![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The BE-4, announced only on 17 Sep 2014 and apparently in the third year of a development program, is yet another rocket engine with 3D printing involved. It is a very large engine (> 500,000 lbs. thrust), and will be used in a new Atlas-derivative rocket, with the new methane-engine booster from Blue Origin. Here is a source for the 3D printing claim: Space News: ULA To Invest in Blue Origin Engine as RD-180 Replacement. N2e ( talk) 12:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to title this article "3D printing in aerospace industry" or something similar? 3D printed spacecraft is something that doesn't exist, as article itself points out. Also note that all of the articles about 3D printing do not put hyphen after the 3D. So instead of "3D-printed spacecraft" you should have "3D printed spacecraft". SkywalkerPL ( talk) 21:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe "3D printing in aerospace industry" might be better, but if so, I would think it would only be for a while. As soon as enough different stuff is added to that article, then splits would occur and, if current trends continue, we'll see the redir of "3D-printed spacecraft" go back to being an article at some future time.
That said, recommend you propose a single change in a new section and see if a consensus can be gained. I certainly would not oppose such a consensus if others all felt a more general article (for now) would be best.
I'll also note that "3D printing in spacecraft" might be an alternative to "3D printing in the aerospace industry". It would definitely be broader than "3D-printed spacecraft", but not as broad as "3D printing in the aerospace industry". Just a thought. N2e ( talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an English expert, and would have to do a bit of research, but I think "3D printing" is correct when used that way, while when a compound adjective is made, as in "3D printed" and placed as a modifier in front of a noun, then "3D-printed" is correct.
So maybe best to see where your first idea goes, and then deal with the hyphen issue afterwards? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
3D-printed spacecraft →
3D printing in the aerospace industry – "3D printing" is without hyphen (per: other articles in
Category:3D printing). Article does not discuss 3D printed spacecraft, it doesn't even discuss 3D printing of parts for spacecrafts alone. It's discussing printing parts for rockets and spacecrafts. It'd be beneficial to change title into one appropriate to the content and expand article with additional mentions of 3D printing in other disciplines of aerospace industry, such as 3D printing of parts for
Airbus A350 XWB, as we currently have no dedicated article to cover a topic of non-rocket or spacecraft 3D printing despite of the fact that it's all on topic of
Aerospace and
Aerospace manufacturers. Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk) 11:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC) --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
SkywalkerPL (
talk) 10:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
... which is what it is actually describing. Why is it notable? presumably it is the materials and tolerances rather than the use of the components ( unless we were talking about 3d-printers to operate in zero-g ) perhaps we should call it 3D-printing of high specific strength components to include aero parts too eg in titanium ? - Rod57 ( talk) 22:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The BE-4, announced only on 17 Sep 2014 and apparently in the third year of a development program, is yet another rocket engine with 3D printing involved. It is a very large engine (> 500,000 lbs. thrust), and will be used in a new Atlas-derivative rocket, with the new methane-engine booster from Blue Origin. Here is a source for the 3D printing claim: Space News: ULA To Invest in Blue Origin Engine as RD-180 Replacement. N2e ( talk) 12:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to title this article "3D printing in aerospace industry" or something similar? 3D printed spacecraft is something that doesn't exist, as article itself points out. Also note that all of the articles about 3D printing do not put hyphen after the 3D. So instead of "3D-printed spacecraft" you should have "3D printed spacecraft". SkywalkerPL ( talk) 21:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe "3D printing in aerospace industry" might be better, but if so, I would think it would only be for a while. As soon as enough different stuff is added to that article, then splits would occur and, if current trends continue, we'll see the redir of "3D-printed spacecraft" go back to being an article at some future time.
That said, recommend you propose a single change in a new section and see if a consensus can be gained. I certainly would not oppose such a consensus if others all felt a more general article (for now) would be best.
I'll also note that "3D printing in spacecraft" might be an alternative to "3D printing in the aerospace industry". It would definitely be broader than "3D-printed spacecraft", but not as broad as "3D printing in the aerospace industry". Just a thought. N2e ( talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an English expert, and would have to do a bit of research, but I think "3D printing" is correct when used that way, while when a compound adjective is made, as in "3D printed" and placed as a modifier in front of a noun, then "3D-printed" is correct.
So maybe best to see where your first idea goes, and then deal with the hyphen issue afterwards? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
3D-printed spacecraft →
3D printing in the aerospace industry – "3D printing" is without hyphen (per: other articles in
Category:3D printing). Article does not discuss 3D printed spacecraft, it doesn't even discuss 3D printing of parts for spacecrafts alone. It's discussing printing parts for rockets and spacecrafts. It'd be beneficial to change title into one appropriate to the content and expand article with additional mentions of 3D printing in other disciplines of aerospace industry, such as 3D printing of parts for
Airbus A350 XWB, as we currently have no dedicated article to cover a topic of non-rocket or spacecraft 3D printing despite of the fact that it's all on topic of
Aerospace and
Aerospace manufacturers. Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk) 11:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC) --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
SkywalkerPL (
talk) 10:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
... which is what it is actually describing. Why is it notable? presumably it is the materials and tolerances rather than the use of the components ( unless we were talking about 3d-printers to operate in zero-g ) perhaps we should call it 3D-printing of high specific strength components to include aero parts too eg in titanium ? - Rod57 ( talk) 22:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)