Containing shuttle tank foam

[willpittenger]

Could we prevent the foam on the shuttle tanks from coming off with any of the following?<br /><br />* Fiberglass<br />* a plastic membrane<br />* some sort of resin in the outermost portion of the insulation <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

I think by not painting the ET they reduced the weight by 1000 pounds. So I would have to guess that they would have weight issues if they put too much fiberglass or plastics on it. As to them actually stopping the foam from falling of though I don't know. It seems like there are just key areas that have problems, and for the most part it looks like they have already taken the neccesary steps to stoping it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

If one isn't an engineer, it's hard to realize just how fundamental the foam is to the design of the vehicle. It's not a small detail -- it's a major component, and other systems have been designed around it. This makes it virtually impossible to change it for any practical expenditure of time or money. You'd probably be better off starting from scratch on a new vehicle than trying to replace or somehow contain the foam.<br /><br />I still like the knitted ET cozy idea. It's kooky and it wouldn't work, but it's still fun to think about. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

well then lets suck it up and fly the sucker. The Astronauts know the risks involved. The more time wasted the less useful the remaining life the STS system has. on 113 Shuttle flights, we've had one that caused damage bad enough to bring her down. OK, yeah that sux. but we've got what 18 flights left and dwindling with every extra delay. Now we've lost another year of flights for a piece of foam that DIDN'T hit the orbiter. Fly the sucker boys! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[nolirogari]

YES! <br /><br />NASA's got to stop acting like a balloon in a room filled with media pinheads before, during and after every launch! Clone George Mueller and get someone in charge with guts. They should start using the "Stuck on stupid" line on these media bafoons and maybe some flights could be flown. There seems so much fear that someone's maybe, perhaps going to get hurt on a Shuttle flight that even the plucking on a piece of loose spacer between tiles is called "The most risky EVA ever attempted!" The entire astro office as well as every former astro must have bust a gut at that one! Of course when Conrad and Kerwin got flung into space while fixing the Skylab solar panel... no one hardly noticed except the few of us glued to our A.M. radios. <br /><br />I agree- put it in perspective- and fly NASA, and if you need 174 pounds of ballast, I'll climb aboard.

 

[jschaef5]

elguapoguano<br /><br /><br />If I remember right.... Discovery had a close call. They had to do a repair in space. They also had an issue with part of the windsheild? There was still a problem, and NASA can't afford another downed shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

Ya know what sounds like a no brainer -1000lbs>7 astronauts. Just doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me.

 

[henryhallam]

The paint was effectively for decoration, it had zero effect on foam loss.<br />Any foam containment system would most likely weigh a lot more than 1000lbs, would cost many millions to implement and take years to requalify the tank for flight. It's also probably unnecessary since the new modifications should reduce the probability of dangerous-sized pieces of foam coming off in the wrong place to a much more reasonable figure.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If I remember right.... Discovery had a close call. They had to do a repair in space. They also had an issue with part of the windsheild? There was still a problem, and NASA can't afford another downed shuttle.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not really. There was foam shedding in an unacceptably large size, but it missed the orbiter completely. The "repair" was actually not critical -- some bits of padding had worked their way out from between some tiles near the nose, and an astronaut easily pulled them out. The padding is called a gap filler, if I'm remebering correctly, and its sole function is to protect the tiles from vibration damage during ascent. After ascent, it has served its purpose. Sometimes they wiggle lose. This increases heat loads in some areas, shortening tile lifespan and increasing the turnaround time to get the Orbiter ready for its next mission. By plucking the two gap fillers out, they saved a lot of time and money. But it wasn't something that would've made the reentry unsafe, so I wouldn't call it a close call.<br /><br />Arguably, the foam shedding was a closer call, but it had nothing to do with the inflight repair job. A large chunk of foam broke off from the PAL ramp. NASA has resolved that by deleting the PAL ramp from ETs for future missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

All i know is that I can't wait for the CEV.... No more sitting next to a giant tank of fuel, I've read that they are planning to have an emergency abort for sortly after take off and that it will be like the one Apollo had. Yet I have no idea what Apollo had. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[teije]

nice site. Glad I'm Dutch, I'm gonna have a bit of a read tomorrow afternoon. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[willpittenger]

I remember a piece coming from an external pipe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

That is very much what was used for Apollo and Mercury. The tower sat on top of the capsule. The astronauts (except Apollo commander) could not see out because the tower added a shroud. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Since they failed to keep the foam attached the first time, why are you so certain they second time they will succeed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Use threaded mode. There is no quote button. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

Question: I read that some of the foam that came loose came from having air pockets between the foam and the metal tank. Since there is no pressure in space the pressure between the tank and the foam caused it to pop off. Could nasa simply make vent holes in the foam so that any air pockets would be released as the orbiter ascends? I suppose the holes could fill with ice but maybe the escaping air would prevent the ice from forming. Secondly, could the bipod legs that attach the shuttle to the ET be extended so that the debris that falls off would be less likely to hit the shuttle? Finally, could the foam be sort of perforated so that it would break off in smaller chunks rather than huge shards?<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[baktothemoon]

"That is not easily done. What they did there was to remove the foam completely and install heaters to prevent ice formation."<br /><br /> I wasn't really referring to foam falling off at the bipods I was asking if more space between the ET and the orbiter would reduce the chance of more foam strikes.<br /><br />Heres another question: Is it possible to change the composition of the foam to include some kind of polymer that would make the foam less brittle and more plastic like? <br /><br />Also, would it add too much weight to redesign the tank like a thermos bottle so that the extreme cold would not reach the skin, therefore eliminating the need for foam in the first place?<br /><br />Or, could the tank be reshaped and the aerodynamics adjusted so that there is enough pressure on the tank that falling debris would fall straight down and not even come close to the orbiter?<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[baktothemoon]

Wow....that's all I can say. I didn't know the options for modifying the ET were so bleak. Seems like there is no way to get around the foam problem, unless all the hand applied foam is replaced with heaters, but that would probably be too heavy. In that case(this is much too late to apply to the shuttle, so I am just throwing it out as a hypothetical option) could the ET be scrapped and replaced with a larger expendable hybrid motor or SRB to ignite after the current SRB seperation and carry the shuttle all the way to orbit?<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[baktothemoon]

Thanks for enlightening me shuttle guy, you've answered a lot of my questions and frankly I totally agree with you. We are NEVER going to do a system like the shuttle again. I am really tired of all this time trying to tweak, mod, hack, and virtually frankenstein this fossil of a system. I say let's just retire one of the shuttles, fast track assembly of the iss with the other two, and use the money saved from the first one to start building the CEV, considering that it is enough. The shuttles cost us one billiion each, I think that that is a huge chunk of change that should be put to better use. It would be nice if we could retire the shuttles and use the CEV HLV to lift modules to the iss but that will never happen in time to meet the deadline and it would undermine the purpose of the CEV system. So the fossil is still going to build the LEO's white elephant until 2010 and then finally die. It should have died before it killed seven more astronauts. Let's replace the thing with a much safer and greater system without delay.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[baktothemoon]

Excuse my ignorance, I need to check where I get my info from. I was wondering if retiring an orbiter would save money because I thought that each one cost a lot to maintain. Guess not. Also, I read someplace that only atlantis was capable of lifting the heavy modules because it was slightly lighter. Is that true? That was my reasoning for retiring one shuttle, I didn't think the other two were useful for anything other than resupply. But if it wouldn't make a difference then I guess having all three is best. How many modules still have to go up to complete the station?<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[ltm_se]

"That is not true. Columbia was so much heavier that it could not fly the big payloads, however the 3 remaining vehicles are all nearly the same weight. OV-105 (Endeavour is actually the lightest). "<br /><br />Why are Nasa favoring discovery before atlantis in the manifest. Surely Endeavour is the youngest in the fleet and should be used the longest but why scrubbing atlantis before discovery. Discovery is if i recall correct older then atlantis, or is there other things related to the decission?

 

[baktothemoon]

If the next Return to Flight mission goes smoothly then how many flight a year would nasa start flying? I recall that before Columbia nasa did around four flights a year.<br />Secondly, how come Russia is not sending any modules up to the iss. I know that Russia does not have a vehicle with the same payload as the shuttle to lift the modules but then how did Russia build Mir? They had to have used some kind of HLV for that because we didn't build it for them, so why can't they send up a few of the smaller modules now?<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[willpittenger]

From what I saw in the newspaper, Atlantis was chosen because it was next in line for a refit (to the glass cockpit that Columbia got just before the Hubble mission). It sounded like Discovery and Endeavor already had the new cockpit.<br /><br />Besides, I would discount age in years. A 747's age is measured in flights, not years. Orbiters really aren't that much different. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Secondly, how come Russia is not sending any modules up to the iss. I know that Russia does not have a vehicle with the same payload as the shuttle to lift the modules but then how did Russia build Mir?<br /><br /><font color="white">Russia used their Proton rocket which can lift 20 tonnes, comparable to the shuttle. There is still plans to lanch the FGB2 which is the backup for Zarya and would dock on the Earth facing port of that module. As usal though it all depends on money.<br /><br />With this new interest in launching Node 3 in 2009 it gives the Russians a deadline to launch their FGB2 (sometimes called the Mulitpurpose Laboratory Module) as it won't be able to dock after Node 3 is installed as there won't be enough clearance.</font></font>

 

[willpittenger]

as it won't be able to dock after Node 3 is installed as there won't be enough clearance.<p><hr /><br />Is that mainly because of the Russian's automated docking system? Could the station's RMS handle the docking? It would dock the US module.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>