Tech Talk E13: Spacex Launched New Starlink Satellites, 3D Print your Next Car, YouTube Policy Changes

Ever thought about driving a 3D printed car? Well, now is the time to think about it.

LA NPDT Tech Talk is bringing you the latest developments in car parts and other technology. We’ll keep you tuned in the newest gadgets and product innovations across the globe. Join LA New Product Development Team for the most recent, up-to-date tech news each day. Now, let’s get to today’s news.

YouTube’s Terms of Service Agreement changes were published recently by Google. The new terms go into play on December 10. The first big change is as follows: “Content is the responsibility of the person or entity that provides it to the Service. YouTube is under no obligation to host or serve Content.” This change makes sense and resolves some hosting issues that YouTube has run into recently.

This next change; however, is causing quite a stir. It reads: “YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if YouTube believes, in its sole discretion, that provision of the Service to you is no longer commercially viable.” YouTube clarified that they are not changing the way their products work or any settings. They are also not changing how they work with creators or their rights to monetize.

Hopefully, they stick true to their word. We’ll see how this plays out into the new year.

SpaceX launched 60 new satellites into space on Monday. They plan to do this several more times over the next year, working to build a massive broadband-from-space business. The company plans to launch over 10,000 Starlink satellites into space in the next year, slowly adding coverage area throughout the year.

Just last month Elon Musk sent out the first tweet using the Starlink satellites. While there is still a ways to go before the entire broadband service is up and running, SpaceX is excited for the possibilities this project provides.

Yep, you heard that right. Volkswagen and HP have linked up, and are working on a project that will eventually lead to 3D printed car parts. HP recently printed 10,000 metal scale models of VW’s electric car ID.3.

Working in phases, they eventually hope to start printing out up to 100,000 parts a year, starting with smaller parts like gearshift knobs and mirror mounts. Eventually, they hope to print out structural car parts for their cars. Thoughts? Would you buy a 3D printed car?

YouTube's updated Terms of Service go into effect on December 10. One change states content is the responsibility of the provider, and YouTube is not obligated to host it. Another change allows YouTube to terminate access if providing the service to a user is no longer commercially viable, in their sole discretion.

SpaceX aims to build a large broadband-from-space business. They launched 60 new satellites recently and plan to launch over 10,000 Starlink satellites within the next year. This initiative will slowly expand the coverage area for their broadband service throughout the year.

Volkswagen and HP are working together to develop 3D printed car parts. HP recently printed 10,000 metal scale models of VW’s ID.3 electric car. Their goal is to print up to 100,000 parts annually, starting with smaller items like gearshift knobs and mirror mounts, then moving to structural car parts.

YouTube's updated Terms of Service Agreement will go into effect on December 10. These new terms include provisions regarding content responsibility and YouTube's discretion to terminate access if a service is deemed no longer commercially viable for them.

Headlines about printed cars usually describe a printed body or chassis shell around a conventional powertrain, suspension and safety structure. Those systems are not printed, because crash performance, fatigue life and cost all favor stamped steel, extruded aluminum and molded composites at volume.

Where additive genuinely wins in automotive is upstream: jigs and fixtures, low-volume brackets, cooling channels in tooling inserts, and body panels for vehicles built in the hundreds rather than the hundreds of thousands.

The economics are simple. A stamping die costs $200,000-$2,000,000 and stamps a panel in seconds. A large-format printer costs nothing per panel in tooling but takes hours per part. Below roughly 1,000 vehicles the printer wins; above it, the die wins by an enormous margin. Every credible printed-car program lives on the left of that crossover.

Certification is the other wall. A printed structural part in a road vehicle needs process qualification, lot traceability and destructive test data - a documentation burden closer to aerospace than to a prototype shop.

Printing a car body is a demonstration; putting one printed bracket into a vehicle that ships is an engineering program. Automotive qualification asks whether the process is repeatable across machines and lots, not whether one part looked good. That question is what keeps additive concentrated in tooling, fixtures, low-volume trim and motorsport rather than in structural production parts.

Cost per part rarely wins against injection molding or stamping above a few thousand units. Additive earns its place where the part count is low, the geometry is impossible to tool, or the time saved on a jig or fixture pays for itself in the same quarter.

Every few years a headline promises a printed car. What ships is narrower and more useful: printed tooling, printed fixtures, printed low-volume bodywork and printed service parts for vehicles whose tooling was scrapped a decade ago.

The structural cage, the crash structure and the powertrain are still stamped, cast and machined, because those processes deliver certified material properties at a cost per part that additive cannot approach at automotive volume.

The economics are not subtle. A stamped body panel costs a few dollars in material and seconds of cycle time once the die exists; the die costs six or seven figures and is amortized over hundreds of thousands of units.

A printed panel costs tens to hundreds of dollars and hours of machine time, with no tooling investment at all. The crossover sits in the low hundreds of units for most geometry, which is exactly where motorsport, restoration, specialty vehicles and pre-production validation live.

The same discipline applies to any manufacturing technology that arrives with a headline attached. We apply it during product development consulting engagements and inside low-volume manufacturing planning, where the tooling-versus-additive decision is usually worth more than any other single cost choice on the program.

Can a printed part be structural in a road vehicle? Some can, but they need tested material data in the as-built orientation and a controlled process record. Regulators and insurers care about repeatability, and additive processes drift with powder lot, machine calibration and build position.

What is the realistic cost of a printed body panel? For a large polymer panel, expect hundreds of dollars in machine time and material plus significant finishing labour. It beats tooling below roughly two hundred units and loses badly above that.

Is printed tooling worth it for injection molding? For prototype and bridge tooling, often yes — conformally cooled inserts reduce cycle time and printed inserts can be revised in days. For production tooling running millions of shots, machined steel still wins.

How do I start? Print the fixtures first. They are unregulated, immediately useful and they teach your team the process limits before you risk a customer-facing part. Programs we have run this way are documented in the portfolio.