| User | Post |
|
7:19 am
November 17, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
Post edited 1:20 pm – November 17, 2009 by Rocket-To-The-Moon
I asked for a quote for 20 x 7 foot long D-2485 beams. I'm not sure of the weight, it is listed in the last column, but I'm not sure of the units. Is it out of line to ask them if they are willing to sell it to us at a reduced price since we will be a non profit?
http://www.americanaluminum.co…..-beams.htm
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
7:31 am
November 17, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon said:
I'm not sure of the weight, it is listed in the last column, but I'm not sure of the units.
Look up the density of aluminium and estimate what the mass per foot of length should be based on a rough estimate of the cross-sectional area from their measurements. This should be sufficient to tell if the mass is in pounds or kilos. I would guess pounds, though, since they are giving weight per foot.
I don't know about how acceptable it is to ask for a discount as a non-profit – the fact that we technically *aren't* one yet is something to consider, too.
What did you have in mind for these beams?
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
7:35 am
November 17, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
Luke Maurits said:
What did you have in mind for these beams?
The structure of the lander.
I'll do the math, but 4.324lb/ft sounds way too heavy.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
7:43 am
November 17, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
Post edited 1:47 pm – November 17, 2009 by Rocket-To-The-Moon
I'm coming up with approximately 42.59 cubic inches per foot (ignoring the fillet). Accordin to W|A the density of aluminum is 1.6 oz/inch^3 which means that is should be ~68.15 oz/ft. Dividing that by 16 oz/lb comes out to 4.26 lb/ft which is close to what they are saying. That is heavier than I was anticipating.
This material may be larger than what we need. This is where real engineers come in.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
11:10 pm
December 29, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Did you get a reply to this quote request?
I can't think of any compeling reason to actually do it, but I've been fantasising lately about somebody actually building a full scale mock up of the lander's frame structure. I'm not sure we could do anything useful with it, but photos of it sitting in a remote desert somewhere would make for awesome propaganda and help make the project seem a little more "real". I suppose we could try dropping it from a crane at various heights to try and make it look useful.
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
8:47 am
December 30, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
I never did receive a response. It really shouldn't cost too much for the raw materials. I bet we could have all of the extrudes for ~$1,000 USD.
I think that building a lander frame would be a perfect project for one of our first physical groups to tackle. The very first group should probably focus on OHKLA but building the lander would really help push CLLARE into the media spotlight.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
10:05 am
December 30, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Building the lander frame would be awesome but I feel like it is still much too soon. The lander design is quite incomplete and the basic frame may change to acommodate the stuff that we currently haven't thought about much.
Along these lines, I was thinking today about RCS options for the LL (didn't get too far but I'll make a brief post about it tomorrow) and one thing that did occur to me was that maybe rather than the 4 legs of the lander meeting at an apex, it may make more sense for there to be a second square shape with cross members (like the one near the "knees" of the legs) at the top, maybe about ~50cm on either side. This would be easier to attach chairs etc. to than a sharp point.
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Topic RSS 
