Re: Foam and rescue possibilities
- From: henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:25:17 GMT
In article <9oEmg.4548$V55.4133@trndny01>, Vlad <Roddy9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I guess they could put the foam in the INSIDE of the tank. What's the
worse that could happen? Blow some out the tail pipe?
Several years of delay for complete redesign of the ET, and probably a
substantial loss of payload.
For one thing, you can't use the same foam on the inside. It's not quite
right even for the LH2 tank, and as far as I know, there simply aren't any
lightweight insulating foams that are LOX-compatible.
For another, moving the foam to the inside means you need thicker tank
walls. Metals get stronger at low temperatures, and the ET design
exploits this. With the foam on the inside, the metal stays roughly at
ambient temperature, and so will have to be thicker to have the same
strength.
For a third, you're still going to need external insulation of some kind
in some areas, to protect the tank metal and various attached bits of
plumbing against heating from air friction and the rocket exhausts. (Take
a look at the photos of ETs after jettison -- some areas are charred to
black.) Using more heat-resistant materials is possible in principle, but
in practice is likely to add quite a bit of weight.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Foam and rescue possibilities
- From: Allen Thomson
- Re: Foam and rescue possibilities
- From: Vlad
- Foam and rescue possibilities
- Prev by Date: Re: Foam and rescue possibilities
- Next by Date: Re: Just change our power source and increase our powers, laughable
- Previous by thread: Re: Foam and rescue possibilities
- Next by thread: Re: Foam and rescue possibilities
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
