NASA Metals failure - Short article
- Thread starter Marctrees
- Start date
Stooge
Well-known member
I work in a lab for a fairly prominent materials testing manufacturer,(as in we manufacture and sell equipment for customers to test their materials on their own) and while not the norm, we unfortunately we hear about occurrences like this often enough, especially from our guys in the field going to customer sites, and where the customer is the one selling the tested materials/ widget.
The Tool Tyrant
ALLIANCE MEMBER
Hummm...I wonder if that's the same supplier of "MILITARY GRADE ALUMINUM" to Ford for their F-series trucks? 
rlitman
Well-known member
Lowest bidder... Sounds like the Brooklyn Bridge.
joeswamp
Well-known member
Forget fines, people go to jail for stuff like that.
bctexas
Well-known member
I wonder every time I buy a grade 5 or grade 8 fastener in a hardware store if I am really getting what I think I am. How would one know???
Look at that Country of Origin and consider that.
If it's a country that puts Melamine in dog food, and lead in pendants for childrens necklaces, etc, etc,
Bottom line is, we have NO idea what the hell it is made of.
I don't know, but I bet 95 +% of Hillman stuff is nowadays chineez or close neighbors.
Some is pretty good, like the deck screws.
Overall I dunno.
Course, even good stuff like GRK is made there also.
Marc
Last edited:
So like 4 entities COULD have caught the fraud but they accepted on cert, it takes 10 seconds these days to shoot the material with the Xray gun and find out what it is and when you are working with $700Million the cost of that gun is minimal... We used one a LOT at my former job.
Biff Lungren
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2013
- Messages
- 80
The country of origin referenced in the article was US
I know... just busting some bubbles....
Don't worry, you'll see the pattern.......
Last edited:
I understand with what you are saying, but the blame is still on the supplier who intentionally deceived their customers. They sold themselves as a company that could be trusted because had processes and checks in place to ensure that what they were contracted to build would meet their customer's specifications, and then (allegedly) chose to provide false documentation of those checks. Yes, NASA could (and should) audit a sample of incoming components to keep their suppliers honest, but at the same time, they've already paid for the supplier to do those checks and shouldn't have to do a 100% inspection on everything that comes through the door.
Funny how people commented in this thread and didn't even take a second to understand the source of the material (US company), and started ranting and raving about China. It wasn't the material properties that were in question, it was intentionally falsifying records of the material performance and characteristics.
I worked for a company that had 11 items on the space shuttles. I tested some of the parts and pointed out to engineering that the numbers did not match what you claimed in the catalog. That question was not answered but I was reminded we had a bunch of items on the space shuttle and no failures.
Biff Lungren
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2013
- Messages
- 80
Is it true every part of the space shuttle was a product of the lowest bid?
My guess would be maybe (perhaps even probably), but just because a company is the lowest bidder doesn't necessarily mean they are producing an inferior product. As long as the items meets NASA's specifications and can be delivered in the timeline requested, there is really no reason to not go with the lowest bidder.
We, as general public consumers, often do exactly the same thing when deciding on what tools to purchase. We look for the lowest priced (bidder) items that meet our personal needs (specifications). For some of us, that means a Metabo angle grinder, for others that means Harbor Freight. Just because an item is less expensive doesn't mean that it doesn't meet the specifications for the end user.
Used one for a good long time, to validate materials, it CAN and WILL detect anything you are willing to purchase the libraries for...
rlitman
Well-known member
X-ray has its limitations. It will not detect lighter elements well (that's not always an issue, but I know that NASA frequently uses aluminum-beryllium alloys for example that x-ray will choke on when tested in air (it works better for that under a hydrogen shield, but now you're not talking about a handheld instant testing device).
It's a Plausible deniability setup on NASA part... since they probably don't have the funding to re-verify each and every components. For the vendor part, they have a scapegoat... which is the test engineer.... I wonder why the boss responded the way it is to pi_guy hmmmmmmmmm
Yup... Plausible deniability
wait maybe that is subtle hints
sweet victory
Well-known member
No. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) bases contract award on price, competency, and past performance.
NoahWayOut
New member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 4
Precisely. Furthermore, procurement specialists typically work with the end user to develop a specific set of specification to ensure that standards are met, regardless of bid price. It's a highly rigorous process that is intended to ensure the judicious use of tax dollars. I've yet to me a procurement specialist who is fine with any bit of garbage.
Ok... now... this is fake news then?
"Bad Metal is to Blame for Failed NASA Missions"
fsae0607
Well-known member
Falsified test results?
I think it's poor management rushing the workers and buying stuff off to ship product out the door. Got to make that money. I've seen this quite a lot in my career in Aerospace.
I think it's poor management rushing the workers and buying stuff off to ship product out the door. Got to make that money. I've seen this quite a lot in my career in Aerospace.