Cited by 141Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials3D Printing in Biomedical Research

Robust and elastic lunar and martian structures from 3D-printed regolith inks

Open access
Jakus, Adam E., Koube, Katie D., Geisendorfer, Nicholas R., Shah, Ramille N.·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Abstract Here, we present a comprehensive approach for creating robust, elastic, designer Lunar and Martian regolith simulant (LRS and MRS, respectively) architectures using ambient condition, extrusion-based 3D-printing of regolith simulant inks. The LRS and MRS powders are characterized by distinct, highly inhomogeneous morphologies and sizes, where LRS powder particles are highly irregular and jagged and MRS powder particles are rough, but primarily rounded. The inks are synthesized via simple mixing of evaporant, surfactant, and plasticizer solvents, polylactic-co-glycolic acid (30% by solids volume), and regolith simulant powders (70% by solids volume). Both LRS and MRS inks exhibit similar rheological and 3D-printing characteristics, and can be 3D-printed at linear deposition rates of 1–150 mm/s using 300 μm to 1.4 cm-diameter nozzles. The resulting LRS and MRS 3D-printed materials exhibit similar, but distinct internal and external microstructures and material porosity (~20–40%). These microstructures contribute to the rubber-like quasi-static and cyclic mechanical properties of both materials, with young’s moduli ranging from 1.8 to 13.2 MPa and extension to failure exceeding 250% over a range of strain rates (10 –1 −10 2 min −1 ). Finally, we discuss the potential for LRS and MRS ink components to be reclaimed and recycled, as well as be synthesized in resource-limited, extraterrestrial environments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep44931

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LRS objects were strained up to 250% before failure, whereas MRS specimens typically failed within strain limits ranging from 50% to 175%.

    “Notably, LRS objects were strained up to 250 % before failure, whereas MRS specimens typically failed within strain limits ranging from 50 % to 175 %.”

    From A comprehensive review of lunar-based manufacturing and construction (2024) · cites this paper as [260]

    The 3D-Printed LRS and MRS Mechanical Properties section reports that MRS objects failed between 50% and 175% strain. It says LRS objects were strained upwards of 250% without failing, not that they failed at or after 250%. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Density assessments of LRS and MRS struts showed 27% and 35% porosities, respectively.

    “Density assessments of LRS and MRS struts also showed 27 % and 35 % porosities, respectively.”
  • The same authors printed soft elastomeric materials via DIW of Lunar and Martian regolith inks, referred to as LRS and MRS.

    “The same authors printed soft elastomeric materials via DIW of Lunar and Martian regolith inks, referred to as LRS and MRS, respectively [260].”
  • The printed LRS and MRS test specimens displayed an elastic strain of 15%-20% for different strain rates.

    “The printed LRS and MRS test specimens displayed an elastic strain of 15 %-20 % for different strain rates.”
  • The LRS and MRS composite could be recycled.

    “The LRS and MRS composite could be recycled.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jakus, A. E., Koube, K. D., Geisendorfer, N. R., & Shah, R. N.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Shah, Ramille N.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-03-20
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
44931-44931
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2603070289
Cited by
141
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1542205, 1121262)
  • W. M. Keck Foundation
  • Hartwell Foundation
  • Northwestern University (NSF DMR-1121262, NSF NNCI-1542205, DMR-1121262, NNCI-1542205)
  • Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, Harvard University (NSF DMR‐1121262, DMR‐1121262)
  • International Institute for Nanotechnology, Northwestern University
  • Division of Materials Research (NSF DMR-1121262, DMR-1121262, NNCI-1542205, 1121262)
  • Army Research Office
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Keywords
lunar regolith simulant, Martian regolith simulant, 3D printing, extrusion-based printing, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), rheology, porosity, microstructure, in-situ resource utilization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review