-
#600
by
Baranquilla
on 30 Nov, 2015 22:01
-
-
#601
by
iamlucky13
on 30 Nov, 2015 22:09
-
I remember reading last year that the aluminium came from the Netherlands.. Took me long enough to find it back:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/spacex-wont-win-the-governments-launch-contracts-without-a-fight
Still doesn't exclude that they bought anything at that other company..
As I understood it, the struts came as a finished component from a separate supplier. So unless SpaceX mandates that all their suppliers use the same material supplier, it's not clear whether that is relevant.
-
#602
by
mfck
on 30 Nov, 2015 22:49
-
I remember reading last year that the aluminium came from the Netherlands.. Took me long enough to find it back:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/spacex-wont-win-the-governments-launch-contracts-without-a-fight
Still doesn't exclude that they bought anything at that other company..
As I understood it, the struts came as a finished component from a separate supplier. So unless SpaceX mandates that all their suppliers use the same material supplier, it's not clear whether that is relevant.
I would add to that, that struts are hardly made of aluminium
-
#603
by
LastStarFighter
on 30 Nov, 2015 23:52
-
SpaceX gets their aluminum from a French company named Alcan I beleive.
I have no idea if that is true that SpaceX gets it's aluminum from Alcan, but Alcan was a Canadian company originally but it is now owned by the Australian mining/resource conglomerate Rio Tinto.
In the House Armed Services Committee meeting on Assured Access to Space (March 17, 2015) Shotwell was asked about their aluminum and avionics components being made in foreign countries. Shotwell said they get their aluminum (I beleive the rolled Al-Li) from a foreign company Constellium (formerly Alcan). Their rolled aluminum is made in France. Not sure where the avionics components they speak of come from.
-
#604
by
allins
on 01 Dec, 2015 00:34
-
Boy, Alcan is getting their name used (good and bad!) lately. Constellium was never Alcan.
-
#605
by
rickyramjet
on 01 Dec, 2015 01:11
-
SpaceX struts are made of steel. And aluminum sources are not an issue with RTF anyway.
-
#606
by
dorkmo
on 01 Dec, 2015 03:15
-
Boy, Alcan is getting their name used (good and bad!) lately. Constellium was never Alcan.
not sure how much this really matters but according to wikipedia
"Alcan was purchased by Australian/European multinational Rio Tinto for $38 billion in 2007"
Constellium "was created when Rio Tinto sold off Alcan Engineered Products to Apollo Management (51%) and FSI (10%) in 2011."
-
#607
by
jacqmans
on 01 Dec, 2015 10:00
-
There is a post here on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/Keith Wallace posted a video of a test fire last night. could be the test fire we were all waiting for ??
Well boys and girls, not sure what was just tested at the McGregor Space X facility, but I can tell you it physically shook our entire house and rattled the pictures on the walls. Its loud so watch your volume when playing the video. 11/30/2015 at 10:55PM CST
-
#608
by
Hywel1995
on 01 Dec, 2015 10:06
-
There is a post here on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/
Keith Wallace posted a video of a test fire last night. could be the test fire we were all waiting for ??
Well boys and girls, not sure what was just tested at the McGregor Space X facility, but I can tell you it physically shook our entire house and rattled the pictures on the walls. Its loud so watch your volume when playing the video. 11/30/2015 at 10:55PM CST
Stage 1 for Orbcomm is already at the Cape. And if I looked correctly this was coming from the New test stand. Not sure though.
-
#609
by
Darga
on 01 Dec, 2015 13:26
-
There is a post here on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/
Keith Wallace posted a video of a test fire last night. could be the test fire we were all waiting for ??
Well boys and girls, not sure what was just tested at the McGregor Space X facility, but I can tell you it physically shook our entire house and rattled the pictures on the walls. Its loud so watch your volume when playing the video. 11/30/2015 at 10:55PM CST
Stage 1 for Orbcomm is already at the Cape. And if I looked correctly this was coming from the New test stand. Not sure though.
The tripod and water tower are visible on the far left so it's not a core test so that only leaves the single engine stand, stage 2 stand or the new one with the smaller trench.
-
#610
by
francesco nicoli
on 01 Dec, 2015 13:29
-
It looks like a Journalist on Twitter has announced Space X likely to attempt a mainland booster landing. Is the guy credible? How the the authorization process is supposed to unfold?
-
#611
by
Beittil
on 01 Dec, 2015 13:32
-
James Dean is generally pretty solid with his intel, but keep in mind he states that SpaceX HOPES to land at LC-1... not that they are actually going to or even have permission to.
-
#612
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Dec, 2015 13:43
-
It looks like a Journalist on Twitter has announced Space X likely to attempt a mainland booster landing. Is the guy credible? How the the authorization process is supposed to unfold?
Yep, he's credible!
-
#613
by
DatUser14
on 01 Dec, 2015 13:47
-
Excuse me if I misunderstand this, but hasn't some journalist or other said that Spacex hopes the next landing to be on land before a great deal of landing attempts? What makes this different?
-
#614
by
Bennett
on 01 Dec, 2015 13:48
-
Yes Cariol Scott mention that near the end of the presser
-
#615
by
alexterrell
on 01 Dec, 2015 13:54
-
I'm not sure if this is the right thread, and I have no idea if this is actually relevant to the strut failure, but given the timing and the extensive list of industries Sapa supplies aluminum to, I thought I'd throw it out there as a possibility that might be worth looking into.
NASA has listed major aluminum supplier Sapa as ineligible for federal contracts due to falsification of quality test results.
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2015/11/05/portland-aluminum-plant-falsified-test-results-letter-customers-says/75259028/
I would hope that SpaceX is free to choose Sapa as a supplier if they want to do so. Sapa wouldn't get a federal contract, they'd get a SpaceX contract.
That's pretty much the whole point of commercial flight. SpaceX chooses the suppliers. Same with foreign components, as long as there aren't national security concerns or safety grounds for objection. (They might object if Russian companies wrote the control software for example - but I'm hope a Falcon has lots of Taiwanese chips based on a British design).
Of course, SpaceX should take into account NASA's view of Sapa, but at the end of the day, they're probably better at procurement than NASA.
-
#616
by
sghill
on 01 Dec, 2015 14:44
-
Chris, Do we have a launch time on the 15th yet?
If the James Dean tweet pans out, this launch may be worth viewing from Exploration tower. It's got a terrific view to the LC-1 site from the upper deck. I may skip work and take the kids to this one!
-
#617
by
vulture4
on 01 Dec, 2015 15:40
-
Excuse me if I misunderstand this, but hasn't some journalist or other said that Spacex hopes the next landing to be on land before a great deal of landing attempts? What makes this different?
SFAIK the constraint preventing landing on land has not been the rocket crashing into the pad and blowing up; that would not damage any government or public property. The reason the offshore landings were required was to demonstrate that the booster could return from the actual launch trajectory to the landing pad accurately, remain under control, and not go off course and damage government or private property or endanger human lives. AIUI the return trajectory used with the barge was the same as the one that will be used for recovery on land, the return burn was just delayed a few seconds to move the landing point offshore.
SpaceX has already demonstrated the capability to land a booster stage intact on the ground quite a few times, although obviously several design problems have been identified during the barge landing attempts and the design has evolved.
-
#618
by
Eagandale4114
on 01 Dec, 2015 16:09
-
The launch time was noted by orbcomm as being around 2am on December 8 if it was that date, and the time should get approximately 22 minutes earlier each day based on the first OG2 mission.
OK. Midnight-ish then. Terrible for photos, but it ought to look amazing in person if the weather is clear.
Or a spectacular long exposure.
-
#619
by
iamlucky13
on 01 Dec, 2015 16:30
-
SpaceX struts are made of steel. And aluminum sources are not an issue with RTF anyway.
Ok. Nevermind then. The timing piqued my interest, but clearly I'm on the wrong trail.
I would hope that SpaceX is free to choose Sapa as a supplier if they want to do so. Sapa wouldn't get a federal contract, they'd get a SpaceX contract.
Of course, SpaceX should take into account NASA's view of Sapa, but at the end of the day, they're probably better at procurement than NASA.
The situation I was postulating was not that SpaceX would not be allowed to source from Sapa, but that perhaps the October NASA suspension of Sapa was fallout from SpaceX's June launch failure.
Since several posters have indicated the struts believed to have failed are made from steel, I consider my speculation closed.
