You need to log in or sign up before continuing.

3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production

UPDATE: We are pleased to announce that the winners of NASA's Synthetic Biology Project have been selected.
Congratulations to all the winners! We extend our sincere appreciation to everyone who participated in this challenge. Your innovative designs, thoughtful approaches, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of synthetic biology for space applications have been truly impressive.
The creativity and technical expertise demonstrated throughout this competition highlight the incredible talent within our community. Each submission has contributed valuable insights to this important field of research.
Thank you for your participation and continued support of our collaborative efforts with NASA.
---
NASA’s Synthetic Biology Project is turning to the 3D printing experts in the GrabCAD community for ideas and or designs that could lead to the ability to reuse and recycle small scale bioreactors to reduce the mass and volume requirements for deep space missions. Ideally, designs that could be printed using a 3D printer, using recyclable plastics, or a design using cleanable and reusable materials can be created.

The Synthetic Biology Project has developed BioNutrient Production Packs (also called bioreactors) where nutrients can be produced on demand utilizing bio-engineered microorganisms that are grown when needed. These organisms have been modified to produce key nutrients such as beta carotene, which is critical for healthy crews on long duration missions. The dormant microorganisms are activated by adding water to a BioNutrient Production Pack which also contains a growth media.

Early production packs (Gen-0) had a hard shell (polycarbonate) with a gas permeable membrane (PTFE) and required more mass and volume than the follow-on Gen-1 “soft pack” designs which resemble a medical saline bag. The Gen-1 bag material is made from a gas permeable plastic (FEP) so that gasses produced during growth, such as ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2), can escape and do not over-pressurize the bag. The bags also have a port to add water and, after growth is complete, to extract the contents for testing and/or consumption. Any successful design will need to provide access to enough oxygen (accomplished via membranes or materials in the first two bioreactor generations Gen 0, Gen 1), and provide enough volume or a method to release of CO2 to limit risks of pressurization and CO2 build up. The design must allow introduction of water/media/organisms and to allow crew access to the final product.

Key problem(s) to be solved or system(s) to be designed.
Since the mass and volume of launching and transporting many single-use BioNutrient Production Packs on a long mission would be significant, the Synthetic Biology Project is looking for ideas and/or designs that could lead to the ability to readily manufacture and reuse or recycle a new BioNutrient bioreactor design so that only the dormant microorganisms and growth media need to resupplied from Earth. It can be assumed a general use additive manufacturing facility similar to one demonstrated by an earlier NASA project would be available on the mission.

High-level requirements, assumptions and/or constraints.
There are no constraints on shape or size. Designs can be for a reusable reactor, or a recyclable reactor, preferably made from materials that can be readily recycled back into more feedstocks to re-make the reactor again. Any reusable designs should consider the difficulties of cleaning and sterilizing objects in space.

The bioreactor should support liquid culture volumes up to 100 mL and can allow gas exchange with cabin atmosphere or otherwise provide oxygen supply and CO2 removal to allow for aerobic culture growth and prevent pressure build up. The design materials should tolerate pH range 4 – 8, support growth of common fermented food microbes, and have port(s) ideally compatible with standard luer lock connecting components for addition (e.g., water to hydrate culture) and removal of materials for things like safety testing, sub-culturing, and consumption. Bioreactor would ideally consist of material rated food-safe and tolerate temperatures ranging from +4 degrees Celsius (+39 degrees F) and up to +82 degrees Celsius (+180 degrees F). Product safety, especially from contamination, is essential for future implementation.

We have provided images of the Gen-0 and Gen-1 bioreactors as two very different examples that both support safe culture growth. A bioreactor design that can be additively manufactured may more closely resemble the Gen-0 hard pack design since a soft pack design may not lend itself to additive manufacturing processes. A novel approach resembling neither design might be the best solution.

Background:
Studies have shown that nutrients in food and supplements degrade with time. Fresh foods are a rare commodity for space travel, but an alternative fresh nutritive product could be accommodated through in-flight production. The capability for on-demand production of food-safe products which provide key nutrients and therapeutics is essential for future long-duration missions. The BioNutrients experiments demonstrate the potential for engineered microorganisms to supplement crew food supplies through on-demand in situ production of fresh, high-value nutrients.

BioNutrients-1 is a 5-year flight experiment, launched to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2019, investigating microbial and media storage and time-course nutrient production utilizing a hard-cased production pack. BioNutrients-2 is a 6-month flight experiment, launched in 2022, testing a low volume, lightweight production bag to produce yeast-based nutrients and medically-relevant compounds, and food products. Improvements on the bioreactor design are being sought to improve bioreactor reusability, performance, and output. The ability to resourcefully print a ready-to-use bioreactor allows for a reduction in material and logistics that may provide a more cost-effective production solution over single use bioreactors.

Below are images of BioNutrients-1 (yeast) and BioNutrients-2 (yogurt) production packs for on-demand production of key nutrients.

This project addresses the following NASA technology, science, or other objective/gap:
2021-2944-TX06 Safe, Acceptable, and Nutritious Food System;
2021-2945-TX06 Food Resources Requirements and Efficiency;
2021-3616-TX11 Low-Hydration Food for Exploration Missions

Challenge Details:
The problem is how to support microbial culture growth in this bioreactor in space that is either recyclable or re-usable. The media and water and organisms will be supplied by the vehicle. The bioreactor must allow containment of the liquid culture, allow for gas exchange (oxygen and CO2) and allow safe access for final consumption. To understand the amounts of gas build up/gas exchange required, we offer this data. Yeast fermentation in each BN-1 pack produces about 240 mL of CO2 gas. To avoid pressurizing the reactor, this gas must be vented through the reactor’s porous membrane, in microgravity, without clogging the membrane or allowing any liquid to escape. Each cell produces CO2 at a rate proportional to its metabolic rate, and cells are likely to be distributed evenly within the aqueous growth solution in microgravity.

Design Requirements:

Liquid volume allowance: minimum: 30 mL, maximum: 100 mL

Support aerobic growth (either through gas exchange or supply of oxygen)

pH range of 4-8

Material compatible for growth of common fermenting microbes (e.g., yogurt, kefir-based organisms including S. cerevisiae -baker’s yeast, K. lactis, S. thermophilis, B. subtilis)

Food-safe/food-grade (if that is known about the proposed material that is a plus; items known to be toxic would not meet this requirement)

Temperature allowance – materials must be temperature tolerant

Minimum: +4 degrees Celsius (39 degrees F)

Maximum: +82 degrees Celsius (+180 degrees F)

Sterilizable or manufactured in a manner that ensures it is free from contaminants

Contents must be contained – leak proof

Port/luer lock interface compatibility

Size compatible for introduction of organisms/media

Size compatible for removal of product for consumption

No exposed sharp edges (safe for crew to handle)

NASA has a requirement for this: SSP 57000, 3.12.8.2 and Appendix B (soft-good payload item)

Assumptions:
Assumptions are initial starting points surrounding the project. These may be changed if justifying rationale emerges as the project develops.

o Graphical Products
○ CAD model of a BioNutrient Production Pack that could be additively manufactured.
○ Images showing fabrication of the Production Pack.
o Data Product
○ Examples of similar items produced via additive manufacturing:
■ Use and recycling of materials such as PEM and PDMS
■ Additively manufacturing flexible tubes and Luer Locks and similar fittings
■ Assembling flexible additively manufactured components

Innovative Idea/Design:
Seeking an outside-the-box thinking approach. Consider the 3D printed coffee cup which evolved from Astronaut Don Pettit’s low-gravity cup which he designed while aboard the International Space Station in 2008.

CAD models, data, or other references:
BioNutrients-1 Gen-0 production packs: contents are contained in a hard-shell case with a gas permeable membrane lid that allows carbon dioxide from the yeast to escape. Water is injected into the case through a detachable filter system. Image credit: NASA/Dominic Hart
Bionutrients 1 Gen 0

BioNutrients-1: introduction of filtered water to the lyophilized yeast cultures in the Gen-0 production pack
Bionutrients 1

BioNutrients-2 Gen-1 production packs: flat pack FEP bag design where contents are added before sealing one end of the bag. Filtered water is added through the port for rehydration of the contents in the bag. Membrane is a gas permeable material with a 91% reduction in mass compared to the Gen-0 system
Bionutrients 2 Gen 1
BioNutrients-2: yogurt production packs
Bionutrients2 yogurt

Current Gen2 design (non-recyclable)

Key criteria that must be included in the submissions:
Please consider answering these questions:
• Are there Earth based analogs for similar 3D printed/created items?
• Provide a description and explanation of how your unique design and concept may meet the design challenge of a food-grade/safe 3D printable bioreactor.
Submissions should include:
1. A model or graphic of the proposed solution
2. A description of how your idea can lead to the ability to recycle or fabricate bioreactors on demand.

Submissions will be evaluated based on their innovation and the potential to be used in space for generating bioreactors using additive manufacturing.

Project owner(s):
Hami Ray, PhD
Deputy Project Manager

Frances Donovan, PhD
Project Manager, Principal Investigator

Requirements

Detailed requirements, assumptions and/or constraints:
1. The competitor shall deliver final CAD and/or animations used in the development of the concept.
a. Model File Formats shall be delivered in STEP or IGES.
b. Renderings: .jpg or .png formats
2. The competitor shall deliver any reports or supplemental information in PDF/MS Word format.
If zipped, the file compression shall be compatible with Windows 10 and not require any special software to unzip.

File Format Guidelines
o All text documents should be in Microsoft Word
o All animations should be compatible with embedding in Microsoft PowerPoint and separate viewing in Windows Media Player
o All final CAD models must be saved as STEP files
o Use a CAD file naming convention that makes it easy to determine how each file fits into the larger assembly.

Download specification

Rules

Eligibility: Solutions from countries listed as Type 1, 2, or 3 on the NASA Designated Countries List are Not eligible for monetary prizes. The list is frequently updated, and the latest version can be found here. This challenge is not open to NASA Personnel.
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 "Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production" 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. Prizes may not be transferred or exchanged. 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 Checks mailed to the Winners. All team awards will be transferred to the member who entered the Challenge. Vouchers will be provided in the form of Stratasys Direct Manufacturing promo codes. 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 schedule.
Intellectual property considerations:
Copyright Stipulations
o All material (including the CAD model itself and all written documents) must be free of any copyright restrictions.
○ Use only models, photos, or images created during the project unless you have obtained the right from the copyright owner for unrestricted use – do not blindly copy images from internet websites.
■ images on .gov websites are often (but not always) public data; check before assuming it is public material.
■ CAD-Only Rendering Requirement – All renderings and visual representations submitted for NASA challenges must be directly generated from CAD software or other approved design tools. The use of generative AI to create or enhance submissions is prohibited. This policy ensures that all entries are original works and prevents the inadvertent inclusion of copyrighted material that may be present in AI generated content. Participants are responsible for ensuring their submissions comply with this requirement to maintain the integrity of the challenge and respect intellectual property rights.
○ Include documentation of any usage permissions

The Government is seeking a full government purpose usage license for further development of the concept. It is hoped that the winning concepts can be included in a follow-on study, funded by NASA ESTO Advanced Component Technology (ACT).
Schedule This Challenge ends on February 24, 2025 at 11:59PM Eastern Standard Time. Any Changes after the date will be considered as disqualifications.
Evaluation criteria and weighting factors (what you will base your judgment on).
Key factors include:
• Does the design provide a feasible method for fabrication, reuse, or recycling in space?
• What design requirements could be met?
• Likelihood of culture growth and production without leaks or contamination.

A scoring rubric will be used by the judges.

Prizes

Total Prizes: $7,000: 1st Place: $3,000
2nd Place (2x): $1,250
3rd Place (3x): $500
Non-monetary prizes or recognitions:: A BN-1 flight design production pack spare from the original experiment.
Mission sticker and patch.

About NASA Game Changing Development Program

The SynBio Project is funded by NASA Game Changing Development Program within the Space Technology Mission Directorate.

225 comments

Braxton Moody 11 months ago

The link for the following seems to be broken:

"NASA technology, science, or other objective/gap"

Braxton Moody has uploaded 8 CAD models & has left 14 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Hello, I can't access this link: " NASA technology, science, or other objective/gap."

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Marcelo Valderrey 10 months ago

Hello and thank you very much for this new challenge!
.
If you had to choose the advantages of the current designs (rigid and flexible) to "ideally bring them together" in a new design, what would they be?
.
I understand that the rigid approach is bulky and heavy but potentially recyclable or reusable, and that the flexible approach is compact but not recyclable and perhaps not reusable. Apart from this, operationally (or in any other aspect) what is preferred? rigid or flexible?
.
If you could ask "anything" of the new design... would you say, for example, that it be compact and flexible, but recyclable and/or reusable? Or that it be rigid, recyclable and/or reusable but light and not bulky?
.
Thank you very much!
.
PS: I'm just asking you to say "what you want" without thinking about "if it's possible" and even less about "how to do it". The initial wishes of the requester are vital to guide the designer... even if he can't fulfill all of them.

Marcelo Valderrey has uploaded 129 CAD models & has left 1076 comments.
Inge Lab 10 months ago

🦗🦗🦗
😴

Inge Lab has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
Clarisa Medina 10 months ago

Confirmed @Inge Lab: there is no life on this planet!

Clarisa Medina has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
Inge Lab 10 months ago

Clarisa, let's understand that they could be on a mission... and that space transmissions always suffer some delay.
About 16 days delay (1,382,400 sec) at a speed of 299,792 km/s would indicate that they are about 2,537 light years away... perhaps, in the Andromeda Galaxy? 😂

Inge Lab has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
Germano Pecoraro Designer 10 months ago

I don't understand this contest:
what is a Bioreactor!?
So Merry Christmas!

Germano Pecoraro Designer has uploaded 35 CAD models & has left 64 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Hello Germano,
A bioreactor is a vessel or system that maintains a biologically active environment. It can be defined as a system designed, deployed to facilitate the growth of biological mass through the transformation or degradation of the material fed to the reactor. Wikipedia reference.
Merry chrismas

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Clarisa Medina 10 months ago

I don't understand why they organize a challenge (which makes a lot of people work for free) and they don't even attend the chat! It completely puts me off participating (yeah yeah, I know, nobody cares... hahaha).
PS: thanks @Inge Lab for your sense of humor, it helps me avoid perceiving this as a lack of consideration.

Clarisa Medina has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 10 months ago

Hi Clarisa,

I completely understand your perspective, and I truly appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. Challenges like these are meant to bring people together to contribute their creativity and skills toward meaningful innovations, and I can see how it might feel discouraging if communication doesn’t seem as engaging as expected.

Please know that the organizers might be managing various aspects of the challenge simultaneously, which could limit their presence in the chat. However, the primary goal of such challenges, especially one tied to something as inspiring as NASA’s space program, is to foster innovation and collaboration, and every participant plays an important role in that.

It’s important to note that the purpose of challenges like these isn't about working for free but rather using the platform to showcase your talent, creativity, and skills. It’s a great opportunity to motivate others and be part of a community of like-minded individuals working toward meaningful innovation, particularly in a field as exciting and impactful as space exploration.

Thanks again for your input, and I hope we can all continue to inspire and support each other here!

Best regards,
Alok

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Hi Frances Donovan and Hami Ray:
Question: can a metal component be used, or must it be entirely plastic?

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Hami Ray 10 months ago

Well stated, @Alok!

Hami Ray has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Hami Ray 10 months ago

Hi @Marcelo. For this challenge, we are flexibility/rigidity agnostic. A note that this bioreactor is to be built in space, so "weight" is not a concern/issue (only an issue for upmass). The total amount of material to be used may be a concern; resources matter but only if they are not reusable/recyclable. We are looking for any and all creative ideas/approaches.

Hami Ray has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Hami Ray 10 months ago

Hi @Carlos. As long as your bioreactor idea(s) meets the requirements called out in the competition, we'll consider it.

Hami Ray has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Marcelo Valderrey 10 months ago

Thank you so much @Hami Ray

Marcelo Valderrey has uploaded 129 CAD models & has left 1076 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Hi @Hami Ray , another questions.
If the bioreactor is reused, is there a cleaning protocol for it? Or should we develop it in this challenge? Taking into account that water is a resource that must be administered with the precision of a surgeon.

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Hami Ray 10 months ago

Hi @Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio. Great question! Ideas and/or designs toward the reuse of a bioreactor should include (potential) approaches on how to clean AND sterilize the component(s) being reused. There are existing (limited/specialized) methods to sterilize items (e.g., think disinfectant wipes, UV light, etc.) on the ISS; however, consideration should be made on material applicability, ease of use (e.g., readily available, etc.), effectiveness, durability of materials after x number of cleaning/sterilization and use... Remember - seeking an outside-the-box thinking approach....all innovative ideas welcome!

Hami Ray has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Kaua Amorim 10 months ago

Are people from Brazil elligible for the prize? I didn't manage to see which countries are "type 1, type 2".

Kaua Amorim has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Thank you so much @Hami Ray

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
cihad lolak 10 months ago

There is a problem with downloading specifications

cihad lolak has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Melville 9 months ago

Hi Nasa Team @Hami Ray and @Frances Donovan
I am planning an entry design is not yet finalized
I have worked with lactobacillus and streptococcus Thermo in home made yogurt
From Now Foods 10 Probiotics This helped me heal IBS and grow muscles
The heirloom bacteria require 40 -50 degrees Celsius to grow
The yogurt taste is heavenly

Will it have negative points if I include heater in my design
Thanking you for precious time and reading my comment

Melville has uploaded 18 CAD models & has left 68 comments.
Javier Rivera 9 months ago

how long is the bacteria life cycle? How many days from inoculation of media and bacteria to harvesting?

Javier Rivera has uploaded 5 CAD models & has left 5 comments.
Andres Long 9 months ago

This comment was removed

Andres Long has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 4 comments.
Taehwan Kim 9 months ago

Could I have the dimensions of standard luer lock you guys mentioned? No information for the dimension on website.

Taehwan Kim has uploaded 17 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
DDMDZN 9 months ago

Sorry, very basic question here, but perhaps important...

Is it assumed that the end users (astronauts) will be eating the yoghurt directly from the bioreactor? In the last sentence of paragraph 3 it is stated "...and to allow crew access to the final product" so I assume this is the case.

The submissions all look very interesting. The design by SJK3D seems especially promising since it looks like an astronaut could directly suck the contents from the aperture without risk of contents floating away.

DDMDZN has uploaded 14 CAD models & has left 5 comments.
zach hulsey 9 months ago

i have quite the alternative approach to the design challenge and i would like to know the following:

1) does the ISS have an autoclave onboard? any other sanitation method other than UV and sanitary wipes?

2) what is the physical constraints of the 3D printer up there, in terms of build volume? i know space is at a permium up there so i expect it to be small

zach hulsey has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 4 comments.
zach hulsey 9 months ago

This comment was removed

zach hulsey has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 4 comments.
N75 9 months ago

Sorry maybe this is a basic question, I want to follow the chalenge on grabcad. But I can't find any menu or form to submit my design. can anyone help?

N75 has uploaded 4 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
a_g_nuswantoro 9 months ago

I cannot click Download specification 🙄

a_g_nuswantoro has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 8 comments.
frances donovan 9 months ago

Hey everyone - very sorry for the delayed response from this project owners - we were actually testing and doing the flight build for the next BioNutrients mission and the timing just lined up rather badly for us. We are online and going to get all the questions answered as best as we can now.

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
frances donovan 9 months ago

ok, some quick easy responses on some of the questions: Can it be metal - Yes. do we have an autoclave on orbit - no, but we may be able to heat to 82C which over time can kill many organisms. Carlos - thanks for explaining what we mean by bioreactor - for us it literally is just about anything you can successfully and reproducibly grow a cell culture in. Let me go back and grab some more of the questions

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
frances donovan 9 months ago

Hi Melville - no you will not get any points off if you include a heater, but its also ok to assume some heat source will be available for the cultures (or we may choose cultures like kefir that can grow at room temperature). Glad to know fermented foods helped you feel better. I love making yogurt too.

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
frances donovan 9 months ago

Hi DG - yes we'd like the crew to be able to directly consume or otherwise have access to the yogurt or other products made in the bioreactor and we want the designers to think about what that would look like in micro gravity, think about the control of the liquids and product once opened.

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
frances donovan 9 months ago

Hi Javier Rivera - good question. Most of the products we look at right now can be completed in as little as 8 hours (some yogurts), 24 hours (kefirs) or up to 48 hours for some yeast based items. We would expect a bioreactor to be used safely for at least 48 hours to be a successful design option but preferably a bit longer. I don't know if that answers your question or not.

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
frances donovan 9 months ago

Hi Marcelo Valderrey - interesting question that I think different people might have different answers for. For example, it takes resources like power to make something each time you make it, so if its recyclable, its components and materials might be re-used or repurposed or digested to molecules, but it will take more energy to make the next bioreactor. For those reasons, I'd lean towards re-usable. That being said, if you are making it via a heat extrusion method it might be a very clean new bioreactor, and that reduces the need for cleaning and reduces the risk of lack of sterility, so a fresh new bioreactor each time might be the safer option. There are lots of ways to buy down risk and buy down resources required - we're open to many different solutions.

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
zach hulsey 9 months ago

it is not allowing .doc or .docx files

zach hulsey has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 4 comments.
frances donovan 8 months ago

Hi Zach Hulsey - let me check on that for you

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Melville 8 months ago

Greetings and Hello Frances Donovan @NASA
Melville here again
Thanking you for your previous feedback
I am in intermediate stage of modeling
Will upload If I feel design is worth submitting!!

I will ask a tough question
Does NASA use Scaffolding for enabling enhanced cell division
This technique is used in osteocyte and stem cell bioreactors
This was there in gen 1 biopack

Thanks very much again

This scaffolding is a holy grail of bioreactors

Melville has uploaded 18 CAD models & has left 68 comments.
frances donovan 8 months ago

Hi Melville - Biomanufacturing can use single celled organisms - microbes - and make products via microbial growth usually in a liquid culture. This is more of what our BioNutrients project has focused on. You are correct in that some types of biomanufacturing are from eukaryotes - often mammalian cell cultures as you've listed - and these often grow better when on a scaffold which often is critical to cell phenotype development. Nasa has flown experiments using hollow fiber reactors - these allow mammalian cells to grow on the fibers in a chamber through which various media types can be flowed. This allow the cells to be grown and specific growth factors, test reagents or other phenotype inducing reagents to be given to the cells at specific points in the culture process. Those hollow fiber chambers are quite difficult to make and would truly be a novel item to produce in space. For this challenge we were more focused on simpler, batch based cultures but any new thoughts on hollow fiber designs would be interesting to this judging pool, if not an expected part of the competition. Also a flow through based system could allow a microbial culture to become a fed-batch or continuous feed system - more complex but useful for certain applications. Thanks for participating and I hope this answered some of your questions!

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
frances donovan 8 months ago

Zach, it seems like some folks are getting theirs uploaded but I've made the grabcad folk aware of the issues and I hope its fixed for you

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
zach hulsey 8 months ago

its fine @Frances Donovan. i just printed the documents in question to .PDF files and uploaded that.

I will say I certainly took a wildly different approach from historical winners. I just can see the surface area to volume ratio problem sneaking up while scaling the previous ideas.

zach hulsey has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 4 comments.
Ross Palatan 8 months ago

Hi Frances, how does NASA plan to recycle PDMS Membranes onboard a spacecraft? Will it be chemically depolymerized and repolymerized in a mold? Also how many cycles will a PDMS part be used before recycling? Thanks!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
frances donovan 8 months ago

Hi Ross - your question is a good one and is kind of our question too. We are looking for suggestions on materials that can be reused/recycled. We don't have any PDMS membranes right now, so I don't have any experience with recycling/reusing them. The field of plastics that can be depolymerized/repolymerized or can be broken down into useful, valorizable feedstocks is a growing and changing field and we are looking to gather up some ideas on this via this challenge. You've got the right question!

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
sky_drogon your 8 months ago

Hello, I'm from China. Can I participate in this project? I have great ideas regarding this project.

sky_drogon your has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Ross Palatan 8 months ago

Thanks Frances! I'll make sure to add relevant research, assumptions, and recommendations alongside designs for PDMS parts as well.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
frances donovan 8 months ago

Dear sky_drogon - unfortunately entries from China cannot be awarded the cash prizes. I think you can share your design if you just want to get it out there - you might get community feedback. We hope you continue in your interest in space biology and biomanufacturing!

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Edem Kokou 8 months ago

The challenge schedule and the remaining days don't match, there should be a couple more day left.

Edem Kokou has uploaded 5 CAD models & has left 4 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 8 months ago

Hello Edem, according to the schedule This Challenge ends on February 24, 2025 at 11:59PM Eastern Standard Time.

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Francisco Cuevas 8 months ago

How I now if my entry is available?

Francisco Cuevas has uploaded 7 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
Deepa R 8 months ago

The description says that "This Challenge ends on February 24, 2025 at 11:59PM Eastern Standard Time" but the submission portal says that its due today the 23rd. There is an issue here.

Deepa R has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Francisco Cuevas 8 months ago

How I know if my entry is available?

Francisco Cuevas has uploaded 7 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
Marcelo Valderrey 8 months ago

Francisco. Te comenté en tu modelo cual creo que es el problema (no utilizaste el boton SUBMIT an entry para crear tu modelo).

Marcelo Valderrey has uploaded 129 CAD models & has left 1076 comments.
Francisco Cuevas 8 months ago

Si gracias , logre la entrada, cambiando el nombre por uno similar al tu propuesta pero manteniendo el espíritu de mi proyecto. Muchas gracias por la preocupación.

Francisco Cuevas has uploaded 7 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
Marcelo Valderrey 8 months ago

Excelente. Ya está visible. Suerte!

Marcelo Valderrey has uploaded 129 CAD models & has left 1076 comments.
neon 8 months ago

"This Challenge ends on February 24, 2025 at 11:59PM Eastern Standard Time". Currently its ending at around 11:00 pm, 23 February 2025, Eastern Time (ET).
If possible, please take February 24 into consideration.

neon has uploaded 3 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
derajicsum 8 months ago

^^^ Agreed, it would be much appreciated. Was not planning for the discrepancy from the fine print of the rules and didn't get a chance to submit.

derajicsum has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
Ankush Sharma 8 months ago

The challenge is suppose to finish on 24 Feb, 2025 at 11:59PM EST, how did it close almost a day prior? Admin please look into this.

Ankush Sharma has uploaded 2 CAD models & has left 24 comments.
Bình Minh Phạm Ánh 8 months ago

"Schedule: This Challenge ends on February 24, 2025 at 11:59PM Eastern Standard Time" why it closed on 23th

Bình Minh Phạm Ánh has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Alexei Manuel 8 months ago

I, along with many others (clearly), was expecting the submission deadline to be February 24, 2025, at 11:59 PM EST, as clearly stated in the description. The early closure appears to be a mistake. Please provide an option to upload submissions, whether through a separate link or by reopening the challenge. Thank you.

Alexei Manuel has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Ankush Sharma 8 months ago

This kind of early closure issue also existed in previous challenges as well.

Ankush Sharma has uploaded 3 CAD models & has left 4 comments.
frances donovan 8 months ago

I'm looking into why it closed early and will ask them to reopen till the stated time tonight.

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
frances donovan 8 months ago

We've sent in a request for it to be reopened ... awaiting a response and will post when we know

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Melissa Yearta 8 months ago

Apologies, the challenge is set live

Melissa Yearta has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 10 comments.
Julian Rodriguez Jirau 7 months ago

Hi, wondering if there was any update on the timeline for shortlisting? 😊

Julian Rodriguez Jirau has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Hami Ray 7 months ago

Update - our judges are busily reviewing and scoring the down-selected entries (18). We anticipate announcing winners by April 4 following public feedback (March 28-31) and final judging (April 1-3).

Hami Ray has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Are there 18 shortlisted finalists?
Will the shortlisted be announced?
Will the comments accepted between the 28th and 31st be about the shortlisted proposals?

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Hi Hami, where can we view the finalists for review? Thanks!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
frances donovan 7 months ago

Hi Ross - so we tried to down select to 10 for public comment but it was so difficult that we went for 11. We are going to keep considering all 18 of the initial down-selected designs as some are similar and the debate is ongoing between a few but we thought feedback on these 11 would be helpful and might drive the discussion. So here goes, and in no particular order:
Bioreactor Billy Ducky Bioreactor Billy Ducky
3D printable Bioreactor for deep space food production 3D printable Bioreactor for deep space food production
3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production - Sacha Taylor 3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production - Sacha Taylor
BioReactor MK 2.5 BioReactor MK 2.5
AERIS Reactor AERIS Reactor
BR-FLEX BR-FLEX
DONUT (Dynamic Oxygen and Nutrient Utilization Tank) DONUT (Dynamic Oxygen and Nutrient Utilization Tank)
The Rotary Vane Bioreactor The Rotary Vane Bioreactor
Capillary Bioreactor Capillary Bioreactor
SAM-B (Space Automated Manufacturing - BioProduct) https://grabcad.com/library/sam-b-space-automated-manufacturing-bioproduct-1
CR2 DAC 𝐂𝐑𝟐 𝐃𝐀𝐂

We look forward to comments on these diverse and excellent entries. To be honest, there are many truly innovative and feasible designs in the 94 submissions so this has been very exciting and very difficult. We want to express our deepest thanks for all the effort thus far, and please understand if you're not on the list, you may still be in the 18, or you may have produced something similar that is so close to being on the list you should be congratulated.

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Thanks Frances! These are all great picks. Congrats to everyone!

We'll study these in-depth and provide comments as soon as possible

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Dear Panel and Fellow Innovators,

First and foremost, I would like to congratulate all the finalists for their remarkable work in advancing the field of bioreactor technology for deep-space food production. The level of innovation and creativity in each submission is commendable, and I appreciate the effort put forth by all the participants.

However, after reviewing the shortlisted designs, I would like to respectfully request that my design, the ‘Leakage-Proof Tested Press-Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor’, be considered for inclusion in the final list of shortlisted candidates. My design stands out due to its real-world leakage-proof testing and several other key advantages that make it particularly suitable for deep-space applications, which I believe should be a core consideration when selecting the most viable solutions for space missions.

Some of the features that make my design unique and advantageous include:

1. Real-World Prototype & Testing: My design has been rigorously tested to ensure it meets the demanding needs of deep-space applications, including leakage-proof validation.

2. Modular Design: Only the culture chamber and cover need to be refabricated after use, which is more efficient and cost-effective compared to designs that require full-system refabrication.

3. Completely 3D-Printable (No Extra Components): My design can be fully manufactured using 3D printing, which is crucial for space missions where additive manufacturing is often the preferred approach.

4. Reusability & Easy Cleaning: It is designed for ease of cleaning and reuse, making it practical for long-duration missions.

5. Gas Exchange Membrane: Ensures proper gas exchange, supporting efficient culture growth.

6. Luer Lock Compatibility: Provides secure fluid connections, essential for handling and delivery in space environments.

7. Simplicity & Practicality: My design is simple and practical, focusing on essential features without unnecessary complexity. It’s easy to build, maintain, and operate, making it highly efficient for deep-space applications.

8. Stackability: The design supports modular stacking, allowing for compact storage and flexibility in space utilization. This feature is particularly valuable for space missions where maximizing available space is crucial.

Given that my design has undergone real-world testing for leakage-proof functionality—a key requirement for deep-space applications—I believe it addresses one of the most crucial needs for safe and reliable space missions. The lack of leakage-proof validation in many of the shortlisted designs is a significant concern. It would be valuable for the selection process to prioritize designs that have been proven to perform in realistic conditions, as this ensures their reliability for the intended mission objectives.

In contrast, some of the selected designs fail to mention stacking as an essential feature, which could limit their efficiency in space utilization. Moreover, certain designs do not provide ease of cleaning, a critical aspect for long-term use and reuse in a deep-space environment. Additionally, some of the shortlisted designs may require the complete refabrication of the entire body after multiple uses, which is both inefficient and costly compared to the more sustainable approach of my design.

In conclusion, I believe that my design’s real-world validation, modular structure, stackability, ease of cleaning, and 3D-printable nature make it a highly practical and reliable choice for deep-space bioreactor applications. I encourage the panel to consider these factors in the final selection and would be grateful for the opportunity to have my design included in the shortlisted candidates.

Design Links (5 Designs):

Conceptual Designs:

1. Efficient Hemispherical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Modular, Optimized for Uniform Culture Growth and Gas Exchange For NASA Challenge "3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production"

2. Rectangular Shape Press Fit Leakage Proof Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Modular With Gas Exchange

3. Extendable Culture Chamber Leakage Proof Press Fit Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Modular With Sealed Gas Control

Real-World Development and Testing Designs:

4. Leakage Proof Tested Press Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable And Modular

5. Leakage Proof Tested Press Fit Hemispherical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable And Modular

Thank you for your time and for considering my feedback. I look forward to the opportunity to further contribute to this exciting and groundbreaking challenge.

Best regards,
Alok Kumar Malik

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Dear Panel

Given that my design has undergone rigorous real-world testing for leakage-proof functionality, which is a critical requirement for deep-space applications, I believe it addresses one of the most essential needs for ensuring safe and reliable space missions. The absence of leakage-proof validation in many of the shortlisted designs raises a significant concern, as this is a crucial factor for the success of deep-space missions. It is vital that the selection process prioritize designs that have been validated under realistic conditions to ensure their reliability and performance for the intended mission objectives.

Best regards,
Alok Kumar Malik

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Murat TOPTAŞ 7 months ago

Don't you think there are designs with corner lines that will be very difficult to sterilize in biofilm formation among the selected designs? How compatible are the designs obtained by adding a lid on the coffee cup sample for the bio reactor?

Murat TOPTAŞ has uploaded 3 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
Donald Jacob 7 months ago

Kindly, let's not discredit other people's work; everyone put in their best.

Donald Jacob has uploaded 30 CAD models & has left 36 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

We're not meant discredit people's work. As stated in the guidelines, this is part of the challenge. Analysis of designs and generation of feedback greatly help the project managers in deciding which solution is best fitted to use in space. As you may know, actual people's lives depend on the solution we provide NASA with. Our astronauts represent the bests of the world and we wouldn't want to lose them due to a faulty, under-analyzed design.

Critiques and in-depth analysis serve to secure the mission safety early on. We seek not to discredit but only to improve through feedback and honesty.

While the truth may hurt, it saves lives.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

I truly appreciate the emphasis on in-depth analysis and constructive feedback in this challenge. Given the critical nature of deep-space missions, it’s inspiring to see so many innovative solutions being considered.

It’s not about discrediting anyone—it’s about ensuring that the best design stands out in all aspects required for this mission, such as fabrication feasibility, real-world test validation for leakage-proof functionality, and overall feasibility for deep-space applications.

While conceptual designs lay the foundation, validated, tested solutions provide a higher degree of confidence for actual deployment. Given that deep-space environments leave no room for failure, prioritizing tested, space-ready solutions can enhance mission safety and reliability.

Additionally, manufacturing feasibility in space is a crucial factor. Fully 3D-printable, modular, and easy-to-maintain designs could significantly reduce resupply dependency, aligning with NASA’s long-term objectives.

If any part of my feedback has been perceived otherwise, I sincerely assure you that my intention is solely to contribute constructively to ensuring the best possible solutions are selected. I would be honored if my design could be reconsidered with these aspects in mind.

Looking forward to your insights.
Leakage Proof Tested Press Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable And Modular

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Ewen Morvan 7 months ago

Congratulations to everyone for all the proposed solutions!

Ewen Morvan has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 12 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Congratulations to the finalists. Unfortunately, I think we all would have liked to be among the finalists, but that's the way the game goes. If you want my opinion, I support the finalist proposal, "BR-FLEX," which is similar to the two proposals I submitted:
RBBK Reuse Bioreactor Bag Kit (RBBK)
RNNK2 Reuse Bioreactor Bag Kit (RBBK2)

They are based on bag reuse and fabrication and have recommendations on how to make 3D-printed gas-permeable sheets.
Quoting @Ross: "We currently don't have PDMS membranes, so I have no experience recycling or reusing them."
The solution is in the document Reuse Bioreactor Bag Kit (RBBK). You can use polyethylene without additives. Additives are usually added to prevent gas permeability. Nylon (polyamide) also works, although PE is 50 times more permeable than other plastics.

In the appendix, you will find a list of additives that plastics may contain that would be harmful to the production of plastic that functions as a gas exchange membrane.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Recyclability: Beyond reusability, it is important to ensure that plastic
materials can be properly recycled without compromising their biomedical
safety. On Earth, manufacturers of biomedical devices that use plastic material
follow strict hygiene protocols to avoid unwanted contaminants, which is why
many health and food regulations only allow the use of certain types of virgin
plastic with some exceptions such as mineral water bottles and other
containers that accept recycled plastic.
The dilemma of recycling plastics for these uses is not only biological cross
contamination but also from chemical compounds present in other plastics
and other agents that could be harmful in biomedical uses, but are extremely
beneficial to obtain useful technical and engineering properties. (See
Appendix: A). I have many years of experience in the plastics industry for both
technical and biomedical uses and I recommend that in order to ensure the
correct reuse of recycled material in space, you take special care with:
 Hygiene: Correct cleaning of the plastic before grinding is the best
option for recovering the material since the surface to be cleaned
increases greatly after grinding (the smaller it is, the more exposed
surface that becomes contaminated).
 sorting of plastics to avoid cross contamination not only by plastic type,
but also by colour and application. Note that the presence of many
additives cannot be noticed without a specific chemical analysis (see
appendix A). For example: bioreactor bags should be recycled only with
bioreactor bags should not be mixed with other bags even if they are
made of the same material and have the same appearance. Note that
other types of PE bags have additives to make PE impermeable to gases,
especially oxygen, which would make the possibility of reusing
membranes fail. Material of doubtful origin or contaminated material
not suitable for biomedical use can be used as technical or engineering
material.
 Grinding: The mills used to process the material to be recycled are a
major source of contamination. It is advisable to have two di􀆯erent
mills, one for engineering plastics and another for plastics for
biomedical use.
 Extrusion: The same thing I recommend for mills applies to extrusion
systems and 3D printers.
 Traceability: A registration system or even a labeling system with QR
engraved without ink or laser is the best way to trace the life cycle of the
parts or to know the exact material they are made of and the possible
contaminants to take into account in order to recycle them correctly
and ensure that the material is suitable for biomedical use.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Thanks to everyone, this has been an invaluable experience. I hope the information about gas-permeable materials is helpful. If I can, I can send you some interesting articles this afternoon. This information could be useful and applicable to any of the finalists' designs.
See you in the next challenge...

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

I see many of us are overwhelmed by another challenge: "South Pole Safety Designing the NASA Lunar Rescue System," because I recognize them by name. Well, greetings, colleagues, don't give up.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Cauan Marques 7 months ago

Hi, is there a way the full 18 down-selected designs list could be announced, or could I know if my submission NASA Detachable Bioreactor System NASA Detachable Bioreactor System was among them? Thank you in advance!

Cauan Marques has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
TIEMDJO LE ROI 7 months ago

Kelyan NJAMGA (3D printable BIOREACTOR) you deserve to win this challenge for your Great initiative,very innovative and meticulous design.
Congratulations 👌🎉

TIEMDJO LE ROI has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
TIEMDJO LE ROI 7 months ago

I think that @ Kelean NJAMGA,

Through his project 3D printable Bioreactor for deep space food production, has proposed a truly innovative and impressive design, meeting all the requirements of the specifications and exploiting scientific principles conducive to deployment in microgravity, such as capillarity and the Coanda effect.
In my opinion, this is one of the best projects in this selection.

Great initiative, very innovative and meticulous design.
Congratulations!
May the best win !🎉🎉🎉🎉

TIEMDJO LE ROI has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

There is something that no one has taken into account and that is HOW GAS PERMEABLE MEMBRANES OPERATE: they operate based on the difference in partial pressures of the gases. They work best in direct contact with the liquid in the culture medium. As the culture consumes oxygen, its partial pressure in the liquid decreases, causing the oxygen to be driven inwards through the membrane. Conversely, the culture produces CO2 and its partial pressure in the liquid increases, this pushes the gas out through the membrane. This is the driving force that operates the membrane. Most of the proposed 0g flasks separate the liquid from the membrane, which adds an intermediate phase of air. Suppose the case of oxygen dissolved in the liquid medium. The partial pressure of the oxygen depends not only on the consumption of the culture but also on the liquid's ability to dissolve the oxygen. The culture first exchanges oxygen with the interior atmosphere, and then the atmosphere, which has a higher partial pressure, reduces the membrane's ability to absorb oxygen. Permeable membranes are small relative to their volume and have little gas-passing capacity. A bag like the GEN2 bag exchanges gases across the entire surface of the bag/membrane. All 0G flasks require attention to move the culture, and all flasks require auxiliary means to empty the bag for direct consumption.
Permeable bags have many more uses.
Permeable bags have a high TRL.
That's why I continue to support "BR-FLEX," which is the closest fit to my proposal. I would simply remove the membrane lid and construct the container's sheet in PE or nylon 6 without additives.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 7 months ago

Hi Frances, question: Will the remaining seven candidates be announced? Or will the winners be announced directly?
Regards, Carlos

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Magnus Condor Dragnir (MCD) 7 months ago

3D printable Bioreactor for deep space food production is a very impressive design when you look at it closely.

The animation in your content shows that you paid a lot of attention to detail to design a handy system that is reusable, waterproof, reliable, and combines lightness and robustness.

May science be with you.

My sincere thanks.

Magnus Condor Dragnir (MCD) has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 9 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Another thing. The Coanda effect only works while you're moving the fluid in the reactor—it's a dynamic effect—so it requires constant movement or use of motors and pumps, which consume energy. Capillarity only works until both menisci reach equilibrium. Ninety-nine percent of the time, the process will be static, with the main phenomena being viscosity, the equilibrium of partial pressures between the different phases, and diffusion phenomena. The culture is constantly breathing, so the motorized or dynamic approach also requires monitoring the gas balance, among other things.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

One concern, the judges might be considering is the feasibility and effectiveness of 3D printing the design, while printing and including post processing. This is just my speculation, so please don't take me seriously. I am just a high schooler, I am not a wise as many of you guys are.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

3D printing is a nice-to-have but not a mandatory requirement. Certain parts of a proposed system can be made in earth and launched to space while some supporting parts can be made entirely onboard the station. It makes no difference considering the materials to make the reactor will also be launched as well. Making some of the parts beforehand gives the astronauts the convenience and removes the need for assembly, saving time.

The feasibility and effectiveness of 3D printing strategies would be more applied to parts that can be recycled and remade in the station. While undoubtedly having the ability to manufacture parts in nice, there are bigger considerations that must be taken into account as well.

Energy Costs, Time and Manpower. As you might know the astronauts are a busy bunch. They have a lot on their pre-planned schedules and adding more to that will not be a good decision. This is why it was also stated that the project managers are looking more into reusable solutions that are easy to clean so as to not use too much energy and time in the recycling and printing processes.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

A ziploc bag made of gas-permeable material (similar to those used for vegetables) and a luber port would have solved everything haha

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Thank you, Ross! Your insight is very innovative. I do think that energy costs for 3D printing would be considerably, but we can assume that the energy source, a nuclear reactor generator, powering a whole entire spacecraft will not mind if we steal about 150 watts per hour to 3D printing. It would important to understand the space constraint, it would be much easier and more convenient to send up rolls of pure plastic than fully assembled parts. While in terms of manpower, we must then consider how fast the astronauts can assemble the parts safely.

Best,

Bohan

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ewen Morvan 7 months ago

Thank you very much, Dario de Santiago, for your support regarding my design (BR-FLEX), as well as for your technical explanations and expertise on plastic materials, particularly those permeable to gases, and on the functioning of membranes. Your suggestion to remove the membrane cover and replace the flexible sheet with a gas-permeable material is an excellent idea to improve the design. I had actually thought of it and mentioned it in the conclusion of my report, but I didn’t know it was possible to directly 3D print permeable materials. As a result, I had set aside that option (see section 3.6.2 of my report). The information you’ve provided is therefore very valuable and worth considering.

Ewen Morvan has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 12 comments.
Thierry Fokou 7 months ago

I reviewed all the selected projects and was extremely satisfied with their quality.
One in particular caught my attention: the project 3D printable Bioreactor for deep space food production

The first thing that catches your eye is the topology, which seems to have been carefully defined based on the thicknesses and the recommended material.

Then, we notice the meticulous attention to detail: the pipes, joints, curves, flow angles, etc.

Reading the report and carefully reviewing the file, it's clear that the project has a thorough mastery of the materials and the subject matter.

In summary, excellent design, excellent precision in details, seals, and luer lock ports. Fully 3D printable and reusable.
Impressive!

Thierry Fokou has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

See Table 3 and calculate for yourself whether your bioreactor will be able to breathe through the ventilation window you designed.
Otherwise, they all look very nice and well-drawn. I congratulate you, but it's important that they work.
https://www.interempresas.net/Envase/Articulos/44932-Envases-plasticos-en-el-envasado-en-atmosfera-modificada.html

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

That's is an optimistic outlook, Bohan. Currently NASA is facing a plutonium problem. This greatly limits our power options to our good ol photovoltaics. Even the Gateway I have once designed for has a planned Power and Propulsion Element using massive solar panels. Realistically, nuclear options are only reserved for Martian and the Long-Term Lunar Surface Missions. This is what limits our energy consumption onboard stations and spacecrafts. Even the Orion has no nuclear options.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Thank you! My point is that whatever the spacecraft the 3D printer is mounted on, the spacecraft for sure can have enough spare energy to run a 3D printer for a few hours or more. The energy source has no factor in this consideration.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

If the bioreactor works without power, it's much better; in fact, it's ideal. I assume they'll send everything they can already manufactured, and emergency replacements must be able to be made there as a contingency preparation. The rest will generate an opportunity cost in the use of the printer, with priority given to essential tasks. Another feature is the possibility of multiple uses; one object can be used for several things. Look at Apollo 13, it's an example of how to act in a contingency.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Every factor is put into consideration. That's what makes space incredibly difficult to design for. We expect the unexpected as much as possible and take into account unforeseen scenarios. It sounds impossible but that's what space is. We live the impossible dream.

The main reason why we take power into consideration is due to the variability of the photovoltaic current. Every few years even the space station receives new panel upgrades. This is because panels deteriorate and the ever increasing demand for power. Systems run concurrently onboard a spacecraft with predetermined power allowances. Adding a frequently running 3D printer for the sake of food production would make it way harder to be considered by the agency and the thousands of its engineers as a viable solution when we can only add so much solar panel to a spacecraft.

As mentioned earlier, power is not constant, even spacecrafts in orbit and in transit experience downtime due to orientation relative to earth or orientation relative to the sun. Even a slight angle change due to changes in spacecraft attitude would create massive cosine losses to solar panels.

There are a lot of things to consider when it comes to space, Power is one of the 3 main considerations ALWAYS taken into account.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

The ISS produces a maximum of 120 kilowatts of electricity and consumes a maximum of 90 kilowatts of power. We can see that there is a significant excess of power that is being stored into batteries, thus power will be considered a factor but not a limiting factor. If power was a large concern for NASA, then I am sure they will address this issue
https://www.edn.com/international-space-station-iss-power-system/
https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/solar-arrays-international-space-station-2/#:~:text=Expedition%2043%20Flight%20Engineer%20Samantha,is%20not%20in%20the%20sun.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

The ISS is not the only spacecraft that would need food production and as you have said, it produces a maximum of 120KW, that is an optimistic point of view. What happens if the power drops?

Regarding the batteries, those are consumables. NASA always tries to take the load off the batteries as for every cycles the batteries go through, their performance and life are taxed. Adding a constant or frequent load to those batteries would cost the agency millions in the long run. Far more than the value of the bioproduct program itself.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

I believe that beyond the possibility of printing, it's having a certain independence in the replenishment of supplies from Earth. You can send your bioreactors ready to use. But, for example, suppose a small fire consumes your bioreactors, you must be able to build them from scratch with what you have there. That's what the printer is for. I believe the bioreactor must be completely reusable, but it must be able to be manufactured entirely. Energy and material consumption will be strictly proportional to the mass. In my proposal, which no one seems to have read, I addressed all these issues, especially regarding materials and the secrets of their recovery to make the membranes. I also discussed how to modify existing Gen 2 bags for reuse. Some proposals can take this information and apply it without major changes.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Pumping oxygen into the bioreactor through plastic hoses is a major fire risk. You can test it in the lab.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

That is true. That is also why solutions not reliant on the oxygen line is a more preferred way. The cabin atmosphere is already capable enough in supporting growth even without an oxygen input line.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 7 months ago

I find Marcelo Valderrey's design very interesting; the way he handles the cleaning process will surprise me. Great presentation,
My congratulations. Best regards, Carlos
𝐂𝐑𝟐 𝐃𝐀𝐂

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

I will be posting my in-depth review of all 11 selected entries soon. Please be reminded that is done for the sake of the feedback generation and is not meant to attack or discredit people's work. It has taken a whole day to spend reading and analyzing each and every design report provided in the chosen submissions. Feel free to add, reinforce, or rebut points to be found in every analysis as this would help the project managers in deciding what solution works best for their application.

Some may find it hurtful to learn the truth but this is what we go through with engineering for space. Space is difficult and so is designing for it. I truly admire everyone's ideas but for the sake of fairness and professionalism, the truth must always be bare and unbiased.

Good luck everyone!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

1. Bioreactor Billy Ducky:

a. Advantages:
i. Simple and Straightforward: The production pack design is similar to the BN-1 Gen-0 Production Pack with the added feature of Wall Adhesion techniques through capillary action
ii. Tupperware-Style Lip: Access to the internal volume is easy by utilizing a cover similar to Tupperware covers
iii. Scalable Design for multiple production packs: The proposed production pack is easily scalable by printing multiple packs of the same design for larger production volumes. It also offers a solution for arranging multiple production packs in holders daisy-chained in a row
iv. Low-mass and Low-Volume Structure: The design uses little material and is space efficient
v. Standard Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible
vi. Easily Recyclable: The small mass of the design allows it to be easily recyclable and reprintable in-case of damages or the need for new packs
vii. Solids Compatible: The simple internal volume of the production pack allows for easy access and retrieval of the fermented products that are less viscous than the likes of yogurts and carotenoid type bioproducts.

b. Disadvantages:
i. Insufficient Internal Volume: Although the solution offers a way to collect and aggregate pockets of liquid in microgravity, it fails to take into account the uniform and homogenous gas volume expansion across the liquid medium. This would easily take up greater than the 80 ml maximum volume as the fermentation process takes place.
ii. Insufficient Membrane Surface Area: Using a small surface area PTFE Gas Permeable Membrane puts the production pack integrity at risk. Although PTFE is hydrophobic, gas permeation is completely halted by liquids on the surface of the membrane, preventing further outgassing for trapped air pockets within the liquid medium, away from the membrane surface.
iii. Explosion Risk: As the total internal volume of the proposed production pack is only limited to around 80 ml, the uniform expansion of the liquid medium and the homogenized air pockets within, theoretically ensure an explosion or lip seal failure assuming a liquid culture of greater than about 9ml and a gas production of 800% (BN-1 at about 30ml liquid hydration + culture and 240ml gas by-product) relative to the liquid culture volume [(9ml x 8)+9ml > 80ml]. This assumes the worst-case scenario when the gas permeable membrane is inadvertently and inevitably blocked by the expanding mix of gas and liquid.
iv. Leaky Seal: While featuring a Tupperware-Style Lip Seal makes it easy to access the internal volume, it also realistically provides little to no sealing when pressure higher than ambient is experienced within the bioreactor. The proposed design also does not include an elastomeric material within the lip seal crevice to prevent leakage or seepage, therefore making it susceptible to leaks even during normal operations caused by the very feature the proposed production pack is making use of. Capillary Action.
v. Fragile and Non-Reusable Membrane: PTFE Gas Permeable Membranes are very thin in the range of 10 microns to 80 microns. This makes them very fragile and difficult to clean for reuse, making them impractical for reusability when the form of cleaning requires wiping, or any form of contact with the astronauts that put mechanical stress and pressure on the thin PTFE Membranes.
vi. Semi-Stagnant Medium: Gas and Nutrient Diffusion is limited to the natural chaotic motion of the fluid within the reactor. Without agitation, fermentation is expected to last longer and will produce varying quality throughout the liquid medium, as the parts closer to the surface and the PTFE membrane get most of the oxygen from the air diffusing through the membrane.
vii. Aerated Bioproduct: The design lacks the ability to remove air bubbles trapped within the liquid medium and will require frequent checks by an astronaut to make sure that the culture isn’t expanding beyond limits and clogging the membrane causing an explosion or expulsion. The end product will be heavily aerated and may cause bloating when ingested without degassing.
viii. Material Inefficient: In terms of scalability, the design in mass inefficient. When requiring larger volumes of production, more material and mass are expected to be used to make more of the same sized production packs compared to larger more spacious scaled up solutions.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

2. 3D printable Bioreactor for deep space food production:

a. Advantages:
i. One-of-a-kind Design: The proposed production reactor uses special geometries and techniques for gas and liquid behavior control.
ii. Agitator Ready: A mechanical agitator is included in the design to make sure of proper nutrient and oxygen diffusion throughout the medium.
iii. Oxygen Supply Ready: The design makes use of oxygen gas ports for bioproduct oxygenation
iv. Standard Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible
v. Low-Mass Structure: The production pack is lightweight and uses low-density durable thermoplastics such as Polyethertherketone (PEEK)
vi. Durable PDMS Membrane: The solution utilizes highly durable PDMS and EPDM materials. This makes it better suited for cleaning and reuse compared to 10 micron thin PTFE membranes

b. Disadvantages:
i. Difficulty in Cleaning and Reusability: Although the solution states that it is easily sterilizable, having complex geometries and grooves makes the solution entirely impractical for reusability when complete and total evacuation of the liquid contents proves to be a strenuous task. In this case, liquid wall adhesion will prevent complete transfer of contents at the end of the cycle and cleaning with water and autoclave will encounter the same wall adhesion problem, preventing a total transfer and expulsion of liquid contents. The solution also makes it impossible to clean by hand when the form of sterilizing is by sanitary wipes as the dimension and shape of the production pack does not allow for such action.
ii. Solid Incompatible: The design is focused entirely on viscous bioproducts and does not take into account more solid kinds like yeast. Fermenting yeast within the production pack will prove to be difficult when harvesting and transfer of the contents come at the end of the cycle. This is because lesser viscous bioproducts that create a pastier texture will be stuck around the highly detailed walls of the production pack and may be impossible to reach and retrieve when placed further down at the pointy end of the chamber.
iii. Complex Agitator: By having multiple downward facing paddles and a helical central shaft, proper cleaning and sterilizing of the agitator would prove to be burdensome for frequent reuse. The paddles also do not feature smoothly filleted corners at the points of contact to the helical shaft. This would make cleaning by hand time consuming as the corners and the highly detailed turns would add tremendous complexity to the process and would prove to be a challenge to reach when cleaning.
iv. Port Liquid Expulsion: While the solution provides access to oxygen through ports aiding the aerobic processes, there is an inevitable chance that the liquid medium be entrained into the gas stream even with wall adhesion techniques. Agitation provides the motion that separates part of the liquid on the walls and make free floating droplets that may move close to the gas exit port and be shot out with the airstream causing damages to systems downstream. The gas hose connected to the port are also placed on the walls which makes the probability of moving the liquid adhered to the wall to the gas stream even higher.

Another consideration not taken into account is the lack of valves for fluid control and the reliance on the membrane’s permeability. When pressurizing the interior of the chamber, liquid will flow towards areas of lower pressure. There are 5 possible points of exit for gasses and liquids, 2 gas permeable membranes, and 3 luer ports on the top and bottom of the reactor.

In the case of using valves and port caps to stop accidental expulsion, reliance on small area gas permeable PDMS membranes bring about new problems discussed on the next point.
v. Small Area Gas Permeable Membranes: In the case of an unmonitored uniform medium expansion, gas permeable membranes with small surface areas are to be easily overwhelmed and clogged by liquids on the surface of the membrane. With the added pressurizing of the oxygen input, clogging of the membrane surfaces are made worse by the added force.
vi. Requires Frequent Monitoring: Astronauts are more likely to be spending time making sure that the cultures within the reactor aren’t overexpanding and pressurizing the interior.
vii. Non-Transparent Body: The solution is planned to be mainly made out of PEEK or PETG which are both opaque and does not allow easy monitoring when visual checks are required.
viii. Non-Working Agitator Assembly: Upon closer inspection of the provided working drawings, the agitator is in a non-working condition. The agitator features two threads on the shaft. One on the top meant for fastening the agitator securely to the top cover and the other serving as another way to fasten the agitator to the top cover. Based on the provided animation of the working concept of the agitator, it is evident that the second lower thread is improperly used a bearing or a point of rotation. It needs no further explanation why this would not result in a free turning motion needed to stir the liquid medium.

Another thing to consider is the direction of the helical shaft. As suggested by the provided animation and supported by the direction of the paddles pointing downward, the direction of the rotation for the mechanical agitator is clockwise. The shaft’s helical groove direction is counter-clockwise. This defies the purpose of the agitator, to preferentially move the liquid downwards toward the pointy end as stated in the report, by encouraging an upward motion of the liquid when a clockwise turning motion is applied to the agitator. This principle is similar to how Auger Screws work to convey material based on the direction and rotation of the helical screw.
ix. Aerated Bioproduct: The design lacks the ability to remove air bubbles trapped within the liquid medium and will require frequent checks by an astronaut to make sure that the culture isn’t expanding beyond limits and clogging the membrane causing an explosion or expulsion. The end product will be heavily aerated and may cause bloating when ingested without degassing.
x. Material and Space Inefficient: In terms of scalability, the design in mass inefficient. When requiring larger volumes of production, more material and mass are expected to be used to make more of the same sized production packs compared to larger more spacious scaled up solutions. Due to the special geometry and design, the solution is not volume efficient compared to simpler solutions requiring lesser space for the same amount of volume.
xi. Not Easily Recyclable: The solution uses many different parts and materials that would make the recycling and printing process difficult. (PEEK, PETG/Alloys, PP, EPDM, PDMS).
xii. Explosion or Expulsion Risk: As the total internal volume of the proposed production pack is only limited to around 100 ml, the uniform expansion of the liquid medium and the homogenized air pockets within, theoretically ensure an explosion or oxygen line backflow assuming a liquid culture of greater than about 11ml and a gas production of 800% (BN-1 at about 30ml liquid hydration + culture and 240ml gas by-product) relative to the liquid culture volume [(11ml x 8)+11ml = 99ml]. This assumes the worst-case scenario when the gas permeable membrane is inadvertently and inevitably blocked by the expanding mix of gas and liquid.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

3. 3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production - Sacha Taylor
a. Advantages:
i. Smart and Honest Design: The use of hexagonal structuring allows space efficient stacking and arranging. With a simple, clear and detailed design report, allowing for fast and effective design analysis.
ii. Smooth Interior Corners: By having fileted corners, it is easier to clean the interior of the production pack, allowing it be reused easily.
iii. Scalable Design for multiple production packs: The proposed production pack is easily scalable by printing multiple packs of the same design for larger production volumes. It also offers a solution for arranging multiple production packs a hexagonal fashion allowing for a 100% space efficiency
iv. Low-mass and Low-Volume Structure: The design uses little material and is space efficient
v. Standard Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible
vi. Easily Recyclable: The small mass of the design allows it to be easily recyclable and reprintable in-case of damages or the need for new packs
vii. Solids Compatible: The simple internal volume of the production pack allows for easy access and retrieval of the fermented products that are less viscous than the likes of yogurts and carotenoid type bioproducts.
b. Disadvantages:
i. Sealing Failure: The circular cutout right on the middle of the filter cover allowing for the water input is a cause of a catastrophic sealing failure resulting to leakage even at normal operations at ambient atmospheric pressure. The production packs offer no solution for the prevention of liquid egress through the filter hole and the filter cover grating.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

4. BioReactor MK 2.5
a. Advantages:
i. Focus on Sterility of One-Time Use Reactors: The solution design focuses on one-time usage to ensure a sterile reactor for every batch of fermented bioproducts.
ii. Two Gas Permeable PTFE Membranes: Two PTFE Gas Permeable ports are provided to let air diffuse in more effectively.
iii. Peelable Bottom Flap: Ease of use and access is provided by a large area peelable flap at the bottom of the reactor allowing for quick and easy consumption for the astronauts.
iv. Standard Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible.
b. Disadvantages:
i. Small PTFE Total Surface Area: Using a small surface area for gas permeation puts the production pack integrity at risk with the addition of the peelable flaps that is a point of failure at the expected increased pressures. Although PTFE is hydrophobic, gas permeation is completely halted by liquids on the surface of the membrane, preventing further outgassing for trapped air pockets within the liquid medium, away from the membrane surface.
ii. Improperly Placed Membrane Ports: As stated in the design report, the reactor body is designed to utilize wall adhesion through capillary action to draw liquids to predetermined locations, but the 2 membrane ports are placed right on the liquid convergence zones, away from the geometric center of the body where most of the air volume is to be expected. This would lead to an immediate blockage of the respiration area on both ports.
iii. Insufficient Internal Volume: Although the solution offers a way to collect and aggregate pockets of liquid in microgravity, it fails to take into account the uniform and homogenous gas volume expansion across the liquid medium. This would easily take up greater than the 95 ml maximum volume as the fermentation process takes place.
iv. Explosion or Expulsion Risk: As the total internal volume of the proposed production pack is only limited to around 95 ml, the uniform expansion of the liquid medium and the homogenized air pockets within, theoretically ensure an explosion assuming a liquid culture of greater than about 10.55ml and a gas production of 800% (BN-1 at about 30ml liquid hydration + culture and 240ml gas by-product) relative to the liquid culture volume [(10.55ml x 8)+10.55ml = 95ml]. This assumes the worst-case scenario when the gas permeable membrane is inadvertently and inevitably blocked by the expanding mix of gas and liquid.
v. Non-Ergonomic Luer Port Stopper: The Stopper is designed to be used with an M6 wrench for removal and tightening. This does not make it easier for astronauts to access and seal the luer port compared to solutions utilizing stoppers that are thumb-driven.
vi. Consumable PTFE Filters: Every reactor uses 2 PTFE filters for every use. This would prove to be very inefficient in the long run and is impractical for long-duration space flights with no access to restocks.
vii. Energy Intensive One-Time Use and Recycling: As this solution focuses on the sterility of one-time use production packs, a higher energy consumption is to be expected just to recycle and reprint another single-use reactor compared to solutions that offer effective strategies in contamination mitigation and sterilization.
viii. Low Permeability High-Density Polyethylene: An alternative to PTFE proposed by the solution is HDPE with low gas permeability. HDPE has a gas permeability order of magnitude lower than PTFE Membranes designed for gas permeation, making HDPE solutions impractical and ineffective compared to PTFE solutions.
ix. Aerated Bioproduct: The design lacks the ability to remove air bubbles trapped within the liquid medium and will require frequent checks by an astronaut to make sure that the culture isn’t expanding beyond limits and clogging the membrane causing an explosion or expulsion. The end product will be heavily aerated and may cause bloating when ingested without degassing.
x. Material and Space Inefficient: In terms of scalability, the design in mass inefficient. When requiring larger volumes of production, more material and mass are expected to be used to make more of the same sized production packs compared to larger more spacious scaled up solutions. Due to the non-stackable geometry and design, the solution is not volume efficient compared to simpler solutions requiring lesser space for the same amount of volume.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

5. AERIS Reactor
a. Advantages:
i. Large Respiration Area: The AERIS features a large surface area membrane that lets gases pass freely without the worry of blockages by interfering liquids on its surface
ii. Size Scalable: The solution has the option to be sized up and scaled depending on the volumetric needs in bio production
iii. FEP Gas Permeable Membrane: Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene, a more durable membrane than PTFE is utilized for the gas permeable membrane allowing for reusability and sterilization
iv. Spot on Theoretical Analysis: The solvers have mathematically estimated the required minimum surface area per volume providing a backing for their design.
v. Liquid and Solid Compatible: The design of the production packs allows for the growth and retrieval of both solid and liquid bioproducts with no difficulty
vi. Lightweight: The proposed design, as stated in the report, only requires 15g of material for a 50ml internal volume model
vii. Multiple Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible
viii. Standard Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible
ix. Lower Explosion Risk: By having a large respiration area, the probability of a catastrophic failure is reduced as there is more space for the gasses to escape compared to solutions that rely on small PTFE membranes.
b. Disadvantages:
i. Improper Handling and Usage of FEP: As seen on the provided pictures and as stated on the concept of operations, it is planned to use the thin FEP membrane as both seal and membrane by placing an oversized FEP sheet and clamping it in between the seal ring and the reactor body. This would create folds and plastic deformation on the FEP sheets immediately damaging the membranes on the first use. Clamping FEP this way would also result in an unnecessary tension and stresses on the membrane potentially causing a sudden failure during normal operations and in cases with increased internal pressure.
ii. Non-Human Rated: Human-rating is the process of identifying hazards and providing solutions to known and identified mistakes in designs. One of the unconsidered hazards present in the solution is the unprotected large area FEP. While also being one of its upsides, the large area of the membrane presents an unnecessary risk when in near contact to busy and working humans onboard a station. While FEP is more durable and flexible than PTFE membranes, it is susceptible to punctures and breakage under tension.

Humans make mistakes and the most unexpected and simplest of errors may lead to larger and more dangerous circumstances. This is why we take each and every possible hazard into account and lower the design risks that give way to the possibility of those hazards becoming accidents.
iii. Incomplete Design: 2 out of 3 ports don’t have access to the interior volume.
iv. Difficulties in Cleaning and Retrieval: The interior volume features a fileted overhang and a non-fileted corner that may prove to be difficult to clean and retrieve bioproducts from.
v. Uncontrolled Spillage of Liquid: One of the major design flaws of the solution is the failure to consider how liquid will behave once the top cover is opened. When full, opening the top cover will result to the worst-case scenario of liquid flying around the cabin. This would mean that the solution would require a pressurizing input of gas to move the liquid into a different container. Another way is by using negative pressure through suction using a syringe of by sipping through a straw, but even then, the solution is not optimized for capillary action similar to capillary cup solutions. This would result in an incomplete transfer of liquid, requiring an astronaut to open the lid, and causing an inevitable spill of floating blobs of liquid.
vi. Volume Inefficient: The solution is volume inefficient compared to designs that are more uniform in size in 3 axes. The AERIS takes up larger spaces compared to solutions of the same volume.
vii. Insufficient Internal Volume: The solution fails to take into account the uniform and homogenous gas volume expansion across the liquid medium. This would easily take up greater than the 100 ml maximum volume as the fermentation process takes place.
viii. Explosion or Expulsion Risk: As the total internal volume of the proposed production pack is only limited to around 100 ml, the uniform expansion of the liquid medium and the homogenized air pockets within, theoretically may still pose an explosion or expulsion risk even if the design features a large respiration area, assuming a liquid culture of greater than about 11ml and a gas production of 800% (BN-1 at about 30ml liquid hydration + culture and 240ml gas by-product) relative to the liquid culture volume [(11ml x 8)+11ml = 99ml]. This assumes the worst-case scenario when the gas permeable membrane is inadvertently and inevitably blocked by the expanding mix of gas and liquid.

Even with a large FEP area, bubbles form uniformly across the liquid medium. The FEP is only limited to one side and does not provide outgassing access to bubbles within the medium and bubbles on the other side of the reactor away from the FEP membrane.

Another thing to consider is the design decision to use to friction and tension fitted sealing with tabs using the FEP membrane itself, which provides poor sealing with increased internal pressures as FEP is not an elastomeric material that is used for sealing solutions. Liquid will inevitably creep out of the folds on the FEP sheet and in the spaces in between the FEP and the reactor body, as the FEP will fail to conform to the surface topology of the 3D printed body and leak fluid at pressures higher than ambient.
ix. Error in Mathematical Estimation: While the method of estimation used in the design report was correct, the data that was used as an initial estimate was wrong. BN1 was not hydrated at 100ml. It was hydrated at 30ml. With a given gas production of 240ml, assuming that the BN1 production pack had 100ml of culture would erroneously suggest that the gas production was only at 240% per given volume when in reality, it is at 800%. This massive gas production is what makes most solution an explosion risk due to an insufficient internal volume to accommodate the medium expansion in the worst-case scenario.

The data for the BN1 hydration volume is available on the BN1 Mission Link provided on the challenge post.
x. Consumable FEP: Considering that the FEP membrane is used in such manner, damages will occur overtime that would require replacement of the FEP sheet in a couple cycles. This would mean that the choice of material is not suitable for long-duration spaceflights as it would require resupply missions to replace damaged and broken FEPs as FEP cannot be manufactured onboard the space station unlike PDMS membranes. Manufacturing of FEP sheets require the use hot-melt fluorinated ethylene propylene resin and a highly-controlled micron thin forming which is currently not possible in space.
xi. Lower Gas Permeability than PDMS: FEP is about 13000% lower in CO2 gas permeability than PDMS. (FEP: 10.01 @25C, PDMS: 1300 @28C)

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

6. BR-Flex
a. Advantages:
i. Highly-Detailed Analysis: Amazing theoretical analysis and simulation testing worthy of praise.
ii. Partially Tested: The BR-Flex is partially tested in the real-world using water in a gravity environment showing great results are normal operations.
iii. Switchable Filter and Mouthpiece Modules: The design features switchable modules to make it easier for the astronauts to consume the products inside the BR-Flex which is an advantage in ergonomics.
iv. Squeezable Construction: By using a flexible shell, the BR-Flex allows for easy transfer of liquid contents by squeezing the shell, requiring no need for additional equipment and techniques to move the liquid medium
v. Liquid and Solid Compatible: The BR-Flex is can be used for bioproducts that make for a more solid and pastier textures. The design allows for the reactor to be opened up providing open access to the internal volume by removing the top and side clamps.
vi. Standard Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible
b. Disadvantages:
i. Incomplete Sealing: The design takes inspiration from Hydration Bladders and Squeezable Pouches but unlike these two proven technologies, the BR-Flex does not have a complete sealing. 2 areas of concern that would inevitably leak the liquid contents are at the point of transition between the lateral rails and the triangular rails. A considerable length of the flexible walls of the BR-Flex does not have rails and clamps applying mechanical pressure. This would inevitably lead to leakage at internal pressures and temperature higher than ambient.
ii. Elevated Temperature Failure: While the solution has been theoretically tested using a static pressure study. The simulation did not take into account the change of mechanical strength at the expected elevated temperatures. 3D printed materials are made of Thermoplastics that notoriously weaken at temperatures higher than ambient room temperature. This raises problems tackled on the next point.
iii. Elevated Pressure Failure: While the BR-Flex was tested in real-world with static hydro pressure using water, during normal operations with bioproducts, the BR-Flex would experience heightened dynamic pressures due to the 800% volume relative gas expansion. Coupled with higher temperature leading to higher pressures and a mechanically weaker 3D printed clamps and rails, this would inevitably lead to a catastrophic seal failure at normal operations. While the gas permeable membrane is considered to be the outgassing point relieving the internal pressures, it is expected to fail to do unconsidered circumstances to be described on the next point.
iv. Small Area PTFE Reliant: The BR-Flex features great theoretical analysis of the gas diffusion behavior using Darcy’s Law. While this has provided the design a substantial initial design parameter for the filter radius, this proved to be insufficient upon closer inspection of the simulation provided, showing the motion and behavior of the liquid inside the reactor in a microgravity environment. Darcy’s Law optimistically gives us the idea of what the minimum porous media dimensions suitable for a specific system should be. Even with a lower intrinsic permeability value to account for range of the different PTFE membranes in the market, it does not take into account real-world problems when it comes to the chaotic behavior of the liquid medium.

As seen on the transient simulation provided in the submission, the liquid is expected to cling unto the walls as expected due to capillary action and the subsequent wall adhesion, but it also shows the liquid migrating up to the PTFE filter at normal operations.

This has been the main problem of the BN1 Flight Packs requiring the change of design to a flexible higher surface area FEP packs on the BN2s. Low Area Gas Permeable Membranes are susceptible to blockage and overpressurization when the bioproduct is a viscous liquid medium. While the BN1 packs did not explode due to the strong Polycarbonate construction and frequent monitoring of the astronauts, the same thing cannot be said for 3D printed hybrid solutions making use of both stiff and flexible constructions.
v. Insufficient Internal Volume: The solution fails to take into account the uniform and homogenous gas volume expansion across the liquid medium. This would easily take up greater than the 93 ml maximum volume as the fermentation process takes place.
vi. Explosion or Expulsion Risk: As the total internal volume of the proposed production pack is only limited to around 93 ml, the uniform expansion of the liquid medium and the homogenized air pockets within, theoretically may still pose an explosion or expulsion risk even if the design features a large respiration area, assuming a liquid culture of greater than about 10.3ml and a gas production of 800% (BN-1 at about 30ml liquid hydration + culture and 240ml gas by-product) relative to the liquid culture volume [(10.3ml x 8)+10.3ml = 93ml]. This assumes the worst-case scenario when the gas permeable membrane is inadvertently and inevitably blocked by the expanding mix of gas and liquid.
vii. Material and Space Inefficient: In terms of scalability, the design in mass inefficient. When requiring larger volumes of production, more material and mass are expected to be used to make more of the same sized production packs compared to larger more spacious scaled up solutions. Due to the non-stackable geometry and design, the solution is not volume efficient compared to simpler solutions requiring lesser space for the same amount of volume.
viii. Reliance on Non-Reusable PTFE: The BR-Flex utilizes thin PTFE membrane. While PTFE is naturally hydrophobic, it is still considered to be a consumable due to the difficulty of cleaning such a fragile filter. PTFE is very thin in the range of 10 to 80 microns, and PTFE is not structurally resilient compared to materials like FEP and PDMS. This makes it not suitable to more effective strategies of cleaning that require contact with astronauts that will put mechanical stresses on the membrane resulting in damages. This is why the BR-Flex preferentially requires UV sterilization but the intrinsic problem with this approach is that it practically does not clean the membrane, only deactivates the microbes that are within reach of the UV light. Bacterial biofilms are not 2 dimensional planes. UV sterilization cannot achieve practical levels of sanitation compared to other forms of cleaning. Biofilms and microbial clusters within the porous media are expected to grow even with UV radiation making PTFE a non-suitable candidate despite its practical upsides compared to other membranes. This is also presumably one of the reasons why currently the project managers are looking for PTFE and FEP alternatives.
ix. Semi-Stagnant Medium: Gas and Nutrient Diffusion is limited to the natural chaotic motion of the fluid within the reactor. Without agitation, fermentation is expected to last longer and will produce varying quality throughout the liquid medium, as the parts closer to the surface and the PTFE membrane get most of the oxygen from the air diffusing through the membrane.

Considering that the BR-Flex features a flexible shell, astronauts can agitate the bioproducts manually at the cost of frequent agitation adding to the astronaut’s schedule and required effort.
x. Aerated Bioproduct: The design lacks the ability to remove air bubbles trapped within the liquid medium and will require frequent checks by an astronaut to make sure that the culture isn’t expanding beyond limits and clogging the membrane causing an explosion or expulsion. The end product will be heavily aerated and may cause bloating when ingested without degassing.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

7. DONUT (Dynamic Oxygen and Nutrient Utilization Tank)
a. Advantages:
i. Electronically Controlled Process: The DONUT features an active monitoring system removing the need for frequent time-consuming observation and monitoring by the astronauts.
ii. Flow-Based Agitation and Mixing: Instead of using a mechanical agitator in contact with the liquid medium, the DONUT utilizes the air flow to mix and agitate the liquid within the reactor.
iii. 3D Printed PHB Membrane: The proposed design offers new solution to printable gas permeable membranes.
iv. Standard Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible

b. Disadvantages:
i. Lack of In-Detail Concept of Operations: The submission does not have enough detail to form an educated review of the technical processes involving the use and operation of the device, thus a proper analysis cannot be made.
ii. Low TRL PHB: TRL stands for Technology Readiness Level. This is the grading system used by NASA to determine the viability of technological options in solving problems in space. Currently, 3D printed PHB gas permeable membranes have not made sufficient advancement compared to PTFE, FEP, and PDMS gas permeable membranes. The complexity of its production and recycling as well adds to the impracticality of the choice of material for space applications, compared to a more easily manufacturable PDMS liquid.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

8. The Rotary Vane Bioreactor
a. Advantages:
i. Compartmentalization: The design offers a way to compartmentalize liquid cultures in one reactor.
ii. Fluid Pumping: The reactor is inspired by the working concepts of a compressor which allows it to move liquids and air through the rotation of the vanes.
b. Disadvantages:
i. Non-Working Design: The design has been produced with a flawed understanding of the working concept of a Rotary Vane Compressor. Upon closer inspection and analysis of the provided CAD and Design Report, the device will not be able to withdraw its contents entirely. Rotating the vanes also creates instances of changing flows or backflows due to the erroneous placement of the rotating vanes. Motion analysis of the rotating vanes also suggests that the vanes will not be able to rotate due to the compartments pressurizing the liquid and air with no provided exit. When the vanes are positioned in a way when 2 compartments form a “V” facing their respective luer ports, the two adjacent compartments are locked in place by air and/or liquid pressure.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

9. Capillary Bioreactor
a. Advantages:
i. Multiple Filters: The Solution offers multiple filters with varying functions
ii. Capillary Effect: As the name suggests the reactor makes use of the Capillary effect and Wall Adhesion.
iii. Tupperware-Style Lip: Access to the internal volume is easy by utilizing a cover similar to Tupperware covers
iv. Solids Compatible: The simple internal volume of the production pack allows for easy access and retrieval of the fermented products that are less viscous than the likes of yogurts and carotenoid-type bioproducts.
v. Low-mass and Low-Volume Structure: The design uses little material and is space efficient
b. Disadvantages:
i. Non-Luer Standard and Incomplete Design: The reactor does not provide access to standard luer ports making liquid transfers difficult. The design only features a hole with no valves and will be a point of exit to the liquid medium causing material egress during normal operations.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

10. SAM-B (Space Automated Manufacturing - BioProduct)
a. Advantages:
i. All-in-One System Proposal: SAM-B is a nearly complete system proposal ready for production and deployment needing verification and a few electrical and dimensional adjustment to perfectly fit the ISS Express Rack
ii. Non-Explosion Risk: SAM-B is a non-explosion risk solution due to its advanced features and its high-volume capacity during the worst-case scenarios.
iii. Large Area Respiration: By using a central micro-channel support and a large PDMS surface area, gasses experience little to no resistance during passage. This also makes sure that there will always be an area free of liquid interference in the worst-case scenario when the liquid medium expands without the aid of the synthetic downforce.
iv. Synthetic Downforce: SAM-B creates its own gravity using centrifugal force. The reactor is equipped with a long-life sealed maintenance free motor that powers SAM-B active functions.
v. Ease of Operation: SAM-B is designed with ease of use in mind. Interfaces are clearly labeled and intuitive. The screen GUI features large area buttons for quick and accurate selection.
vi. Wide Production Volume Range: SAM-B can be used in different ways. The main reactor drum features an 800ml interior volume capable of producing up to at least 500ml of bioproducts with a 300ml air margin. The independent exterior reactor has an internal volume of 535ml and can hold an approximate of 200ml with an air headroom of 335ml.
vii. Durable PDMS Membrane: SAM-B uses a durable PDMS membrane capable of withstanding sharp and pointy objects due to its flexibility. This allows it to be used in many applications such as being an elastomeric sealing material, a durable gas permeable membrane capable of harsher cleaning strategies, and an expandable and stretchable standalone bioreactor.
viii. Easily Reusable, Recyclable, and Manufacturable: SAM-B is designed mainly for reusability for years. While SAM-B is mostly made here on earth and launched into space, parts of SAM-B in contact of the bioproducts are recyclable and can be printed onboard a spacecraft. The membranes ultilized by SAM-B are also manufacturable in space unlike solutions using PTFE and FEP membranes.
ix. Non-Exposure Design: By having an opaque and enclosed reactor featuring a piston, SAM-B protects its contents from all kinds of radiation and the air when using the drum and enclosure, from the moment liquid is put into SAM-B and until the transferring of contents to a different container. The bioproducts never have to touch the air or even see the light.
x. Liquid and Solid Compatible: SAM-B features a large opening by removing the piston and the central microchannel from the drum. This makes it incredibly easy to access solid bioproducts inside SAM-B unlike smaller sized solutions with equally smaller sized openings.
xi. Ease of Sanitation: Astronauts can wipe SAM-B. Their hands will fit into SAM-B’s drum, allowing them to effectively clean the bioproduct drum and better prevent the formation of biofilms compared to non-contact forms of sanitation. SAM-B’s drum also feature widely and smoothly fileted curves, removing the existence of sharp hard to reach corners.
xii. Standard Luer Compatible: All of SAM-B’s bioproduct and seal manufacturing features are equipped with a standard luer port. This makes it easily accessible to tool and hoses that feature the same standard luer port.
xiii. Multi-featured Automated Solution: SAM-B is a helpful device. It doesn’t require the astronauts to frequently check on it. SAM-B is self-sufficient and is equipped with sensors to do its job effectively and autonomously, removing the need to take up time in our astronaut’s daily schedule.
xiv. Bioproduct Degassing Ready: While most solutions, except for a few, do not consider the state of the end product, SAM-B doesn’t want the astronauts to experience gas bloating. Bioproducts made in space are notoriously bubbly, this makes them pretty uncomfortable to ingest and to digest, resulting to frequent passing of gas and painful bloating. SAM-B uses its motor to effectively degasify the bioproducts after every end of the cycle.
xv. Non-Contact Agitation Ready: SAM-B has the best agitator or both worlds. One that is not in direct contact and one that is mechanical and not reliant or air flow. Nothing moves inside of SAM-B’s drum, the drum moves instead. This lets SAM-B stir and agitate the liquid medium without having to use structurally complicated agitators that are difficult to clean.
xvi. Non-Oxygen Line Reliant: SAM-B does not require an oxygen line adding to the complexity of the design. This does not mean that SAM-B has a low-oxygen environment inside that is better suited for anaerobic processes. SAM-B features a Large Area Respiration Surface that allows unrestricted flow of gasses in and out of SAM-B. Coupled with SAM-B’s new technique called “FGD” or Forced Gas Diffusion, even more oxygen to support growth is pulled into SAM-B while also actively removing carbon dioxide out of the drum.
xvii. Standalone Operation Ready: While SAM-B is great with its smart enclosure, SAM-B is ready for all. With an external reactor option using a ring clamp and a luer base port, SAM-B can make use of the very same PDMS Membrane as the reactor body itself, similar to the BN2 FEP production packs. The external reactor uses all the same parts and is just as capable as when using SAM-B’s drum. The external bioreactor makes use of PDMS’ stretchable natures. This makes it ready for the worst-case scenarios by expanding preventing over-pressurization.

Even SAM-B’s drum can be used independently of the enclosure. By releasing the 3 clamps holding SAM-B’s drum, pulling out the drum out of the enclosure effectively makes it an independent system along with the great features including the piston and central microchannel support.

xviii. ISS Express Rack Ready: SAM-B is designed to replace one of the SABLE’s. While the SABLEs have served the astronauts well, SAM-B is capable of the same things and so much more. SAM-B allows the astronauts to produce more of the same bioproducts faster and more at the same volume and lesser mass.
xix. Membrane Production Ready: This is where SAM-B’s choice of membrane shines. PDMS is a two-part liquid that is can be formed using a mold. SAM-B provides the molds for all of its PDMS parts. Unlike other reusable but non-recyclable and non-space manufacturable membranes, SAM-B’s PDMS membranes can be manufacture using the same 2-part liquid and with an unexpected material already available onboard the station. Sugar.
xx. Environment Control Ready: SAM-B is better than SABLE for many reasons, one of which is that it’s capable of the same environment control as SABLE but even better. SAM-B can drive its finned heater up to 110 C to utilize its self-sterilizing feature. SAM-B also has great PID control made possible by the temperature probe within SAM-B.
xxi. Subsampling Ready: By having a piston and a separate external reactor, SAM-B is capable of sterile subsampling. With a push of the piston using the T-Bar Push Rod and a connected external reactor to the drum, the astronauts are able to partially withdraw SAM-B’s bioproducts within the drum.

The opposite way also works. Instead of pushing the T-Bar, it is pulled to apply negative pressure on the drum, pulling the liquid into it.
xxii. Multiple Reactor Modes and Uses: SAM-B is not just for bioproducts. Creativity allows the astronauts to use SAM-B and its enclosure for many things as SAM-B allows for full control of its systems (Motor, Heater, Temperature Probe).

Even the rotation profiles can be controlled for varying agitation methods and other techniques soon to be developed in the future. SAM-B is future-proof and is ready for anything.
xxiii. High-Pressure Secure: The reactor drum and attachments are made from durable materials. The drum is made from PTFE with an aptly designed wall thickness capable of withstanding high-pressures. The drum cage supporting SAM-B’s drum is made from a material even stronger than aluminum but is lightweight, PEEK or polyetheretherketone. This allows SAM-B to withstand even greater pressures in the worst-case scenarios.

Even the external reactor is high-pressure capable. PDMS expands and very resistant to breaking. Researches have poked and sliced PDMs parts for years trying to see if it would survive and it did. The same thing is used by SAM-B.
xxiv. End-Cycle Alarm: After every production cycle, SAM-B plays an audible alarm to notify the astronauts that their food is warm and ready. Much like our beloved Japanese rice cookers.
xxv. Human-Rated Device: All of SAM-B was designed with safety and security in mind. From the puncture and cut proof PDMs parts, the durable drum and enclosure, to the interfaces and covers all aptly designed with warning and ease of operations in mind. SAM-B understands that humans make mistakes and is ready for such things to happen.
xxvi. Multiple Solution Ready: SAM-B is not dependent on its enclosure. It offers a wide range of possible solutions that fit the ever-changing needs of the agency. For a more future and long-term solution requiring the need for highly-efficient processes, SAM-B’s enclosure is the best fit.

For a lower cost and lower mass and volume solution, SAM-B’s drum as a standalone reactor is the best fit.

For even more cost-saving measures while maintaining the large-area PDMS respiration membrane, the external PDMS reactor is the best choice.
b. Disadvantages:
i. Power Reliant: The enclosure of the proposed bioreactor makes use of the ISS 28 VDC power available in the Express Rack. While this may seem as a disadvantage, SAM-B is meant to replace one of the SABLEs and therefore doesn’t not add to the overall power consumption of the ISS Systems.

Considering other solutions require no power at all, the reliance of the enclosure to the power supply is seen as a disadvantage when the chosen mode of operation prefers the use of the actively controlled environment and motorized functions.
ii. Mass Inefficient: SAM-B is not as simple as most solutions and is more well suited for the Express Rack allocation. This makes it heavier than most solutions as it is an all-in-one system to replace a SABLE.
iii. Volume Inefficient: SAM-B is larger in size compared to most solutions. This is because it follows the dimensions of the ISS Express Rack and is capable of handling larger volumes of production.

One important thing to take note of is that SAM-b is smaller in depth than the SABLE. This makes it lighter and allows for another system that requires no interfaces be placed behind SAM-B in the express rack.
iv. Not Entirely 3D Printable: SAM-B, unlike most solutions, is not entirely manufacturable in space. Instead, SAM-B focuses the manufacturability on parts that need a more frequent change and recycling in case of damages and aging.

This may be seen as a downside compared to easily printable solutions, but SAM-B’s pre-constructed form and attachments is a convenience to the astronauts, saving time and effort.
v. Express Rack Space Requirement: Unlike most solutions, SAM-B’s enclosure requires an allocation on the ISS Express Rack. This is because SAM-B is meant to replace SABLE its more advanced and capable manufacturing update.
vi. Expensive: SAM-B’s parts are available over-the-counter supplied by NASA’s decade trusted suppliers. This makes SAM-B significantly more costly when the enclosure is taken into account. This makes it not as cost efficient as most solutions.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

These are all objective, independent analyses. Everyone is encouraged to conduct their reviews on the different selected finalists. More data and analyses greatly help the project managers in their discussions. Good luck, everyone!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

11. CR2 DAC
a. Advantages:
i. Dry Abrasive Cleaning: The main standout feature of the CR2 DAC is the scraping technology used in cleaning the reactor. The cleaning device uses blades to scrape the interior of the reactor, effectively removing the used surface and exposing a new one.
ii. PDMS Membrane: By using PDMS membranes, reuse and proper sterilization can be achieved when cleaning using more mechanically intensive ways compared to FEP and PTFE membranes
iii. Velcro Ready: The CR2 DAC feature Velcro pads that allow the astronauts to mount the reactor to any surface equipped with Velcro.
iv. Wall Adhesion Technique: By making use of the capillary action, wall adhesion techniques allow the reactor to focus the liquid down and effectively controlling the liquid’s behavior.
v. Agitator Ready: The design features an agitator called the injector lance which is also the point of entry for the liquid culture.
vi. High-Speed Cycle Cleaning: The CR2 DAC allows the astronaut to clean the reactor in a matter of seconds allowing for fast turnover resuming production quickly.
viii. Multiple Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible
ix. Standard Luer Ready: Luer Port interfaces are included in the design to make material transfer possible
b. Disadvantages:
i. Limited Usage: The CR2 DAC is only limited to a total of 1000 uses as stated in the design report. The cover is the limiting factor as the reactor itself has 25 more scrapes greater than the cover.
ii. Powder Handling: The Dry Abrasive Cleaning technique requires for a new type of contaminant handling that deals with the powered scraping material. PTFE dust is dangerous to human respiratory systems. Even with an equipped fan and filter system, probability of dust exposure will always be non-zero. Long-term exposure to PTFE dust can lead to serious health issues which is catastrophic in long-term duration spaceflights.

A study published on the NIH National Institutes of Health states that long-term exposure to PTFE dust caused a mass in a 45-year-old man’s lungs along with bilateral centrilobular lung nodules. They also found granulomatous lesions and giant cells on a subsequent lung biopsy.
iii. Consumable Dust Filter: The air filters used in this solution presents a new point of consumable needing resupply and frequent change. The scraping device features two small PTFE dust filters acting as a vacuum system for dust handling.

For years it has been NASA’s problem on how to handle dust filtering as porous filters are always a consumable needing replacement. This is because porous media is prone to impaction of the filtered dust, reducing its performance over time until total failure.
iv. Liquid Content Spillage: While the solution offers a way to easily access the internal volume using a friction fitted cap, it has failed to consider the chaotic behavior of the liquid once the cover is removed. Uncontrollable spillage is to be expected when opening the cover as pockets of liquid will be attached to the cover and smaller droplets will be entrained in the airflow due to the action of removing the cover.
v. Impractical Sterilization of the Injector Lance: The Injector lance is a point of impracticality as it would be difficult to effectively clean the interior of the tubes built-in on the Injector Lance. The complex construction of the Injector Lance also and its sharp corners adds to the process and complexity of the cleaning.
vi. Lack of Sealing for the Filter and Lance Shaft: While the solution makes use of PDMS membranes which can also act as an elastomeric material, the solution does not offer a way to seal the shaft of the agitator to prevent possible seepage of liquids along the shaft.
vii. Friction Fit Parts: The cover of the reactor does not feature threads and is therefore a friction fit part as it is not possible to employ threads due to the abrasive nature of the cleaning strategy. This raises concerns to be discussed on the nest point.
viii. Explosion or Expulsion Risk: Due to the nature of friction fitted parts, under increased internal pressure within the reactor, an explosion or expulsion of the liquid medium may be expected under normal operations. This is because the absence of threads give way to an imperfect hold and contact between the cover and body.
As the total internal volume of the proposed production pack is only limited to around 116 ml, the uniform expansion of the liquid medium and the homogenized air pockets within, theoretically ensure an explosion assuming a liquid culture of greater than about 12.9ml and a gas production of 800% (BN-1 at about 30ml liquid hydration + culture and 240ml gas by-product) relative to the liquid culture volume [(12.9ml x 8)+12.9ml = 116ml]. This assumes the worst-case scenario when the gas permeable membrane is inadvertently and inevitably blocked by the expanding mix of gas and liquid.
ix. Small Area PDMS Membrane: While the reactor features a PDMS membrane which is better than FEP and PTFE options, the small area of the membrane don’t allow for a risk-free respiration. This is because even if PDMS is naturally hydrophobic much like PTFE, the diffusion of gasses is blocked by liquid interference on the surface of the membrane. This was the main problem that led to over-pressurization in the early production packs used by NASA.
x. Insufficient Internal Volume: Although the solution offers a way to collect and aggregate pockets of liquid in microgravity, it fails to take into account the uniform and homogenous gas volume expansion across the liquid medium. This would easily take up greater than the 116 ml maximum volume as the fermentation process takes place.
xi. Uncontrolled Abrasive Advancement: Upon close inspection of the dry abrasive cleaning device, it does not provide a solution for achieving an exact .02-millimeter advancement, only the expectation that the astronaut can reliably perform a perfect execution all the time. This would lead to an inconsistent abrasion of the reactor surface making the estimated 1000 cycles an inaccurate estimate.
xii. Unsuitable for Long-Term Space Mission: Considering that the optimistic number of cycles is limited by the cover at 1000 cycles. Assuming a daily cycle of 3 times a day, the reactor body is limited to only 333 days. This would make it incompatible for space flights that last longer than a year. A Martian transit mission lasts for longer than a maximum of 5 years for a one-way transit. This would require more than one unrecyclable bioreactor.
xiii. Unsanitary Dry Abrasive Cleaning Device: the blades of the dry abrasive cleaning device present a way for contact contamination if not properly cleaned after every cycle.
xiv. Power Reliant: Compared to most solutions, the CR2 DAC requires a power draw to perform its tasks using the stepper motor and the two fans for the vacuum system.
xv. Solids Incompatible: The design of the reactor does not allow the production of more solid kinds of bioproducts due to the Lance Injector Agitator. Solids and lesser viscous bioproducts will not allow for the agitator rotation.
xvi. Aerated Bioproduct: The design lacks the ability to remove air bubbles trapped within the liquid medium and will require frequent checks by an astronaut to make sure that the culture isn’t expanding beyond limits and clogging the membrane causing an explosion or expulsion. The end product will be heavily aerated and may cause bloating when ingested without degassing.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Miracle Udoka 7 months ago

Hi, Ross Palatan
It seems a few things might have been skipped when analyzing the Rotary Vane Bioreactor. Please, bear with me

Firstly, a rotary vane compressor is already a technology in use in our world today though with more precise vane lengths. My model was to pull insight from it and apply in this competition. The design dimensions were done to the best of my ability but were not for manufacturing as it was just a proof of concept- the NASA team of engineers are better professionals to modify/convert the design to precision. Secondly, taking word for word from the competition description: "Early production packs (Gen-0) had a hard shell (polycarbonate) with a gas permeable membrane (PTFE) and ... The Gen-1 bag material is made from a gas permeable plastic (FEP) so that gasses produced during growth, such as ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2), can escape and do not over-pressurize the bag"
The statement speaks of the gas permeability membranes such as PTFE/FEP/PDMS (which I also confirmed to also be gas permeable through research) informed my decision to use it as a avenue to release the pressure from the chambers while the culture volume was shrinking- this was mentioned in the document. This membrane(s) sits on a solid porous mesh to provide a solid backing- allowing for gas outflow without the membrane's deformation. However, I agree that it might be a bit time consuming for the personnel to slowly spin the vanes; this can be remedied by utilising a ratchet lock (like one in a bicycle's wheel) in the vane's spin axis. Allowing to lock the vanes from reversing while the pressurised gases seep out through the membrane in time.

Miracle Udoka has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Ensuring the Best Bioreactor Design for Deep-Space Missions
Selecting the most suitable bioreactor for deep-space applications requires evaluating designs based on critical factors such as real-world validation, fabrication feasibility, modularity, and ease of maintenance. A well-optimized design ensures leakage-proof functionality, sustainability, and efficient space utilization, ultimately contributing to mission success.
Below is a comparative analysis of various bioreactor designs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Design: Leakage-Proof Tested Press-Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor (Currently Not Shortlisted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ✅ Physical Prototype – Physically developed and tested.
2️⃣ ✅ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – Successfully tested for leakage-proof functionality.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ✅ Modular Culture Chamber – Only the inner culture chamber needs replacement.
5️⃣ ✅ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Only the inner chamber is replaced, ensuring sustainability.
6️⃣ ✅ Ease of Cleaning – Optimized for easy cleaning in confined space environments.
7️⃣ ✅ Stackability – Designed for modular stacking to optimize space utilization.
8️⃣ ✅ Simple & Functional – Straightforward design for easy assembly and operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Leakage-Proof Tested Press-Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor – 3D Printable, Reusable, Modular]
(Leakage Proof Tested Press Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable And Modular)
[Leakage Proof Tested Press Fit Hemispherical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable And Modular]
(Leakage Proof Tested Press Fit Hemispherical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable And Modular)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparative Analysis of Other Bioreactors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bioreactor Billy Ducky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – No evidence of a physical prototype being developed.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No confirmed leakage-proof testing.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of a modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – No clear indication of stackability.
8️⃣ ❌ Complexity – Not Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – No evidence of a physical prototype being developed.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No confirmed leakage-proof testing.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of a modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – No clear indication of stackability.
8️⃣ ✅ Complexity – The design appears complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep-Space Food Production (Sacha Taylor’s Design)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – No evidence of a physical prototype being developed.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No confirmed leakage-proof testing.
3️⃣ ❌ Require Non 3D Printable External Component, except for the gas exchange membrane – Not required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of a modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – No clear indication of stackability.
8️⃣ ❌ Complexity – Not Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. BioReactor MK 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ✅ Physical Prototype – Physically developed with no real-world testing.
2️⃣ ✅ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – Leakage-proof tested.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of a modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – Not designed for modular stacking.
8️⃣ ✅ Complexity – The design appears complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. AERIS Reactor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – No evidence of a physical prototype being developed.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No confirmed leakage-proof testing.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of a modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ✅ Ease of Cleaning – Easy to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – No clear indication of stackability.
8️⃣ ❌ Complexity – Not Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. BR-FLEX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ✅ Physical Prototype – Physically developed with no real-world testing.
2️⃣ ✅ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – Leakage-proof tested.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ✅ Ease of Cleaning – Easy to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – Not designed for modular stacking.
8️⃣ ✅ Complexity – The design appears complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. DONUT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – No evidence of a physical prototype being developed.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No confirmed leakage-proof testing.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – No clear indication of stackability.
8️⃣ ✅ Complexity – The design appears complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Rotary Vane Bioreactor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – No evidence of a physical prototype being developed.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No confirmed leakage-proof testing.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ✅ Stackability – Designed for modular stacking.
8️⃣ ✅ Complexity – The design appears complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Capillary Bioreactor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – Remains a conceptual design with no real-world testing.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No leakage-proof testing performed.
3️⃣ ✅ Fully 3D-Printable (Except Gas Exchange Membrane) – No additional external components required.
4️⃣ ❌ Modular Culture Chamber – The entire body must be replaced due to the absence of modular inner culture chamber.
5️⃣ ❌ No Need for Entire Culture Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – Not designed for modular stacking.
8️⃣ ❌ Complexity – Not Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. SAM-B (Space Automated Manufacturing - BioProduct)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – Remains a conceptual design with no real-world testing.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No leakage-proof testing performed.
3️⃣ ❌ Require Non 3D Printable External Component, except for the gas exchange membrane – Required external component.
4️⃣ ✅ Modular Culture Chamber – Only the inner culture chamber needs replacement.
5️⃣ ❌ Entire Culture Body & Cover Need Re-Fabrication – Not Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – Not designed for modular stacking.
8️⃣ ✅ Complexity – The design appears complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 𝐂𝐑𝟐 𝐃𝐀𝐂
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1️⃣ ❌ Physical Prototype – Remains a conceptual design with no real-world testing.
2️⃣ ❌ Real-World Validation (Leakage-Proof) – No leakage-proof testing performed.
3️⃣ ❌ Require Non 3D Printable External Component, except for the gas exchange membrane – Required external component.
4️⃣ ✅ Modular Culture Chamber – Only the inner culture chamber needs replacement.
5️⃣ ❌ Entire Culture Body & Cover Need Re-Fabrication – Not Requires full re-fabrication.
6️⃣ ❌ Ease of Cleaning – Difficult to clean.
7️⃣ ❌ Stackability – Not designed for modular stacking.
8️⃣ ✅ Complexity – The design appears complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Thoughts
Choosing the right bioreactor for deep-space missions is crucial for ensuring efficiency, sustainability, and long-term operational success. While various designs offer unique advantages, my Leakage-Proof Tested Press-Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor stands out due to its real-world validation, modularity, full 3D printability, and ease of maintenance—all essential factors for space applications.
By prioritizing leakage-proof functionality, reusability, and optimized space utilization, this design offers a practical and effective solution for future deep-space biological experiments and food production systems. As space exploration advances, selecting bioreactors that align with these principles will be key to ensuring mission success and sustainability in extraterrestrial environments.

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Ewen Morvan 7 months ago

First of all, I would like to thank you for your feedback on the various designs. Having external viewpoints is always valuable and helps improve our work. That being said, I find that the list of mentioned disadvantages is sometimes exaggerated, with certain claims seeming to be based more on impressions than on a true technical analysis of the design.

Some criticisms highlight points that are not only unfounded but are sometimes even contradicted by elements already present in certain reports. This suggests that the analysis of some aspects has been partial. I understand that these collective reflections help the judges make their decision, but they should primarily serve to design an optimal bioreactor by combining the strengths of the different proposals.

I recognize that the participants' reflections, especially those of the finalists, can never be entirely neutral, as it is natural to want to defend one's own project. However, compiling a list of disadvantages that is three to four times longer than the list of advantages for a competing design, while doing the opposite for one's own, seems exaggerated and lacking in objectivity.

Personally, I do not wish to engage in this game and prefer to let the judges make their decision. If necessary, I would be fully open to continuing the discussion after the results are announced. Once the "competition" aspect of the challenge is over, only the scientific arguments will remain, and discussions can be entirely neutral.

That being said, I do not wish to leave certain erroneous claims unanswered. I will therefore provide some clarifications on points that I believe have been exaggerated in the analysis of the BR-FLEX disadvantages.

Regarding the sealing of the transition between the lateral and triangular rails, this junction has been designed to ensure the absence of leakage when the bioreactor is correctly assembled. If the parts are properly positioned, no leakage should occur.

Concerning the upper junction of the triangular seal, as illustrated in the section of Figure 9, it is true that it is not held by a clamp applying direct mechanical pressure. However, the design of the internal rail already applies slight pressure, and in the event of increased internal pressure, the triangular rail is naturally pushed against the rigid wall, thereby reinforcing the system’s sealing.

On the presence of visible gaps between the rigid and flexible parts, it is important to clarify that these gaps only concern the virtual 3D model. They are necessary to allow for the proper assembly of the real parts. Indeed, 3D printers generally exhibit slight discrepancies between theoretical and final printed dimensions. As specified in the report, these adjustments must be adapted according to the specific characteristics of the printer used to ensure proper sealing.

Regarding the tests carried out, I want to clarify that the BR-FLEX has indeed been tested in all possible orientations to verify its sealing. If it appears in a vertical position in the report photo, it is solely for practical reasons. Moreover, I conducted an additional test with an air compressor at a pressure of 1 bar, which is significantly higher than the defined safety limit. This test was not included in the report because it does not constitute formal scientific proof, is difficult to illustrate visually, and does not reflect the standard operating conditions of the device.

On the topic of the PTFE membrane and alternatives such as 3D-printed flexible bags (proposed by Dario), I provided a theoretical analysis and a solution based on the available resources and my understanding of the subject. However, I am absolutely NOT an expert in this matter and prefer to let the judges evaluate the different proposals and their technical implications.

Finally, regarding high-temperature tests, I acknowledge that plastics can lose rigidity when exposed to heat. Since I only had access to PLA, which is not suitable for high temperatures, I was unable to conduct in-depth tests on this aspect. However, I believe—perhaps mistakenly—that with adequate membrane ventilation and given the low pressures involved, the plastics used should maintain sufficient rigidity up to approximately 80°C. Nevertheless, I recognize that further analysis and additional testing would be necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

I have not responded to every disadvantage mentioned by various individuals, but some should have been verified before being asserted.

Best regards

Ewen Morvan has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 12 comments.
Garett Espinoza 7 months ago

I dont want to speak for everyone but the reasons for no real world testing is that most of us do not have thousands of dollars to spend. Just food for thought. Other wise I enjoyed myself. Look forward to keep trying.

Garett Espinoza has uploaded 8 CAD models & has left 3 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Excellent Ewen! Thank you for the corrections and the spot on point. The reason as to why I encouraged the addition of points before posting the list and the shorter list of advantages is to let the makers of their respective products reinforce the advantages of their own creations. It is easier for one to more effectively market their products for they know every good thing about it.

This is no game or one that is played by just one. The list serves as a starter and a catalyst to a more productive communication and discussions. Just like what we do now, I provide points I listed during my independent analysis and I give you the opportunity to correct me, and to add significant points that are otherwise unknown to the general public and is not available or easily found in the report.

Thank you for the response. I encourage everyone to please reinforce your own design and fight for it. Discussions help the judges.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Also it would be helpful to quote and point out the exact sentences that are unfounded or seemingly non-objective so we can discuss and correct them. In that way it is taken into account for the judging. Thanks!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Garret, that is a good point! The challenge does not require real-world testing to qualify and be considered a good solution.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Sacha Taylor 7 months ago

Alok, I understand you are extremely upset by the judges decision, but going around and bringing other peoples designs down is not the way to go. The list of requirements you made up, your designs do not even check every box! (and they weighed ~4x everyone elses). Please consider entering the next challenge and admit defeat on this one.

Sacha Taylor has uploaded 11 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Hi Alok, can you provide a reason why SAM-B is difficult to clean? I'd love to get that clarified. Thanks!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Miracle, the air and liquid pressure lock is an excellent point I mistakenly overlooked! Thanks for the clarification!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

If your concern is the temperature, I'll tell you 4°C is for crop growth. 80°C is the sterilization temperature. Now, go open the hood of your car and tell me how many pieces of plastic you see: that's polyamide 6, and it's a plastic that, without additives, is permeable to gases, less than LDPE, but it is. It can be used up to 180°C. LDPE has been used in medical implements for decades and can be sterilized in an autoclave, even though it only withstands temperatures of up to 110°C. Under no circumstances will they be subjected to temperatures exceeding 80°C, as indicated in the challenge instructions. I'm alarmed that many proposals do not comply with the instructions or the limits established in what is written, including capacity, etc.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Hi, Dario! The liquid volume compliance can be interpreted in multiple ways. When designing without the consideration of multiple scenarios and expected errors leading to (un)expected situations, designing a reactor that complies to the specified range of 30 to 100 is perfectly on point but if other factors are taken into account to provide a more situation-ready solution, headroom for volume expansion will be required thus providing a larger internal volume beyond of what is specified in the range that was stated while still technically has a liquid volume allowance of within 30ml to 100ml relative to the gas expanded liquid media.

Regarding Polyamide 6, or better known as Nylon 6, I did a quick Google search and immediately found research saying that "Nylon 6, on the other
hand, has very low oxygen permeability (dry) coupled with a high
Tm of 2l8°C. However, nylon 6 displays strong sensitivity to moisture. Therefore, its utility is significantly impaired under conditions of high humidity", which we both know, parts will be in direct contact with water.

Thus, it would immediately make Nylon an unsuitable material candidate for this application despite its strong and durable composition.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Also, another quick Google search "is LDPE autoclavable?" immediately retrieved a result saying "No, LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene) is not autoclavable and will melt if subjected to the high temperatures and pressures of an autoclave."

Another Google search looking into why it is not Autoclavable states that the temperatures Autoclaves use are in the range of...

"Autoclaves commonly reach temperatures of 121°C (250°F) or 132°C (270°F) to achieve effective sterilization through saturated steam under pressure."

Which makes it apparent, considering you have stated that they can only survive up to 110°C.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago

CONFIRMATION BIAS is a cognitive tendency where people seek, interpret, and remember information that supports their preexisting beliefs or viewpoints, while ignoring or dismissing data that contradicts them. This bias can affect how we make decisions and perceive the world, limiting our ability to consider diverse perspectives.

Marcelo Valderrey has uploaded 129 CAD models & has left 1076 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Design Requirements:

Liquid volume allowance: minimum: 30 mL, maximum: 100 mL

Support aerobic growth (either through gas exchange or supply of oxygen)

pH range of 4-8

Material compatible for growth of common fermenting microbes (e.g., yogurt, kefir-based organisms including S. cerevisiae -baker’s yeast, K. lactis, S. thermophilis, B. subtilis)

Food-safe/food-grade (if that is known about the proposed material that is a plus; items known to be toxic would not meet this requirement)

Temperature allowance – materials must be temperature tolerant

Minimum: +4 degrees Celsius (39 degrees F)

Maximum: +82 degrees Celsius (+180 degrees F)

Sterilizable or manufactured in a manner that ensures it is free from contaminants

Contents must be contained – leak proof

Port/luer lock interface compatibility

Compatible size for introduction of organisms/media

Size compatible for removal of product for consumption

No exposed sharp edges (safe for crew to handle)

NASA has a requirement for this: SSP 57000, 3.12.8.2 and Appendix B (soft-good payload item)

The above is the extract of the requirements. The SAM-B exceeds the maximum capacity (100 ml) and its size does not allow direct consumption.
All the selected projects have used plastics that meet the temperature and pH requirements, so this is not a concern. Virtually all the proposed plastics can be sterilized by one or more methods. The only drawbacks I see are the mechanics and the insufficient membranes, but that can be fixed. @Ross, membranes don't work as you say: I'll tell you, membranes work better if they're in contact with the liquid because the partial pressure of oxygen inside the liquid is lower than that of the air inside the containers, so the membrane allows more oxygen to pass through because the difference in partial pressure is higher. On the other hand, if it's as you're suggesting, the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere inside the flask is higher than that in the liquid; this difference is smaller, so less oxygen passes through. The same applies to CO2 and ethylene, but in reverse.
In any case, everyone has used very small windows for the membranes (little area for the gases to diffuse through) and have separated them from the liquid, thinking they could block them.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

The requirements say maximum temperatura 80 C

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

If you search enough, Google will tell you that the Earth is flat.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Bolsas de PE para biorreactores: https://www.dow.com/es-es/market/mkt-healthcare-hygiene/sub-health-pharma-processing/app-health-pharma-bioreactor-bag.html

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

You had mentioned the use of the Autoclave as a way of sterilization for LDPE "LDPE has been used in medical implements for decades and can be sterilized in an autoclave.", As the principal investigator also has mentioned, an Autoclave is used onboard the ISS. That is what we were discussing earlier, and also why we had to mention temperatures higher than 80.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Good luck to all the pre-selected, I have to go.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Dario, if it wasn't clear enough, Google is a search engine giving way to easy access to research papers, it doesn't make up information out of nowhere. I'm sorry if you don't think decades of research is not a proper source of information. I'll take note of that, thanks!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Hi Ewen Morvan,

I want to clarify a writing mistake in my previous comment regarding 6. BR-FLEX, point 1. Its physical prototype was physically developed with real-world testing.

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Hi Ross Palatan,

Yes, SAM-B has a cylindrical-shaped culture chamber that seems easy to clean. By mistake, I failed to mention that while making the comparison points for all the designs.

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Hi Marcelo! That is a great point, as everyone is susceptible to such a tendency with no exceptions. This is why discussions like this that allow for feedback on feedback are a great way to mitigate such problems by providing supplemental information, rebuttal of invalid points, and clarifications of unclear statements.

This process makes it fair and closer to a more perfected judgment as it draws out more information to decide on.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Hi Sacha,
This is not about being upset; it’s about maintaining transparency and ensuring that designs are evaluated based on real-world feasibility. If pointing out factual differences between designs is considered 'bringing others down,' then perhaps the issue is not with my comparison but with the designs themselves.

I respect the judges' decision and trust they have considered all key technical aspects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I want to clarify your few points:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Weight Misrepresentation
--------------------------------------
My Leakage-Proof Tested Press-Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor weighs 96.37 grams (after eliminating the GS exchange membrane), which can be verified from my STEP file. This is far from being ‘4x heavier’ than other designs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Weight-Efficiency Over Time
-----------------------------------------
Your design requires 72 grams of material for every re-fabrication cycle, as both the culture chamber and cover must be reprinted. In contrast, my modular approach separates these components, requiring only 40 grams per cycle. While my initial weight is 24 grams higher, my system saves 32 grams per re-fabrication cycle, making it significantly more sustainable in the long run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Design Similarities & Leakage Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------
I uploaded my first design on December 15 (screw-based lid) and an improved version on February 17 (press-fit-based lid), while you uploaded yours on February 22. Your design appears very similar to mine, using the same Qosina 80147 luer valve. It’s reasonable to question whether my design influenced yours.

Additionally, I noticed that the screw thread in your design has zero clearance, which will cause it to get stuck when practically developed and used for closing.

Moreover, there is no dedicated leak-proof element in your design, increasing the risk of leakage. Through my trials, I encountered similar leakage issues and ultimately developed a tested solution to ensure leak-proof functionality, as detailed in my design:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Leakage-Proof Tested Press-Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor – 3D Printable, Reusable, Modular]
(Leakage Proof Tested Press Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable And Modular)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Features That Make My Design Optimal for Deep-Space Use
✔ Physical Prototype – Developed and tested.
✔ Leakage-Proof Validation – Successfully tested for leakage resistance.
✔ Modular Culture Chamber – Only the inner chamber requires replacement.
✔ No Full Body & Cover Re-Fabrication – Saves material and time.
✔ Ease of Cleaning
✔ Stackability
✔ Simple & Functional Design

These factors are critical for space applications, and I stand by my comparison based on objective design principles.

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Sacha Taylor 7 months ago

Hi, my design has been designed to be easy to clean with methods previously used before. Nothing has to be reprinted. The Qosina 80147 is used in many peoples designs across this challenge. The screw thread actually does have some small clearance and was developed with a tool for creating screw threads. I

Sacha Taylor has uploaded 11 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Sacha Taylor 7 months ago

Suggest you check again, your rage may have got in the way of your task. Your design of stackable reactor will not work in micro g accross the ISS, and your need for your reactor to be printed again every time is also a negative. I'm sure the judges have carefully evaluated each design and that is why I have been shortlisted and not you.

Sacha Taylor has uploaded 11 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Sacha, I appreciate your response, but let’s focus on technical facts rather than assumptions.

Stackability in Microgravity: My design’s stackability is for efficient storage and handling, but its functionality is not dependent on gravity. If you believe otherwise, I’d be happy to see your technical reasoning instead of just dismissive statements.

Reusability & Material Efficiency: My reactor does not require complete reprinting after each use—only the inner culture chamber needs re-fabrication, reducing material consumption. In contrast, your design requires the entire culture chamber and cover to be reprinted, consuming 72g of material per cycle, whereas mine only needs 40g. Over multiple uses, this makes my design more sustainable and resource-efficient for long-term operations.

Leakage-Proof Validation: Unlike your design, my reactor has been physically tested for leakage-proof functionality. Through multiple trials, I identified that 3D-printed press-fit or screw-thread closures alone are prone to leakage. That’s why my final design incorporates a dedicated leak-proofing solution, ensuring airtight sealing, which is critical for bio-cultivation in space. Your design lacks any such dedicated element, making it more vulnerable to leaks.

Selection & Evaluation: Being shortlisted does not automatically mean a design is technically superior—it just means it met the judges' selection criteria. As engineers, we don’t just accept decisions blindly; we analyze and improve upon them. If valid technical concerns exist, they should be discussed openly rather than ignored.

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Sacha Taylor 7 months ago

mine can be cleaned, not complete reprinting, you seem to be missing this. If a design meets the judges criteria, it is better than the one that doesn't. Stop crying and move on.

Sacha Taylor has uploaded 11 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Respected Selection Panel,
I believe a fair selection process, both for shortlisting and final winner selection, should prioritize designs that have been developed and tested in real-world conditions over purely conceptual ones. I trust that the judges have carefully considered this in their evaluation.
I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Cauan Marques 7 months ago

Alok, my friend, I understand your frustration, but just read the evaluation criteria on this very page, the challenge never required us to actually develop and test our designs. Of course doing that will demonstrate the likelihood of production of your reactor without leaks, but it was never necessary. You're projecting your own idea of how the challenge should be evaluated onto the real thing.

Cauan Marques has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
Donald Jacob 7 months ago

Hi Ross Palatan! I greet you from here!

I recall that 7 more designs are still with the judges, and I hope mine is among them
Kindly, let not our current discussion and defense override your previous decision to make public, the remaining designs (and if mine isn't among (The Syringe Bioreactor), then I hope what I'm about to say would help you reconsider, kind Sir)

I was wondering of the possible reasons why the Syringe Bioreactor was not shortlisted. I was happy to see as Miracle Udoka quoted the NASA challenge description on the permeable membranes, as that too was my rationale; that since NASA has proven this technology of using gas permeable membranes to allow for both the exchange of gases between the cabin and culture, and also to let out gases to avoid the overpressurisation of the culture's volume, then it was a good fit for a design- a way to allows gases in or out as we shrink the culture till only the enzymes are left, gathered in one definite section, and ready for easy collection.

I bring up this because the culture volume of the Syringe Bioreactor was made easily adjustable by utilising a threaded piston to gradually shrink or expand the culture's volume to one's desire, without the concern of back pressure at all- since the threads will prevent any push back. This was mentioned in the report document.
Also, the part are modular and can be taken apart for cleaning- not needing refabrication.

Also the syringe itself is a popular and proven technology that doesn't allow for the entry of contaminants.
In the design, the cylindrical gas permeable membrane was supported by a cylindrical solid mesh backing, allowing for a gradual depressurisation of the chamber without deformation to the membrane.

I deeply appreciate your feedback to we the designers so that we can see the judging rationale and point out areas that seemed to have been overlooked, with no hard feelings as we are human and error is not impossible.

I hope that with these points, you see my submission in better light. I would also appreciate as you please, provide clarity on my submission, as it will give me the necessary feedback in my journey to become a better design engineer.

Donald Jacob has uploaded 30 CAD models & has left 36 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Hi, back. These are my candidates, in my opinion, just an opinion.
01) "BR-FLEX" Those water bags you were inspired by last for years and are well-tested. If they get damaged, you can print thin sheets, and you can use the entire surface as a permeable plastic so it breathes. In my opinion, nothing beats the bags' simplicity, light weight, and 0g performance. The 0g consumption is just a squeeze, and the contents come out on demand. "GOOD, PRETTY, CHEAP."
02) "Billy Ducky Bioreactor" meets the requirements and also has the cup shape as requested.
03) "DONUT (Dynamic Oxygen and Nutrient Utilization Tank)" I didn't have faith. After reading the arguments in the PDF, I think it deserves to be among the top three; it's an active solution.
04) "3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production - Sacha Taylor" I think it's a simple, functional, and lightweight design that meets the requirements.
05) "The Rotary Vane Bioreactor" I like the mechanism and don't see any drawbacks. It makes a rigid jar work, but there are simpler solutions. The problem could be the seal between the vanes; it could leak from one side to the other due to the tolerances of this type of mechanism.
In my opinion, GEN 2/3 bags are very difficult to beat in terms of mass and storage. And if you have a Tiger bag, you can cut one side, clean it, heat-seal it, and refill it.
If they had a Ziploc closure, they would be even better. Although this is very difficult to print, it could only be achieved with an extrusion die.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Can we please take note that 3D printer layer lines perfect crevices to house bacteria, and since bacteria have been noted to be able to adapt resistance to radiation in space. It would not be as simple to take a brush and some water and rinse it out. Thus, I would argue that a one time use bioreactor would be a better choice as it would eliminate that risk, with the use of the recycling process and 3D printer high-temperature nozzle(230-250 C) to disinfect the plastic. Also, I would want to reiterate that we should check if each of the options are 3D printable with minimal or no supports.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Hi Donald! That in a great point and to be honest I do see the rationale behind those design decisions as I too have incorporated it in mine. Much like The Syringe Bioreactor and the Miracle's Rotary Vane Reactor, one of SAM-B's many solutions utilize a piston to make use of the volume expansion and encouraging a small pressure differential to further reinforce gas diffusion through the membrane.

It may not have been quite apparent at the beginning but we find ourselves working with a common concept!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

If you think about it, it might not be that necessary to sterilize a bioreactor so many times. If you sterilize it at the beginning, seed it, and feed it with nutrients, you could remove the contents without contaminating the interior by simply refilling it with more sterile nutrients and distilled water. The reseeding bacteria will then be available on the walls to begin the process again. This could be done repeatedly before performing a deeper cleaning. What's more, if you look at history, the art of fermentation arose accidentally due to a lack of hygiene. This includes many traditional yogurt and sourdough processes. If you achieve a balance in the internal biome of the bioreactor, it can go a long time before having to remove it. This could be applied to almost any design.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

I will also like to clarify to Ross Platan's review, that the HD-PE is used as a type of membrane, which is also a commercially available 3D printing filament and can also be recycled. I would also like to say that the stopper also has a hole on the side so that the user can us any long object on hand to turn it. Furthermore, I would also like to say that the BioReactor MK 2.5 can be printed in one piece without supports, as shown in the pictures. This benefit removes the post-processing, meaning the user just needs to print the parts and screw on a few lids.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Caution: Increasing internal pressure does not guarantee gas exchange. The difference in pressure for diffusion is the partial pressure. If you increase the pressure by pressing a piston, you will be increasing all partial pressures of both CO2 and oxygen. This may make it easier for CO2 to be expelled but will make it more difficult for oxygen to enter.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Donald Jacob 7 months ago

So, Kind Mr Ross Palatan

Since mine allows for an adjustable volume and allows for 99.9% culture collection among other benefits, I get the pass, right?

Donald Jacob has uploaded 30 CAD models & has left 36 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Hi Bohan! There are ways to clean layers effectively and to prevent bacterial formation on the porous 3D printed materials. We make use of Anti-Bacterial Agents and something called Bacteriostatic Agents to prevent bacteria from growing in the first place. Commonly, these agents are added to cleaning solutions and do not add to the complexity of the cleaning process. The agents themselves are not special materials and can already be found onboard the station in the form of black tea, more specifically, Tannic Acid and Catechins.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Yes, Dario. However, modern bioprocessing relies on sterility to ensure reproducibility, safety, and efficiency. Also, allowing bacteria to form can become increasingly resistant to sterilization over time. You can find this example in a fish tank.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Hi Dario, I don't think anybody said anything about pressing a piston or applying pressure to one. Much like any other solution including ones that are in the form of flexible bags, higher internal pressures relative to external ambient will always be expected as the gasses expand within the liquid. This makes both flexible and piston driven designs work on the exact same principle when both the bag and the moving piston apply a force resisting the expansion of the liquid.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Jacob, I'm sorry, but I'm not one of the judges; I am just an independent reviewer. Although if it were my opinion, I'd say you've done a fantastic job with your idea!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Caution: Not just any LDPE filament and other plastics like nylon can be used to make membranes. PLA is usually used to make membranes. Additives are usually added to commercial plastics to reduce gas permeability, especially oxygen. Others can be used to reduce CO2 permeability. It all depends on the intended use. This is because the base resins are actually quite permeable, but usually in the industry, for most uses, this is an undesirable effect. There are also additives and processes that improve permeability. A TIP is biodegradability. Oxygen permeability is a requirement, so if the plastic is biodegradable, it could be a good candidate for permeability.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Ross. What if the astronauts run out of the cleaning solution. Also, different bacteria strains have different responses to your proposed Anti-Bacterial Agents. Thus, temperature is probably the most effective way to kill bacteria.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

You may be right, Bohan as those things are a type of consumable, but you've said it yourself as well. "Temperature is probably the most effective way to kill bacteria" and we have Autoclaves in space.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Yes, that is true. However, the recommended sterilizing temperature is about 120 -130 C which softness or melts most of our recommended plastics.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

"Most" but not all, and not the ones most of the solutions use.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Can you please tell me what other solutions are using?

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 7 months ago

Dear all, the design should be a cause for joy, beyond the result, where the jury has solid reasons to choose the ones they consider most viable. Every time we finish a design, we take a step forward. Regards, Carlos

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

PEEK, PTFE, PC for a start

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

para que la bacterias lleguen al interior del bio reactor tiene que haber una fuente de contaminacion que son: la manipulacion y la recarga si lodo lo que entra es exteril y el contenedor es exterilizado al inicio y cembrado con unico tipo de organismo los organismos nocivos no se teletrasportan y surgen de la nada si eliminas el mecanismo de trasporte se elimina el problema. el nutriente puede estar esterilizado por rayos gama irradiado antes de enviarse y el agua pasaria por un proceso de esterilizacion antes de entrar se puede hacer un proceso continuo con menos consumo de recursos. esto se puede hacer con cualquier diselo de contenedor que se imaginen.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Donald Jacob 7 months ago

Please then, Kind Mr Ross Palatan
Do the judges read the chat to see our feedback?
If so, then I'm having faith
If not, then I'm still having faith :)

Donald Jacob has uploaded 30 CAD models & has left 36 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

For bacteria to reach the interior of the bioreactor, there must be a source of contamination, which are: handling and refilling. If the sludge that enters is sterile and the container is sterilized at the beginning and seeded with a single type of organism, harmful organisms do not teleport and appear out of nowhere. If you eliminate the transport mechanism, the problem is eliminated. The nutrient can be sterilized by irradiated gamma rays before being sent and the water would go through a sterilization process before entering. A continuous process can be carried out with less consumption of resources. This can be done with any container design you can imagine.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

But, we must also consider the surface degradation of the parts.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Dario and Bohan, regarding the use of non-conventional membranes, we all understand that they would indeed work as gas permeable membranes with the added benefit of ease of manufacturability through 3D printing, but it is also important to take note of what the material's respective gas permeability is. For example, FEP, which is a conventional gas permeable membrane, is 130 times lower in gas permeability than most PDMS membranes.

This is why the project managers aren't just settling for what current technology they have now and instead are looking for better and improved advanced materials such as PDMS. Now, regarding the use of HDPE and PLA as membranes, even if a 3D printer can reliably print in the order of 10 to 50 microns, which we all know is an optimistic point of view, their intrinsic gas permeabilities are still order of magnitude lower than what is already used now in the bioproduct program. This would not only be a non-ideal membrane for the purpose of gas permeation, but it would also be a downgrade.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Yes, Donald. That is why we are engaging now in our discussions. The judges will use our conversations to lead their own discussions.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

It can be sterilized at 80ºC, in fact it is read above that the requirement established in the challenge is that the plastic resists more than 80ºC, then it makes no sense to talk about 120º -150º -180º etc. Most things die at more than 60º except for some extremophiles that live in hydrothermal vents.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

In this case, Dario is correct. Transport of the contaminants happen only when the reactor is opened and is exposed to the cabin atmosphere. If a design features a way to prevent this frequent opening and exposure, there would be no problem as the materials fermented within the reactor are sterile, but if a reactor has to be opened inevitable, sterilizing it by radiation or other materials and methods effectively prevent the start of a contamination.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Please see this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369703X17302188#:~:text=In%20this%20study%2C%20in%20order%20to%20improve,0.5%2C%20and%201%20wt.%)%20of%20SiO2%20nanoparticles

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Hi, Bohan. It would be easier for the public and the judges if you quote the exact sentence or phrase you are trying to point out. Thank you!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

"In this study, in order to improve the antifouling properties of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane in the membrane bioreactor (MBR) system." It seems that high-density polyethylene (HDPE) has been used in bioreactors before, however improvements might need to made for more effective use.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

That is true, Bohan, can't argue much with research, but using the very same research you provided us, may I add these sentences to the collections.

"Flat sheet membranes were fabricated via thermally induced phase separation (TIPS) method"

"In comparison with other commercial polymers, high - density polyethylene (HDPE) is a good choice to prepare membrane with several excellent properties such as good mechanical strength, great chemical resistance and thermal stability. However, its wider application has been restricted because of its inherent hydrophobicity, non-wettability, absence of any active functional groups and high fouling affinity [30], [31], [32], [33].
Therefore increasing the membrane hydrophilicity seems to be a suitable method to overcome severe fouling."

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

I recommended in my proposal to use an extrusion die in the filament extruder in this way they could produce sheets however I adapted to the requirements and managed to print the sheet of the bag with polyamide. This is valid for any sheet. In fact, I have some videos and photos. Everyone said it is not possible to print sheets. Well, others and I have achieved it with a regular printer. NASA can do it better. In fact, I would recommend buying Ziplo bags for vegetables at Walmart. These are permeable to ethylene and CO2 so that they do not rot. You put a luber port recessed like a bicycle valve and voila, it will work wonderfully. It does not require energy, it is light and easy to manufacture. You can also call Johnson & Johnson and ask for Ziplocs without the additive against oxygen. Or you can order any material that meets the requirements. You could also buy a yogurt maker at Walmart, screw it onto a rack and send it into space.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

It is clear from the paper that HDPE is not naturally a good gas permeable membrane and thus requires the additional step of thermally induced phase separation to create the porosity needed for gas permeable applications. TIPS is not possible in space yet.

Another thing to add is that, as the researchers have mentioned, HDPE requires a lot of changes to make it hydrophilic due to its high-fouling nature. This process alone is another addition to the complexity of the manufacturing process and is again, impossible in space.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

What are the gas permeability rating of these materials, Dario?

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Donald Jacob 7 months ago

Alright. Thank you very much, kind Mr Ross Palatan

Donald Jacob has uploaded 30 CAD models & has left 36 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

My point is that it is a option that can be recyclable and as I stated it will need improvements by NASA or other parties.

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Much obliged, Donald! Keep up the great work!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

It is indeed a great option to be considered, Bohan, but with the ton of added complexities... that would make it harder to consider for near future application

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

In my report there are recommendations for a recycling protocol to use that no one read regarding different types of plastics.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

HDPE is highly impermeable to gases, which is why it's used for gas pipelines. It's even more impermeable than it is used to transport hydrogen, along with natural gas, and is used for gas networks. LDPE is a different plastic with different properties but from the same family of monomers.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Bohan Zhu 7 months ago

Also, about sterilization, do we expect the astronauts to wear lab coats and use lab like methods to create food?

Bohan Zhu has uploaded 12 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

I don't see any gas permeability ratings in your report, Dario.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

There's a picture about the comment section that gives us the idea of how that might go onboard the station, Bohan. It seems they will practice sterile handling as well.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

For homebrew lovers, there are bioreactor bags of any size you can imagine. There are also specific bioreactor bags on the market that are used all over the world. The problem isn't what they have, but how to make it up there with what they have and still make it work at 0g.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

I never said there was a permeability table in the report. I talked about recycling recommendations and cross-contamination from additives in similar materials. If you shared a link to the permeability table in a chat,

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

I know there isn't one but if you're recommending a new unconventional material for use as a gas permeable membrane, it would be appropriate to add that in information in or state it here now for all of us to make a proper comparison in relation to the planned materials of choice.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Better yet, do one thing: call, write, contact the people at DOW and tell them that bioreactor bags don't exist or aren't useful, or whatever you want to prove: https://www.dow.com/es-es/market/mkt-healthcare-hygiene/sub-health-pharma-processing/app-health-pharma-bioreactor-bag.html.

I think the people at DuPont would also like to know: https://www.dupont.com.ar/graphics/tyvek-bags.html

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 7 months ago

No one said they won't work, Dario. We're looking for the best material and not judging if one will work or not. As mentioned earlier, they all have the possibility to work, but some will be orders of magnitude better than others and why would NASA choose to down-grade an their existing technology when better ones are readily available.
Regarding references, it would be best if you link proper research papers like Bohan, as those would have lesser chances of having conflicts of interest and bias compared to manufacturer websites. Thanks.

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

I reiterate the recycling protocol that I proposed:
safety. On Earth, manufacturers of biomedical devices that use plastic material
follow strict hygiene protocols to avoid unwanted contaminants, which is why
many health and food regulations only allow the use of certain types of virgin
plastic with some exceptions such as mineral water bottles and other
containers that accept recycled plastic.
The dilemma of recycling plastics for these uses is not only biological cross
contamination but also from chemical compounds present in other plastics
and other agents that could be harmful in biomedical uses, but are extremely
beneficial to obtain useful technical and engineering properties. (See
Appendix: A). I have many years of experience in the plastics industry for both
technical and biomedical uses and I recommend that in order to ensure the
correct reuse of recycled material in space, you take special care with:
 Hygiene: Correct cleaning of the plastic before grinding is the best
option for recovering the material since the surface to be cleaned
increases greatly after grinding (the smaller it is, the more exposed
surface that becomes contaminated).
 sorting of plastics to avoid cross contamination not only by plastic type,
but also by colour and application. Note that the presence of many
additives cannot be noticed without a specific chemical analysis (see
appendix A). For example: bioreactor bags should be recycled only with
bioreactor bags should not be mixed with other bags even if they are
made of the same material and have the same appearance. Note that
other types of PE bags have additives to make PE impermeable to gases,
especially oxygen, which would make the possibility of reusing
membranes fail. Material of doubtful origin or contaminated material
not suitable for biomedical use can be used as technical or engineering
material.
 Grinding: The mills used to process the material to be recycled are a
major source of contamination. It is advisable to have two di􀆯erent
mills, one for engineering plastics and another for plastics for
biomedical use.
 Extrusion: The same thing I recommend for mills applies to extrusion
systems and 3D printers.
 Traceability: A registration system or even a labeling system with QR
engraved without ink or laser is the best way to trace the life cycle of the
parts or to know the exact material they are made of and the possible
contaminants to take into account in order to recycle them correctly
and ensure that the material is suitable for biomedical use.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

The bottom line is this: The dilemma of recycling plastics for these uses lies not only in biological cross-contamination, but also in the chemical compounds present in other plastics and other agents that could be harmful in biomedical uses, but are extremely beneficial for obtaining useful technical and engineering properties. (See Appendix A.)

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

I proposed that because in space there is no access to virgin material

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 6 months ago

Why has my proposal and model disappeared from the challenge?

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Dario de Santiago 6 months ago

Hello Judges: Somehow, my submissions in this and other challenges were deleted, along with all the submissions and models I've uploaded throughout my entire GrabCAD history. I've already written to GrabCAD technical support, but I don't know when the problem will be resolved.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Murat TOPTAŞ 6 months ago

Dear jury members, I would like to know if you were able to review my file.
Sincerely.

Murat TOPTAŞ has uploaded 3 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
Alok Kumar Malik 6 months ago

Dear Jury Members,

I sincerely appreciate the effort and dedication you have put into evaluating all submissions. I understand that the shortlist has been selected, and while my design was not included, I would like to kindly request reconsideration based on its potential contributions.

My submission, Leakage-Proof Tested Press-Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor – 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable, and Modular
(Leakage Proof Tested Press Fit Cylindrical Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Recyclable And Modular)
(Extendable Culture Chamber Leakage Proof Press Fit Bioreactor 3D Printable, Reusable, Modular With Sealed Gas Control)
has developed with deep-space applications in mind and offers several key advantages:

✔ Prototyped & Successfully Tested – Demonstrating real-world functionality.
✔ Leakage-Proof Design – Validated to ensure zero leakage under various conditions.
✔ Modular & Sustainable – Only the inner chamber needs replacement, reducing material waste.
✔ Efficient Manufacturing – Eliminates the need for full-body re-fabrication, saving time and resources.
✔ Easy Maintenance & Cleaning – Designed for prolonged usability in space environments.
✔ Stackable & Space-Saving – Optimized for compact storage and deployment.
✔ Simple Yet Highly Functional – Ensuring reliability and ease of operation.

I truly respect the jury’s decision and the competitive nature of the selection process. However, given the strong alignment of my design with the competition’s objectives, I would be honored if you could reconsider its potential.

Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to participate in this competition. I look forward to any feedback you may have.

Alok Kumar Malik has uploaded 6 CAD models & has left 13 comments.
Toupy Franck 6 months ago

Hello Ms. Frances Donovan, I hope you are well.

Please, could we expect the results to be released today, as you announced almost a week ago?

Toupy Franck has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 2 comments.
Hami Ray 6 months ago

Thank you for your patience. Your lively discussions and great community feedback on the proposals were instrumental in our judging process. Our panel of judges have completed their review and we are now finalizing the placements.

Update - Placements will be released on Monday, April 7.

Huge congratulations to all participants! We're so impressed with your talent and can't wait to see what you design next.

Hami Ray has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
Dario de Santiago 6 months ago

Sadly, I lost my submissions in this challenge, all my models and files I've uploaded over the years. I've restored some models and submissions, but they're no longer in the challenge. They'll remain for the enjoyment of those who come. Little by little, I'll restore everything. Best of luck to the 92 remaining.

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Ross Palatan 6 months ago

Thanks, Hami! We're eager to learn of the results come Monday!

Ross Palatan has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 55 comments.
Magnus Condor Dragnir (MCD) 6 months ago

@Hami
@Frances

Very respectfully, Dear Organizers,

Please,

I would like to participate in the upcoming challenges. I would like to know if NASA, directly or indirectly, provides proof (email or certificate) that the winners have worked on one of NASA's projects.

This would allow the candidate to enrich their CV and portfolio with such references.

This confirmation will further increase my enthusiasm.

Very respectfully,

Magnus Condor Dragnir (MCD) has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 9 comments.
frances donovan 6 months ago

Not to create endless suspense, but you all did such a great job its been very difficult to choose the final winners. Our responses are going to GrabCad in the AM, with additional honorable mention categories as there were just too many good ideas to not credit more designs. -just wanted to post an update as we thought we'd have it out by today.

frances donovan has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 15 comments.
Ankush Sharma 6 months ago

Dear Ms. Frances Donovan, would it be possible to get letter of appreciation or recommendation from your team/NASA for all the winning + honourable entries. It would be really beneficial for our career.

Ankush Sharma has uploaded 3 CAD models & has left 4 comments.
Sacha Taylor 6 months ago

Do we know when the results come out at all?

Sacha Taylor has uploaded 11 CAD models & has left 6 comments.
pablo gomez rossi 6 months ago

Ms. Frances Donovan is there a new deadline on when the results will be published?

pablo gomez rossi has uploaded 1 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Marcelo Valderrey 6 months ago

My congratulations to the contest winners and all the participants in general, and a special thanks to the jury for their complex task.

Marcelo Valderrey has uploaded 129 CAD models & has left 1076 comments.
Dario de Santiago 6 months ago

My congratulations to the winners

Dario de Santiago has uploaded 31 CAD models & has left 116 comments.
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 6 months ago

Congratulations to the award winners and to the NASA jury for this opportunity. It's very motivating to have our designs evaluated. We look forward to new challenges. Best regards.

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio has uploaded 13 CAD models & has left 66 comments.
Kelean NJAMGA 6 months ago

I think it's a problem with the link under my name solution.
Best regards.

Kelean NJAMGA has uploaded 27 CAD models & has left 30 comments.
Kelean NJAMGA 6 months ago

I see my name as a winner, the description of the observations talk about my project but the link under my name was not my link.

This is a serious and unpleasant error. I believe the GrabCAD team who published the results lacked rigor at the time of publication.

Perhaps this error occurred because there were two projects with the same name.

I beg you to correct this highly unpleasant error.

Please.

Politely,

Kelean NJAMGA has uploaded 27 CAD models & has left 30 comments.
Kelean NJAMGA 6 months ago

Kindly check the correct link corresponding to "Kelean NJAMGA" for this project in your results publishing.
"3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production"

You made a very serious mistake by announcing my name as "Kelean NJAMGA" and describing my project, but referring to someone else's project as "3DS."

This is truly very offensive.

The correct link to my project is:
3D printable Bioreactor for deep space food production

Please correct this.

It's a very serious mistake, It's truly very offensive !

Best regards.

Kelean NJAMGA has uploaded 27 CAD models & has left 30 comments.
Kelean NJAMGA 6 months ago

I am deeply shocked by such a serious error by such an expert team. While it is clear that this project required and continues to require rigor from its participants, it is deeply disturbing when it is the organizers and authors of the results publication process who lack rigor.

This is very disappointing.

I am truly shocked.

Please correct this as soon as possible.

Please.

Kelean NJAMGA has uploaded 27 CAD models & has left 30 comments.
Regina Shoykhet 6 months ago

@Kelean NJAMGA - we hear your frustration and disappointment and have been in touch with the GrabCAD folks to get this error corrected soonest possible. We sincerely hope this administrative error does not take away from your well-deserved pride or satisfaction in being named an awardee in this challenge.
Regina Shoykhet, Open Innovation Advisor
NASA Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation (CoECI)

Regina Shoykhet has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 1 comments.
Kelean NJAMGA 6 months ago

@Regina Shoykhet

I could answer you with pride when such a serious wrong is repaired as quickly as possible.

I thank you in advance for your promptness and diligence. I hope to find the same from the other stakeholders in the subsequent actions that will be taken to remedy this error.

Politely,

Kelean NJAMGA has uploaded 27 CAD models & has left 30 comments.
Melissa Yearta 6 months ago

@kelean NJAMGA
I am truly sorry for the error in our winner announcement. You are right to be upset - this was a significant mistake on our part.
The confusion appears to have been caused by multiple projects with the same names, but that doesn't excuse the lack of attention to detail in our publication process. We are working quickly to correct this error and ensure your work receives the proper recognition it deserves.
We strive to maintain the highest standards in our competitions, and we failed to meet those standards here. I apologize for any distress this has caused you.
Thank you for your understanding as we resolve this matter.

Melissa Yearta has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 10 comments.
Melissa Yearta 6 months ago

To our GrabCAD community,
We are aware of an error in our NASA Synthetic Biology Project winner announcements. We always strive to be as accurate as possible in recognizing our talented community members, and we're working diligently to resolve this matter.
We appreciate your patience and understanding as we make the necessary corrections. The proper winners will be recognized appropriately.
Thank you for your continued support and participation.

Melissa Yearta has uploaded 0 CAD models & has left 10 comments.
Kelean NJAMGA 6 months ago

@Melissa Yearta
@Regina Shoykhet

Thanks You very much.

Take care.

Very Respectfully,

Kelean NJAMGA has uploaded 27 CAD models & has left 30 comments.

Please log in to add comments.

We have updated our terms in order to better protect your hard work and keep our challenges running smoothly! To submit your challenge entry, please read and accept the new Challenge Terms and Conditions.

Exciting engineering challenges with great prizes

3D Printable Bioreactor for Deep Space Food Production

Requirements

Rules

Prizes

About NASA Game Changing Development Program

225 comments

Braxton Moody 11 months ago

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Marcelo Valderrey 10 months ago

Inge Lab 10 months ago

Clarisa Medina 10 months ago

Inge Lab 10 months ago

Germano Pecoraro Designer 10 months ago

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Clarisa Medina 10 months ago

Alok Kumar Malik 10 months ago

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Hami Ray 10 months ago

Hami Ray 10 months ago

Hami Ray 10 months ago

Marcelo Valderrey 10 months ago

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

Hami Ray 10 months ago

Kaua Amorim 10 months ago

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 10 months ago

cihad lolak 10 months ago

Melville 9 months ago

Javier Rivera 9 months ago

Andres Long 9 months ago

Taehwan Kim 9 months ago

DDMDZN 9 months ago

zach hulsey 9 months ago

zach hulsey 9 months ago

N75 9 months ago

a_g_nuswantoro 9 months ago

frances donovan 9 months ago

frances donovan 9 months ago

frances donovan 9 months ago

frances donovan 9 months ago

frances donovan 9 months ago

frances donovan 9 months ago

zach hulsey 9 months ago

frances donovan 8 months ago

Melville 8 months ago

frances donovan 8 months ago

frances donovan 8 months ago

zach hulsey 8 months ago

Ross Palatan 8 months ago

frances donovan 8 months ago

sky_drogon your 8 months ago

Ross Palatan 8 months ago

frances donovan 8 months ago

Edem Kokou 8 months ago

Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 8 months ago

Francisco Cuevas 8 months ago

Deepa R 8 months ago

Francisco Cuevas 8 months ago

Marcelo Valderrey 8 months ago

Francisco Cuevas 8 months ago

Marcelo Valderrey 8 months ago

neon 8 months ago

derajicsum 8 months ago

Ankush Sharma 8 months ago

Bình Minh Phạm Ánh 8 months ago

Alexei Manuel 8 months ago

Ankush Sharma 8 months ago

frances donovan 8 months ago

frances donovan 8 months ago

Melissa Yearta 8 months ago

Julian Rodriguez Jirau 7 months ago

Hami Ray 7 months ago

Dario de Santiago 7 months ago

Ross Palatan 7 months ago

frances donovan 7 months ago

Ross Palatan 7 months ago

Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Alok Kumar Malik 7 months ago

Murat TOPTAŞ 7 months ago

Donald Jacob 7 months ago