Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Additive Manufacturing of Lunar Regolith for Reconfigurable Building Blocks toward Lunar Habitation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Laser-sintered lunar regolith bricks can interlock into structures without any binder.

desk verdict A modest, honest proof-of-concept for interlocking regolith bricks; the lunar-feasibility framing outruns the data, but the core demonstration is sound enough to referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06392 v1 pith:PPZIQXJZ submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EPcond-mat.other

Cole McCallum , Youwen Liang , Nahid Tushar , Ben Xu , Bo Zhao , Hao Zeng , Wan Shou This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.EPcond-mat.other
keywords lunarregolithsimulantselectivelasersinteringin-situresourceutilizationreconfigurablemodularbrickssolarcompressivestrengthadditivemanufacturinghabitat
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish a practical route to building on the Moon from local dirt: sinter loose lunar regolith into small, interlocking bricks that snap together without cement or binder. As a proof of concept, the authors laser-sintered LHS-1 lunar highlands simulant into H-shaped and +-shaped modular units and assembled them into wall and shielding configurations. They also measured a peak compressive stress of roughly 1.5 MPa for sintered cubes, noting that the strength is highly anisotropic. The paper argues that because sunlight is abundant on the Moon and concentrated solar flux can reach sintering temperatures, light-based direct sintering is feasible for on-site manufacturing. If the approach transfers to vacuum and real regolith, it would cut the cost of lunar habitation by replacing Earth-supplied structural materials with local resources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a two-part interlocking brick pair—an H-shaped female connector and a +-shaped male connector—sintered layer by layer from loose LHS-1 lunar highlands simulant with a scanned 1064 nm fiber laser. The processing control is the effective energy density $\tilde{E}=4P/(\pi v d^2)$, where $P$ is laser power, $v$ is scan speed, and $d$ is beam diameter; the paper maps power and speed to sintering depth and width and selects a window that gives well-defined, free-standing layers. That geometric interlock is what replaces cement or binder in the assembly scheme, and the layer-by-layer sintering is what lets the bricks be built additively from loose powder.

What would settle it

Sinter identically prepared LHS-1 or Apollo-like regolith bricks in a vacuum chamber at lunar pressure using the same energy density; if compressive strength falls well below the measured ~1.5 MPa or delamination becomes severe because outgassing and loss of convective cooling change the melt pool, the central feasibility claim for the intended lunar environment would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that direct laser sintering of lunar regolith simulant, with no added binder, produces small reconfigurable bricks that can be assembled by mechanical interlocking into larger structures such as a wall and a shielding unit. Sintered cubes reach a peak compressive stress of about 1.5 MPa, with strength more than twice as high when loaded along the laser scan direction than along the layer-stacking direction. From the parameter study, the paper identifies a processing window, around 36 W power and 15–20 mm/s scan speed with 0.1 mm hatch spacing, that gives the greatest sintered depth per layer and a roughly linear growth of thickness with number of layers. The authors present this as evidence for the hypothesis that small modular building blocks, rather than one large monolithic print, are a feasible route to on-site lunar construction using locally available regolith and light energy.

Load-bearing premise

The feasibility claim collapses if sintering behavior measured in ambient air with a 1064 nm laser does not transfer to concentrated sunlight acting on real regolith in lunar vacuum and reduced gravity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, lunar construction can bypass Earth-supplied cement or polymer binders entirely: regolith powder and focused light are the only inputs needed to make building units.
  • Because the bricks are reconfigurable, a single set of standard parts could be rearranged into walls, shielding units, and other layouts, adapting as mission needs change.
  • The roughly linear relationship between layer count and sintered thickness means taller printed components can be built by stacking layers with the optimized power and scan speed.
  • The ~1.5 MPa compressive strength and its roughly twofold anisotropy set the baseline that post-processing or parameter refinement would need to raise before the bricks bear structural loads.
  • The demonstrated H-plus interlocking geometry provides a concrete starting point for mortar-free connections, though surface roughness currently prevents tight fits.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that the bricks' anisotropy suggests a design rule: orient parts so the main compressive load runs parallel to the laser scan direction, where strength is about twice the thickness-direction value.
  • The paper does not test the vacuum or solar version of the process, so the viable scan-speed and concentration range for concentrated sunlight on real regolith remains open; that is the step that would turn the proof of concept into an engineering path.
  • If the strength cannot be raised much, the first use of such bricks may be non-load-bearing shielding and blast walls rather than pressurized habitat shells, where 1.5 MPa is less of a barrier.
  • Because the bricks use only two standardized geometries, the concept would combine naturally with robotic pick-and-place assembly, but the paper does not address automated handling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports proof-of-concept experiments in which an 80 W fiber laser (1064 nm) sinters LHS-1 lunar highlands simulant in ambient air into line tracks, cylinders, cubes, and Lego-like interlocking bricks. Processing parameter sweeps identify a 'well-defined' window around 36 W and 15–20 mm/s; compressive tests on four 1 cm cubes give a peak strength of about 1.5 MPa with anisotropy between the thickness and laser-scan directions; and modular assemblies demonstrate a wall and a shielding unit. The authors claim that this supports light-based direct sintering of lunar regolith as a feasible route to reconfigurable building blocks for lunar habitation.

Significance. If the transfer from terrestrial laser sintering of simulant in air to concentrated solar sintering of real regolith in vacuum holds, the modular-brick concept is an interesting ISRU construction route: it uses no binder, enables reconfiguration, and the measured strength is comparable to several prior sintered-regolith reports. The paper is honest about several limitations (delamination, anisotropy, low strength). Its main value is the parametric process map and the demonstrated binderless interlocking geometry, rather than the lunar-scale feasibility conclusion, which remains conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract promises 'a simple theoretical calculation for direct sintering using the light available in space,' but no such calculation appears in Section 1 or anywhere else in the manuscript. Section 1 only cites literature flux values (refs 20–23) and asserts that concentrated solar flux is 'technically adequate' without modeling energy coupling, dwell time, scan speed, or the effect of vacuum on heat transport. Because the lunar-feasibility claim depends on mapping the 80 W, 1064 nm laser parameters to concentrated solar flux, the omitted calculation is load-bearing; the authors should either supply it or explicitly remove the promise from the abstract.
  2. [Section 4 and all experimental sections] All sintering experiments are performed with LHS-1 simulant in ambient air using a 1064 nm laser, yet Section 4 concludes that the work 'demonstrated the feasibility of reconfigurable modular bricks fabricated from lunar regolith.' The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section 4 that 'future work should be conducted to understand the manufacturing process in a vacuum environment.' In vacuum, gas conduction between powder grains is removed, outgassing and particle charging change the powder bed behavior, and broadband solar absorption differs from 1064 nm absorption. The optimized parameters (36 W, 15–20 mm/s) and the reported 1.5 MPa strength are therefore tied to terrestrial conditions. The central feasibility claim overstates the evidence unless the authors reframe it as a terrestrial proof-of-concept or add vacuum/solar experiments.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Table 1] Section 2.1 states that 'the terms lunar regolith and lunar regolith simulant are used interchangeably.' This conflation is not merely terminological: Table 1 reports LHS-1 composition with 49.12 wt.% SiO2 and 26.29 wt.% Al2O3, which differs from typical Apollo regolith, and particle shape, size distribution, and glass content also differ. Any conclusion phrased about 'lunar regolith' rather than 'LHS-1 simulant' therefore requires an explicit transfer argument. The authors should either restrict the conclusions to the simulant or provide evidence that the relevant sintering behavior is representative of real regolith.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Figure 3] The claim that the compressive modulus and ultimate strength are 'significantly higher' in the laser-scan direction is based on only two samples per direction (S1–S4), with no error bars, standard deviations, or statistical test reported. With n = 2 per direction, the statement 'over 2 times higher' cannot be assessed for significance or reproducibility. Additional samples and a statistical treatment are needed before the anisotropic strength comparison is used as a key result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Figure 4] The text in Section 3.3 refers to 'Figure 3b' when describing the assembled wall and shielding unit; this should be Figure 4(b). Additionally, Section 3.2 refers to 'Figure 4a' for the 1×1×1 cm cubes, but those cubes appear in Figure 3(a).
  2. [Section 2.2] The stated laser frequency of 4,000 kHz is implausible for an 80 W fiber laser; this is likely a typo or a missing specification of pulse parameters. The authors should correct the value or clarify the pulse regime, as it affects reproducibility.
  3. [Section 2.2] The powder-bed description says 'a metal platform (80 cm by 80 cm) was built' and that the powder bed 'hold[s] a powder thickness of up to 80 mm.' The 80 cm by 80 cm dimension seems inconsistent with the small-scale setup shown in Figure 1; please verify and correct the units.
  4. [Section 3.1] The line design is described as '0.1 cm by 0.25 cm,' which is ambiguous for a line; please clarify which dimension is the intended length and which is the width, and whether the resulting linewidths in Figure 2(b) are measured on the sintered track or on the powder-bed impression.
  5. [Section 2.2 and Figure 2] The 'well-defined processing window' is indicated by a shaded area in Figure 2(a,b), but the shading may be difficult to discern in grayscale or low-resolution versions; adding a legend or hatch pattern would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims rest on direct measurements and parameter sweeps, with the lunar-feasibility extrapolation explicitly framed as future work.

full rationale

No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction. The processing-window results (Fig. 2) come from direct laser-sintering experiments, and the optimized parameters (36 W, 15-20 mm/s, 0.1 mm hatch space) are selected empirically from that window, not fitted to a desired conclusion. The compressive strength of ~1.5 MPa is a measured value and is compared with independent literature values [10,26,33]. The reconfigurable Lego-like brick design is a geometric design choice, not a derived prediction. The abstract promises 'a simple theoretical calculation for direct sintering using the light available in space,' but the paper's Section 1 instead gives a literature-based flux comparison (1360 W/m2 solar flux, concentrators up to 10,000x, NREL furnace intensities above 2.5 MW/m2, and prior sintering at 100-200 kW/m2). That is a plausibility argument, not a circular derivation, although it is an extrapolation from terrestrial laser sintering to lunar vacuum conditions. The paper explicitly acknowledges this limitation: 'Future work should be conducted to understand the manufacturing process in a vacuum environment.' No self-citation by the present authors appears in the reference list, and no uniqueness theorem or prior author result is invoked to force the approach. The central feasibility claim is conditional and openly limited to ambient-condition proof of concept, so the result is not forced by definition or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the laser settings are experimental variables, not model constants. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about simulant fidelity and environment transfer, none of which are tested here. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Energy density of a scanned Gaussian beam is given by 4P/(v*pi*d^2)
    Used in Section 3.1 to rationalize surface morphology; standard formula for scanned beam energy density.
  • domain assumption LHS-1 simulant composition and thermal behavior represent lunar regolith
    Section 2.1 states simulant and regolith are used interchangeably; all experiments use LHS-1 with vendor composition from Table 1.
  • domain assumption Concentrated solar flux in space is sufficient to sinter regolith if exposure time is increased
    Section 1 argues that 1 to 10 MW/m2 focused solar flux matches literature sintering fluxes of 100 to 200 kW/m2; this is assumed without direct solar demonstration in this paper.
  • domain assumption Terrestrial ambient sintering behavior transfers to lunar vacuum and reduced gravity
    Section 4 defers vacuum testing to future work, yet the lunar-feasibility conclusion relies on this transfer.
  • domain assumption Laser sintering at 1064 nm is representative of broad-spectrum concentrated sunlight
    Experiments use an 80 W fiber laser; the lunar scenario invokes concentrated sunlight; spectral absorption differences are not addressed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Additive Manufacturing of Lunar Regolith for Reconfigurable Building Blocks toward Lunar Habitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPZIQXJZ

@misc{pith2026250606392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Additive Manufacturing of Lunar Regolith for Reconfigurable Building Blocks toward Lunar Habitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPZIQXJZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06392}
}
read the original abstract

Utilizing locally available materials is a crucial step towards sustainable planetary habitation. Lunar regolith has gained tremendous interest in additive manufacturing in the past decades. However, due to the constrained manufacturing facilities and materials on the moon, many existing additive manufacturing methods are not suitable for practical on-site manufacturing. Here, we envision that light-based direct sintering of lunar regolith can be a feasible approach. Instead of directly manufacturing large structures, we hypothesize that small-scale, reconfigurable building blocks can be an alternative to form large and complex structures. To verify the feasibility, we conducted laser sintering of lunar regolith simulants as a proof of concept, following a simple theoretical calculation for direct sintering using the light available in space. Different laser processing parameters are investigated to obtain controllable lunar regolith sintering. We further designed Lego-like interlocking bricks that are reconfigurable for different structure assemblies without additional material. Mechanical performance (compressive strength) of sintered cubic blocks is evaluated, showing a peak stress of ~1.5 MPa. We hope this work will inspire other in-space manufacturing techniques and enable low-cost space habitation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The manufacturing system setup. (a) Schematic drawing and (b) photograph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Compression test of cubic lunar regolith samples. (a) Photographs of the manufactured test samples. (b) Stress-strain curves of four representative samples measured from different directions. (Samples S1 and S2 were compressed from the printing thickness direction; samples S3 and S4 were compressed from the laser scan direction.) 3.3 Additive manufacturing of reconfigurable brick block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Photographs of manufactured modular bricks; (b) Proof of concept demonstrations of reconfigurable assembly of bricks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Happel, J. A. (1993). Indigenous materials for lunar construction. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 46(6), 313-325

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    and Shishkovsky, I., 2021

    Isachenkov, M., Chugunov, S., Akhatov, I. and Shishkovsky, I., 2021. Regolith -based additive manufacturing for sustainable development of lunar infrastructure –An overview. Acta Astronautica, 180, pp.650-678

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    and Leong, K.F.,

    Tay, Y.W.D., Panda, B., Paul, S.C., Noor Mohamed, N.A., Tan, M.J. and Leong, K.F.,

    work page

  4. [4]

    and Manjikian, S., 2020

    El-Sayegh, S., Romdhane, L. and Manjikian, S., 2020. A critical review of 3D printing in construction: Benefits, challenges, and risks. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 20, pp.1-25

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    and Taylor, L.A., 2017

    Lim, S., Prabhu, V.L., Anand, M. and Taylor, L.A., 2017. Extra -terrestrial construction processes–Advancements, opportunities and challenges. Advances in Space Research, 60(7), pp.1413-1429

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    and Moon, S.K., 2019

    Sacco, E. and Moon, S.K., 2019. Additive manufacturing for space: status and promises. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 105, pp.4123-4146

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Lunar shelter construction issues: The state -of-the-art towards 3D printing technologies

    Ulubeyli, S., 2022. Lunar shelter construction issues: The state -of-the-art towards 3D printing technologies. Acta astronautica, 195, pp.318-343

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    and Moos, R., 2019

    Nieke, P., Kita, J., Häming, M. and Moos, R., 2019. Manufacturing dense thick films of lunar regolith simulant EAC-1 at room temperature. Materials, 12(3), p.487

    work page 2019

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    and Gebhardt, A., 2015

    Fateri, M. and Gebhardt, A., 2015. Process parameters development of selective laser melting of lunar regolith for on‐site manufacturing applications. International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, 12(1), pp.46-52

    2015

  2. [10]

    Zhao, H., Meng, L., Li, S., Zhu, J., Yuan, S., & Zhang, W. (2022). Development of lunar regolith composite and structure via laser -assisted sintering. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 17(1), 6

    2022

  3. [11]

    J., & Benaroya, H

    Indyk, S. J., & Benaroya, H. (2017). A structural assessment of unrefined sintered lunar regolith simulant. Acta Astronautica, 140, 517-536

    2017

  4. [12]

    and Shah, R.N., 2017

    Jakus, A.E., Koube, K.D., Geisendorfer, N.R. and Shah, R.N., 2017. Robust and elastic lunar and martian structures from 3D -printed regolith inks. Scientific reports, 7(1), p.44931

    2017

  5. [13]

    and Dunand, D.C., 2018

    Taylor, S.L., Jakus, A.E., Koube, K.D., Ibeh, A.J., Geisendorfer, N.R., Shah, R.N. and Dunand, D.C., 2018. Sintering of micro -trusses created by extrusion-3D-printing of lunar regolith inks. Acta Astronautica, 143, pp.1-8

    2018

  6. [14]

    Geng, Z., Wu, Z., Wang, X., Zhang, L., She, W., & Tan, M. J. (2025). A novel 3D printing scheme for lunar construction with extremely low binder utilization. Additive Manufacturing, 99, 104657

    2025

  7. [15]

    A., Ertl, F., Marechal, M., Makaya, A., Sgambati, A., & Schwentenwein, M

    Altun, A. A., Ertl, F., Marechal, M., Makaya, A., Sgambati, A., & Schwentenwein, M. (2021). Additive manufacturing of lunar regolith structures. Open Ceramics, 5, 100058

    2021

  8. [16]

    and Ma, H., 2023

    Xiao, C., Zheng, K., Chen, S., Li, N., Shang, X., Wang, F., Liang, J., Khan, S.B., Shen, Y., Lu, B. and Ma, H., 2023. Additive manufa cturing of high solid content lunar regolith simulant paste based on vat photopolymerization and the effect of water addition on paste retentio...

    2023

  9. [17]

    and Sperl, M.J.A.A., 20 18

    Meurisse, A., Makaya, A., Willsch, C. and Sperl, M.J.A.A., 20 18. Solar 3D printing of lunar regolith. Acta Astronautica, 152, pp.800-810

  10. [18]

    Fateri, M., Pitikaris, S., & Sperl, M. (2019). Investigation on wetting and melting behavior of lunar regolith simulant for additive manufacturing application. Microgravity Scienc e and Technology, 31(161-167)

    2019

  11. [19]

    and Bennett, N., 2019

    Schleppi, J., Gibbons, J., Groetsch, A., Buckman, J., Cowley, A. and Bennett, N., 2019. Manufacture of glass and mirrors from lunar regolith simulant. Journal of Materials Science, 54, pp.3726-3747

    2019

  12. [20]

    NASA. (n.d.). Moon fact sheet. NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. Retrieved June 4, 2025, from https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

    2025

  13. [21]

    (2020, December 14)

    National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2020, December 14). At 30 years young, the future is bright for NREL's High-Flux Solar Furnace. NREL. Retrieved June 4, 2025, from https://www.nrel.gov/csp/facility-hfsf

    2020

  14. [22]

    Biswas, D. (2023). Efficient Sintering of Lunar Soil using Concentrated Sunlight . The University of Maine

    2023

  15. [23]

    -C., Fateri, M., Kalhöfer , E., Schubert, T., Meyer, L., Kolsch, N., Brandić Lipińska, M., Davenport, R., Imhof, B., Waclavicek, R., Sperl, M., Makaya, A., & Günster, J

    Gines-Palomares, J. -C., Fateri, M., Kalhöfer , E., Schubert, T., Meyer, L., Kolsch, N., Brandić Lipińska, M., Davenport, R., Imhof, B., Waclavicek, R., Sperl, M., Makaya, A., & Günster, J. (2023). Laser melting manufacturing of large elements of lunar regolith simulant for pa...

    2023

  16. [24]

    and Lee, P.D., 2025

    Iantaffi, C., Leung, C.L.A., Maddison, G., Bele, E., Hocine, S., Snell, R., Rack, A., Meisnar, M., Rohr, T., Todd, I. and Lee, P.D., 2025. Laser additive manufacturing of lunar regolith simulant: New insights from in situ synchrotron X -ray imaging. Additive Manufacturing, 101...

    2025

  17. [25]

    Xu, J., Sun, X., Cao, H., Tang, H., Ma, H., Song, L., Li, X., Duan, X., & Liu, J. (2019). 3D printing of hypothetical brick by selective laser sintering using lunar regolith simulant and ilmenite powders. Proceedings of SPIE, 10842, 1084208

    2019

  18. [26]

    and Preisinger, C., 2019

    Fateri, M., Meurisse, A., Sperl, M., Urbina, D., Madakashira, H.K., Govindaraj, S., Gancet, J., Imhof, B., Hoheneder, W., Waclavicek, R. and Preisinger, C., 2019. Solar sintering for lunar additive manufacturing. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 32(6), p.04019101

    2019

  19. [27]

    and Machado, J.S., 2014

    Feio, A.O., Lourenço, P.B. and Machado, J.S., 2014. Testing and modeling of a traditional timber mortise and tenon joint. Materials and structures, 47, pp.213-225

    2014

  20. [28]

    and Bao, Y., 2022

    Barhemat, R., Mahjoubi, S., Li, V.C. and Bao, Y., 2022. Lego -inspired reconfigurable modular blocks for automated construction of engineering structures. Automation in Construction, 139, p.104323

    2022

  21. [29]

    Akisheva, Y., & Gourinat, Y. (2021). Utilisation of Moon regolith for radiation protection and thermal insulation in permanent lunar habitats. Applied Sciences, 11(3853)

    2021

  22. [30]

    S., & Reddy, R

    Sen, S., Ray, C. S., & Reddy, R. G. (2005). Processing of lunar soil simulant for space exploration applications. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 413-414, 592-597

    2005

  23. [31]

    -M., Linke, S., Gundlach, B., Lethuillier, A., Baasch, J., Stoll, E., & Blum, J

    Kost, P. -M., Linke, S., Gundlach, B., Lethuillier, A., Baasch, J., Stoll, E., & Blum, J. (2021). Thermal properties of lunar regolith simulant melting specimen. Acta Astronautica, 187, 429-437

    2021

  24. [32]

    and Song, G., 2023

    Wang, R., Qiao, G. and Song, G., 2023. Additive manufacturing by laser powder bed fusion and thermal post-treatment of the lunar-regolith-based glass-ceramics for in-situ resource utilization. Construction and Building Materials, 392, p.132051

    2023

  25. [33]

    and Friel, R .J., 2019

    Goulas, A., Binner, J.G., Engstrøm, D.S., Harris, R.A. and Friel, R .J., 2019. Mechanical behaviour of additively manufactured lunar regolith simulant components. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications, 233...

    2019

  26. [2017]

    Virtual and physical prototyping, 12(3), pp.261-276

    3D printing trends in building and construction industry: a review. Virtual and physical prototyping, 12(3), pp.261-276

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.