Military Space Plane = Space life boat?
David E. Powell
couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!
Frogwatch
wrote:
> It sounds like the general thrust of the stuff discussed on here a
> couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!
I thought that was what soyuz was for.
Gordon
Yes, but wouldn;t a modern lifeboat be preferable to a 50 year old
design? We need to upgrade at some point, why not now? The shuttle
is fork-tender - its a new era in US space travel and relying on that
rickety old Soviet ball in an emergency doesn't mesh with fielding a
brand new generation of heavy lift vehicle for the push towards a moon
base and ultimately the jump to Mars. Time to upgrade.
v/r Gordon
dump...@hotmail.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2453603.stm
Quote:
"The US space agency (Nasa) is to accelerate the
development of a replacement for the space shuttle
and produce a "lifeboat" for the International Space
Station (ISS)."
This is not a new idea.
Brian Gaff
this. Surely if it is of any use as in this thread, someone, somewhere
should have twigged it earlier, and seen the potential.
Is it a case of left hand not knowing what right hand is up to on a grand
scale, or is the space plane either rubbish, or designed for something more
sinister?
How many crew does it have, and also how safe is it given the current
criteria of nasa future vehicles?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
<dump...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a90247d6-4f80-4c9b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Jack Linthicum
> No, I simply cannot understand why the military has been allowed to design
> this. Surely if it is of any use as in this thread, someone, somewhere
> should have twigged it earlier, and seen the potential.
> Is it a case of left hand not knowing what right hand is up to on a grand
> scale, or is the space plane either rubbish, or designed for something more
> sinister?
> How many crew does it have, and also how safe is it given the current
> criteria of nasa future vehicles?
> Brian
>
> --
> Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name may be lost.
>
> news:a90247d6-4f80-4c9b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Note this article from November 12, 2002:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2453603.stm
>
> > Quote:
>
> > "The US space agency (Nasa) is to accelerate the
> > development of a replacement for the space shuttle
> > and produce a "lifeboat" for the International Space
> > Station (ISS)."
>
> > This is not a new idea.
>
>
Is there not a Soyuz hanging on the ISS?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/ISS-Crew-Takes-Refuge-in-Soyuz-039-Lifeboat-039-106707.shtml
vaughn
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c2d854f6-753a-42eb...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 4:40 am, "Brian Gaff" <bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Is there not a Soyuz hanging on the ISS?
>http://news.softpedia.com/news/ISS-Crew-Takes-Refuge-in-Soyuz-039-Lifeboat-039-106707.shtml
Actually that article is out of date. Since there are now 6 crew on the ISS,
there are always at least 2 Soyuz spacecraft docked at the ISS standing by for
"lifeboat" duty. They work fine and must be a far cheaper, simpler, and safer
solution than any new "spaceplane" design could possibly be.
Vaughn
bob haller safety advocate
> Yes, but wouldn;t a modern lifeboat be preferable to a 50 year old
> design? �We need to upgrade at some point, why not now? �The shuttle
> is fork-tender - its a new era in US space travel and relying on that
> rickety old Soviet ball in an emergency doesn't mesh with fielding a
> brand new generation of heavy lift vehicle for the push towards a moon
> base and ultimately the jump to Mars. �Time to upgrade.
>
> v/r Gordon
Ahh dont you realize the push too moon mars isnt affordable given the
realties of our times.......
heck nasa wasted how many billion on a poor conception, bad idea
launcher that probaby had its first and last launch, which was just
for show anyway?
while all along we had delta and atlas heavy expendables and we could
of been flying our new crew vehicle by now..........
shuttle program is winding down with no affordable replacement, and
ISS is scheduled to end in 2015.
lets face facts US man in space days are cming to a close
bob haller safety advocate
wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c2d854f6-753a-42eb...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 4:40 am, "Brian Gaff" <bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Is there not a Soyuz hanging on the ISS?
>
> Actually that article is out of date. �Since there are now 6 crew on the ISS,
> there are always at least 2 Soyuz spacecraft docked at the ISS standing by for
> "lifeboat" duty. �They work fine and must be a far cheaper, simpler, and safer
> solution than any new "spaceplane" design could possibly be.
>
> Vaughn
MOOSE, although sounding wierd, should be standard equiptement on all
human LEO flights.
Brian Thorn
<vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:
>Actually that article is out of date. Since there are now 6 crew on the ISS,
Oddly enough, due to Soyuz and Shuttle scheduling irregularities, ISS
is down to 2 crew in December.
>there are always at least 2 Soyuz spacecraft docked at the ISS standing by for
>"lifeboat" duty. They work fine and must be a far cheaper, simpler, and safer
>solution than any new "spaceplane" design could possibly be.
There are advantages to the original X-38 CRV idea, though. For
starters, it would have been delivered to ISS as Shuttle cargo, and
therefore would not have fired its engines until it was needed. This
gave X-38 an orbital shelf-life of 2-3 years, compared to 6 months for
Soyuz. X-38 also would have offered a Shuttle-like gentle ride to the
ground, instead of Soyuz's high-g, retro-rocket landing, and that
would have been important in the CRV's most likely role: evacuation of
a sick or injured crewmember.
Brian
Jack Linthicum
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:50:36 -0500, "vaughn"
>
Are you sure? This flight is due to bring back one Astronaut
Gordon
wrote:
Sure, but that is a monument to the fallen USSR hanging off the side
of that structure - the Soyuz is literally the '57 Chevy of space
vehicles and we should, half a century, be able to field a more modern
lifeboat. The Soyuz is great and works *most* of the time, but its
time to move forward.
G
bob haller safety advocate
>
> - Show quoted text -
soyuz is pretty robust on a bad day, has launch boost escape and can
do a ballistic re entry. neither of which can the shuttle do.....
vaughn
"Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
news:05636dc6-a6cb-4519...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> the Soyuz is literally the '57 Chevy of space vehicles
Which is exactly what makes it such a good escape system, it is a proven,
mature, system with known reliability.
>... we should, half a century, be able to field a more modern lifeboat.
Given an unlimited budget, I am sure that is correct. Of course, we may lose a
crew or 2 as we work out the kinks in a totally new system, just as we have in
the shuttle. ...But what the hell? At least it would be a NEW and MODERN
system; which, if we are lucky, might work as well as the old one.
> The Soyuz is great and works *most* of the time, but its
>time to move forward.
How many crews have been lost in the Soyuz lately? How does that compare to the
space shuttle? What makes you think that NASA will do any better in the future?
Vaughn
Brian Thorn
<vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:
>How many crews have been lost in the Soyuz lately? How does that compare to the
>space shuttle?
Be careful using time as a measure of reliability. Its the number of
flights that tell the tale.
Shuttle flew 88 times between the Challenger and Columbia accidents.
Soyuz is on its 91st and 92nd flights since the Soyuz 11 accident.
Brian
John Doe
> Be careful using time as a measure of reliability. Its the number of
> flights that tell the tale.
Number of flights alone isn't enough.
One needs to consider how many modifications are being made to the ship
during its lifetimne and if those end up making the ship better or worse
(from safety point of view).
NASA changed the foam on the ET, and it resulted in Columbia after x
flights. And post Columbia, it took a number of flights before NASA
finally seemed to get it right. Assuming that the last 8 flights of the
shuttle have no foam issues, should their record be tainted by the
period that was before the proper fix was implemented ?
If what caused Challenger was permanently fixed after 1986, should the
Challenger accident be included in today's statistics since it wouldn't
happen again ?
If I buy an Airbus A320 aircraft today, I can choose to look at the
whole life of the aircraft (and include the absolutely dismal
reliability/problems during the first couple of years) or I could choose
to look at current reliability of the aircraft. The later case would be
far more reresentative of what I can expect.
One also needs to look at sporadic problems. There have been a few
re-entry problems (non fatal) with Soyuz of late. Have they been fully
investigated and fixed, or are they just banking on statistics and hope
they don't happen again ? Until those are investigated and fixed, then
those glitches need to be included in reliability statistics.
vaughn
"John Doe" <jd...@doe.org> wrote in message
news:01016bc9$0$23373$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
There have been a few
> re-entry problems (non fatal) with Soyuz of late.
Not only non fatal, non injury.
>Have they been fully
> investigated and fixed, or are they just banking on statistics and hope
> they don't happen again ? Until those are investigated and fixed, then
> those glitches need to be included in reliability statistics.
Actually, ballistic reentry is a reversionary mode built into the Soyuz system.
Having it happen is certainly not ideal, and must be embarrassing and
inconvenient for the Russians, but it arguably does not constitute an accident.
Vaughn
Gordon
wrote:
> "Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
>
> news:05636dc6-a6cb-4519...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > the Soyuz is literally the '57 Chevy of space vehicles
>
> Which is exactly what makes it such a good escape system, it is a proven,
> mature, system with known reliability.
>
> >... we should, half a century, be able to field a more modern lifeboat.
>
> Given an unlimited budget, I am sure that is correct. Of course, we may lose a
> crew or 2 as we work out the kinks in a totally new system, just as we have in
> the shuttle. ...But what the hell? At least it would be a NEW and MODERN
> system; which, if we are lucky, might work as well as the old one.
Neither STS loss occurred during its trial period, releasing quite a
bit of air out of your point.
> > The Soyuz is great and works *most* of the time, but its
> >time to move forward.
>
> How many crews have been lost in the Soyuz lately?
Vaughn, I never said it was a bad system or that it was more dangerous
than other parts of space operations - my criticism was mild and not
intended to be seen as a rush to scrap the venerable Russian craft.
We can't use that thing forever and the X-38 or something of that
lifeboaty-type style is going to be a component in the natural
evolution of the current STS-ISS-Soyuz team. Or do you feel we need
to keep the old ball around indefinitely?
> How does that compare to the
> space shuttle? What makes you think that NASA will do any better in the future?
It's my belief that we will continue out into space with corporate
funding and hidden military expenditures instead of government
monopoly. I see NASA becoming irrelevent in 20-25 years and
ultimately being replaced by Carnival Space Cruises, Atlas Freight
Lines, and such. My money is on the descendents of the X Prize
winners opening the door to the next phase of space travel. NASA
screwed the pooch so bad with the X-33 that anything else they've done
since then on can't even surprise me. (I have a couple of panels from
the X-33 after it was broken up - I turned them into end tables.)
G
Jorge R. Frank
> "John Doe" <jd...@doe.org> wrote in message
> news:01016bc9$0$23373$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> There have been a few
>> re-entry problems (non fatal) with Soyuz of late.
>
> Not only non fatal, non injury.
Incorrect. There have been injuries, some serious enough to result in
permanent grounding of the astronauts/cosmonauts involved. Just not
publicly reported.
>> Have they been fully
>> investigated and fixed, or are they just banking on statistics and hope
>> they don't happen again ? Until those are investigated and fixed, then
>> those glitches need to be included in reliability statistics.
>
> Actually, ballistic reentry is a reversionary mode built into the Soyuz system.
> Having it happen is certainly not ideal, and must be embarrassing and
> inconvenient for the Russians, but it arguably does not constitute an accident.
It is in almost every meaningful way analogous to a car accident where
the airbags deploy and the occupants escape with moderate injuries
rather than being killed.
vaughn
>
>> Given an unlimited budget, I am sure that is correct. Of course, we may lose
>> a
>> crew or 2 as we work out the kinks in a totally new system, just as we have
>> in
>> the shuttle. ...But what the hell? At least it would be a NEW and MODERN
>> system; which, if we are lucky, might work as well as the old one.
>Neither STS loss occurred during its trial period, releasing quite a
>bit of air out of your point.
Sorry, but I can't agree. Both shuttle accidents uncovered significant flaws in
the design and operation of the shuttle system. They were faults that cost the
lives to two entire crews and they were faults that needed correction before
further flight. The simple fact that those faults were not uncovered in the
test period is not relevant
>Vaughn, I never said it was a bad system or that it was more dangerous
>than other parts of space operations - my criticism was mild and not
>intended to be seen as a rush to scrap the venerable Russian craft.
Agreed, and I am not saying that the US does not need a new spaceplane. I am
simply saying that "lifeboat duty" for the ISS is not even remotely a proper
justification for one.
>We can't use that thing forever and the X-38 or something of that
>lifeboaty-type style is going to be a component in the natural
>evolution of the current STS-ISS-Soyuz team. Or do you feel we need
>to keep the old ball around indefinitely?
"Indefinitely" is a long time. The Soyuz system will certainly serve for the
projected lifetime of the ISS. I believe the original target was 2015, but now
2020 is the latest date that I see mentioned.
>> How does that compare to the
>> space shuttle? What makes you think that NASA will do any better in the
>> future?
>It's my belief that we will continue out into space with corporate
>funding and hidden military expenditures instead of government
>monopoly. I see NASA becoming irrelevant in 20-25 years and
>ultimately being replaced by Carnival Space Cruises, Atlas Freight
>Lines, and such.
No argument there. NASA best chance of remaining relevant is in interplanetary
science and exploration, but not as a player in orbital flight.
Vaughn
Brian Thorn
>NASA changed the foam on the ET, and it resulted in Columbia after x
>flights.
Nope. Columbia was flying with the penultimate Lightweight Tank
(ET-93), the design flown since STS-6, not one of the new Super
Lightweight Tanks introduced in 1998 (ET-96 and higher).
Brian
Brian Thorn
<vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:
>
>"Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
>news:bb9d4a9e-155c-4fd4...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Given an unlimited budget, I am sure that is correct. Of course, we may lose
>>> a
>>> crew or 2 as we work out the kinks in a totally new system, just as we have
>>> in
>>> the shuttle. ...But what the hell? At least it would be a NEW and MODERN
>>> system; which, if we are lucky, might work as well as the old one.
>
>>Neither STS loss occurred during its trial period, releasing quite a
>>bit of air out of your point.
>
>Sorry, but I can't agree. Both shuttle accidents uncovered significant flaws in
>the design and operation of the shuttle system.
Actually, both accidents were caused by faults known well in advance,
but put on the back-burner because "it's not been a problem before".
That doesn't sound dramatically different than Russia's lukewarm
responses to the Soyuz ballistic entries.
>They were faults that cost the
>lives to two entire crews and they were faults that needed correction before
>further flight. The simple fact that those faults were not uncovered in the
>test period is not relevant
They were. STS-2 had the first o-ring seal problems, and 51-C had the
severe problems during the coldest launch prior to Challenger. Nobody
listened or wanted to put their neck on the line and call for a
standdown to redesign. STS-27 had such serious tile damage from (SRB,
not ET) insulation liberation in 1988 that its Commander did not
expect to survive. STS-112 had a serious ET foam liberation event two
flights before Columbia and NASA was already looking into changes.
Brian
frank
Yup. Rockwell wanted to keep the Shuttle in flight test status after
flight 4, but NASA didn't want to spend the money. Their argument was
the X-15 was always thought of as a test vehicle. NASA said its flown
and came back. There were O Ring burn problems on a lot of flights,
we'd get reports of charred O Rings and since we weren't the
engineers, thought that the guys at the Cape had it under control.
Heads didn't roll after the Challenger explosion except for the
whistle blowers. Thiokol got more bucks, management clapped each other
on the back and got multi thousand bonuses.
As far as the foam, still a problem. That may never really be solvable
except changing flight parameters. Worked on the O rings, hey, if its
freezing remember Feynmanns glass of water.
I'm not sure the new contracting they did with USA Space or whatever
it was instead of all the individual contractors was a good idea
either. But, cheap is good. I'm not sure there's any other place where
you want a tech rep you go anyplace but the original manufacturer or
vendor.
But NASA has turned into a bunch of bean counters, not real engineers.
It pretty much shows.
bob haller safety advocate
>
> - Show quoted text -
before columbia there had been major wing damage from foam, near burn
thrus.......
yet management just ignored it.
before columbia I posted about the large number of flying catches,
nearly lost vehicle and crew..... I was called chicken little and
reassured everything was fine. even pad rats said dont worry
I was in orlando waiting for columbias sonic boom that never came.
told my wife when columbia failed to arrive, they are all dead, from
management failure / schedule failure.
it was a terrible day.
Brian Thorn
<dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Worked on the O rings, hey, if its
>freezing remember Feynmanns glass of water.
That particular problem was solved rather simply... heaters for the
field joints, insurance for the capture feature and the third o-ring
that countered joint rotation.
Brian
American Eagle
NASA was never a real Engineering firm. North American Aviation did all
the design work with the Germans overseeing. Do keep in mind that North
American Aviation was started and controlled originally in New Jersey by
German immigrant Engineers and Scientists. They bought out United
Vultee's (Convair nee General Dynamics) old factory in Downy California
in 1938. The German Engineers that moved with Dutch Kindlenberg were
guaranteed jobs for life. Von Braun found kindred spirits there and
North American Aviation became the prime contractor and research center.
NASA had a mirror employee of every Engineer at North American Aviation.
The O ring problem only popped up after the morons at NASA determined
that reengineering that system to make it cheaper. In other words they
took a well engineered Chevrolet Vega Cosworth Engine and turned it into
a cheap piece of crap. NASA is a typical Government overpaid, under
worked Bureaucracy. Lots of assholes there that are political appointees
based on corrupted dealings. Just be damned glad that the NAA nee
Rockwell Engineers can keep things rolling in spite of the massive
NASA handicap.
Alexander
The X15 was around years before NASA was hatched. NASA was not involved
in that. Rockwells contracts were approved by Congress ... not NASA.
NASA was merely a government boondoggle oversite committee.
Steve Hix
Alexander <Alex...@thegreat.org> wrote:
>
> The X15 was around years before NASA was hatched. NASA was not involved
> in that.
NACA studies on hypersonic flight by Walter Dornberger led to the
decision in 1954 to build the X-15. The first unpowered flight was in
June, 1959.
NACA, having been around for about 46 years, became NASA October 1,
1958; lock, stock, barrels and employees.
Except for the newer label, NACA/NASA long predated the X-15.
> Rockwells contracts were approved by Congress ... not NASA.
If you're going to be picking nits, it wasn't Rockwell until a long time
later.
> NASA was merely a government boondoggle oversite committee.
For all it's problems and failures since Apollo was shut down, and
they're legion, NASA during the earlier years was much more than that.
At least try to be a bit more honest.
Jack Linthicum
Bean counters who go on leave during shuttle flights.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> thrus.......
>
> yet management just ignored it.
>
> before columbia I posted about the large number of flying catches,
> nearly lost vehicle and crew..... I was called chicken little and
> reassured everything was fine. even pad rats said dont worry
>
> I was in orlando waiting for columbias sonic boom that never came.
> told my wife when columbia failed to arrive, they are all dead, from
> management failure / schedule failure.
>
> it was a terrible day.
Yes, wife and I were watching the tube, and they were 3 minutes
late, she said they were dead, I went into denial, saying 'head winds'
or minor timing error could account for the delay, but after 5 minutes
I got a very bad feeling.
I thought of the families awaiting the glorious Shuttle touch-down
that never happened.
And yes, operating at those energies, any anomally must be
totally understood...
Ken
Alexander
> In article <7ms30mF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Alexander <Alex...@thegreat.org> wrote:
>> The X15 was around years before NASA was hatched. NASA was not involved
>> in that.
>
> NACA studies on hypersonic flight by Walter Dornberger led to the
> decision in 1954
You been reading Wiki.. It is incorrect.. Its earlier then that.
to build the X-15. The first unpowered flight was in
> June, 1959.
Nope... In the beginning we lost our ass on that.
Time NASA got into the Act Scott Cross field had been dumped from test
pilot status and was Chief of Flight test.
>
> NACA, having been around for about 46 years, became NASA October 1,
> 1958; lock, stock, barrels and employees.
Still was not involved in the X15. Cheap funding came from Airforce.
Next you will be telling me that Hound dog was a Nasa project too.
Please keep in mind NASA was a space agency.
>
> Except for the newer label, NACA/NASA long predated the X-15.
>
>> Rockwells contracts were approved by Congress ... not NASA.
>
> If you're going to be picking nits, it wasn't Rockwell until a long time
> later.
Big fucking deal My Serial there was 5 digits. I bet NASA also was
involved with The Navajo, Minuteman, Ascore, Mark II etc. ;-p
OH lordy don't forget the P51 and that little ole fighter Jet that ruled
the skies over Korea.
>
>> NASA was merely a government boondoggle oversite committee.
>
> For all it's problems and failures since Apollo was shut down, and
> they're legion, NASA during the earlier years was much more than that.
Nuts.. They ignored every interoffice memo for safety changes on Apollo.
The Hatch problem was designed and boondoggled into be built and the
bastards refused to incorporate until we finally killed someone. We knew
just from the drop towers in Downey that hatch was a pile of shit. Only
thing we didn't design.
>
> At least try to be a bit more honest.
You should try that.. Look up the airframe designers for the X15.
Also try the power plant folks also. NAA was the prime contractor for
space. That meant the research also. I spent many a deafening hour in
the cracked blockhouse at Santa Susana MT and never laid eyes on NASA
Geniuses. I did see Von Braun and some of his lads whisk in and out though.
bob haller safety advocate
>
> - Show quoted text -
just like climate change / global warming.. when you dont understand a
killer type risk at least respect it/
Google the archives.. I posted BEFORE columbia asking about a shuttle
stuck at station. Was called chicken little, posters here said it was
impossible.
Ken S. Tucker
Well perhaps the foam shed problem could be solved by
removing the foam prior to launch, say at t-10 minutes.
Icing would (should) shake off when the SRB's start to
shake the ET. That reduces the weight and drag of the ET.
Ken
BradGuth
> On Nov 20, 10:10 pm, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 10:27 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > It sounds like the general thrust of the stuff discussed on here a
> > > couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!
>
> > I thought that was what soyuz was for.
>
> Yes, but wouldn;t a modern lifeboat be preferable to a 50 year old
> design? We need to upgrade at some point, why not now? The shuttle
> is fork-tender - its a new era in US space travel and relying on that
> rickety old Soviet ball in an emergency doesn't mesh with fielding a
> brand new generation of heavy lift vehicle for the push towards a moon
> base and ultimately the jump to Mars. Time to upgrade.
>
> v/r Gordon
What's a really good interplanetary shuttle (half again or twice the
volumetric size of the existing shuttle, and its 100 tonne payload
capacity) packing a nuclear reactor (actually as being pulled or
pushed by as an external reactor/thruster module that would otherwise
remain in LEO) with those multiple MW ion thrusters, going to cost us?
With a sufficient cache of onboard or external energy (reactor or
possibly solar derived), most any fuel or substance can be utilized
for ion thrusting, especially nifty and extremely dense as well as
already charged up and ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon
(Rn222), as obtained from a few kg<tonne of radium that could
otherwise be utilized as is within the reactor.
Btw; our moon should have loads of radium.
~ BG
bob haller safety advocate
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh yeah take WINGS on a mission with no where to use them but a
landing strip on the earth,
Dan
And just how much time would scraping the foam require? For that
matter, the crew doing the scraping would probably be somewhat
interested in surviving the launch sequence so they would prefer being a
couple kilometers away from the shuttle at the time.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan
If you do some research on guth's posts you will find this is one of
his typical ideas. Guth world has nothing to do with reality.
Gordon
Bless you for remembering Dick's attempt to inject realism into the
debate. His personal report on the loss of Challenger was a
refreshing blast of facts amid all the finger pointing and denials.
v/r Gordon
Ken S. Tucker
Well Danelda, make it T-30min, the Engineers Union prevents me
from disclosing details, OT, but I think I'll peel a banana for lunch.
The solution is a win-win, we eliminate the source of the problem,
and by so doing substatially increase the payload by the weight
of the foam.
Ken
Keith Willshaw
> v/r Gordon
It can be tropical and icing could still be a problem, the external tank
does contain cryogenic gases at -400 F when all is said and done.
Keith
Brian Thorn
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> Google the archives.. I posted BEFORE columbia asking about a shuttle
>> stuck at station. Was called chicken little, posters here said it was
>> impossible.
>
>Well perhaps the foam shed problem could be solved by
>removing the foam prior to launch, say at t-10 minutes.
>Icing would (should) shake off when the SRB's start to
>shake the ET. That reduces the weight and drag of the ET.
>Ken
For the record, if you actually check the archives, you'll find that
good ol' Bob was a broken record around here for years, steering every
discussion he could into his assertion that the Shuttle was a
deathtrap and that the next flight was going to kill its crew. He was
finally correct with STS-107. He has the Chicken Little moniker for
good reason.
Brian
Jack Linthicum
I count 13,300 square feet of outside tank. Not considering the
problems with the struts, maybe 500 square feet per man per day. 27
man days.
bob haller safety advocate
>
> - Show quoted text -
if the shuttle were fueled in a dry environment, like a sealed
building surrounding the orbiter, wth low humidity........
not only would pad rats have a nice climate controlled building to
work in, birds and rain wouldnt muck up the works, processing would be
easier and cost less.
if the building were opened at T minus 2 minutes would foam be
necessary??
Jack Linthicum
That crawler is very slow. There was an article in Analog multiple
years ago about what wonderful habitat the Cape is. Every year they
have animal and bird counts for the wildlife preserve. I have ridden
on the tour bus and seen a Bald Eagles nest in a tree maybe 50 feet
off the road.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 4:55 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 11:09 am, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > On Nov 22, 4:39 am, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Well perhaps the foam shed problem could be solved by
> > > > removing the foam prior to launch, say at t-10 minutes.
> > > > Icing would (should) shake off when the SRB's start to
> > > > shake the ET. That reduces the weight and drag of the ET.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > And just how much time would scraping the foam require? For that
> > > matter, the crew doing the scraping would probably be somewhat
> > > interested in surviving the launch sequence so they would prefer being a
> > > couple kilometers away from the shuttle at the time.
> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > Well Danelda, make it T-30min, the Engineers Union prevents me
> > from disclosing details, OT, but I think I'll peel a banana for lunch.
> > The solution is a win-win, we eliminate the source of the problem,
> > and by so doing substatially increase the payload by the weight
> > of the foam.
> > Ken
>
> I count 13,300 square feet of outside tank. Not considering the
> problems with the struts, maybe 500 square feet per man per day. 27
> man days.
We'll get 4500# of payload + eliminate the foam problem,
if the foamed is removed at launch is that worth thinking?
Then we'll get into technical details, even the SRB's will
*be designed* to shake the foam off at lift off.
The Engineering Union prevents me from making suggestions,
OT I enjoy how pyrotechnics are used to control the demolition
of huge cement buildings.
Ken
Dan
Supposing Haller meant a structure around the launch pad he still has
another problem: gas build up in the structure. One spark and you have
the world's biggest fragmentation grenade.
bob haller safety advocate
>
> - Show quoted text -
did mean a buildinmg around the pad, ideally they would pull a vacuumn
on it while fueling but yeah it would be dangerous.
the building sure would make processing easier
Peter Skelton
advocate <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 6:01?pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>> > > ? ?And just how much time would scraping the foam require? For that
>> > > matter, the crew doing the scraping would probably be somewhat
>> > > interested in surviving the launch sequence so they would prefer being a
>> > > couple kilometers away from the shuttle at the time.
>> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> > Well Danelda, make it T-30min, the Engineers Union prevents me
>> > from disclosing details, OT, but I think I'll peel a banana for lunch.
>> > The solution is a win-win, we eliminate the source of the problem,
>> > and by so doing substatially increase the payload by the weight
>> > of the foam.
>> > Ken
>>
>> I count 13,300 square feet of outside tank. Not considering the
>> problems with the struts, maybe 500 square feet per man per day. ?27
>> man days.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>if the shuttle were fueled in a dry environment, like a sealed
>building surrounding the orbiter, wth low humidity........
>
>not only would pad rats have a nice climate controlled building to
>work in, birds and rain wouldnt muck up the works, processing would be
>easier and cost less.
>
>if the building were opened at T minus 2 minutes would foam be
>necessary??
Foam is more necessary to control pressure in the tank than to
prevent external icing.
Peter Skelton
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
the Russians and Soviets never had any issues with either of those.
"bob haller safety advocate" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d74c0304-6ea8-4251...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:2cf105e7-c48c-4a54...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well Danelda, make it T-30min, the Engineers Union prevents me
> from disclosing details, OT, but I think I'll peel a banana for lunch.
> The solution is a win-win, we eliminate the source of the problem,
> and by so doing substatially increase the payload by the weight
> of the foam.
> Ken
And then have the tank fail due to atmospheric heating on the way up.
And of course you'll want to avoid the ICE that will build up in the 30
minutes between the time you remove it and the launch.
Oh, and if you don't launch, then what?
Me, I'll stick with the current system.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:grojg5d689kj07l4d...@4ax.com...
>
> Foam is more necessary to control pressure in the tank than to
> prevent external icing.
>
>
> Peter Skelton
Evidence of that? LH2 and LOX is cold. Note all the ice falling off of the
Saturn V at launch.
Ken S. Tucker
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:2cf105e7-c48c-4a54...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Well Danelda, make it T-30min, the Engineers Union prevents me
> > from disclosing details, OT, but I think I'll peel a banana for lunch.
> > The solution is a win-win, we eliminate the source of the problem,
> > and by so doing substatially increase the payload by the weight
> > of the foam.
> > Ken
>
> And then have the tank fail due to atmospheric heating on the way up.
>
> And of course you'll want to avoid the ICE that will build up in the 30
> minutes between the time you remove it and the launch.
>
> Oh, and if you don't launch, then what?
>
> Me, I'll stick with the current system.
Ok, but I think you underestimate American Ingenuity,
unlike you people, we are great engineers.
Ken
Dan
I thought you were Canadian.
Ken S. Tucker
LOL, I understand most good US engineers are Canucks!
Ken
Dan
That may be true, but what has that to do with you?
Jack Linthicum
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> As opposed to taking parachutes and pyros used only for landing. Thankfully
> the Russians and Soviets never had any issues with either of those.
>
>
> oh yeah take WINGS on a mission with no where to use them but a
> landing strip on the earth,
I hope the parachute remark was in jest, Komarov would disagree.
Peter Skelton
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:grojg5d689kj07l4d...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Foam is more necessary to control pressure in the tank than to
>> prevent external icing.
>>
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>Evidence of that? LH2 and LOX is cold. Note all the ice falling off of the
>Saturn V at launch.
Pardon me for expressing the utterly obvious. Warming adds
pressure to a LOX tank, there's a balance between structural
weight and insulation. I'm assuming they got their sums right.
Peter Skelton
John Doe
> Pardon me for expressing the utterly obvious. Warming adds
> pressure to a LOX tank, there's a balance between structural
> weight and insulation. I'm assuming they got their sums right.
If the ET were to somehow lose all its insulation just before launch,
wouldn't the rapid pumping of fuel out of the ET once main engines are
running mitugate any problems with too much pressure in tank due to heat
allowed into the tank ?
Also, considering how quickly the shuttle gets out of dense atmosphere,
how long would heating of ET due to friction be of any concern ?
And between the time when insulation is removed and the time the ET is
above clouds/humidity, how thick would ice be on the ET ? just frost, or
serious thikness of ice that could damage the orbiter ? (or would ice
just not form due to speed of travel ?)
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:07:29 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>
> >"Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> >news:grojg5d689kj07l4d...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Foam is more necessary to control pressure in the tank than to
> >> prevent external icing.
>
> >> Peter Skelton
>
> >Evidence of that? LH2 and LOX is cold. Note all the ice falling off of the
> >Saturn V at launch.
>
> Pardon me for expressing the utterly obvious. Warming adds
> pressure to a LOX tank, there's a balance between structural
> weight and insulation. I'm assuming they got their sums right.
> Peter Skelton
Yeah, see the vapor pouring out of the SV, it's pressure relief
and is continually topped up while on the pad. At launch a
whole bunch of pipes and wires disconnect.
Ken
Jack Linthicum
This is Florida where high humidity and a location surrounded by
bodies of water named Bald Pate Creek, Gator Hole, Broadaxe Creek,
Pepper Flats and Pintail Creek. Frost is going to form on that tank
without the insulation. Lots of frost.
vaughn
> Ok, but I think you underestimate American Ingenuity,
> unlike you people
Unlike *what* people?
>, we are great engineers.
"We"? You are including yourself in that "great engineer" group?
Vaughn
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Wiki says the ice would be a bigger danger to the Shuttle than the
foam breaking off.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> Ok, but I think you underestimate American Ingenuity,
> unlike you people, we are great engineers.
> Ken
"You people"?
And it has little to do with "ingenuity" as much as having all the facts at
hand, which you clearly don't.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Umm, it's not "utterly obvious" that it's more to control pressure than
prevent external icing. Especially since the tanks have vent valves to
relieve pressure build-up.
>
> Peter Skelton
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:18d9c1f8-5be0-4ace...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
(since google groups screws things up, top-posting)
It wasn't in jest, it was sarcasm. Bob and others seem to think that
removing wings and moving to parachutes automagically makes things safer.
Komarov would of course disagree. As would the crews of Soyuz-5 and Soyuz
TMA-11. (and I'm ignoring the other Soyuz landing incidents).
Wow, this is 12 years old but quite interesting:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html
--
Jeff Findley
> On Nov 21, 9:06 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> before columbia there had been major wing damage from foam, near burn
>> thrus.......
>>
>> yet management just ignored it.
>>
>> before columbia I posted about the large number of flying catches,
>> nearly lost vehicle and crew..... I was called chicken little and
>> reassured everything was fine. even pad rats said dont worry
>>
>> I was in orlando waiting for columbias sonic boom that never came.
>> told my wife when columbia failed to arrive, they are all dead, from
>> management failure / schedule failure.
>>
>> it was a terrible day.
>
> Yes, wife and I were watching the tube, and they were 3 minutes
> late, she said they were dead, I went into denial, saying 'head winds'
> or minor timing error could account for the delay, but after 5 minutes
> I got a very bad feeling.
> I thought of the families awaiting the glorious Shuttle touch-down
> that never happened.
>
> And yes, operating at those energies, any anomally must be
> totally understood...
Bob Haller kept up his chicken little postings long after the Columbia
disaster. It seems in his mind that every flight was an accident waiting to
happen. Even a stopped clock is right twice each day. Better to killfile
Bob Haller.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Jeff Findley
> Well perhaps the foam shed problem could be solved by
> removing the foam prior to launch, say at t-10 minutes.
> Icing would (should) shake off when the SRB's start to
> shake the ET. That reduces the weight and drag of the ET.
This again? This "suggestion" comes up every time the Columbia disaster is
discussed. It's a terrible idea that can't be made to work.
You can't take the foam off the ET for several reasons. Here's three:
1. The AlLi alloy, which the tank is made of, is stronger at LOX and LH2
temperatures. If you remove the foam, you need to add a lot of extra AlLi
to make it strong enough to fly.
2. You still need some form of insulation to keep aerodynamic heating from
hurting the tank. The nose cone (LOX tank) gets a lot of this, but the aft
tank dome (LH2 aft dome) also gets quite hot due to exhaust gas
recirculation from the SRB's and SSME's.
And finally, the big one:
3. An uninsulated LOX/LH2 tank will cause ice to *quickly* form in the
humid Florida weather. The end result would be falling ice which would
damage the shuttle's TPS just as easily, or even easier, than falling foam.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:13750b8b-2129-4b31...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ok, but I think you underestimate American Ingenuity,
> > unlike you people
>
> Unlike *what* people?
THEM
> >, we are great engineers.
>
> "We"? You are including yourself in that "great engineer" group?
> Vaughn
Of course, from the standpoint of X-craft or new fighters, the Shuttle
has been splendid, two accidents in ~200 flights. We should keep the
Shuttle flying, work on an upgrade, and develope the Ares system.
We should learn from our mistakes, rather than give up and burn the
system.
Do you (and Danelda) advocate America surrenders?
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:4bc6f543-f8cb-4b4d...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Well perhaps the foam shed problem could be solved by
> > removing the foam prior to launch, say at t-10 minutes.
> > Icing would (should) shake off when the SRB's start to
> > shake the ET. That reduces the weight and drag of the ET.
>
> This again? This "suggestion" comes up every time the Columbia disaster is
> discussed. It's a terrible idea that can't be made to work.
Jeff, if you're hopeless then quit trying, leave the solutions
to the people with know-how.
Ken
PS: I won't snip your points below, in case others may want to
solve them for you.
vaughn
>We should keep the
> Shuttle flying, work on an upgrade, and develope the Ares system.
> We should learn from our mistakes, rather than give up and burn the
> system.
> Do you (and Danelda) advocate America surrenders?
Errr Ken, the thread is about a "space life boat". I only brought up the
shuttle as an illistrastion of the risks involved in developing whole new
systems.
I am disapointed that NASA made a dead end out of the shuttle, rather that build
on what works, but that is a whole 'nuther discussion.
Vaughn
vaughn
>We should keep the
> Shuttle flying, work on an upgrade, and develope the Ares system.
> We should learn from our mistakes, rather than give up and burn the
> system.
> Do you (and Danelda) advocate America surrenders?
Ken S. Tucker
Don't know, I inadvertently made my notes on 'flash-paper'
then dropped a tobacco ash on it, while I was experimenting
with gluing a paper between a peice of metal and a spronge.
Now my notes are gone, and the sponge is detached from
the piece of metal, oh well, back to the ole drawing board.
Ken
Jeff Findley
> We'll get 4500# of payload + eliminate the foam problem,
> if the foamed is removed at launch is that worth thinking?
No, you won't. You can't just eliminate the foam. It's there to prevent
ice formation, prevent excessive boil-off of LOX/LH2, and is there to keep
the AlLi tanks cold, which makes them stronger. Not to mention, it's there
to prevent aerodynamic heating (nose) and exhaust gas recirculation (tail)
from heating the tank even further than what it would experience on the
ground.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:636c29fd-3a38-4cb6...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > We'll get 4500# of payload + eliminate the foam problem,
> > if the foamed is removed at launch is that worth thinking?
>
> No, you won't. You can't just eliminate the foam. It's there to prevent
> ice formation, prevent excessive boil-off of LOX/LH2, and is there to keep
> the AlLi tanks cold, which makes them stronger. Not to mention, it's there
> to prevent aerodynamic heating (nose) and exhaust gas recirculation (tail)
> from heating the tank even further than what it would experience on the
> ground.
> Jeff
Jeff, did you quit?
You keep mentioning minor problems, ok maybe we should
plug in mission control, oh gee, we must turn on the power.
What's wrong with blasting the foam off at launch with flash
paper? Coat the nose with a bit of nichononium and use the
bit of heat to pressurize the tanks, saves wear and tear on the
pumps.
Maybe we should phone the president and surrender our
position in Gauntamono Bay, second thought maybe not.
Ken
Dan
> On Nov 23, 11:00 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:636c29fd-3a38-4cb6...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> We'll get 4500# of payload + eliminate the foam problem,
>>> if the foamed is removed at launch is that worth thinking?
>> No, you won't. You can't just eliminate the foam. It's there to prevent
>> ice formation, prevent excessive boil-off of LOX/LH2, and is there to keep
>> the AlLi tanks cold, which makes them stronger. Not to mention, it's there
>> to prevent aerodynamic heating (nose) and exhaust gas recirculation (tail)
>> from heating the tank even further than what it would experience on the
>> ground.
>> Jeff
>
> Jeff, did you quit?
> You keep mentioning minor problems, ok maybe we should
> plug in mission control, oh gee, we must turn on the power.
> What's wrong with blasting the foam off at launch with flash
> paper?
Are you serious? Static electricity or a lightning strike could set
that off. Besides, flash paper is only useful for magicians.
Coat the nose with a bit of nichononium and use the
> bit of heat to pressurize the tanks, saves wear and tear on the
> pumps.
Right, erm, how much heat would do that? Considering the volume and
rate the pumps pass you'd need a lot of heat and a container strong
enough, meaning heavy, to prevent rupture.
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 11:00 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:636c29fd-3a38-4cb6...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> We'll get 4500# of payload + eliminate the foam problem,
> >>> if the foamed is removed at launch is that worth thinking?
> >> No, you won't. You can't just eliminate the foam. It's there to prevent
> >> ice formation, prevent excessive boil-off of LOX/LH2, and is there to keep
> >> the AlLi tanks cold, which makes them stronger. Not to mention, it's there
> >> to prevent aerodynamic heating (nose) and exhaust gas recirculation (tail)
> >> from heating the tank even further than what it would experience on the
> >> ground.
> >> Jeff
>
> > Jeff, did you quit?
> > You keep mentioning minor problems, ok maybe we should
> > plug in mission control, oh gee, we must turn on the power.
> > What's wrong with blasting the foam off at launch with flash
> > paper?
>
> Are you serious? Static electricity or a lightning strike could set
> that off. Besides, flash paper is only useful for magicians.
Hey Danelda, the Shuttle is lifting off the pad, the foam
segments are pyro ejected, maybe reuseable.
We men will solve that darling, rest you pretty head.
> Coat the nose with a bit of nichononium and use the
>
> > bit of heat to pressurize the tanks, saves wear and tear on the
> > pumps.
>
> Right, erm, how much heat would do that? Considering the volume and
> rate the pumps pass you'd need a lot of heat and a container strong
> enough, meaning heavy, to prevent rupture.
SOP to cool a heated area with fuel, check out XB70.
Store the heat energy in the fuel!!! (good thinking Dan).
Ken
Me
wrote:
> 3. An uninsulated LOX/LH2 tank will cause ice to *quickly* form in the
> humid Florida weather. The end result would be falling ice which would
> damage the shuttle's TPS just as easily, or even easier, than falling foam.
>
It is even worse. uninsulated LH2 tank would have liquid air forming
on it, doing two things. 1. Putting more heat into the LH2 than by
conduction and 2. Dripping/pouring liquid air all over the place
Me
wrote:
>
> if the shuttle were fueled in a dry environment, like a sealed
> building surrounding the orbiter, wth low humidity........
>
> not only would pad rats have a nice climate controlled building to
> work in, birds and rain wouldnt muck up the works, processing would be
> easier and cost less.
>
> if the building were opened at T minus 2 minutes would foam be
> necessary??
Totally not viable. Liquid air would be a problem and the building
wouldn't survive the acoustics
Me
wrote:
>
> the building sure would make processing easier
No, it wouldn't. It would complicate things more
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Nov 23, 6:40 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
>> messagenews:4bc6f543-f8cb-4b4d...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Well perhaps the foam shed problem could be solved by
>> > removing the foam prior to launch, say at t-10 minutes.
>> > Icing would (should) shake off when the SRB's start to
>> > shake the ET. That reduces the weight and drag of the ET.
>>
>> This again? This "suggestion" comes up every time the Columbia disaster
>> is
>> discussed. It's a terrible idea that can't be made to work.
>
> Jeff, if you're hopeless then quit trying, leave the solutions
> to the people with know-how.
When someone with such know-how posts we'll be sure to let you know.
Because you certainly have not only not posted ANY workable solutions, the
only solutions you've posted (aside from your sniping comments) not only are
unworkable, they are counter-productive. They also show a complete lack of
undertanding of how the system works.
> Ken
> PS: I won't snip your points below, in case others may want to
> solve them for you.
>
>> You can't take the foam off the ET for several reasons. Here's three:
>>
>> 1. The AlLi alloy, which the tank is made of, is stronger at LOX and LH2
>> temperatures. If you remove the foam, you need to add a lot of extra
>> AlLi
>> to make it strong enough to fly.
>>
>> 2. You still need some form of insulation to keep aerodynamic heating
>> from
>> hurting the tank. The nose cone (LOX tank) gets a lot of this, but the
>> aft
>> tank dome (LH2 aft dome) also gets quite hot due to exhaust gas
>> recirculation from the SRB's and SSME's.
>>
>> And finally, the big one:
>>
>> 3. An uninsulated LOX/LH2 tank will cause ice to *quickly* form in the
>> humid Florida weather. The end result would be falling ice which would
>> damage the shuttle's TPS just as easily, or even easier, than falling
>> foam.
>>
>> Jeff
>> --
>> "Take heart amid the deepening gloom
>> that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
>> Lampoon
>
--
Me
> We'll get 4500# of payload + eliminate the foam problem,
> if the foamed is removed at launch is that worth thinking?
>
No, because it is not viable.
Me
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:grojg5d689kj07l4d...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Foam is more necessary to control pressure in the tank than to
> > prevent external icing.
>
> > Peter Skelton
>
> Evidence of that? LH2 and LOX is cold. Note all the ice falling off of the
> Saturn V at launch.
Saturn V has insulation on or in the LH2 tanks
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Nov 23, 11:00 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
> wrote:
> You keep mentioning minor problems, ok maybe we should
> plug in mission control, oh gee, we must turn on the power.
> What's wrong with blasting the foam off at launch with flash
> paper? Coat the nose with a bit of nichononium and use the
> bit of heat to pressurize the tanks, saves wear and tear on the
> pumps.
Far from minor problems. And what you're describing are far from minor
fixes. They are large, wholescale fixes. If STS were to fly another 100
flights, they MIGHT be worth considering, but with 5 flights now (and even
right after Columbia) they wren't practical.
Peter Skelton
wrote:
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>> Pardon me for expressing the utterly obvious. Warming adds
>> pressure to a LOX tank, there's a balance between structural
>> weight and insulation. I'm assuming they got their sums right.
>
>If the ET were to somehow lose all its insulation just before launch,
>wouldn't the rapid pumping of fuel out of the ET once main engines are
>running mitugate any problems with too much pressure in tank due to heat
>allowed into the tank ?
>
No, not nearly. Remember that the ultimate pressure is north of
700 a.
>Also, considering how quickly the shuttle gets out of dense atmosphere,
>how long would heating of ET due to friction be of any concern ?
>
I am told, by reliable authority, that the sun shines in outer
space too.
Now think of all the paperwork if a launch has to be aborted
after the insulation removal has started. There's going to be a
lot of damage, a billion bucks wouldn't deal with it, Count on a
score or more deaths too,
>
>And between the time when insulation is removed and the time the ET is
>above clouds/humidity, how thick would ice be on the ET ? just frost, or
> serious thikness of ice that could damage the orbiter ? (or would ice
>just not form due to speed of travel ?)
My contribution is recognizing the big problem, you work out the
trivia for yourself.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
There are no degrees to death.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:q3vkg5pvbc2o0v57a...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:07:29 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:grojg5d689kj07l4d...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Foam is more necessary to control pressure in the tank than to
>>>> prevent external icing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Skelton
>>>
>>>Evidence of that? LH2 and LOX is cold. Note all the ice falling off of
>>>the
>>>Saturn V at launch.
>>
>> Pardon me for expressing the utterly obvious. Warming adds
>> pressure to a LOX tank, there's a balance between structural
>> weight and insulation. I'm assuming they got their sums right.
>>
>
>Umm, it's not "utterly obvious" that it's more to control pressure than
>prevent external icing. Especially since the tanks have vent valves to
>relieve pressure build-up.
>
Your second sentence pretty much makes your first one nonsense.
Peter Skelton
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:e11ba6db-c617-4362-8cab-
> Saturn V has insulation on or in the LH2 tanks
Ah, good point. My point about the ice forming still stands though.
Dan
Do you know how rocket engines work? Think controlled explosion.
What makes you think any debris being blown around would be reusable?
>
>
>> Coat the nose with a bit of nichononium and use the
>>
>>> bit of heat to pressurize the tanks, saves wear and tear on the
>>> pumps.
>> Right, erm, how much heat would do that? Considering the volume and
>> rate the pumps pass you'd need a lot of heat and a container strong
>> enough, meaning heavy, to prevent rupture.
>
> SOP to cool a heated area with fuel, check out XB70.
> Store the heat energy in the fuel!!! (good thinking Dan).
> Ken
Make up your mind, do you want to heat the fuel or not? Do try to
think this out. Have you any idea how big a heat impulse it would take?
For someone who claims to be an engineer you aren't being logical.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Umm, no, just the opposite.
The ET already deals with pressure build-up. It does so by having vent
valves to relieve said pressure.
Therefore saying it's "utterly obvious" that the insulation is there to
prevent pressure buildup more than to prevent ice formation is w/o support.
If the only concern was to prevent pressure build-up, they could have
designed larger valves. But given the fact that the insulation is ALSO
there to prevent ice buildup, without actual supporting evidence, you can't
say it's "utterly obvious". It may be true, but it's not "utterly obvious".
Consider the Saturn V which did not have insulation on the LOX tanks and
dealt with pressure and boil-off simply via the vent valves.
As others have pointed out, there's no single reason for the ET to have
insulation, there's several.
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> Supposing Haller meant a structure around the launch pad he still has
> another problem: gas build up in the structure. One spark and you have
> the world's biggest fragmentation grenade.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
The fuel is hydrogen so the gas will vent itself through a (covered)
hole in the roof. Liquid hydrogen will be more of a problem until
it boils away.
Andrew Swallow
Peter Skelton
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
So you admit that ressure build up is a serious enoiugh problem
that, evenh with the insulation, they need vent valves to control
it.
Doesn't that make it pretty damn obvious? The insulation reduces
the heat load by a factor of twenty or more.
Peter Skelton
bob haller safety advocate
>
> - Show quoted text -
just detonate some small tactical nukes at T minus one second.
It woulld make for a exciting launch:):):)
So when obama kills man in space for budgetary reasons what will
happen to this group?
Dan
Liquid hydrogen is heavier than air. Until it evaporates it will tend
to flow downwards. I don't know how far, but it's an unacceptable risk.
Another consideration would be getting the building out of the way
before ignition sequence. It would be an excellent shrapnel source if
not properly secured.
Brian Thorn
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> This again? This "suggestion" comes up every time the Columbia disaster is
>> discussed. It's a terrible idea that can't be made to work.
>
>Jeff, if you're hopeless then quit trying, leave the solutions
>to the people with know-how.
The solution has been obvious since STS-107: don't hang fragile
payload on the side of a cryogenic propellant tank. NASA has already
tried internal insulation (Douglas with S-IVB, where it was a
maintenance nightmare and threatened pieces coming off inside and
being ingested into turbopumps, North American tried it also with S-II
and gave up) and external insulation (which works fine as long as
fragile tiles aren't downstream.)
>PS: I won't snip your points below, in case others may want to
>solve them for you.
Everyone who has looked into the problem has reached the same
conclusion that Jeff reported: it can't be done at a reasonable
payload penalty. It's not a matter of know-how, it is simple laws of
physics.
Brian
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>>
> So you admit that ressure build up is a serious enoiugh problem
> that, evenh with the insulation, they need vent valves to control
> it.
Admit it? I never denied it. I in fact made that point.
>
> Doesn't that make it pretty damn obvious? The insulation reduces
> the heat load by a factor of twenty or more.
20x based on what? Please provide your citation..
And thne f you can explain why the Saturn V could get by w/o insulating its
LOX tanks.
Again, it's not "obvious". It's not even clear it's nearly as major a
factor as you claim.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:toEOm.18190$gd1....@newsfe05.iad...
Agreed. Given the existing concerns with LH2 build-up around the flame
trench and the work done to burn it off, I'm with Dan on this one. Not
really a practical option.
Dan
> "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:j04mg59890o3rv8cr...@4ax.com...
>> So you admit that ressure build up is a serious enoiugh problem
>> that, evenh with the insulation, they need vent valves to control
>> it.
>
> Admit it? I never denied it. I in fact made that point.
>
>> Doesn't that make it pretty damn obvious? The insulation reduces
>> the heat load by a factor of twenty or more.
>
> 20x based on what? Please provide your citation..
>
> And thne f you can explain why the Saturn V could get by w/o insulating its
> LOX tanks.
>
>
Weren't Saturn V LOX tanks thermos bottles?
Peter Skelton
IIRC, the limits for hydrogen are 4-96%. It's bloody nasty stuff
in a building.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:j04mg59890o3rv8cr...@4ax.com...
>>>
>> So you admit that ressure build up is a serious enoiugh problem
>> that, evenh with the insulation, they need vent valves to control
>> it.
>
>Admit it? I never denied it. I in fact made that point.
>
But you have no clue what it means
>>
>> Doesn't that make it pretty damn obvious? The insulation reduces
>> the heat load by a factor of twenty or more.
>
>20x based on what? Please provide your citation..
>
Garden variety insulating foam has an R value of 8 per inch. Try
not to be bloody stupid.
>And thne f you can explain why the Saturn V could get by w/o insulating its
>LOX tanks.
>
By accepting much lower efficiency among other things
>Again, it's not "obvious". It's not even clear it's nearly as major a
>factor as you claim.
>
So far, all you've demonstrated is an impressive level of
ignorance.
Peter Skelton