In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:45:16 -0500 Duane Bozarth
posted:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Matt wrote in
:

Sherman wrote:
Isn't is obvious

Both shuttles that blew up were launched under cold weather conditions
in January. Then they launched this one during a heat wave. Maybe they
should try to launch under moderate conditions, say during March or
September.


It's not the ground temp,its moisture that accululates in voids in the foam
that expands under aerodynamic heating during ascent that blows off chunks
of foam.

Are you sure of that? It appears that the chunks that broke off on both
the Challenger and on this flight occurred very early on--wouldn't think
it would have gotten that hot that soon, but I don't know. First time
I've heard of this hypothesis.

I heard on a news show, not sure which, either what he said or that
air in the foam expanded and broke off pieces.

Now that I post, I'm not sure if this is the current foam or the
earlier foam. Oops.

Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

meirman wrote:

In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:45:16 -0500 Duane Bozarth
posted:

Jim Yanik wrote:

....

It's not the ground temp,its moisture that accululates in voids in the foam
that expands under aerodynamic heating during ascent that blows off chunks
of foam.

Are you sure of that? It appears that the chunks that broke off on both
the Challenger and on this flight occurred very early on--wouldn't think
it would have gotten that hot that soon, but I don't know. First time
I've heard of this hypothesis.

I heard on a news show, not sure which, either what he said or that
air in the foam expanded and broke off pieces.

Now that I post, I'm not sure if this is the current foam or the
earlier foam. Oops.

I'll have to see what I can find on this...seems like some sort of
non-destructive test could be used to eliminate voids if that were the
root cause...

Duane Bozarth wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Matt wrote in
:

Sherman wrote:
Isn't is obvious

Both shuttles that blew up were launched under cold weather
conditions in January. Then they launched this one during a heat
wave. Maybe they should try to launch under moderate conditions,
say during March or September.


It's not the ground temp,its moisture that accululates in voids in
the foam that expands under aerodynamic heating during ascent that
blows off chunks of foam.

Are you sure of that? It appears that the chunks that broke off on
both the Challenger and on this flight occurred very early
on--wouldn't think it would have gotten that hot that soon, but I
don't know. First time I've heard of this hypothesis.


I live in Orlando,and the local paper (Orlando Sentinel)has had some very
detained articles on this subject.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
....
I live in Orlando,and the local paper (Orlando Sentinel)has had some very
detained articles on this subject.

Are they online?

Duane Bozarth wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
...
I live in Orlando,and the local paper (Orlando Sentinel)has had some
very detained articles on this subject.

Are they online?


I haven't looked,but I suspect they are.
www.orlandosentinel.com

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Jim Yanik wrote:
...
I live in Orlando,and the local paper (Orlando Sentinel)has had some
very
detained articles on this subject.

Are they online?

Best one I've read so far.

http://tinyurl.com/cfkmt

CR

In article , Jim Yanik
. wrote:

"Michael Daly" wrote in news:4r-dnSNSyKjCMnffRVn-
:


On 29-Jul-2005, Frank J Warner wrote:

Or line the INSIDE of the tank with foam.

I gotta admit - this sounds like a plausible solution. I've always
wondered why the put the foam on the outside - the weakest material
in the most exposed position.

Mike


Maybe the foam will not hold up under -473 degF temps.of LH2.

Likely. Notice it's not even holding up at 72 deg F.

-Frank

--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/

Sherman wrote:
Isn't is obvious to the most clueless that the tanks to be covered
with a hairnet or pantyhose type covering?

Surely there are dozens of materials that will withstand the heat
and
vibration of lift-off NOT reentry.....

I would have done that on day one. The idiots at NASA and spent a
billion dollars and 2 and 1/2 years and they haven't figured it out
yet.....

Huh? What is a hairnet supposed to do?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Sherman wrote:
Isn't is obvious to the most clueless that the tanks to be covered
with a hairnet or pantyhose type covering?

Surely there are dozens of materials that will withstand the heat
and
vibration of lift-off NOT reentry.....

I would have done that on day one. The idiots at NASA and spent a
billion dollars and 2 and 1/2 years and they haven't figured it out
yet.....

Somehow I think they may have thought of it already. Just in case, though,
give them a call. They'll probably be glad to hear from you.

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Isn't is obvious to the most clueless that the tanks to be covered
with a hairnet or pantyhose type covering?

Surely there are dozens of materials that will withstand the heat
and
vibration of lift-off NOT reentry.....

There is no reason for the fuel tank to be insulated AFTER liftoff, some
designs purposely have the insulation fall off at ignition.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/