In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
I dont understand the foam on the fuel tank....
ruger270man
Member Posts: 9,361 ✭✭
okay, so its an insulator.. and pieces of it fall off and cause damage.. why dont they put another coating OVER the foam.. I mean, even a Kevlar mesh would withstand some pretty good temp changes, and would be light and strong..
someone inform me, there must be something I dont know, because it makes too much sense to just put a strong coating over the foam.
someone inform me, there must be something I dont know, because it makes too much sense to just put a strong coating over the foam.
Comments
My guess is that the answer is weight. Maybe I should ask my rocket scientist uncle. He has worked on the project, as did my grandfather.
well if its a weight issue, the first thing they could do is to not paint the fuel tank.. the paint on the fuel tank alone weighs 4400 lbs..
I bet theres a few places they could cut some weight.. that things a pig.
It still amazes me every time I see pictures of it though [^]
The current foam is made of dyflesmic muconium, which has a low coefficient of friction and heat expansion. Unfortunately, the surface is nonporous and adhesion to the tank is difficult. The solution is to use a nitrin agrate bonder which holds firmly in the porous conditions of the foam, but it is quite brittle at low temps. Low temps is relative, but the estophus stability factor (brittleness) is around 285 degreed Fahr. The tank surface sensors are damaged at temps above 300 fahr. So, the problem is to keep the tank surface temp under the foam above 285 and below 300 at takeoff. The sensors are only needed in the first few seconds of takeoff so high temps are ok after that. This is sometimes difficult and is a worry everytime a shuttle launches. Some of the debris of this last takeoff may have been from a dip below 285 prior to takeoff. I believe most shuttles will be grounded until an alternative bonding agent can be applied to shuttles; available but expensive to retrofit. (This is all b.s., I was really bored)
Screw Allah & Have a Great Day!
I Think jdyer said it best:
The current foam is made of dyflesmic muconium, which has a low coefficient of friction and heat expansion. Unfortunately, the surface is nonporous and adhesion to the tank is difficult. The solution is to use a nitrin agrate bonder which holds firmly in the porous conditions of the foam, but it is quite brittle at low temps. Low temps is relative, but the estophus stability factor (brittleness) is around 285 degreed Fahr. The tank surface sensors are damaged at temps above 300 fahr. So, the problem is to keep the tank surface temp under the foam above 285 and below 300 at takeoff. The sensors are only needed in the first few seconds of takeoff so high temps are ok after that. This is sometimes difficult and is a worry everytime a shuttle launches. Some of the debris of this last takeoff may have been from a dip below 285 prior to takeoff. I believe most shuttles will be grounded until an alternative bonding agent can be applied to shuttles; available but expensive to retrofit. (This is all b.s., I was really bored)
Screw Allah & Have a Great Day!
did you seriously make all of that up? it sounded real [:D]
"I will no longer debate a liberal because I feel they are beneath contempt. Just communicating with one contaminates a person." - whiteclouder
A strong coating over the foam wouldn't help. What I've been told is that the way the foam is applied leaves bubbles, just like any other foam. As the pressure outside the tank changes, the bubbles pop. The coating would just be more shrapnel to throw at the tiles when that happens.
which is why you use a one piece kevlar mesh thats anchored in a few places, so anything that breaks will stay underneath the mesh..
[:)]
Messenger Boy: The Thesselonian you're fighting... he's the biggest man i've ever seen. I wouldn't want to fight him.
Achilles: Thats why no-one will remember your name.
Lord Lowrider the Loquacious.
Member:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets
She was only a fisherman's daughter,
But when she saw my rod she reeled.
I Think jdyer said it best:
The current foam is made of dyflesmic muconium, which has a low coefficient of friction and heat expansion. Unfortunately, the surface is nonporous and adhesion to the tank is difficult. The solution is to use a nitrin agrate bonder which holds firmly in the porous conditions of the foam, but it is quite brittle at low temps. Low temps is relative, but the estophus stability factor (brittleness) is around 285 degreed Fahr. The tank surface sensors are damaged at temps above 300 fahr. So, the problem is to keep the tank surface temp under the foam above 285 and below 300 at takeoff. The sensors are only needed in the first few seconds of takeoff so high temps are ok after that. This is sometimes difficult and is a worry everytime a shuttle launches. Some of the debris of this last takeoff may have been from a dip below 285 prior to takeoff. I believe most shuttles will be grounded until an alternative bonding agent can be applied to shuttles; available but expensive to retrofit. (This is all b.s., I was really bored)
Screw Allah & Have a Great Day!
Now that is funny [:D] [:D]
As to the Kevlar mesh idea, in fact, it has been indeed the principal proposed idea on the table. And you have guessed right, the prohibiton so far has been weight.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
~Sinclair Lewis, It Can't Happen Here
"Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
~President George W. Bush
" Those who give up a little freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security "
- Benjamin Franklin
NASA has been given proposed solutions, such as fibers in the foam, mesh, etc but refused to consider them because they weren't Nasa-generated ideas. NASA is no longer run by engineers (e.g., problem solvers) but by managers (e.g., job protectors). Best thing to do would be to fire all the top brass and hire the Rutan brothers.
Hiring Rutan to run NASA is a brilliant idea! He'd have us on Mars a lot sooner than 2030! But, I doubt Rutan would want to get involved in such a political bureaucratic nightmare as NASA.
MONEY TALKS mine says good-bye
99% of all lawyers make the rest look bad.
snickers - you must be a NASCAR man!
65 - I had one years ago. Blk w/ white interior. Still have a '69 FB conv't, original title w/ about 65K.
Here is a thought. Let the foam fly off. Position the tank as best as possible out of the way and have deflectors protect the shuttle until detach. It doesn't take rocket science to determine where the loose foam will go. Wait a minute ... these are rocket scientists!
cbxjeff<P>It's too late for me, save yourself. <br>