Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- From: "Mike Dennis" <mapson@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:38:21 GMT
I'm well aware of the engineering history of the shuttle program and what
the results are of previous ideas--like painting the tanks. I'm also up to
speed on the current design and the issues involving the current flight.
STS1 & 2 did not use latex paint. They used common aircraft paint that is
hard and brittle when cured. Of course that would lead to even more debris.
The key to my proposal was a latex variant. Latex doesn't start to chip for
quite a while after application and remains quite pliable in the right
formulation. The concept of a thin surface layer to maintain surface
tension spread over large areas for structural integrity of foam-like
materials is old and proven--yet you dismiss it so easily. Try looking at
the insulating materials on your car or house. Obviously, you wouldn't use
this paint on anything but a short-lived component like the ET, but it might
work.
A significant safety margin increase would be the total elimination of two
problems: foam aging, and foam separation. Of course, if there were an
impact from something like a bird, then it wouldn't do much. But I'm
talking about just the normal aero/thermal/vibration dynamics.
I'm not one of those idiots suggesting giant condoms or fishnets over the
ET. But I have seen some good ideas pop up now and then out of that
off-the-wall thinking. Let's not be so quick to dismiss them. The entire
space porgam was built by out of the box thinking.
__________
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96A37DE8E562jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "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: Jorge R. Frank
- Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- References:
- Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- From: Mike Dennis
- Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- From: Jorge R. Frank
- Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- Prev by Date: Re: Shuttle read Concorde
- Next by Date: Re: Shuttle read Concorde
- Previous by thread: Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- Next by thread: Re: Should We Reconsider Painting the ET?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|