Re: Possible ET foam solutions

Rusty <reuben_barton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:r5iqf11rpl13061poe0dav2krntc0bhrak@xxxxxxx:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:36:57 +0200, "Capcom"
> <capcom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>zinyobserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> One of the possible (temporary) solutions to this problem is to
>>> apply over foam a highly-tear-resistant and flexible external
>>> coating (skin). In addition, to smother a lift-off, a current
>>> vehicle stabilization control system must be replaced by a system
>>> with significantly shortened reaction time. As a possible candidate,
>>> I see a system based on the (http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs.AI/0411015)
>>> "Bounded-Input Bounded-PREDEFINED-Control Bounded-Output" approach.
>>
>>No use simply a net on the tank as FRF on STS 1
>>http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/shuttle/1981-85/1981%20S
>>TS1%20FRF%2002.jpg
>
> Mount boost protective covers on the nose cap and leading edges of the
> wings. Eject the covers once the tank is gone and the shuttle is in
> orbit.

Another system that could fail (if the covers don't come off, you've got to
remove them manually before entry or you're dead), and it makes aborts
(especially ECAL and RTLS)... rather problematic, since you're ejecting the
covers at an altitude when there's still measurable atmosphere, so the
ejection must be energetic enough to overcome aerodynamic forces and
preclude recontact.

If you're going to go for a protective cover, make it a passive one
attached to the ET (like an aerodynamic fairing) that simply stays with the
ET after the orbiter separates. You'd have to leave enough of a gap between
the fairing and the orbiter to protect for worst-case relative attitude
rates (from RCS jet failures during ET sep), but it would seem doable.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.