ET Camera Shows Bi Pod Foam Loss

[Bill Bard]

Looking at the ET camera footage, it looks like the first bi-pod foam piece
came off about 12 sec after SRB sep. The second came off several seconds
later. Seems to be caused by trapped air.

[Randa]

Bill Bard wrote:
> Looking at the ET camera footage, it looks like the first bi-pod
foam
> piece came off about 12 sec after SRB sep. The second came off
> several seconds later. Seems to be caused by trapped air.

Isn't the popcorning effect also caused by trapped air?

Why isn't the tank taken into a huge vacuum chamber and sprayed
with foam there?

[Dr. P. Quackenbush]

"Randa" > wrote in message
news:Yz7Ge.61966$s54.16548@pd7tw2no...
> Bill Bard wrote:
> > Looking at the ET camera footage, it looks like the first bi-pod
> foam
> > piece came off about 12 sec after SRB sep. The second came off
> > several seconds later. Seems to be caused by trapped air.
>
> Isn't the popcorning effect also caused by trapped air?
>
> Why isn't the tank taken into a huge vacuum chamber and sprayed
> with foam there?


Do you have any idea how big a vacuum chamber that'd have to be?

[Randa]

Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote:
> "Randa" > wrote in message
> news:Yz7Ge.61966$s54.16548@pd7tw2no...
>> Bill Bard wrote:
>>> Looking at the ET camera footage, it looks like the first
bi-pod
>>> foam piece came off about 12 sec after SRB sep. The second
came off
>>> several seconds later. Seems to be caused by trapped air.
>>
>> Isn't the popcorning effect also caused by trapped air?
>>
>> Why isn't the tank taken into a huge vacuum chamber and sprayed
>> with foam there?
>
>
> Do you have any idea how big a vacuum chamber that'd have to be?

Sure I do. The vacuum chamber would have to be just a tad larger
than this one that NASA has around since 1969:

.... " the Space Power Facility is the world's largest vacuum
chamber. The rotund structure measures 100 feet in diameter and
towers at 122 feet high."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/testfacilities/Sailing_on_Sunbeams.html


As the ET is, according to the link below, 153.8 feet long and has
a diameter of 27.6 feet, it wouldn't take much of an up-size.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/et.html

Is it unreasonable to expect an improvement on 1969 technology for
something as comparatively mundane as a vacuum chamber?




--
Are you tired of listening to radio stations that have an equal
part mix of obnoxious commercials, music that just doesn't matter
and annoying DJ's who seem to think they do? Perhaps it's time
you checked out one of the best commercial-free radio stations
on the net:

Radio Paradise: The music your ears have been waiting for.
"DJ-mixed modern & classic rock, world, electronica & more"

http://www.radioparadise.com

Check out my computer parts for sale:
http://members.shaw.ca/randastuff

[Randa]

Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote:
> "Randa" > wrote in message
> news:Yz7Ge.61966$s54.16548@pd7tw2no...
>> Bill Bard wrote:
>>> Looking at the ET camera footage, it looks like the first
bi-pod
>>> foam piece came off about 12 sec after SRB sep. The second
came off
>>> several seconds later. Seems to be caused by trapped air.
>>
>> Isn't the popcorning effect also caused by trapped air?
>>
>> Why isn't the tank taken into a huge vacuum chamber and sprayed
>> with foam there?
>
>
> Do you have any idea how big a vacuum chamber that'd have to be?

Sure I do. The vacuum chamber would have to be just a tad larger
than this one that NASA has around since 1969:

.... " the Space Power Facility is the world's largest vacuum
chamber. The rotund structure measures 100 feet in diameter and
towers at 122 feet high."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/testfacilities/Sailing_on_Sunbeams.html


As the ET is, according to the link below, 153.8 feet long and has
a diameter of 27.6 feet, it wouldn't take much of an up-size.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/et.html

Is it unreasonable to expect an improvement on 1969 technology for
something as comparatively mundane as a vacuum chamber?

[Derek Lyons]

"Randa" > wrote:

>Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote:
>> "Randa" > wrote in message
>> news:Yz7Ge.61966$s54.16548@pd7tw2no...
>>> Bill Bard wrote:
>>>
>>> Why isn't the tank taken into a huge vacuum chamber and sprayed
>>> with foam there?
>>
>>
>> Do you have any idea how big a vacuum chamber that'd have to be?
>
>Sure I do. The vacuum chamber would have to be just a tad larger
>than this one that NASA has around since 1969:
>
>... " the Space Power Facility is the world's largest vacuum
>chamber. The rotund structure measures 100 feet in diameter and
>towers at 122 feet high."
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/testfacilities/Sailing_on_Sunbeams.html

And how big are the doors to it?

>As the ET is, according to the link below, 153.8 feet long and has
>a diameter of 27.6 feet, it wouldn't take much of an up-size.
>http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/et.html

Of course you handwave away the problems of getting the ET to and from
Ohio.... And you still don't know how big the doors are...

>Is it unreasonable to expect an improvement on 1969 technology for
>something as comparatively mundane as a vacuum chamber?

No, but it does appear unreasonable to ask people to stop and think
before posting handwaving simpleminded solutions.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Randa]

Derek Lyons wrote:
> "Randa" > wrote:
>
>> Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote:
>>> "Randa" > wrote in message
>>> news:Yz7Ge.61966$s54.16548@pd7tw2no...
>>>> Bill Bard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why isn't the tank taken into a huge vacuum chamber and
sprayed
>>>> with foam there?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have any idea how big a vacuum chamber that'd have to
be?
>>
>> Sure I do. The vacuum chamber would have to be just a tad
larger
>> than this one that NASA has around since 1969:
>>
>> ... " the Space Power Facility is the world's largest vacuum
>> chamber. The rotund structure measures 100 feet in diameter and
>> towers at 122 feet high."
>>
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/testfacilities/Sailing_on_Sunbeams.html
>
> And how big are the doors to it?
>
>> As the ET is, according to the link below, 153.8 feet long and
has
>> a diameter of 27.6 feet, it wouldn't take much of an up-size.
>>
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/et.html
>
> Of course you handwave away the problems of getting the ET to
and from
> Ohio.... And you still don't know how big the doors are...

Who said the ET would be going back and forth to Ohio? Any
handwaving happening here is yours alone.
As that chamber isn't large enough anyway and a new larger chamber
would be required, the chamber would be built somewhere it made
sense - such as the Michoud facility near New Orleans.

>> Is it unreasonable to expect an improvement on 1969 technology
for
>> something as comparatively mundane as a vacuum chamber?
>
> No, but it does appear unreasonable to ask people to stop and
think
> before posting handwaving simpleminded solutions.

The ONLY part I'm asking people here to 'think' about is whether
or not applying the foam in a vacuum would be beneficial in
eliminating the problems with the foam as we know them today.

As one of the brighter lights in the group, or so I thought, I'm
sorry I had to spell that out for you.

[John Doe]

Randa wrote:
> Sure I do. The vacuum chamber would have to be just a tad larger
> than this one that NASA has around since 1969:

Yeah, but then you'd need space for some robot to spray the foam on.

But one major issue to consider: once you repressurise the chamber, the foam
would collapse and shrink and not provide much insulating property, and would
want to re-expand again as shuttle gains altitude.

What they need is to have a more flexible material, more like those camping
blue foam mattresses you can get at a hardware store. (or for that matter, the
stuff they put around beer mugs to keep them cold).

Or simply doe away with insulation and have the ET sit in a insulated cylinder
on the pad that stays on the pad. So when shuttle lifts off, a naked ET comes
out of that cylinder and no foam to worry about.

(and the space between the cylinder and ET could simply be filled with
ventilated very dry air to prevent any condensation from forming). But that
would probahly be too radical a change for NASA to consider.

[Derek Lyons]

John Doe > wrote:

>Or simply doe away with insulation and have the ET sit in a insulated cylinder
>on the pad that stays on the pad. So when shuttle lifts off, a naked ET comes
>out of that cylinder and no foam to worry about.
>
>(and the space between the cylinder and ET could simply be filled with
>ventilated very dry air to prevent any condensation from forming). But that
>would probahly be too radical a change for NASA to consider.

Of course that such a cylinder would be a nigh upon impossible
engineering project seems to have escaped you. You did notice that
there isn't a clear cylindrical volume around the ET didn't you?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[John Doe]

Derek Lyons wrote:
> Of course that such a cylinder would be a nigh upon impossible
> engineering project seems to have escaped you. You did notice that
> there isn't a clear cylindrical volume around the ET didn't you?

Of course.But such a "cylinder" need not go all the way around the ET.

Also, look at how Soyuz are launched. They can retract structures very
quickly. You might be able to do the same.

You need not encirle the tank at the base. The shuttle can act as insulator
and the gap between shuttle and ET filled with dry air.

[Dr. P. Quackenbush]

"John Doe" > wrote in message ...
> Derek Lyons wrote:
> > Of course that such a cylinder would be a nigh upon impossible
> > engineering project seems to have escaped you. You did notice that
> > there isn't a clear cylindrical volume around the ET didn't you?
>
> Of course.But such a "cylinder" need not go all the way around the ET.
>
> Also, look at how Soyuz are launched. They can retract structures very
> quickly. You might be able to do the same.
>
> You need not encirle the tank at the base. The shuttle can act as
insulator
> and the gap between shuttle and ET filled with dry air.


Johnny, you're embarrassing yerself.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Derek Lyons" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, but it does appear unreasonable to ask people to stop and think
> before posting handwaving simpleminded solutions.
>

Derek, to be fair this is a newsgroup where people bandy about ideas, not
present their doctoral thesis. ]

At no point did the poster even try to present their post as anything more
than a follow up to a previous question whcih was basically, "do you realize
how big the vacuum chamber would be."

I think you're getting a little too persnickerty in your dotage. :-)


> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Paul F. Dietz]

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

> Derek, to be fair this is a newsgroup where people bandy about ideas, not
> present their doctoral thesis. ]

Yeah, but a lot of these ideas are Just Plain Dumb.

Paul