Re: Foam and rescue possibilities


Henry Spencer wrote:
In article <1151402939.812148.237790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alex Terrell <alexterrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With an inline SDHLV, the impact issue largely goes away. However, it
does seem they're now going for a complete redesign. In which case it
might make sense to jettison most of the insulation. Won't happen
though.

Probably not. The S-II's external LH2-tank insulation was originally
separate panels; they were retained rather than jettisoned, but it
wouldn't have been a big stretch to jettison them. However, they too
turned out to need helium purges and other hassles, and it was a big
improvement when they were abandoned in favor of -- you guessed it --
spray-on foam. NASA isn't likely to want to open that can of worms
again without an urgent reason.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thinking out of the box, how about, in places where aerodynamic heating
insulation is not needed, a foamed wax. This would be as good as normal
insulation on the pad, but would boil / melt away at >60C. Its latent
heat would actually help to keep it cool.

Might work OK with in line designs - blobs of molten wax over the
shuttle window wouldn't help the mission.

I can see some environmental objections - molton wax falling into the
altlantic etc - but with the right consistency it might be possible to
get an optimum mass of insulation throughout the flight.

.