Next shuttle launch.

[pioneer0333]

It may sound crude, but would it not be possible to simply use a long net positioned between the shuttle and the external fuel tank to prevent some of the foam from hitting the shuttle? Maybe even wrap a net around the ex.fuel tank.This might trap all of the foam in it's tracks. It's a simple idea, but would it work? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

The net itself would become as much of a hazard than ice chunks and because its a net, ice chunks could still slip through. There is no suitable mounting places on the orbiter mainly because of the TPS. The flexible nature of nets could also pose a problem, especially during ET separation where any flexing would be enhanced by zero "G".<br /><br />The best thing IMO at this point is to hope that NASA has a handle on the ice problem for the remaining shuttle missions and considering we have already flown one since Columbia, it appears the ice thing is under control. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pioneer0333]

Maybe the net could fitted on to the external tank. "Like a glove". And as far as the holes go, you can always get another net with much smaller holes. It's kind of funny, but think of it as "clothes" for the external tank. It's cost-efficient and practical. But in the end, this is just an idea that can spark other ideas from other people. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Pioneer0333:<br />It's kind of funny, but think of it as "clothes" for the external tank. It's cost-efficient and practical. But in the end, this is just an idea that can spark other ideas from other people. <br /><br />Me:<br />The foam insulation was supposed to do what the net your proposing does. Its just so late in the program that the adaption of a modification of that scale is not likely to happen. Tests would have to be done and by the time the first ET could have a net placed onto it, the shuttle will be just a few flights from retiring.<br /><br />As for sparking other ideas, your net idea will almost certainly do that. I might add also that you could possibly put the proposal on paper, detail it as much as possible and submit it to NASA, see the link below for more details.<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15485 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pioneer0333]

Thanks for the link. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[toothferry]

I think that's an interesting idea too. Perhaps a future STS tank could have a web of carbon fibers flush with the foam surface. That might be the ultimate solution. As it stands, the odds are of another piece of lethal foam striking the orbiter are less than the odds that introducing a vastly new "safer" technology would directly (or indirectly) cause another mishap, perhaps of a different type.<br /><br />I'm going to guess that the future orbiter will be smaller, designed to carry astronauts and their supplies into space rather than large satellites, and will be mounted on top of the fuel tank and feature reusable drop away cryogenic first stage engines closely based on the current ones technology. On top of that would be a cryogenic second stage with smaller cryogenic drop away, possibly also reusable, and then a final orbit insertion and maneuvering stage that would detach and burn up before the jet engine equipped shuttle re-enters the atmosphere for maneuverable landing. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />

 

[vogon13]

No one is going to flight qualify such a major change to the external tank with only 4 (I am being generous) flights left for the program.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

From what I've read the major reason cited for taking a giant leap backward on the next generation CEV is that being a capsule on top of a big booster there is no danger of ice or foam hitting the crew compartment on launch. I understand but it is still sad that we are going back to capsules and parachutes to bring our astronauts home in the future. I live near Cape Canaveral and it's great watching the shuttle land after a mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[pioneer0333]

It does suck, it's like giving up a Benz for a minivan. That brings up another thought, what happen to the development of the magnetic-rail for launch. You know, using a magnetic-rail to accelerate a ship into space? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>