STS-122 External Tank Venting Liquid Propellent ( update FD 1...

John wrote:

STS-122 External Tank Venting Liquid Propellent post Separation
STS-122 - EXTERNAL TANK HANDHELD Video

http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.or...298&Ite mid=2
....really interesting video. In-plane liftoff, increased residual
propellent. I wouldn't doubt that the front moving past the cape may have
giving the Shuttle a tailwind and an additional increase in residual
propellent.

Looks like there was plenty of gaseous and liquid propellent pouring out of
the tank in the video, really quite spectacular with the sun setting
on-orbit, large chunks of ice floating in formation. One of the chucks
looks like a fast spinning set of dumbbells. A large blob on each end.

Watch the venting, gaseous venting with a very wide plumb, liquid venting a
stream of liquid like a hose. Burps of gas.

What a shame, all that could have been recovered and used to get to the
Space Station or used at the Space Station. Another ET thrown away like
trash.

Are both the Hydrogen and Oxygen pressure relief valves in the intertank?

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

Craig Fink writes:

Looks like there was plenty of gaseous and liquid propellent pouring out
of the tank in the video, really quite spectacular with the sun setting
on-orbit, large chunks of ice floating in formation. One of the chucks
looks like a fast spinning set of dumbbells. A large blob on each end.

Watch the venting, gaseous venting with a very wide plumb, liquid venting
a stream of liquid like a hose. Burps of gas.

It might look more impressive than it actually is, with the sun shining
on the plume against a dark background. LH2 streaming into a vacuum is
bound to produce a large plume... The venting is done intentionally, so
the tank starts to tumble (to make sure it breaks up and burns on
reentry).

It looks impressive and is impressive. It probably is also quite dangerous
to be that close to a stream of liquid hydrogen in space. The Orbiter is
hot from ascent, nose, wing leading edge and aerodynamic heating. The
plasma show around the Orbiter is also quite impressive at ET sep. Can you
imagine what would happen if a Hot Orbiter meets an extremely cold stream
of Liquid Hydrogen. The astronauts were lucky the stream of liquid wasn't
pointed at them.

There are two types of plumbs in the video, gaseous and liquid. The liquid
looks like a stream coming out of a hose. It's staying liquid, possibly
turning to a solid. An Orbiter getting dusted by Hydrogen snow? Sounds
dangerous to me.

What surprises me are the large chunks of ice. How did they manage to
cling to the tank with all the vibrations and aerodynamical loads of the
launch? Having such large, hard and heavy pieces of ice hanging
somewhere during launch seems to be more than just a bit dangerous.

The large chunks of ice come off the Orbiter, the video of it coming off,
bouncing off the tank and possibly the bottom of the Orbiter were discussed
in the "At ET Sep" thread. I would agree that it may be a bit dangerous as
not every mode that the ice might come off might not have been fully
explored. Although it is very close to the tail end of the Orbiter, any
possible damage is limited to the aft ET attach point to the body flap.


What a shame, all that could have been recovered and used to get to the
Space Station or used at the Space Station. Another ET thrown away like
trash.

Well, you *will* have a propellant margin and you'd better make sure
it's a positive margin. And lots of people have moaned about throwing
ETs away, but in the end there are not many useful things to do with
them. Not without adding lots of mass which eats 1:1 into the actual
payload of the mission, anyway. And doing some major redesign. Won't
happen.

Well it's free to the Space Station if the excess propellent is used or sold
when it gets there. One man's trash, is another man's treasure. Just the
shear mass of the ET is worth a Billion dollars if you can find something
to do with it. At the space station, there are plenty of things to do with
it. From simply using it as a warehouse for all the clutter onboard the
Space Station, to simply cutting it up into one long strand of wire to
experiment with on-orbit manufacturing. 50,000lbs of Aluminum Lithium.

A billion dollar opportunity wasted.

I'd still like a free ET, at the space station would be nice so I can start
right away renting out storage space, to pay for the incidentals required
to make it useful.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

wrote:

On Feb 12, 5:50 am, Craig Fink wrote:

Are both the Hydrogen and Oxygen pressure relief valves in the intertank?

John wrote:
H2 in the intertank and O2 in the nose

Are there any good places to tap into the LOX tan in the intertank, to
recover the Oxygen. There is the main feed line, but are there any others?

From the video, all the Hydrogen would be really simple to recover, salvage
and use with something on the end of the pressure relief valve. But to use
it properly, oxygen might be required.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

wrote:

On Feb 12, 7:46 am, Craig Fink wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:50 am, Craig Fink wrote:

Are both the Hydrogen and Oxygen pressure relief valves in the
intertank?

John wrote:
H2 in the intertank and O2 in the nose

Are there any good places to tap into the LOX tan in the intertank, to
recover the Oxygen. There is the main feed line, but are there any
others?

From the video, all the Hydrogen would be really simple to recover,
salvage and use with something on the end of the pressure relief valve.
But to use it properly, oxygen might be required.


It would take more energy to put the ET in a stable orbit than could
be recovered

I don't believe that is the case, a stable orbit at the Space Station would
be the best place to take it. That way the exchange in ownership could be
made at a safe place. Including the excess residual, there is still a
little bit of ascent performance by going to a zero gamma at MECO.
Something that can only be done if the ET disposal constraint no longer
applies. The tradeoff between LOX/LH2 propellent (Orbiter mass + ET mass)
is one to one with OMS propellent (Orbiter mass only). Circularizing and
finishing the Rendezvous, would be reasonable close to zero cost in terms
of payload. It would probably really depend on dispersions, that are
probably well within the OMS loading. On a good day, a profit might be made
to the space station, arriving at the station with excess OMS propellent
over having dropped the ET. Remember, it takes some OMS propellent budget
just to get the Orbiter there.

Privatizing the Space Shuttle would be great, I'd buy one. It's pretty easy
to double the Shuttle payload to Orbit, with very little additional cost.
I'd even consider taking paying passengers.

Ron Paul in 08!
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Jan Vorbrüggen wrote:

Can you
imagine what would happen if a Hot Orbiter meets an extremely cold stream
of Liquid Hydrogen.

Nothing - there isn't enough oxygen around to do any damage by burning
with the hydrogen.

You are totally correct about hydrogen as fuel in space, no oxygen, no
burning, density of the vapor really low, not a problem.

But, that isn't what would concern me about this. It's the temperature and
mass. As the liquid Hydrogen is being expelled into the vacuum, it's
surface is flashing to a vapor, cooling the liquid. The temperature of
liquid hydrogen in a vacuum is quite low, small blobs might even cool down
to a solid hydrogen or snow. I don't know.

The concern is that the density of liquid hydrogen or hydrogen snow is much
higher than an expand vapor. A hot Orbiter taking a shower in a liquid
hydrogen rain, or hydrogen snow blizzard could cause huge thermal stresses
in some of the more delicate and brittle parts of the Orbiter.

In particular, the RCC panels are coated with a thin coating of SiC, which
protects the carbon panels during entry from burning in the Oxygen plasma.
If the density of such a liquid hydrogen shower is high enough and long
enough, the thermal stress between the thin coating and the underlying
carbon graphite panel may be large enough to separate the SiC coating from
the carbon-carbon. Or, separate the surface coating of the thermal tiles.
Both are very brittle components. The windows are quite thick, more uniform
mass, so would be less of a problem.

An entry without the SiC coating on the RCC panels would be disastrous.

I was really sad to see that ET spinning all alone, spewing out all the
great propellent that could have taken it to the Space Station. A steady
stream of liquid lasting 20 seconds or so. :-(

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Mike Combs wrote:

"Craig Fink" wrote in message
...

Privatizing the Space Shuttle would be great, I'd buy one. It's pretty
easy
to double the Shuttle payload to Orbit, with very little additional cost.
I'd even consider taking paying passengers.

After the resumption of Shuttle flights after the Challenger disaster,
Gerard O'Neill (of space habitat fame) asked the question what was the
Shuttle good for. He decided that the way to determine this was to ask
the
question, "What does the Shuttle do better than any other space system?"
It seemed the answer was to get a large number of people into space and
then get them back.

He had noted that even before the Shuttle flew, a number of designs for
passenger-carrying modules to fit into the cargo bay were starting to
"come
out from under the ink blotters". One design he promoted would seat 50
passengers on two decks.


Fifty passenger, i can imagine that's true. Probably not the best use for an
alpha vehicle, but 25 with escape system in the payload bay might not be
bad.

To me the Shuttle is a fine alpha concept. One that NASA is abandoning for
the near futures (20-50 years), in favor of rebuilding an Apollo type
program. But, it's a great concept and has more capabilities that are being
lost than just carrying 50+ passengers. To me, it's more enjoyable to talk
about it as if it was your own vehicle, that NASA would actually privatize
the manned space program, at least the Launch/Landing portion. Something
the Russians have done to some extent. From a prospective of, if they
actually were sold on E-Bay, what would I do with my purchase to make it
profitable.

The other unique capability besides 50+ passengers, is the ability to bring
the same size payloads back.

Another is a standardized cargo mass/volume concept, it would be a
reasonable standard. Kind of like how containerized shipping has
revolutionized international trade.

NASA isn't going to build a beta Shuttle, privatization of NASA manned space
flight and the Shuttle would be a great step in the right direction. In the
private world, the Shuttle isn't really even near optimal for travel
between Earth and a Space Station/Motel/City. But it would be a reasonable
first step alpha, to follow on with a beta Shuttle in the Private world.

There are a lot of things that could be done to the alpha shuttle to make it
more profitable in the Private world. Things that would never get done in
the Public Funding world of NASA. The first being to treat the External
Tank as payload instead of trash. Essentially doubling the payload of each
flight. This change costs almost nothing for such a huge gain. Adding a
small gas/liquid separator and gaseous H2 O2 low pressure engine to the
intertank, and the residuals and unusable become usable, the ET is at the
space station with a full payload bay. The smaller the engine the better,
but it has to still be capable of completing the Rendezvous in a reasonable
time frame.

In a follow-on beta shuttle, replacing the RCS/OMS with gaseous H2/O2
engines would be great. Essentially turning all residual/unusable ascent
fuel/oxidizer into something useful.

Dreaming of how to modify a alpha Shuttle, leads to the next step, a better
beta Shuttle optimized to go to a Space Station/Hotel/City. Treating the
External Tank as payload helps build a Space Station, Hotel, City,
Manufacturing, Industry. A few million lbs of Aluminum in Orbit would be
quite valuable.

Once the ET is thought of as payload, then other modification to it become
more obvious. Things that don't cost much in terms of payload, but increase
it's usefulness. Obviously, this might include a larger access door in the
bottom of the ET. Maybe, even the whole docking adapter.

And now NASA wants to abandon the Space Station, in favor of a Moon
Base/Station.

I hope Congress is smart enough to figure out that it's the right time to
privatize LEO, the Shuttle and the Space Station. Giving the Shuttle an
extention in the hands of NASA would just be a waste of money. NASA should
sweeten the milk for manned space flight investment, encouraging Private
Enterprise, instead of souring it.

Maybe the Space Station will show up on E-Bay along with the Orbiters.

And, I still want my Free ET, preferably at the Station. NASA has never
embraced the spirit of Reagan's offer.

Ron Paul in 08! :-)
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

wrote:

It wasn't liquid. it was just gas.

Wishful thinking.

This might help you understand what your seeing. Turn off the water to your
house and drain some of the water out of the pipes. Turn it back on and let
it pressurize. Pick a faucet that wasn't used to drain the pipes, one that
still has water in the line next to the faucet. Turn on the water and
watch. You'll notice a normal stream of water, pay attention to what
happens when the 60 psi air hits the faucet.

http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.or...298&Ite mid=2
3:55 to 4:15 is the best section to watch

This is essentially what is going on with the venting of the tank. Gaseous
hydrogen or mixed gas/liquid is small spurts as the pressure relief valve
opens and closes and the liquid hydrogen begins to move towards the exit.
Then, a nice steady stream of liquid comes out, a burst of gas, then more
liquid. Long skinny stream of liquid.

Notice the cool shockwave pattern (if you can call it that), as the flow
transitions from liquid to gas. It's the "" shaped pattern moving to the
right as the much higher velocity gas impacts the slower steam of liquid,
just like your faucet and all the spray when it spurts air.

The faucet is a good analogy, another might be a hose with a hand valve on
the end. Shoot a stream of water, the cut it off. Watch as the tail end of
the water as it flys away. This can also be seen in the video, a nice
stream of liquid hydrogen flying away as the pressure relief valve shuts.
The tail end of the liquid gives a really good idea as to the velocity of
the stream of liquid. Of course the gas is much faster.

BTW, they had a nominal MECO the level of the Hydrogen never got below the
ECO sensors in the tank, there was plenty of fuel left in the tank. As, you
can clearly see the liquid vented out of the tank.

Looks like the liquid might travel quite a distance before evaporating.

Good thing the Orbiter wasn't in this stream of liquid hydrogen. Luckier
than Monty's Dog, I'd say.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Orbiter, External Tank, maybe just an SSME, the sale of these to the
American public would be a stimulus to Private Enterprise. Maybe there are
some in this country who don't want to reinvent the wheel like Space-X has
done developing the own "great" little engine. But, would like an old worn
out SSME, External Tank in Orbit (preferably at the Space Station), or
could could make an Orbiter profitable.

I just don't want to see the next fifty years look like the last fifty years
of manned space flight. Which seems to be NASA grand vision. Being a NASA
contractor is where the money was for the last fifty years, the sweet milk.
So, sweet, investing in Private Enterprise going to LEO is sour by
comparison. Transitioning the manned LEO market from a government own
monopoly something like the ELV market improve the investment climet so
that companies and people would be willing to spend their own money
developing vehicle.

Even Space-X has begun sipping the sweet NASA contract milk with Dragon. So
sweet that, Space-x is in danger of following the NASA cow around instead
of pursuing their own dream that they started with when they went and build
their own launch vehicle. Makes me wonder what strings were attached to
Space-X, probably the normal limited profit. Enough profit to exist, but
not enough to take the next step, contractors are profit limited.

Exactly what would the ELV market today think of NASA only using their own
rockets to put up their own unmanned satellites and taking a huge chunk of
the market out of the market place. Well probably not much, we only have
two companies doing it Boeing and Lockheed, and their satisfied with just
being "contractors" in manned Space flight.

Although it does look like Bigelow is trying to wake Lockheed up a little.
But it seems Lockheed might be trying to get "contractor" type money out of
Bigelow. Wanting paid for man rating something that is already man rated.

No major hurdles to upgrade Atlas V rockets for people...
http://space.newscientist.com/articl...or-people.html
....This should not prove to be an overwhelming hurdle, says FAA spokesperson
Hank Price. That's because US legislation passed in 2004 recognises the
inherent risks in the fledgling private spaceflight industry and instead
focuses on ensuring the safety of people on the ground, below the flight
path of any commercial mission.

"Our job is to protect the uninvolved public when it comes to launches,"
Price told New Scientist. "It does not permit us to ensure the safety of
the passengers like we do with commercial aviation."

Yeah, there is no major hurdle because the Atlas V has been man rated since
2004, and anything Lockheed does is just for their own state of mind. Or,
maybe they've been doing the contractor thing with NASA too long, trying to
get them to pay for the changes they want. I don't know. But with a single
string liquid ELV, the safety, or man rated part is really all in the
capsule and it's escape system. And, the escape system is only prudent, not
necessary since 2004.

Looking forward to next fifty years, not back to the last fifty years of
NASA. Apollo should remain in the history books, instead of being the plan.

NASA's Earth to LEO and back should be privatized, the sooner the better

Ron Paul in 08! :-)
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
--


wrote:

On Feb 13, 8:31 am, Craig Fink wrote:

The other unique capability besides 50+ passengers, is the ability to
bring the same size payloads back.

What payloads? Most are not in reach of a shuttle?


Another is a standardized cargo mass/volume concept, it would be a
reasonable standard. Kind of like how containerized shipping has
revolutionized international trade.

Already exist. 4 & 5 meter fairings. Also standard payload
adapters


NASA isn't going to build a beta Shuttle, privatization of NASA manned
space flight and the Shuttle would be a great step in the right
direction. In the private world, the Shuttle isn't really even near
optimal for travel between Earth and a Space Station/Motel/City. But it
would be a reasonable first step alpha, to follow on with a beta Shuttle
in the Private world.

There are a lot of things that could be done to the alpha shuttle to make
it more profitable in the Private world. Things that would never get done
in the Public Funding world of NASA. The first being to treat the
External Tank as payload instead of trash. Essentially doubling the
payload of each flight..This change costs almost nothing for such a huge
gain.

You are clueless. It would be a huge expense

Adding a
small gas/liquid separator and gaseous H2 O2 low pressure engine to the
intertank, and the residuals and unusable become usable, the ET is at the
space station with a full payload bay. The smaller the engine the better,
but it has to still be capable of completing the Rendezvous in a
reasonable time frame.

In a follow-on beta shuttle, replacing the RCS/OMS with gaseous H2/O2
engines would be great. Essentially turning all residual/unusable ascent
fuel/oxidizer into something useful.

Dreaming of how to modify a alpha Shuttle, leads to the next step, a
better beta Shuttle optimized to go to a Space Station/Hotel/City.
Treating the External Tank as payload helps build a Space Station, Hotel,
City, Manufacturing, Industry. A few million lbs of Aluminum in Orbit
would be quite valuable.

Once the ET is thought of as payload, then other modification to it
become more obvious. Things that don't cost much in terms of payload, but
increase it's usefulness. Obviously, this might include a larger access
door in the bottom of the ET. Maybe, even the whole docking adapter.

And now NASA wants to abandon the Space Station, in favor of a Moon
Base/Station.

I hope Congress is smart enough to figure out that it's the right time to
privatize LEO, the Shuttle and the Space Station.


there is no money in this. LEO access is already commercialized with
ELV's. RLV not economically viable at this time

Giving the Shuttle an extention in the hands of NASA would just be a waste
of money. NASA should
sweeten the milk for manned space flight investment, encouraging Private
Enterprise, instead of souring it.

Maybe the Space Station will show up on E-Bay along with the Orbiters.

And, I still want my Free ET,

No such thing

preferably at the Station. NASA has never
embraced the spirit of Reagan's offer.

Because it is non viable.

wrote:

On Feb 14, 6:57 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Orbiter, External Tank, maybe just an SSME, the sale of these to the
American public would be a stimulus to Private Enterprise.

Nobody wants these. They are money pits. The only reason they exist
is because the gov't pays for the. Private enterprise will and has
avoided them like the plague

I just told you I do. Money pit or not, I'd give them ten buck for a old
SSME just to see a dragster do Mach 1 in the quarter mile.

The SSME is a great engine, has a few re-usability issues but would be a
good start. A Private Enterprise would need a Fuel bias in the External
Tank at MECO. The SSMEs have separate LOX LH2 turbines, replacing the
vintage ECO sensors in the External Tank would give Private Enterprise an
extra 1000+ lbs of payload performance. Zero fuel bias, accomplished with a
better fuel gage in the tank. Going Hydrogen rich near MECO actually
increase the ISP of the engines too. A bonus.

Private Enterprise does things differently than NASA. NASA spends years and
lots of money figuring out how to make the 1960s Apollo vintage ECO sensors
work, by hand soldering the wires. Private Enterprise would have replace
the whole system with something better, something that makes it more
profitable, like zero Fuel bias.

I agree with you, they are money pits in the hands of NASA. Not because the
hardware is junk, because NASA is just a money pit.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @