Hey! I just thought of a simple way to fix the Shuttles "Foam Problem"

[Up2Late]

Remember when they first launched the Space Shuttle back in 1981?

Remember what they changed on the Second Space Shuttle Launch, and everyone after that?

Give up?

:think:They Painted the First Shuttles "External Fuel Tank," but they stopped painting the tanks, after the first one, to save time, labor costs, and Weight. Some of you are probably saying weight, how much weight could paint add?

In two words, A Lot, but really not that much considering that a lot of other things (like Computers) have improved and become lighter.

And WHY would this fix the problem? Because it would create a very thin, Hard, paint sealing shell, sealing in any imperfections in the foam.

And they might not even have to paint the whole tank, just the problem areas!

What do you folks think, any reasons why this wouldn't work or be completely wrong? :shrug:

[ovidsen]

1. Why not?

I'm no engineer, but this sounds like a damn good idea.

[madeline_con]

2. I'm no rocket scientist....

but covering up a leak in my ceiling with paint won't make it go away. This much I know.

[Up2Late]

5. But if the problem was that little flakes of you ceiling of your...

...kept falling off, and it would make for even more problems if you tried to replace it, what would be the next best thing be? :shrug:

You'd seal it with Paint or Primer/Paint Sealer. :think:

[madeline_con]

8. No, I'd fix the roof....

which would be the reason for the leak. :think:

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. I think the foam is on the Shittle, not the tanks

But they would look prettier before the next explosion, if they were painted, no doubt.

[Up2Late]

4. No, the foam flaking off of that big Orange tank

And painting it was part of the original design, so... :shrug:

[Rosco T.]

6. Actually the real problem is .... freon....

when the foam was first applied to the tanks, it is sprayed on. The original system used a freon-based propellant and it stuck on very well.

A coula of years back (just before the Columbia broke up) they switched to a non-freon propellant system and it dosen't seem to stick nearly as well, this has been documented in side the agency but no one want's to make the move back to the original system.

[Up2Late]

9. Probably because going back to freon would be against the Law

I think they made the manufacture and use of it illegal about 5-10 years ago. Good to know though, I hadn't heard that part of the story.

But see, my idea, which WAS part of the original design, would add a very thin, hard layer of paint, that would seal the tank foam, bonding it together and make the sticking problem almost completely irrelevant.

Plus, it would most likely, decrease the drag on the tank, which would also help.

[ThoughtCriminal]

10. It's more complicated than that

The Freon issue got big play on right-wing blogs that wanted to blame ... frum roll... Bill Clinton via the "Tree-Hugging" EPA.

The foam loss has been a problem since the first flights and average of about 40(?) tiles in the first 50 flights. There was an increase in foam hit after the switch from freon propellants, but it was thought that that problem was solved (sound familiar). At that time it was not considered a safety problem, but a cost problem from repairs.

Even more significant, the foam that damaged Columbia's wing is believed to have come from a part of the external tank that was still using the freon based propellant (I'm still looking for a solid link on this).

It's a nasty problem that goes back to a poor compromised design. 1) The configurartion places the shuttle next to, instead of above the tank, so it is vulnerable to any debris coming off it. 2) It was only after they settled on a design that they figured out that ice on the tank would be a problem (look at film of a Saturn 5 launch) so the tank had to be insulalted. 3) they can't put insulaltion inside the tank because it would contaminate the fuel. 4) Adding a outer shell would probably add enough mass so that the shuttle could not carry any payload.

[symbolman]

7. SOmebody at NASA

made mention that when they used to paint them before they didn't have that problem.

Good idea, now we need to get these guys BACK alive...

[KG]

11. shuttles missions are a waste.

there's nothing being done on the shuttles now that couldn't be done by robots at half the cost.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Anything that gets people to understand that we share a tiny ball

floating in an almost infinite ocean of time and space is not a waste, in my humble opinion.

And starting to move humanity out of our gravity well and into the universe, to my mind, sure qualifies.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. The white paint looks better, too.

I mean, from a purely aesthetic standpoint.

Actually, while the original shuttle concept was good, (back in 1972) I think the actualization was more than a little half-assed. We need to come up with a better way to get into space, but it would require not only that we as a nation started dreaming large again, but also that we would place a collective value on peaceful exploration of the universe around us.

(And yes, we should spend money on social issues here on Earth, too. They are not mutually exclusive IMHO)

Not that any of that is bloody likely with the military-minded, bean counting flat-Earthers we have in charge today.

[theHandpuppet]

14. Or a coating of Quaker Instant Oatmeal

Ever seen what happens to that stuff if you happen to leave it in a bowl and it dries? Had the Eqyptians used it as a building material it would have saved them all the time and trouble of carving up all that rock! And you can't seem to rehydrate it -- the stuff only responds to a chisel and maul.

Seriously, though, you've brought up a good question. To my mind, though, the shuttles needed to be grounded for good. The darn things seem to be falling apart and I'd rather see NASA's monies spent elsewhere, like repairing/upgrading the Hubble.

[Up2Late]

15. And how are you going to get to the Hubble to repair it?

The Hubble can't wait the amount of time it would take to design a new robot that NASA could launch, on a new rocket design, to then successfully repair it.

[MadHound]

16. Better yet, let us retire the Shuttle

And build an entirely new, technologically up to date reusable space vehicle. We need one desperately, and these shuttles have seen too much stress and strain to continue to function efficiently and safely for much longer.

And next time, make the heat shield out of one piece rather than many tiles.