Space Shuttle Foam Fixes

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rlb2

Guest
Lets help these Folks out at NASA fix their problem so the Space Shuttle can fly again. <br /><br />My suggestion if someone hasn't already thought of it is - Space Shuttle netting made out of Spectra, a super strong light weight off the shelf product (fishing string) slightly embedded on the top layer of foam. It would be designed to expand and or contract like an old fashion Chinese handcuffs did, cylindrical netting placed over one finger from the left and right hand that when you pull on it, it keeps your fingers from pulling apart.<br /><br />All constructive suggestions are welcomed here - any thoughts.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
I'm thinking that they could add a small amount of a plasticizer to the foam to make it less brittle - at least the top layer.
 
H

hurricane4911

Guest
Another idea would be to place a "hard" shell over the foam, sort of a foam sandwich. However, that would add a huge weight load to the configuration. Not painting the ET after 1981 saved approx. 800 lbs.<br /><br />With the abandonment of Hubble, and the swift grounding of the fleet, there are bigger issues here.<br /><br />I think your idea is the best for a "quick fix".
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Best minds available with insulation material expertise have brought us to this point. Not sure how to develop trust in these individuals at this point. We very nearly had a loss of vehicle Tuesday, and as they say, events proceed from <b><i> reality</i></b>.<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>
 
L

liquidspace2k

Guest
So could it be possible or sensible to wrap a net all up and down the whole ET, the holes size in the net would be up to NASA decision, and of what material the net is made from. <br /><br />I see this as the easiest and cheapest way to stop the foam from falling off, shouldn't put too much weight on the thing either cause it will be a net <br />
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>We very nearly had a loss of vehicle Tuesday...</i><p>The foam loss was bad, yes but it wasn't nearly as bad as that. The area from which the foam was lost is <b>under</b> the vehicle - as such there is no valid transport mechanism that could have lead to the foam impacting the leading edge. The loss also happened after SRB-sep, at a <b>much</b> lower Q-value than happened on STS-107. This means that the foam wouldn't have slowed down nearly as much and would have imparted much less energy if it had impacted anywhere on the vehicle. This is evidenced by the fact that it was visible in at least 10 frames of 30fps video, as compared to the STS-107 foam which was visible in, what, 3 frames?</p>
 
H

hurricane4911

Guest
There are two ET issues...<br /><br />spalling and break-away. If there is an adhesion problem with the tank, I am uncertain that a plasticizer would prevent it from breaking away. However a combination of an inbedded netting and platicizer might hold the dang thing together.<br />
 
R

rlb2

Guest
<font color="orange">I'm thinking that they could add a small amount of a plasticizer to the foam to make it less brittle - at least the top layer. <font color="white"><br /><br />Thats another good one. It may also take a combination of two ideas together that will be the cheap fix that they need. A brainstorming session with people of all kinds of different backgrounds would be a good place to start. <br /><br />NASA needs to get all kinds of different ideas then reduce it down to one. You don't ask a design engineer how to fix an engine, you ask a mechanic.</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>
 
H

hurricane4911

Guest
SRB sepeartion, mission time, and Q-values not withstanding, there is one important variable that came into play on Tuesday.<br /><br />Luck.<br /><br />We are grateful the foam broke off when and where it did, and the trajectory it took; but it did break off.<br /><br />"Luck" must have a null value when calculating the probability of success.<br />
 
N

najab

Guest
I was only pointing out that the particular foam loss was not "very nearly" a loss of vehicle event.
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
How about doing away with the foam insulation altogether, and using radiant heat to stop ice build up? Eg infra-red or microwave <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">"using radiant heat to stop ice build up? Eg infra-red or microwave "</font><br /><br />The LOX and LH2 inside ET might object this <i>violently</i>. <br /><br />edit: AFAIK the problem is not structural strength of the foam per se, but the air pockets that sometimes form inside it during spraying. A theoretical solution; vacuum chamber big enough to take in ET and do the spraying there.<br /><br />Btw this last big chunk separated right after SRB sep, I wonder how much the SRB separation motors hit the area where the piece came off?
 
D

drwayne

Guest
As was pointed out earlier, without insulation, the boil-off rate would be excessive...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
H

hurricane4911

Guest
I understand that. My intent was not to to criticize, but to underscore the seriousness of what happened.<br /><br />My apologies if my statement was not worded correctly.<br /><br />We were very lucky on Tuesday.
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
Ok, looks like I had it back to front <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> That is the tanks contents need to be kept cool, and without icing up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>My suggestion if someone hasn't already thought of it is - Space Shuttle netting made out of Spectra<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's a very intriguing idea. I wonder how much weight it would add?<br /><br />I use Spectra lines on my stunt kite. They're not as tough as Kevlar, but much lighter. I seem to recall reading that they do have issues with melting if they rub against other kinds of line (eg cotton, linen, nylon), so there may be thermal concerns with using those on the exterior of something that flies supersonic. I've also observed stretch over time; although I carefully measured the lines when cutting them to 75 yards for my kite, over several years of flying the kite they are no longer exactly the same length anymore. Obviously the ET will put different loads on the line, and you can probably mitigate a lot of that with how you weave or spin the Spectra thread and how you weave the net from that thread.<br /><br />BTW, I once made a comical attempt to estimate the weight of a knitted wool "ET cozy". I'll see if I can find that thread again. It's kind of related to this concept. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />EDIT: Found it. The phrase "ET cozy" doesn't come up very often. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> Click here for the whole thing, but I figured it would weigh about 513.9 kg and require over a million yards of yarn. I'm sure the aerodynamics of the ET cozy would be horrendous, however. <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>
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I once made a comical attempt to estimate the weight of a knitted wool "ET cozy]<br />Hehe, maybe we need to start an SDC knitting circle <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
R

rlb2

Guest
They’re also thinking of using Spectra for the next generation of high altitude long duration dirigibles. . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>
 
L

Leovinus

Guest
What if they went back to painting the tank? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
The paint added ~600lbs to the weight of the tank and did little or nothing to stop foam shedding.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"I'm sure the aerodynamics of the ET cozy would be horrendous, however. "</font><br /><br />In addition, NASA would have to pay me royalties for inventing the concept. I'd be sure to pass along a small percentage of the money to you for your contribution in materials estimation materials though... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br /><br />*edit * And the aerodynamics wouldn't be a problem. The idea was to whip off the cozy just before launch...
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
Thanks Mike (the link has extra comma at the end, worked when I removed it). <br /><br />And welcome aboard!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom