|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Not having any insulation on the ET
Since it obviously is an issue that the insulation on the external tank
of the Shuttle tends to fall off, why not just completely do away with the insulation? Some sort of rapidly removed insulation could detach from the ET while it is on the pad just before lift off. This should save weight as a side benefit. If the heat generated in flight is too much, perhaps the insulation in some parts of the tank could be left off and the insulation needed for the actual flight made more robust. Has anything like this been considered? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Not having any insulation on the ET
jeff findley wrote: Bill Bonde writes: Since it obviously is an issue that the insulation on the external tank of the Shuttle tends to fall off, why not just completely do away with the insulation? snip Has anything like this been considered? Read the Columbia Loss FAQ: http://www.io.com/~o_m/home.html Look for this question and read the answer: Why is the ET insulation on the *outside*? I've quoted the text you refer to at the bottom. It doesn't really address what I'm talking about. I wasn't suggesting not having insulation while the tank was on the ground, just having some means to remove it immediately before lift-off. I don't think this is *that* wild of an idea. A two piece foam form that is well supported and mechanically moved from a position insulating the tanks away to allow lift-off would eliminate ice build up problems and too much boil off while Shuttle is on the ground. I don't have any idea whether heat generated during the flight would cause problems by too rapidly heating the liquid fuels or heating them in the wrong places too much. #begin quote from URL provided The insulating foam that was seen to break off the ET was able to do so because it is on the outside of the tank. This is in contrast to the design of other large launch vehicles, such as the Saturn 5, where the insulation was on the *inside* of metal-walled tanks. The reason for this is that the ET insulation is doing a somewhat different job on the Shuttle ET than is the case for other launchers. On, for instance, the Saturn 5, the internal insulation was purely to reduce the rate of boil-off of cryogenic (ultra-low temperature) propellants. It did not totally insulate the tanks, so the outer metal walls still became extremely cold; cold enough that water vapor from the air condenses and freezes into ice on the side of the launcher. At launch, such ice breaks free, often in quite large chunks. This is very clearly and spectacularly visible in many of the close-up films of Saturn 5 launches. For the Saturn, this was not a problem, as the ice fell straight off the side of the launcher. There was little for it to hit on the way, and what there was was part of an expendable rocket anyway. On the Shuttle, the situation is very different. As is now well known, anything falling off the ET can hit the Orbiter on the way and potentially cause serious damage to the delicate TPS tiles. As such it is important to prevent the build-up of ice on the ET. For this reason the insulation is on the *outside*, and as well as helping keep the propellants cold, it also stops the outer layer of the ET from chilling so far that ice forms on it. Whatever the hazards posed by fragments of foam insulation breaking off and striking the orbiter, the hazards from chunks of ice would be far worse. One other thing to keep in mind is this: a very significant advantage of external insulation is that metals get stronger at low temperatures, meaning the walls of the tank can be thinner than if the insulation were on the inside. #end quote |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Not having any insulation on the ET
Bill Bonde wrote in
: I wasn't suggesting not having insulation while the tank was on the ground, just having some means to remove it immediately before lift-off. I don't think this is *that* wild of an idea. A two piece foam form that is well supported and mechanically moved from a position insulating the tanks away to allow lift-off would eliminate ice build up problems and too much boil off while Shuttle is on the ground. It sounds extremely wild to me. The forms would necessarily be complex shapes due to the need to accommodate the SRBs and orbiter, so the removal would not be a straightforward translation-motion. The removal would also be a time-critical process that must work perfectly every time, else catastrophic results could ensue. It seems much easier to me to simply reformulate the foam so it doesn't fall off in the first place, or failing that, to prevent the big pieces from coming off and recertify the orbiter (hardening the TPS as necessary) to handle impacts from smaller pieces. I don't have any idea whether heat generated during the flight would cause problems by too rapidly heating the liquid fuels or heating them in the wrong places too much. It would. In fact, protection from ascent heating was the original reason for having the foam on the outside of the tank - the ice formation problem was not appreciated until the mid-to-late 1970s. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Not having any insulation on the ET
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
Bill Bonde wrote in : I wasn't suggesting not having insulation while the tank was on the ground, just having some means to remove it immediately before lift-off. I don't think this is *that* wild of an idea. A two piece foam form that is well supported and mechanically moved from a position insulating the tanks away to allow lift-off would eliminate ice build up problems and too much boil off while Shuttle is on the ground. It sounds extremely wild to me. The forms would necessarily be complex shapes due to the need to accommodate the SRBs and orbiter, so the removal would not be a straightforward translation-motion. The removal would also be a time-critical process that must work perfectly every time, else catastrophic results could ensue. How about a cold dry helium balloon covering, the balloon is over pressurized and shatters as shuttle clears launch tower. The balloon fits over ET and it can made reflective of solar energy. The balloon strength would mainly have to be strong enough to withstand a windy day and it's helium pressure would be low. The total weight of balloon could be a few pounds. It seems much easier to me to simply reformulate the foam so it doesn't fall off in the first place, or failing that, to prevent the big pieces from coming off and recertify the orbiter (hardening the TPS as necessary) to handle impacts from smaller pieces. I don't have any idea whether heat generated during the flight would cause problems by too rapidly heating the liquid fuels or heating them in the wrong places too much. It would. In fact, protection from ascent heating was the original reason for having the foam on the outside of the tank - the ice formation problem was not appreciated until the mid-to-late 1970s. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Not having any insulation on the ET
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Not having any insulation on the ET
How about a cold dry helium balloon covering, the balloon is over pressurized and shatters as shuttle clears launch tower. The balloon fits over ET and it can made reflective of solar energy. The balloon strength would mainly have to be strong enough to withstand a windy day and it's helium pressure would be low. The total weight of balloon could be a few pounds. You should get a patent lawyer on this! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shenzou booster question | Heartbreak | Space Shuttle | 25 | November 11th 03 11:28 PM |
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT: FOAM INSULATION CAUSED THE CRASH | Bill McGinnis | Space Shuttle | 1 | August 28th 03 05:33 PM |
Shuttle Foam Test Yields Hole in Wing - Associated Press | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 29 | August 12th 03 03:30 AM |
Columbia Investigators Fire Foam Insulation at Shuttle Wing, Blowing Open 2-Foot Hole; The crowd of about 100 gasped and cried, "Wow!" when the foam hit. | Jay | Space Shuttle | 32 | July 12th 03 02:41 AM |
heaters on bipod versus insulation. | Kegwasher | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 7th 03 07:22 PM |