Apply shuttle ET foam in a vacuum.

"John Steinberg" wrote in message
...
Ed Ruf wrote:

Care to tell us how you intend to fit the 150+ft long by 27+ ft
diameter
ET in the vacuum facility at Plumbrook?

The Plum Brook facility is 100' in diameter and 122' tall. I'll just
jackhammer out the 8' of concrete and use a plasma torch on the
aluminum skin of the roof.

Now, add a 40-foot aluminum dormer, weld in a new skin over the removed
roof, pour some fresh concrete, let dry for 96 hours and pop that
sucker right in.

Job could be done in just a few weeks and come in at under $100K. Not
much harder than putting in a new bathroom without the horrors of
choosing the right wallpaper.

Sometimes even rocket science isn't rocket science.

--
-John Steinberg
email: lid


You forgot the probable need for increased pumping capacity needed to handle
the larger internal volume. Rocket science isn't always rocket science, but
it often is actual science. Before you respond, please show you've done the
math.

John Steinberg wrote:
Carsten A. Arnholm wrote:
Yes. Launch the shuttle first and *then* apply the foam.

FYI:
http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/spf/

I've just done some very quick scratch figuring and the real answer
isn't better foam application but rather a better ablative material.

Turns out my materials science manual has the answer on page 831.

Duct tape.

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.

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...

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. External ablative shielding plus internal
foam would do both better than we get right now, but would be
heavier.

And any solution involving internal insulation will require
testing and safety validation.


-george william herbert
/

"John Steinberg" wrote in message
...
Dr. P. Quackenbush wrote:

You forgot the probable need ...
^^^^^^^^
Before you respond, please show you've done the
math.

No, I will not do your homework, Dr.


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.

George William Herbert wrote:
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...

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. External ablative shielding plus internal
foam would do both better than we get right now, but would be
heavier.

Even better would be to put the actual space vehicle in a position where
falling objects will not hit it. That means on the top and not on the side,
under or whatever.

--
Carsten A. Arnholm
http://arnholm.org/
N59.776 E10.457

"John Steinberg" wrote in message
...

Sometimes even rocket science isn't rocket science.

Oh! I love this one. Might I be able to quote this from you in my sig
line?

Thanks!

Jim

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

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

"Carsten A. Arnholm" wrote:
Even better would be to put the actual space vehicle in a position where
falling objects will not hit it. That means on the top and not on the side,
under or whatever.

Which doesn't protect the booster from the spacecraft. CIP Skylab I.

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

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

How close can you get to the SRB without frying at liftoff? Hypothetically
how close could you get to the SRB in space. How much wood can a woodchuck
chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? huh? took my meds today too





prevents heat transfer. It's not




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

In article ,
alex pozgaj wrote:
Roy Smith writes:


1) It's too tight.

2) It's too loose.

It therefore follows that a roll of duct tape and a can of WD-40 should be
able to fix most problems.



Is that original? I'd love to use it in my sig!

Well, this is already in my cookie file.

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.

--
Kathy Rages