SpaceX News

[D Tibbets]

The accrued delays and costs in SpaceX delivering a modified rocket depends in large part on their business model. If they have built a stockpile of eg: 20 rockets, then the cost of scrapping or modifying them is much more than if they use a just in time supply strategy. They then might need to scrap perhaps one rocket, engineer modifications and install into the next rocket. I suspect they could even use the same struts, with testing and verification of specs included (which they have already done in their failure investigation). If they are confident in the cause of the failure, this would resolve the problem without going through a lengthy redesign and verification process. They might change venders out of disgust and include testing of all struts. Other changes may be unnecessary.

Dan Tibbets

[KitemanSA]

This whole thing reminds me of an issue that the US Navy had with exotic high strength fasteners. They had been buying the fasteners from the same supplier for decades without problems. Then the supplier got bought out by a big conglomerate and the faasteners started failing in significant numbers. During the investigation it turned out that the new company was manufacturing the fasteners exactly to spec. This caused all sorts of consternation. Upon further investigation it turned out that the PRIOR company had NOT been manufacturing the fasteners to spec, or perhaps I should saay, they were going beyond spec because they KNEW better. Spec required that they remove a certain length of feed stock to remove rolled end effects. The old compny removed about twice what spec required. The new company only removed what spec required. The spec turned out to be deficient.

I wonder if this could be a similar situation?

[Skipjack]

This whole thing reminds me of an issue that the US Navy had with exotic high strength fasteners. They had been buying the fasteners from the same supplier for decades without problems. Then the supplier got bought out by a big conglomerate and the faasteners started failing in significant numbers. During the investigation it turned out that the new company was manufacturing the fasteners exactly to spec. This caused all sorts of consternation. Upon further investigation it turned out that the PRIOR company had NOT been manufacturing the fasteners to spec, or perhaps I should saay, they were going beyond spec because they KNEW better. Spec required that they remove a certain length of feed stock to remove rolled end effects. The old compny removed about twice what spec required. The new company only removed what spec required. The spec turned out to be deficient.

I wonder if this could be a similar situation?

I don't think the specs SpaceX gave are the problem. I speculate that the bolts were bought by the supplier that delivered them to SpaceX on the open market, since they are a relatively simple piece that is produced a million times at different quality levels. Producing every standard nut, bolt and screw in house is completely impractical. I don't think Boeing does that for the bolts they use in their airplanes, either. My guess would be that one of the big suppliers of bolts on the open market was not entirely honest with the specs or was trying to cut cost somewhere. It could also be that somewhere in the chain someone was trying to make a few extra bucks by relabeling lower quality bolts and selling them at a higher price. With potentially millions of them sold every year, this is quite a huge profit margin.

[mvanwink5]

Few failed to meet specs, very few. Looks like a quality control problem on the supplier end.

[KitemanSA]

I don't think the specs SpaceX gave are the problem. I speculate that the bolts were bought by the supplier that delivered them to SpaceX on the open market, since they are a relatively simple piece that is produced a million times at different quality levels.

I think we are talking specialty high strength alloy fasteners that are anything but made by the millions. If they are then Musk should have learned an expensive, but valuable lesson. Don't hang the safety of a hundred million dollar machine on a 50¢ fastener.

[KitemanSA]

Few failed to meet specs, very few. Looks like a quality control problem on the supplier end.

Few is too many if one can kill a $100M machine.

[mvanwink5]

I bet they were at least $20 a piece.

A further 2 month delay is mentioned so that SpaceX can finish their review and make any further improvements. Also the Falcon 9 will return as the upgraded v1.2 (already planned upgrade).

[KitemanSA]

I bet they were at least $20 a piece.

Oh well, then, that makes it alright!

[Skipjack]

I don't think the specs SpaceX gave are the problem. I speculate that the bolts were bought by the supplier that delivered them to SpaceX on the open market, since they are a relatively simple piece that is produced a million times at different quality levels.

I think we are talking specialty high strength alloy fasteners that are anything but made by the millions. If they are then Musk should have learned an expensive, but valuable lesson. Don't hang the safety of a hundred million dollar machine on a 50¢ fastener.

Nope, unless I am mistaken it was just regular standard bolts with the strengths specified that are produced by the millions, literally.

[KitemanSA]

Nope, unless I am mistaken it was just regular standard bolts with the strengths specified that are produced by the millions, literally.

Then I hope he learned his lesson. He shouldn't do that.

[Tom Ligon]

For want of a machine screw, the bracket was lost. For want of a bracket, a helium tank was lost. For overpressure of helium a liquid oxygen tank was lost ....

And so forth, on to the kingdom.

They will fix this.

[Skipjack]

Nope, unless I am mistaken it was just regular standard bolts with the strengths specified that are produced by the millions, literally.

Then I hope he learned his lesson. He shouldn't do that.

Of course they they should do that! The whole idea of having suppliers is based on this concept. Do you think that Boeing is doing anything differently for the F22? Or that General Motors does anything differently for their cars? No.
What they need to do is test components they get from their suppliers more frequently to ensure that the quality is consistently according to their specifications. Their supplier (or his supplier) were obviously not as reliable as they assumed. This can be a matter of industry experience as well. Know which supplier can be trusted to provide quality for a good price.

[paperburn1]

Good news for SpaceX. looks like both big boys are out of the competition.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/ ... 2XghkdE.97

Now all we have to do is get Musk interested in polywell for Mars

[hanelyp]

The supplier of the component that failed on that Falcon9 launch seems to have a quality control problem. If they spec a component at a certain strength, a buyer should be able to count on it not being grossly short of that spec.

As for the competition dropping out, good for SpaceX, not good for the industry as a whole.

[KitemanSA]

Nope, unless I am mistaken it was just regular standard bolts with the strengths specified that are produced by the millions, literally.

Then I hope he learned his lesson. He shouldn't do that.

Of course they they should do that! The whole idea of having suppliers is based on this concept. Do you think that Boeing is doing anything differently for the F22? Or that General Motors does anything differently for their cars? No.
What they need to do is test components they get from their suppliers more frequently to ensure that the quality is consistently according to their specifications. Their supplier (or his supplier) were obviously not as reliable as they assumed. This can be a matter of industry experience as well. Know which supplier can be trusted to provide quality for a good price.

i should HOPE Boeing is doing something different. Especially for the F22. You don't just go to the hardware store and buy a bunch of bolts.