The posed challenge was "When they can print a motor and power supply", not "when will it make sense to print a motor and power supply". In this case, if you can make a proof of principle speaker, you can make a proof of principle radial motor, neither of which will probably be very practical. One coil, no bearings is enough to make it spin (til the plastic bits melt/wear out).

More like you're too lazy to read to the end of a comment:

I have no problems discerning between a proof of concept and a viable commercial device/ viable commercial process. If you wanted to specify the latter, you should have done so in your posed challenge instead of getting snippy later on.

You don't get out much, do you?

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl401934a

Lucent started printing transistors in the '90s. PARC and their partners are developing printed memory, transistors, and sensors as commercial products.

Yes I do: very litte. A transistor is DIY at home if you are making them big and primitive, which is sufficient to answer the question you asked. You don't have to make a CPU or mosfets by the truckload to make a single power supply.

They can print copper and silver wire, as well as strontium ferrite magnets. Switching from a linear motor (the 3D printed speaker below) to a rotary motor wouldn't be difficult.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/12/fully-functional-loudspeaker-3-d-printed

A PSU ... capacitors, resistors, semiconductors, induction coils, and transistors can all be printed. How good a motor and a PSU you can print and how many different printers it would take to make all of the components are other questions.

My thoughts are more along the lines of: selling a good lie doesn't make the goal worth the costs. I'd also say there's a big difference between high risk and planned death. A mission without plans for supplies continuing indefinitely or a way back is a suicide mission; a plan that exposes astronauts to a sievert of radiation and engineering mishaps is a high risk one. It's the difference between Kamikazes and the Doolittle (Tokyo bombing) raid.

Yep. And sending the first robot out, running into difficulties, sending out the improved robot, having it fail to deploy, sending out the replacement, realizing there are new problems you want to address, and sending out a new type of robot would still be faster than planning and sending a manned mission. It would also be cheaper, so you could send some robots to Europa and Enceladus too. Why wait til a ~2035 manned mission to learn stuff we could be learning about via robot this decade?

You Idiot!

just getting that out of the way; I'm pretty certain we must disagree about something.

A few more of those 7 points would be difficult to cover in most classrooms, like #1: good psychobabble is pretty much impenetrable to people without at least some university level education in the field(s) it was extracted from. Quite often it is successful because it combines advanced concepts from two completely different fields, leaving potential critics who are experts in one of those fields at a loss because they can't navigate the parts of the claims based in the field they are unfamiliar with (usually math).

Hoyle didn't have doubts about evolution, he had doubts about hypotheses concerning the origin of life (abiogenesis). He thought life came from space via viruses and evolution happened subsequently. The biologists you are talking about for the most part have doubts about aspects of currently accepted theories within evolution, not the fact of evolution itself. Sure there is plenty of stuff to be worked out within evolution: how it has worked under varying circumstances on earth, the increasing variety of hereditary mechanisms and methods of change, how to engineer the evolutionary process in the lab to get the results you want instead of unwanted adaptations, etc. Lots of scientists would love to add their own chapter to evolution; they aren't planning to shitcan it.

Head outside at 9 am for a cigarette break?

It's for your health.

from the summary:

What it wasn't independent of: small sample size, short duration, self reported diet.

>We've lost all tolerance for risk or voluntary harm in the pursuit of a larger objective. In other news, this was the first month without a combat death the US has had in over 10 years. Not that I can say much for some of the objectives involved.

So now if NASA and contractor employees want their careers to progress by working on the largest project in a generation they have to "volunteer" to support the project's suicidal aspect. Sounds like a project where the only winners will be the employment lawyers.

Dangerous does not equal suicide. Are the pilot and parachute manufacturer in the business of guaranteeing that healthy adults purposefully fall to their deaths?

The justification for sending 18 year olds to hell holes has always been that the consequences of not doing so would be much much worse. I won't comment on how often that justification was valid (cause it would get depressing) but in this case we don't even have that justification/rationalization. The only reason is the chance of a "Hey look! I'm on Mars!" tweet/selfie, and the research that could have been done cheaper by robots.

Well here's the big problem: it's not worth it. Sending someone to Mars on a suicide mission wouldn't be a national accomplishment, it would be a national disgrace. We wouldn't learn anything new about Mars that we couldn't learn for fewer $ by sending many, many robotic missions. If the justification is "Gee whiz! I'm on Mars", then explain to me why it would have been worth it for the US to "win" the space race if it meant sending a capsule into space before working out the re-entry technology, so that the first man in space would have been incinerated while everyone in the US listened on radio.

Minor problems:

1. It would pretty much guarantee defunding of NASA. If not, then:

2. Lawsuits filed by your daughter against any contractor that participated in the mission and probably the US govt. as well.

3. Lawsuits filed by employees of NASA and those contractors.