|
Author
|
Topic: Paint the ET Again?
|
RISPACE
Member Posts: 67
From: Warwick, RI USA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 02-20-2006 02:33 PM
  
I 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 Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-20-2006 02:39 PM
From 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).] |
PowerCat
Member Posts: 193
From: Herington, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-20-2006 02:44 PM
Wasn't it a savings of 600 pounds of weight and several thousands on dollars in materials, not counting labor costs? |
RISPACE
Member Posts: 67
From: Warwick, RI USA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 02-20-2006 02:48 PM
Okay, 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 Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-20-2006 02:50 PM
Yes, 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. |
RISPACE
Member Posts: 67
From: Warwick, RI USA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 02-20-2006 03:02 PM
Thanks for the info! I will read on further. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-20-2006 03:09 PM
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
Member Posts: 1047
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 02-21-2006 09:42 AM
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? |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-21-2006 03:06 PM
The 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. |
RISPACE
Member Posts: 67
From: Warwick, RI USA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 02-22-2006 07:51 AM
Yes, 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. |
AstronautBrian
Member Posts: 287
From: Louisiana
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 02-24-2006 12:30 PM
I 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).] |
advertisement