Steel mesh on Booster

Why don't they put a Steel net cover on the booster to prevent the foam
from falling off?

Don't bother responding i just realized it's been talked about, my bad

wrote:
Why don't they put a Steel net cover on the booster to prevent the foam
from falling off?

I think we had this one before, many times. I think, basically, the bottom
line is that it does not work, and I doubt they would want to make it
metal, as this would be heavy.


I think the funniest skit on this idea I read was a whole spoof argument
from someone saying that the tank should be covered in a giant condom.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


wrote in message
ps.com...
Why don't they put a Steel net cover on the booster to prevent the foam
from falling off?

Brian Gaff wrote:
I think the funniest skit on this idea I read was a whole spoof argument
from someone saying that the tank should be covered in a giant condom.

Don't laugh. If the shuttle were russian, they would have long ago
struck a deal with trojan for marketing rights of such a "condom, and
the revenus alone might well pay for the extra weight and manufacture of
the rubber coating.

Basically, what you need is some thin layer that can expand/conrtract.
So if there are cracks in the underlying foam, the ruber would continue
to cover and air flow during flight wouldn't go into the crack and thus
not be able to lift pieces of foam off.


What NASA really needs is perhaps better rules on weather. Don't tank
the bloody thing unless you have a very good idea that you can go on the
day. And perhaps move the filling of the ET closer to launch to reduce
weather uncertainties. Remove the fill/empty/fill cycles, and the foam
is probably going to be in much better condition.

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:24:57 -0400, John Doe wrote:

Brian Gaff wrote:
I think the funniest skit on this idea I read was a whole spoof argument
from someone saying that the tank should be covered in a giant condom.

Don't laugh. If the shuttle were russian, they would have long ago
struck a deal with trojan for marketing rights of such a "condom, and
the revenus alone might well pay for the extra weight and manufacture of
the rubber coating.

Basically, what you need is some thin layer that can expand/conrtract.
So if there are cracks in the underlying foam, the ruber would continue
to cover and air flow during flight wouldn't go into the crack and thus
not be able to lift pieces of foam off.

I think you also need it to be able to survive a great deal of heating.
Maybe latex condoms are the ticket, but my hat's off to the guy who can
test one up to the thermal conditions of an ET on ascent

What NASA really needs is perhaps better rules on weather. Don't tank
the bloody thing unless you have a very good idea that you can go on the
day. And perhaps move the filling of the ET closer to launch to reduce
weather uncertainties. Remove the fill/empty/fill cycles, and the foam
is probably going to be in much better condition.

Yeah, but they didn't fill the tanks with only a 10% chance of good weather-
it was 40%. And the trend was worsening. Where would you draw the line at
which you don't give it a try? 60%?

I think I heard them say they can cycle the tank up to 13 times. How close
to that number have they ever come? And extreme trivia request- what
were the worst weather odds that actually ended up with a successful
launch?

Dale

Brian Gaff wrote:

I think we had this one before, many times. I think, basically, the bottom
line is that it does not work, and I doubt they would want to make it
metal, as this would be heavy.


I think the funniest skit on this idea I read was a whole spoof argument
from someone saying that the tank should be covered in a giant condom.

Brian

I put up a spoof webpage with the ET condom :-)
See http://homepage.ntlworld.com/s.slee/durexcovery.htm

--
Gareth Slee