Re: ET foam "stretch marks"? (was NASA's Space Shuttle Processing Status Report, 22-11-2005)
- From: David Ball <davidbemail-1q04@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:06:13 -0600
On 23 Nov 2005 11:29:51 -0800, "ed kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>snidely wrote:
>> Jacques van Oene wrote:
>> > 11.22.05
[snip]
>> > STATUS REPORT: S-112205
>> >
>> > NASA'S SPACE SHUTTLE PROCESSING STATUS REPORT
>> [...]
>> > At NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, shuttle engineers
>> > continue evaluating the causes of the foam loss on Discovery's
>> > launch. Detailed inspections of the Protuberance Air Load (PAL) ramp
>> > of external tank #120 are providing valuable data. During
>> > inspections, several small cracks were detected in the PAL ramp.
>> > Engineers do not yet fully understand these cracks, but they are
>> > unlikely to have caused foam loss.
>>
>>
>> I don't think any other ET that has been cycled has been checked as
>> closely as this one, so I guess we don't know much about those effects.
>>
>> What's the maximum number of times an ET has been filled and drained?
>
>I think that the mission before STS-51L, in January 1986, went
>through nearly 20 tank loading cycles, if I remember correctly.
>There was concern that the tank was approaching its design
>lifetime. However, this would have been an Aluminum 2219
>alloy tank. Today's super lightweight tanks, used since 1998,
>are made of Aluminum-Lithium 2195 alloy. It could very well
>be that the foam cracking problem has something to do with
>the new tank alloy. Aluminum-Lithium would expand/contract
>a bit more than Aluminum.
>
> - Ed Kyle
Does Michoud Assembly Facility have the ability to load a tank with
cryo for testing?
-- David
.
- Prev by Date: Re: onboard fuel synthesizers
- Next by Date: Re: Go To Mars?
- Previous by thread: No 2006 Space Shuttle Calendar?
- Next by thread: Discovery serious oxygen leak:(
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|