to make something novel. novelty for the sake of novelty is just useless, especially if it adds dead weight.
the only thing I would change would be to remove 2 lid fasteners, because they get in the way of hardware installation. and I would add more layers above the inserts.
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
What you appeared to be conveying was "haha losers, goodbye!"
well as long as we are being condescending, then sadly the key rules of aerospace product design seem to have been lost on you as much as "commercial product design" has been lost on me.
the key rules being make it less massive , with minimum trade off in mechanical strength while keeping unneeded qualification proceedures to a minimum, and if possible, reduce cost.
if the goal of the task was to create a heavier structure, which costs more to manufacture, more to launch and is less mechanically sound then existing structures then congrats- you totally ticked those boxes, and hard. At least nobody can accuse you of making a carbon copy, that's for sure. Personally I believe in incremental changes, which improve the product, rather than complete redesigns which end up adding mass and reducing strength. But I guess that commercial product design is different than aerospace product design. And this is why there are very few "sexy" satellites in space. because they are optimal, and that doesn't always mean pretty.
I will bare the "basic elements of product design" in mind for the next time I design a piece of space hardware though.
Negate certification, load requirements , material suitability and mass....but present it nicely, brand it, and pick a decent colour scheme. Received loud and clear
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
and to be fair, I knew yours would win anyway (even with my lack of "commercial design knowledge").
it looked pretty.
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
not quite sure how a monolithic structure is a carbon copy either. maybe you could share a link to the product that I am alledged yo have copied it from?
#David almost 9 years ago
Congrats to all the winners and a great many thanks to the panel for sponsoring this awesome challenge. I always end up being so surprised at how much more I end up learning from these 3D printing challenges, not to mention the perpetual coolness of being introduced to technologies that I would otherwise have never encountered. Choosing my design as one of the top 3 places is a great honor and I am incredible thankful for that. But quite frankly, I can't wait to get my hands on that new replicator and put a few hundred hours on that bad boy..and if anyone is interested, it probably goes without saying that I'll be selling my current Replicator 2, so PM me if your interested.
Some extra thoughts:
I can appreciate the dismay some of the folks have regarding the results of this challenge as it's pretty typical but not necessarily an unwarranted thing. Having entered into a total of 10 challenges since April 8th 2014, I've also had my share of disappointing turnouts and know what it's like to put in countless hours designing, building, and testing a design, only to have it seemingly dismissed as something sub-standard or trivial. But regarding these challenges, the truth of that matter is that no one really knows what the client/judges/panel wants, and honestly sometimes not even they themselves know. But what the client does end up selecting is, well...what the client desires and has found to meet their needs. THAT is THAT. The only real advice I can offer to anyone reading this is simply this: do NOT expect to win because you WILL only set yourself up for what most likely will be a very, very disappointing scenario. Just do your best. That being said however, if your best is essentially a 3D printable carbon copy of what is currently available, or if your work is just some renderings of what the client is currently using, or if your designs look and function like most everyone else's entries, then yeah you probably don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Game over...come back when you have enough quarters to play. But...if you spend just a bit of time to create something unique that's also generally within the spec and you present it in a relatively comprehensible manner, and... most importantly, you try to interpret what the client is looking for by actually reading the challenge description, then yeah...you MIGHT do well. In any case, there's no re-count, there's no re-evaluation. If you guys want to complain or nit pick the winners that's your prerogative, I and others can surely nit pick your designs as well. And if after all that I've just said, this still ends up being not just your first, but your last project on Grabcad as well....all I can say is simply this: you won't be missed.
Phillip Keane almost 9 years ago
so no link then? OK. got it.
Paolo Minetola over 8 years ago
Being the winner of the challenge, I‘m honored to receive the first prize. Many thanks to the jury for appreciating the FoldSat project!
I would also like to acknowledge GrabCad for promoting amazing challenges and in particular Stratasys and Makerbot for sponsoring this one through the prizes.
I will share the prize with my colleague Mr. Giovanni Marchiandi, because we defined the concept together and he collaborated to the CAD modelling activity.
The idea of a foldable design was suggested to us from the ProtoMold Design Cube (http://www.protolabs.com/resources/educators) by Proto Labs that we use for educational purposes of injection molded parts. Such an inspiration would have driven to a solution very similar to that proposed by Chris Esser and Jasper Crowe in their projects Foldable Articulated CubeSat for Additive Manufacturing and Hinge - 1U Cubesat Concept respectively. We decided to divide the six foldable faces of the cube into two similar three-face foldable sets, in order to comply with the limitation in size of the building area of most of 3D printing machines.
We will install the Makerbot Replicator at the Additive Manufacturing laboratory of the Politecnico di Torino. Giovanni is the technician in charge of running the different FDM machines of the laboratory. Thus BS and MS Mechanical Engineering students will have the possibility to approach additive manufacturing technologies through an hands-on experience with the Makerbot Replicator. The prize will support us in the mission of teaching and spreading the culture of additive manufacturing to future engineers, as reported in a forthcoming article “Impact of additive manufacturing on engineering education - evidence from Italy “ (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/RPJ-09-2014-0123) that will be just published in the Rapid Prototyping Journal this month.
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to invite the members of the GrabCad community to contribute to our research that aims at quantifying the dimensional accuracy of additive manufacturing machines through a benchmarking activity. Should you be interesting in it, please download our reference part Benchmarking of Additive Technologies from GrabCad. All you have to do is print the part with your machine and then measure it by means of a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) or send it to us at the Politecnico di Torino. Please contact me either by GrabCad or by e-mail (paolo.minetola@polito.it) for further details. Thanks!
Congratulations to all the winners! Thanks to all the participants for making this challenge so tough. Don't give up, next challenge I wish you to be the one to win the first prize with that little bit of fortune that hides behind every win.
All the best,
Paolo
Jasper Crowe over 8 years ago
Paolo Minetola,
Thanks for the mention, and congrats on winning. Glad to hear the printer will be helping other's education.
I'm going to have to try harder next time, haha!
Ben Ewing over 8 years ago
Winners, if you have already, should receive an email in the next day or two regarding prizes. If you have any other questions, please email me at ben@grabcad.com. Cheers!
Robert Gorhan over 8 years ago
any way we could get some constructive feedback on the finalists? i think it would help further contest entrants to produce more effective designs.
Phillip Keane over 8 years ago
i have not received an email.
hobbes over 8 years ago
same, i contacted Ben yesterday. let's see what happens.
Robert Gorhan over 8 years ago
i received an email from grabcad but nothing from any other party. check your spam folder?
Scott Sevcik over 8 years ago
Notes from GrabCAD did go out. I'll be following up in the next couple of weeks on the builds.
Phillip Keane over 8 years ago
yep, checked my spam folder- nothing there. I ddn't expect it to be in there, all my other email from GrabCAD and GrabCAD staff and users comes straight to my main folder.
hobbes over 8 years ago
For the top 3 finalists: have you guys received your prizes yet? If not, have you been contacted about them?
As for me: 3 weeks, no email regarding prize. After emailing Ben twice, he responds that my previous message must have ben "lost in the shuffle".. and that i should be contacted soon by the Challenge Manager, which she hasn't in the 3 days since his email. I know it seems that I'm just whining over 100 bucks, but it's really about integrity. Had i not contacted Ben, I'm pretty sure they would have gladly forgotten about my prize.
I'm looking at a previous challenge (Carus Dock), and it looks like some of the top 10's didn't get their prizes there either.
#David over 8 years ago
@ hobbes, I haven't received any of my cash awards for the recent challenges yet but got an email from Ben saying that these items would be taken care of today or Monday
However for future reference: while this amount of time to wait for awards and payments is not necessarily typical, I will say that in my experience and from what has been related to me it seems that the actual time it takes to receive your winnings is directly proportional to how large the sponsor(s) is. Bigger companies = more protocols and processes and approvals (and naturally more time, not to mention creative accounting) before checks go out.
@ Stratasys and Makerbot: I just set myself up in a WeWork lab in their Brooklyn location https://www.wework.com/locations/new-york-city/dumbo-heights and have had some talks with the folks there about setting up a Makerspace. Having them set up something like that around some of your equipment could probably become pretty lucrative for you guys if they decide to expand this "Makerspace" WeWork concept to other locations. I'm not sure how long it's gonna take for me to get the new replicator, but I would prefer bringing that new device in to demonstrate rather than the "beat-up" one I currently own.
hobbes over 8 years ago
Got my prize money today! Woot!
Robert Gorhan over 8 years ago
soo... has anyone received word about the tshirts or printed samples yet?
hobbes over 8 years ago
I haven't, but personally I don't care. I wouldn't wear the t-shirt, and i bought myself a printer after this contest, so a sample part would be redundant. What I do find interesting is that this is the second contest I've entered on grabcad, both offered t-shirts or various goodies for top ten or honorable mentions, and neither delivered on the promise (the other contest literally removed the line from the prize section as soon as the contest ended...)
Not that I care about sporting a grabcad or makerbot tshirt, but if you're going to promise something to your contestants and then not deliver, that's speaks poorly about your professional conduct.
#David over 8 years ago
Hi, I'd like to know when the winners should be expecting their awards. Like I mentioned in this thread (or maybe not) I'm working with WeWork Inc. to set up a Maker-space test site at their Brooklyn location (down the block from Makerbot's headquarters-FYI). So I would imagine it would behoove Stratasys and Makerbot to get me that device sooner rather than later. After all WeWork is valued at about 10 billion dollars and I'm sure if they like the Maker-space idea (and your equipment) you'd probably sell at least a couple of hundred machines (Makerbots, Objets). But on the other hand if your not terribly interested, I can probably direct them somewhere else.
Robert Gorhan over 8 years ago
shots fired!
Scott Sevcik over 8 years ago
#David - For efficiency, we had been trying to get all the prizes shipped at once, but we have been waiting on mailing addresses from a couple of the winners. We did decide earlier this week to stop waiting on them and get everything else shipped. I sent Paolo his CubeSat already. Yours arrived on my desk this afternoon (delay on the fasteners) and will ship on Monday. Likewise with the MakerBots, addresses are in hand now and stuff will start moving.
#David over 8 years ago
Thank you Scott for that update. Myself and the guys at WeWork have been anxiously awaiting the machine and seeing how a "Makerspace" or rather "Makerspaces" could work themselves into their overall business strategy. I personally think it's a no-brainer, plus Stratasys has some of the best 3D printing tech at the moment. Just a quick synopsis of how WeWork works: They buy up buildings (most recently the Jehovah Witnesses's complex in Brooklyn), gut them, and turn them into ultra modernized offices that anyone can lease (companies, start-ups, independents, etc.). Based on what folks are interested in e.g. a multi-person corner office, a single office, or just a desk space, that translates to a certain monthly cost that includes certain amenities. Naturally, if they can start offering Makerspaces with high tech rapid prototyping equipment, that not only would generate quite a bit more interest from independent creatives and start-ups, but would also translate to a higher dollar value for access to those services and environments. So, I'm hoping you can see the bigger picture here. In any case, once I get the machine I'll see what I can do with setting something up with the appropriate parties. Thanks again!
#David over 8 years ago
So I get home a little while ago and there's a package from Stratasys waiting for me. It's kinda small, about 10"x7"x7" so I'm figuring that these guys are sending my Replicator in parts just to be funny. I pop it on my desk and go about opening it and I'm like WHATTT!!!!??? Sitting right inside is my actual entry 3D printed! I wasn't expecting that at all and on top of that it looks and functions exactly like my design, I mean like perfectly. Even the orange color is uncannily spot on. All the parts fit together flawlessly and even the test circuit board model that I had 3D printed during the challenge for testing slipped inside nicely. The logo-ing and aesthetic features also came on pretty well but they're a bit hard to see given the nature of the black filament which seems to have a somewhat glossy appearance which also magnifies ridges that aren't really there. I did take some pictures (not the best) of it which you can see at the end of the slideshow for my entry. I'm gonna do a couple of things with this, take some better pictures and also make a video when I get some time this weekend. Whatever the case, I have to say that it's really cool that Stratasys did this....I mean it honestly has made my day, not to mention probably my month. Awesome! Thanks again Scott and Stratsys! Freaking A!
hobbes over 8 years ago
I'm glad for you, David. Post some pictures soon. I'm curious to see it. Still no luck on the Replicator, though?
Please log in to add comments.
Log in