|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Kathy Rages wrote:
You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use the WD-40. Of course, for women substitute Pam for WD-40. Jim Davis |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message .com... On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:26:36 -0500, Derek Lyons wrote (in article ): (George William Herbert) wrote: Foam on the outside does both jobs. Foam on the inside of the tanks would help prevent water ice buildup on the outside, but not help with ascent heating. Huh? Insulation is insulation - it prevents heat transfer. It's not a one way mirror. D. I think GWH means ascent heating effects on the structural materials. Internal insulation would protect against boil-off of cryogens, but would do nothing to assist with the effects of heat weakening the airframe of the tank. Exactly. And the ET, as designed and built, needs its aluminum-lithium structure to remain cold since it's quite a bit stronger at LH2/LOX temperatures than even at room temperature. Add to that the effects of aerodynamic heating, and you'll find that you really do need the foam on the outside. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote: Foam on the outside does both jobs. Foam on the inside of the tanks would help prevent water ice buildup on the outside, but not help with ascent heating. Huh? Insulation is insulation - it prevents heat transfer. It's not a one way mirror. Ascent heating of the tank, as opposed to its contents? -jake |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message .com... On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:26:36 -0500, Derek Lyons wrote (in article ): (George William Herbert) wrote: Foam on the outside does both jobs. Foam on the inside of the tanks would help prevent water ice buildup on the outside, but not help with ascent heating. Huh? Insulation is insulation - it prevents heat transfer. It's not a one way mirror. I think GWH means ascent heating effects on the structural materials. Internal insulation would protect against boil-off of cryogens, but would do nothing to assist with the effects of heat weakening the airframe of the tank. Exactly. And the ET, as designed and built, needs its aluminum-lithium structure to remain cold since it's quite a bit stronger at LH2/LOX temperatures than even at room temperature. Add to that the effects of aerodynamic heating, and you'll find that you really do need the foam on the outside. In other words, George (incorrectly) stated as a general principle something that appears to be Shuttle specific. D, -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
I think it's simply AWESOME how many more experts on this subject are here
on SAA than there are in all of NASA or aeronautical/space engineering. Simply STUNNING! SAA never fails to impress... ACKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Jan Owen To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address... Latitude: 33.662 Longitude: -112.3272 "Mr Scott" wrote in message ... Interesting idea. Is it the solution? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
George William Herbert wrote: Alas, you neglect the OTHER reason there's foam on the external tank. Lots of stuff is ablative to resist heat loads on ascent. If that was all there was to it, there'd be a think spray on layer of fiberglass or something there. How much of an issue is this. The ET is cooled from the inside by cyogenic propellants, which can afford to warm up during launch as their pressure is falling. How hot can Aluminium get if its got LOX on one side? The pre-launch reason to have foam there is to prevent ice buildup on the outside of the tank. Because, if you think foam shedding is bad for Shuttle Tiles and RCC leading edge sections, you should see what ten pounds of nice solid liquid-hydrogen subchilled water ice will do to any surface of the shuttle... If this is the major reason, why not ditch the foam 30 seconds before launch. Ice build up after that would be negligible. Foam on the outside does both jobs. Foam on the inside of the tanks would help prevent water ice buildup on the outside, but not help with ascent heating. Would probbaly make things worse, as the structural material would no longer be cooled by the cryogenic material inside. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Davis wrote: Of course, for women substitute Pam for WD-40. If that's Pam Anderson, wouldn't that be more like W-44D? ;-) Pat |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"John Steinberg" wrote in message ... Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote: Um, your idea, YOUR homework. My job is not to prove your ideas will work or not. You bring it to the table, you prove it can work. Those are the rules of life. No, it wasn't my idea at all. I'm not the OP, Quack. Frankly, I see no advantage to applying foam in a vacuum when the launch site is so pregnant with problematic humidity and the foam and/or application thereof is not a suitable material or process and/or the existing shuttle design is just too flawed to fix. You opined that there was a "probable need for increased pumping capacity," which indicates you don't know if there is an actual need, which finally suggests you were passing the burden of proof forward. Is there a need? Huh? I checked with the nice folks at Ames. Yes, there's a need. Thanks for asking. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Jeff Findley" wrote: "Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message .com... On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:26:36 -0500, Derek Lyons wrote (in article ): (George William Herbert) wrote: Foam on the outside does both jobs. Foam on the inside of the tanks would help prevent water ice buildup on the outside, but not help with ascent heating. In other words, George (incorrectly) stated as a general principle something that appears to be Shuttle specific. No, in other words you took George's words that were cleary about the ET and misread them and now you're trying to cover your mistake. D, -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Jan Owen,
The only sorry aspect of our NASA that's impressive are the LLPOF factors of how they've gotten so many nice and undeserving folks quite dead. At least I'm impressed. BTW; what would you think about a structural tank insulation worth of R-1024/m ~ Don't look now: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been other life upon Venus http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
That Interesting Foam Situation | Cardman | Policy | 5 | July 29th 05 09:24 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
LSC Room 103, LCCV, UPRCV | Allen Thomson | Policy | 4 | February 5th 04 11:20 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing - Associated Press | Rusty B | History | 8 | July 10th 03 12:05 AM |