Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Shuttle Foam Update  
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/3382097

Seems workers damaging the foam is the latest theory.

Some (nasawatch.com) are playing this as a bad thing. I think it's a good thing because it's an easy fix. Though I still believe NASA will never have a "total" fix to the foam issue.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2343 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Thread starter):
Though I still believe NASA will never have a "total" fix to the foam issue.

Not use foam?

Problem solved totally  Smile


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Not use foam?

Problem solved totally

What would you use instead of foam?

Problem not solved totally


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Problem solved totally



Quoting SATL382G (Reply 2):
Problem not solved totally

Don't you just LOVE the Newbies SAT?

Can I have Ice chunks the size of the Titanic hitting the TPS system for $1,000 Alex?

By the way, I think this is a red Herring, but then again I didn't really care to read the article...obviously I'm presuming that some techs 'fat fingered' (or footed) the foam prior to shippng.. well DUH.. I would have thought measures would have been in place to prevent that from day 1. Opps.. there I go.. THINKING again...

[Edited 2005-10-05 17:33:50]

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 2):
What would you use instead of foam?

Problem not solved totally

Well, firstly Id put the payload where theres no chance of anything that breaks off endangering the vehicle. For those who cant work that out, thats ON TOP of the launch vehicle, which also allows you to include a cheap escape system. Do this and you wont need foam on the tank either.

Note that noone payed any attention to the tonnes of ice that broke off during each Gemini or Apollo launch, and if you watch one of those launches, the ice was breaking off left right and centre well into the launch.

Build a competent vehicle, thats the way to fix this. And guess what, NASA is doing it.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2315 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 4):
Well, firstly Id put the payload where theres no chance of anything that breaks off endangering the vehicle. For those who cant work that out, thats ON TOP of the launch vehicle, which also allows you to include a cheap escape system. Do this and you wont need foam on the tank either.

Note that noone payed any attention to the tonnes of ice that broke off during each Gemini or Apollo launch, and if you watch one of those launches, the ice was breaking off left right and centre well into the launch.

Build a competent vehicle, thats the way to fix this. And guess what, NASA is doing it.

Sorry Rich, this is all old news and covers various subjects. I believe the consensus we've reached in this forum is that we need shuttle to complete station. Following that shuttle needs to get to a museum post haste and NASA needs to complete CEV.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 3):
Don't you just LOVE the Newbies SAT?

Well we were all Noobs once....  Smile

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 3):
By the way, I think this is a red Herring, but then again I didn't really care to read the article...obviously I'm presuming that some techs 'fat fingered' (or footed) the foam prior to shippng..

The only reason I posted it is because, if true, I believe it means shuttle will be flying sooner rather than later. Just slap foam tech Joe on the back of the head and admonish him -- "Joe, don't do that again". What is of some concern is that the damage may have been done while making a modification to the foam elsewhere, i.e. they made things worse trying to make things better....


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 5):
Sorry Rich, this is all old news and covers various subjects. I believe the consensus we've reached in this forum is that we need shuttle to complete station. Following that shuttle needs to get to a museum post haste and NASA needs to complete CEV.

Not really, the reason that we *need* the Shuttle to complete the station is because NASA says we do. It wouldnt be hard to design a single use harness for station modules so that they could be launched on top of current heavy lifters, and the Russians had no problems constructing many space stations without the shuttle.

None of the modules max out the Shuttles payload weight capability, so they fall well into the zone of some of the lesser used heavy lifters, but it could be done.


User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2302 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 4):
Well, firstly Id put the payload where theres no chance of anything that breaks off endangering the vehicle. For those who cant work that out, thats ON TOP of the launch vehicle, which also allows you to include a cheap escape system. Do this and you wont need foam on the tank either.

The primary problem with that is that, by putting the orbiter atop the boosters, the main engines can not be used until booster separation. This means the main engines are along for the ride in the most critical phase of the launch (From a T/W perspective) and the boosters could be expected to end up larger and heavier and require more fuel.

There is also a logistical aspect to this. How would you board an orbiter placed atop the tank?


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting LeanOfPeak (Reply 7):
The primary problem with that is that, by putting the orbiter atop the boosters, the main engines can not be used until booster separation.

Soyuz manages just fine, so do a lot of satellites. Soyuz also works out a lot cheaper per launch.

Quoting LeanOfPeak (Reply 7):
There is also a logistical aspect to this. How would you board an orbiter placed atop the tank?

Again, Soyuz manages just fine, and so do a lot of satellites. Also the CEV is designed to go on top of a modified Shuttle main tank, with Shuttle main engines being attached to the base - dont ask me why, I personally think its ludicrous  Smile

Incase you hadnt worked it out yet, Im saying 'Scrap the Shuttle', and NASA are doing exactly that by developing the CEV.  Smile


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 8):
Im saying 'Scrap the Shuttle', and NASA are doing exactly that

What you're saying is scrap the shuttle without completing station and that is NOT exactly what NASA is doing.....

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6):
It wouldnt be hard to design a single use harness for station modules so that they could be launched on top of current heavy lifters

Please specify which heavy lifters you would use....


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2284 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 9):
Please specify which heavy lifters you would use....

The obvious one would be Energia, but that hasnt been in production for quite some time. The Delta IV Heavy could certainly put station modules into a usable orbit, as could the Titan IV. Another is the Proton M. The Ariane 5 could launch a lot of the smaller modules.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2284 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 9):
Please specify which heavy lifters you would use....

TedTAce closes his eyes in anticipation of the forthcomming slaugter..


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2276 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 11):
TedTAce closes his eyes in anticipation of the forthcomming slaugter..

Yeah I know... Kinda reminds me of how Indiana Jones feels about his revolver.....

So I'll take the easy route first....

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 10):
The obvious one would be Energia, but that hasnt been in production for quite some time.



Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 10):
as could the Titan IV

Neither is in production... Why consider a booster that is out of production to replace shuttle (which is in production and available) just so you can scrap shuttle 15 or 20 missions early?


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 12):
Neither is in production... Why consider a booster that is out of production to replace shuttle (which is in production and available) just so you can scrap shuttle 15 or 20 missions early?

The Energia can easily be resurrected, as the boosters and technology it uses are used on the Zenit launcher which is in production. The Titan IV has just gone out of production, so when push comes to shove it can be put back into production with not too much cost attached.

You still have the Delta IV available.

Why risk the lives of 7 astronauts just to do what the Russians did with unmanned vehicles 20 years ago? This is a case of make work.

Besides, does the ISS need completing? Are we ever going to get more than 3 crew members aboard permanently? What are they going to do, play hide and seek up there?


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
You still have the Delta IV available.

It can't fly ISS hardware designed for shuttle and it's hardly a proven launcher.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
Why risk the lives of 7 astronauts

Given the vast improvements on the ET since Columbia the shuttle risks are far lower now than they have ever been. If we're going to fly shuttle, now is the time.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
Besides, does the ISS need completing?

This thread assumes that it does. If you want to use that argument why not start your own thread or perhaps read thru the numerous other threads on ISS?


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

Lots of errors and misconceptions in this thread. I'll start with a nitpick...

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 4):

Note that noone payed any attention to the tonnes of ice that broke off during each Gemini or Apollo launch, and if you watch one of those launches, the ice was breaking off left right and centre well into the launch.

Gemini didn't have ice buildup. It used hypergolic (room temperature) propellants, not cryogenic (supercold) propellants. Mercury-Atlas and Apollo-Saturn were the Ice Queens.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6):
Not really, the reason that we *need* the Shuttle to complete the station is because NASA says we do. It wouldnt be hard to design a single use harness for station modules so that they could be launched on top of current heavy lifters, and the Russians had no problems constructing many space stations without the shuttle.

In fact, it will be very costly and time-consuming to modify all of the Space Station elements (which are already built and flightready) to be launched on another vehicle, and at present there is no other launch vehicle in the world with the performance to launch them. Remember, the Station elements are totally dependent on the Shuttle not just for launch into orbit, but for maneuvering, docking, electrical and thermal control until they get to the Station. Worse, the Station elements were designed to take the launch loads through struts on their sides, which mount on the Shuttle's payload bay sills. To attach them to another rocket, you either have to build a frame to replicate the Shuttle's payload bay, or greatly reinforce the element's structure to take loads through the bottom end. Therefore, you don't just need to stick them on top of, say, a Delta IV, you also need to build a maneuvering vehicle capable to keeping them alive in orbit and getting them the rest of the way to the Station. Such a vehicle and a Station module will easily exceed the payload capacity of the most powerful unmanned launcher in the world, the Boeing Delta IV-Heavy.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6):
None of the modules max out the Shuttles payload weight capability, so they fall well into the zone of some of the lesser used heavy lifters, but it could be done.

None of the Station elements are heavier than the Shuttle's 63,000 lbs to 28.5 degree inclination / 140 mile altitude orbit design capability. Unfortunately, in order for the Russians to join the Space Station program, the Station's orbit had to be raised to 51.6 degrees inclination. Also, to keep reboost requirements manageable, the Station is 250 miles up. The Shuttle's payload capacity to that orbit is around 45,000 lbs. And two of the next Shuttle flights, STS-115 and STS-117 carrying truss solar array segments, max out the Shuttle's payload so much they both are slated to fly on Atlantis, which is a few hundred pounds lighter than Discovery.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 8):

Again, Soyuz manages just fine, and so do a lot of satellites. Also the CEV is designed to go on top of a modified Shuttle main tank, with Shuttle main engines being attached to the base - dont ask me why, I personally think its ludicrous

Actually, CEV is designed to launch atop a Space Shuttle SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER, not main tank. There will be an all-new second stage using one Space Shuttle Main Engine. Why your horror of using Shuttle Main Engines, I don't know. Throughout the 1990s they were incrementally upgraded with all-new turbopumps and have evolved into an extremely reliable, high-performance engine. Only two ever failed in flight... one due to a faulty $5 sensor in 1985, and one to a small leak in 1999 that resulted in shutdown about 10 seconds early. Neither the sensor nor the plug design which failed in 1999 are still in use.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 10):

The obvious one would be Energia, but that hasnt been in production for quite some time. The Delta IV Heavy could certainly put station modules into a usable orbit, as could the Titan IV. Another is the Proton M. The Ariane 5 could launch a lot of the smaller modules.

Energiya, by the way, also carried its payload on the side of the booster. Isn't that what you want to avoid? None of the other boosters you mention could deliver a Space Station element without some maneuvering/guidance vehicle. Adding such a vehicle pushes the concept beyond the reach of existing launchers. Remember, Shuttle's payload capacity is nearly 15,000 pounds greater than any other launcher flying today.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
The Energia can easily be resurrected, as the boosters and technology it uses are used on the Zenit launcher which is in production. The Titan IV has just gone out of production, so when push comes to shove it can be put back into production with not too much cost attached.

Energiya cannot be easily reactivated. The core and engine production capability are dead and gone. Titan IV has the dubious distinction of making the Space Shuttle look cheap and reliable. You could hardly pick a worse vehicle to replace it (a hard lesson the Air Force learned over a decade ago.)


Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
Why risk the lives of 7 astronauts just to do what the Russians did with unmanned vehicles 20 years ago? This is a case of make work.

Its a case of living up to your agreements. the United States agreed to launch Europe's Columbus lab module and Japan's two Kibo lab module segments. To support those, NASA must also launch at least two additional solar array segments (the afforementioned STS-115 and STS-117,) one radiator segment, and the Node 2 module where they will be berthed. Those seven elements, and the support missions to keep the Station working until they arrive, are largely unavoidable. That's roughly twelve flights. After that, all bets are off. NASA is trying to pare down the remaining flights as much as possible.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
Besides, does the ISS need completing? Are we ever going to get more than 3 crew members aboard permanently? What are they going to do, play hide and seek up there?

There will be at least three advanced laboratories on the Station when Shuttle is retired: Destiny, Columbus, and Kibo. Russia had promised three more labs, but had scaled that down to one before the Columbia disaster and who knows if they'll ever launch it. Even without Shuttle support, the US, Europe, Russia, Canada, and Japan have pledged to continue using the Station through 2015, the end of its 15-year design lifetime.


User currently offlineSonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Not use foam?

Problem solved totally  

That isn’t a bad idea!

Whey could they use deicing techniques such as used on Airliners and maybe put heaters in key places?

Also it would save weight.......


 biggrin 


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1955 times:

Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 16):
Whey could they use deicing techniques such as used on Airliners and maybe put heaters in key places?

Also it would save weight.......

The foam also protects the Tank for aerodynamic heating during ascent.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1953 times:

Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 16):
Whey could they use deicing techniques

The ice is a threat yes, but the real problem is the temperature of the liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen turns liquid at -422F. With no foam on the tank any air coming in contact with the tank would liquify and seperate into it's component parts. One of these, Liquid Oxygen, is rather nasty stuff - it tends to detonate on contact with carbons. Not something you want dripping off the tank and on to the vehicle or mobile launcher. Also with gaseous air virtually surrounding the tank the tank will want to warm up and the liquid hydrogen will boil off at an unreplenishable rate.


User currently offlineSonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

I guess we are back to square one.

 scratchchin 


User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1853 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi guys.

I had an idea about this, but I don't know if it could actually work. Why not put a kind of a shield over the whole underside of the shuttle, including the leading edges. This shield could be jettisoned with the fuel tank. I know it would add weight, but there are light and tough materials. It should be aerodynamic, of course.

There is always a risk of causing a greater damage to the tiles during process, but it just came to my mind. OK, I'm not an engineer, so don't kill me for thinking aloud.  Smile

BEG2IAH



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 20):
I had an idea about this, but I don't know if it could actually work. Why not put a kind of a shield over the whole underside of the shuttle, including the leading edges. This shield could be jettisoned with the fuel tank. I know it would add weight, but there are light and tough materials. It should be aerodynamic, of course.

It actually has been considered several times, including way back in the early Shuttle program days. I believe the two major concerns were as you suggested, weight, and the danger of recontact during Tank seperation, especially in a Return To Launch Site abort situation. The recontact danger was ultimately considered worse than the original debris problem.


User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Thorny (Reply 21):
It actually has been considered several times

Thorny, thanks. I didn't know this.

BEG2IAH



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Shuttle Foam Update
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Shuttle Program Update posted Thu Aug 18 2005 18:44:54 by SATL382G
Is This AN AA 747 Carrying A Space Shuttle? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 02:25:45 by Fll2993
Virgin Galactic Update posted Fri Sep 29 2006 04:26:44 by JetBlueGuy2006
Status Of Space Shuttle Endeavour posted Sat Sep 23 2006 06:44:00 by RJ777
Shuttle Support Vehicles What Are They posted Thu Sep 21 2006 17:35:07 by Airfoilsguy
Soyuz Vs Shuttle? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 20:30:45 by Mt99
Object Shadows Shuttle; Landing Waved Off - Report posted Tue Sep 19 2006 17:47:36 by AerospaceFan
OFFICIAL: Shuttle Launch Scrubbed...Again posted Fri Sep 8 2006 17:30:37 by S12PPL
Shuttle Launch Imminent: Live Streaming Link Here posted Fri Sep 8 2006 15:33:05 by KFLLCFII
Space Shuttle Launch Delays posted Wed Aug 30 2006 03:01:02 by Thorny

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format