Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- From: "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:22:38 -0500
"Mike Dennis" <mapson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:5FLGe.42269$zY4.41279@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> From looking back over the archives of this group, it seems this idea
> has never been seriously discussed. It quickly goes off on unrelated
> tangents.
Probably because you weren't reading the *relevant* responses: 1) The two
flights with painted tanks (STS-1 and 2) still had hundreds of debris
strikes on the orbiter, and 2) Paint might have the tensile strength to
mitigate "popcorning" of small pieces of foam, but the areas of concern are
the bipod and PAL ramps, where large chunks of foam are coming loose. Paint
won't help there.
> But what if we painted the ET with a latex-like paint? It's fairly
> elastic and might provide just enough surface tension to retain the
> foam. It also would protect the foam from aging and hardening during
> extended launch delays, a clearly documented problem.
>
> I realized we're talking about an extra 800-1200lbs and
> cost/turn-around increase, but that seems like a fair tradeoff for a
> significant safety margin increase.
>
> Thoughts?
What's your rationale for saying it's a "significant" safety margin
increase?
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- From: Mike Dennis
- Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- References:
- Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- From: Mike Dennis
- Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- Prev by Date: Re: A Government ploy
- Next by Date: Re: It's Been Time To Scrap The Shuttle For Years
- Previous by thread: Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- Next by thread: Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|