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.....


Sherman

That's exactly why we need government running less and interfering less and
let private sector do what it does best. And just maybe private sector could
actually make a profit



"Sherman" wrote in message
...

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.....


Sherman

The truth of the matter is they already had a foam that performed perfectly
well with no problems, but stopped using it because it wasn't
"environmentally friendly"


"Ignoramus27279" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:36:46 GMT, 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.....

The requirements for the material probably incude being very light,
and also low thermal conductivity. The purpose of that foam is to keep
liquid hydrogen cool before liftoff. I do not think that the "idiots
at NASA" (your words) would have a very easy time finding an
alternative to some type of foam.

i

"Sherman" wrote in message
...

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.....


Sherman

It dose make you wonder what is going on, Common sense would say
stabilizing the foam would be the starting place. ( they should contact the
Nerf Co) But Noooooooo will install all these really expensive cameras, so
we can record we solved nothing but did manage to extend or high paying
jobs. But the reality is China is trying to buy NASA right after they close
the deal on Maytag and Union 76..

"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote in message
...
The truth of the matter is they already had a foam that performed
perfectly
well with no problems, but stopped using it because it wasn't
"environmentally friendly"

And the space shuttle is? I think about all that billowing black smoke from
liftoff every time I have to go get a smog test.



"Ignoramus27279" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:36:46 GMT, 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.....

The requirements for the material probably incude being very light,
and also low thermal conductivity. The purpose of that foam is to keep
liquid hydrogen cool before liftoff. I do not think that the "idiots
at NASA" (your words) would have a very easy time finding an
alternative to some type of foam.

i

And do you think that the private sector would do this kind of thing
without govt. subsidies (i.e., without the govt. taking our tax dollars
and turning them over to private corporations)? How long do you think it
would take for them to see any return for their investment?

Is there a law against private exploration of space? If not, then
perhaps there isn't any because there's no profit to be made.

Perce


On 07/29/05 02:52 pm RBM tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

That's exactly why we need government running less and interfering less and
let private sector do what it does best. And just maybe private sector could
actually make a profit

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.....

I'm sure you can explain to us the billions in tax breaks just given to the
oil industry.


"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote in message
...
That's exactly why we need government running less and interfering less
and let private sector do what it does best. And just maybe private sector
could actually make a profit



"Sherman" wrote in message
...

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.....


Sherman

Sacramento Dave wrote:
"Sherman" wrote in message
...

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.....


Sherman


It dose make you wonder what is going on, Common sense would say
stabilizing the foam would be the starting place. ( they should contact the
Nerf Co) But Noooooooo will install all these really expensive cameras, so
we can record we solved nothing but did manage to extend or high paying
jobs. But the reality is China is trying to buy NASA right after they close
the deal on Maytag and Union 76..



You have to love the "bargaining chip" China announced recently.
"We have nuclear weapons capable of reaching you."



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

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.....


Sherman

There might be an air resistance issue, but that does sound like a good
idea.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
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.....


Sherman

There might be an air resistance issue, but that does sound like a good
idea.

It's too easy. It was the first think I thought about after the
accident. There has to be something we don't know. The guys working on the
thing are NOT stupid. It does seem weird though that they would have spent
all that time and still have the problem. I sure would like to be able to be
privy to their "discussions" about the problem.

Dave

Ductape would hold the whole thing together. Just keep going around and
around until the whole thing is covered. Guaranteed to work. :-)

I still would not want to volunteer, even with ductape. One would have to be
crazy or have a death-wish.

--
Walter
www.rationality.net
-
"Sherman" wrote in message
...

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.....


Sherman

I remember Dan Rather once saying on a news broadcast that each Shuttle
launch releases enough ODM (Ozone depleting material) equal to 50,000
refridgerators loosing their freon (R-12 freon)

"Ulysses" wrote in message
...

"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote in message
...
The truth of the matter is they already had a foam that performed
perfectly
well with no problems, but stopped using it because it wasn't
"environmentally friendly"

And the space shuttle is? I think about all that billowing black smoke
from
liftoff every time I have to go get a smog test.



"Ignoramus27279" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:36:46 GMT, 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.....

The requirements for the material probably incude being very light,
and also low thermal conductivity. The purpose of that foam is to keep
liquid hydrogen cool before liftoff. I do not think that the "idiots
at NASA" (your words) would have a very easy time finding an
alternative to some type of foam.

i

In article ,
Jmagerl wrote:
#I remember Dan Rather once saying on a news broadcast that each Shuttle
#launch releases enough ODM (Ozone depleting material) equal to 50,000
#refridgerators loosing their freon (R-12 freon)

Which shows you how much of an idiot Dan is.

The combustion product of the main engines is water. It burns Liquid
Oxygen and H2.

The combustion products of the solid engines are carbon dioxide and water,
and maybe some nitrous byproducts due to the heat.

Cabron Dioxide is only marginally a greenhouse gas, but it's not R12. It
would take a heck of a lot more to make 50K fridge worth of R12.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherman writes:

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

Yeah. And airplanes should have parachutes so they never crash.

You need to look up "The spaceship company" a spin-off of the Virgin group.
They are about to build commercial space craft and I wouldn't be a bit
surprised if they're not more successful than government efforts and I would
assume they plan to make a profit



"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
And do you think that the private sector would do this kind of thing
without govt. subsidies (i.e., without the govt. taking our tax dollars
and turning them over to private corporations)? How long do you think it
would take for them to see any return for their investment?

Is there a law against private exploration of space? If not, then perhaps
there isn't any because there's no profit to be made.

Perce


On 07/29/05 02:52 pm RBM tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

That's exactly why we need government running less and interfering less
and let private sector do what it does best. And just maybe private
sector could actually make a profit

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.....

"Sherman" wrote in message
...

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.....


Sherman

Have you made the phone call to NASA yet? Any other design solutions in
your grab bag? Be sure to pass them along too.
MLD

The "ODM" material was the foam, not the products of combustion. The foam
was freon based, but it worked and didn't fall off on take off. It was
replaced with an environmentally friendly material to appease who knows



"Ken Marsh" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jmagerl wrote:
#I remember Dan Rather once saying on a news broadcast that each Shuttle
#launch releases enough ODM (Ozone depleting material) equal to 50,000
#refridgerators loosing their freon (R-12 freon)

Which shows you how much of an idiot Dan is.

The combustion product of the main engines is water. It burns Liquid
Oxygen and H2.

The combustion products of the solid engines are carbon dioxide and water,
and maybe some nitrous byproducts due to the heat.

Cabron Dioxide is only marginally a greenhouse gas, but it's not R12. It
would take a heck of a lot more to make 50K fridge worth of R12.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , Sherman
wrote:

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

Or line the INSIDE of the tank with foam.

-Frank

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

"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote in message
...
That's exactly why we need government running less and interfering less
and let private sector do what it does best. And just maybe private sector
could actually make a profit

To make a profit, you have to get paid for a product. Other than rich people
who want to take a ride into space for a few days, where's the product?

On 29-Jul-2005, Sherman wrote:

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

And if the net-like material holds a broken piece of foam close to the tank,
the resulting airflow inside the foam may rip off the remaining foam like
a cutting jet. This isn't a trivial problem and isn't likely to be solved
with a trivial solution.

Mike

On 29-Jul-2005, "RBM" rbm2(remove wrote:

The truth of the matter is they already had a foam that performed perfectly
well with no problems, but stopped using it because it wasn't
"environmentally friendly"

While the replacement foam has flaking problems, that doesn't mean the previous
foam was "perfectly good". The old foam suffered more from problems with ice
than the latest incarnation. Ice can cause as much damage to the tiles as
can the foam.

The fact is that NASA has been relying on luck for a long time. Even going all
the way back to the Mercury program, the margin for error was always small.

Mike

On 29-Jul-2005, "RBM" rbm2(remove wrote:

They are about to build commercial space craft and I wouldn't be a bit
surprised if they're not more successful than government efforts and I would
assume they plan to make a profit

Virgin's is barely a spacecraft - suborbital tourism isn't the same thing
as science and research. I've yet to hear anyone propose a profitable
purpose for manned spacecraft.

Mike

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

"Walter R." wrote in message
...
Ductape would hold the whole thing together. Just keep going around and
around until the whole thing is covered. Guaranteed to work. :-)

Are you kidding? Duct tape alone will not do it. You have to put a wrap of
chicken wire first, then the duct tape.

Michael Daly wrote:

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
double wall like the oil tankers with foam in the middle

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.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:47:22 GMT, Ignoramus27279
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:36:46 GMT, 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.....

The requirements for the material probably incude being very light,
and also low thermal conductivity. The purpose of that foam is to keep
liquid hydrogen cool before liftoff. I do not think that the "idiots
at NASA" (your words) would have a very easy time finding an
alternative to some type of foam.

Hey, Ignorant. The panty hose goes over the foam.

Sherman wrote in
:


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

a guy who works at NASA posted on rec.model.rocketry that they have
considered and discarded such methods.

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.....


Sherman





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Ken Marsh) wrote in
:

In article ,
Jmagerl wrote:
#I remember Dan Rather once saying on a news broadcast that each
Shuttle #launch releases enough ODM (Ozone depleting material) equal
to 50,000 #refridgerators loosing their freon (R-12 freon)

Which shows you how much of an idiot Dan is.

agreed.


The combustion product of the main engines is water. It burns Liquid
Oxygen and H2.

agreed.


The combustion products of the solid engines are carbon dioxide and
water, and maybe some nitrous byproducts due to the heat.

The SRB exhaust is toxic and contains hydrochloric acid.
You do NOT want to breathe it.

(ammonium perchlorate,powdered Aluminum,and HTPB [rubber binder]for SRB
fuel)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Richard J Kinch wrote in
:

Sherman writes:

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

Yeah. And airplanes should have parachutes so they never crash.


Some commercial airplanes DO come with parachutes,and they do work!
(save lives,not the aircraft)

http://www.brsparachutes.com/history.html

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

joe wrote in
:

Michael Daly wrote:

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
double wall like the oil tankers with foam in the middle


adds too much weight.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Sherman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:47:22 GMT, Ignoramus27279
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:36:46 GMT, 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.....

The requirements for the material probably incude being very light,
and also low thermal conductivity. The purpose of that foam is to keep
liquid hydrogen cool before liftoff. I do not think that the "idiots
at NASA" (your words) would have a very easy time finding an
alternative to some type of foam.

Hey, Ignorant. The panty hose goes over the foam.


NASA engineers visited the local supermarket but failed to find pantyhose
large enough. They thought they had a chance considering the obesity of the
average American woman these days.

"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote in message
...
That's exactly why we need government running less and interfering less
and let private sector do what it does best. And just maybe private sector
could actually make a profit




Actually, I guess only us in NC know this, but the PRIVATE sector DID design
the foam for the tank.

http://www.wxii12.com/news/4784967/detail.htm

NASA buys it, Lockheed-MArtin applies it and North CArolina Foam Products
makes it...so whos to blame?




"Sherman" wrote in message
...

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.....


Sherman

Doug Kanter wrote:

"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote in message
...
That's exactly why we need government running less and interfering less
and let private sector do what it does best. And just maybe private sector
could actually make a profit

To make a profit, you have to get paid for a product. Other than rich people
who want to take a ride into space for a few days, where's the product?

IF you could get it reliable and cheap enough, there would be
zero-gravity manufacturing processes that could take advantage...but I
think it would take order-of-magnitude improvement in cost than at
present to probably make it pay...

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.

Also a service could make a profit. The profit is calculated by how
much money made over what it costs to provide the service. It's how I
make my living.

To make a profit, you have to get paid for a product. Other than rich people
who want to take a ride into space for a few days, where's the product?




Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply

MUADIB®

http://www.angelfire.com/retro/sster...IN%20PAGE.html

If A Quiz is Quizical,
What is a test?

The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been
cancelled due to a conflict.

In alt.home.repair on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:22:31 GMT "Doug Kanter"
posted:


"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote in message
...
That's exactly why we need government running less and interfering less
and let private sector do what it does best. And just maybe private sector
could actually make a profit

To make a profit, you have to get paid for a product. Other than rich people
who want to take a ride into space for a few days, where's the product?

I think for now he's only talking about 10 minutes. At least much
less than a few days. Have you heard of longer?

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

In alt.home.repair on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:52:53 GMT "Dave"
posted:


"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
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.....


Sherman

There might be an air resistance issue, but that does sound like a good
idea.

It's too easy. It was the first think I thought about after the
accident.

Right. Some girl on the radio thought of it too. So we know NASA
thought of it.

There has to be something we don't know. The guys working on the
thing are NOT stupid. It does seem weird though that they would have spent
all that time and still have the problem. I sure would like to be able to be
privy to their "discussions" about the problem.

Dave



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