*HTML is ON *UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend
Smilies Legend
If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.
T O P I C R E V I E WRISPACEI am wondering if anyone out there has information as to why NASA does not consider painting the Shuttle External Tank again like they did for STS 1 and 2. The reason for my inquiry is: Wouldn't help with the present foam problems? Maybe act as a sealant? I realize that is would add to the overall weight of the vehicle thereby reducing payload capacity, but wouldn't it be safer for the astronauts??Robert PearlmanFrom NASA's Return To Flight website: quote:Why doesn't NASA apply paint, a cover, or net over the tank?One might remember that we painted the first couple of External Tanks with white paint in the early 1980's. In both cases, we had a significant amount of foam loss during ascent...[This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited February 20, 2006).]PowerCatWasn't it a savings of 600 pounds of weight and several thousands on dollars in materials, not counting labor costs?RISPACEOkay, so much for that idea!I wonder how many other flights have lost foam. Mike Mullane had mentioned that his flights lost foam as well...Robert PearlmanYes, the reason for the lack of paint on STS-3 and subsequent flights was to save weight, but its presence on STS-1 and STS-2 did not lessen (and may have even increased) the rate of foam loss seen on later missions.RISPACEThanks for the info! I will read on further.Robert Pearlman quote:Originally posted by RISPACE:I wonder how many other flights have lost foam. Mike Mullane had mentioned that his flights lost foam as well... The Columbia Accident Investigation Board report states that there is evidence of foam loss on more than 80 percent of the 79 missions for which imagery is available. The specific region involved in the Columbia accident — the left bipod ramp — shed foam on an estimated 10 percent of previous flights."Over the life of the Space Shuttle Program, Orbiters have returned with an average of 143 divots in the upper and lower surfaces of the Thermal Protection System tiles, with 31 divots averaging over an inch in one dimension." (Source)carmelo quote:Originally posted by PowerCat:Wasn't it a savings of 600 pounds of weight and several thousands on dollars in materials, not counting labor costs?Wasn't it a savings crews?mjanovecThe number I've always heard quoted for the Shuttle is roughly $10,000 per pound of payload. Obviously that has varied somewhat over the years. 600 pounds of paint roughly equals 600 pounds in lost payload, or $6 million.If the paint has no effect on the foam loss, it's obviously better to go without. I think the paint was really only there for cosmetic reasons to begin with, but I could be wrong. RISPACEYes, I believe the original reason was cosmetic. I remember reading at the time that from STS 3 forward the ET was to be left unpainted since it made no difference in the flight capability of the vehicle plus it saved needed pounds which could be used for additional payload.AstronautBrianI always thought the shuttle stack looked better without the ET painted.------------------385th Bombardment Group (H)[This message has been edited by AstronautBrian (edited February 24, 2006).]
quote:Why doesn't NASA apply paint, a cover, or net over the tank?One might remember that we painted the first couple of External Tanks with white paint in the early 1980's. In both cases, we had a significant amount of foam loss during ascent...
One might remember that we painted the first couple of External Tanks with white paint in the early 1980's. In both cases, we had a significant amount of foam loss during ascent...
[This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited February 20, 2006).]
I wonder how many other flights have lost foam. Mike Mullane had mentioned that his flights lost foam as well...
quote:Originally posted by RISPACE:I wonder how many other flights have lost foam. Mike Mullane had mentioned that his flights lost foam as well...
"Over the life of the Space Shuttle Program, Orbiters have returned with an average of 143 divots in the upper and lower surfaces of the Thermal Protection System tiles, with 31 divots averaging over an inch in one dimension." (Source)
quote:Originally posted by PowerCat:Wasn't it a savings of 600 pounds of weight and several thousands on dollars in materials, not counting labor costs?
If the paint has no effect on the foam loss, it's obviously better to go without. I think the paint was really only there for cosmetic reasons to begin with, but I could be wrong.
------------------385th Bombardment Group (H)
[This message has been edited by AstronautBrian (edited February 24, 2006).]
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 1999-2024 collectSPACE. All rights reserved.