Talk:Space Shuttle external tank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Related projects: | ||
 |
WikiProject Spaceflight | Importance to Spaceflight: Mid |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[edit] Emptying after a cancelled launch
Does anyone know what happens to a filled external tank if the launch is cancelled at the last minute? Can the liquid hydrogen and oxygen be pumped out again for cryogenic storage, or are they allowed to evaporate? I can't find an answer to this question anywhere.Christidy (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] January 2006
I've removed this page's entry from Wikipedia:Requested moves due to a lack of consensus on the move from Space Shuttle external tank to Space Shuttle External Tank. If this changes, feel free to add another request. --Lox (t,c) 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs specifics on LH2/LOX ET capacity
A great article but a common question is how much LH2 and LOX does it hold -- by both weight and volume. Suggest you make a bulletized list, or a box with the main ET specificiations. Include ET diameter, length, dry weight, total wet weight, and individual LH2/LOX capacity by both weight and volume. That way readers can quickly see the essential physical characteristics. Joema 01:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Liquid Hydrogen bias
The extra amount of 1.100 pound (500 kg) liquid hydrogen to prevent oxygen-rich cutoff seems questionable. NASA states a value of only 700 pound on http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/prop/et.html
--84.44.195.11 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "ET thermal protection system" section updates
This section still mentions that the shuttle program is grounded, but obviously this isn't the case. The only reason I didn't update it myself is that I don't know what NASA did about the foam issue.--Erciesielski 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wet Workshop?
Is it worth mentioning the wet workshop proposals for the ET that were kicking around prior to the Challenger accident? The only reason the ET doesn't end up in orbit every mission is that it is deliberately de-orbited, and some people suggested using its large interior volume for part of a space station. Problem is, I've had trouble finding information on this, I'm purely going on memory here. Damburger 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is an important idea that makes the ET a bit more exciting. The source you want is the Finney and Jones book Intersteller Migration and the Human Experience. There's a paper on using either the metal of the ET or its structure for a station. I believe its by the University of California Press. I will try to put the basic concept on the page.
>> I can't find a source to back this up, but my recollection from back when the Shuttle was being pitched as an idea was that the ET would be reused in orbit as the basis for a future space station. Clearly that never happened, and it seems like a waste to keep throwing them away every time. Anybody know why they didn't keep them up there? After 120+ missions, you could have built quite a large inter-connected structure out of those ETs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.207.228 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason an ET hasn't been orbited yet is probably due to the lack of flight control systems on it. After the shuttle returned to Earth the ET could burn up accidentally unless it was fixed with thrusters on the mission. (81.132.150.208 16:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
- It's been added, but it far predates even the earliest Space Station Freedom ideas. The idea was to outfit it on-orbit with surplus Skylab parts. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It is mentioned that it is caused to de-orbit, how? If it doesn't have propulsion how is this controlled?
i.e. the ET must have orbital energy itself because the orbiters thrusters aren't powerful enough to give it the extra thrust (are they?)
So how do they control the ET's landing point if (for example) it is atmospheric resistance that de-orbits it.
- The ET never enters into orbit, hence why no engines are needed. The space shuttle OMS burn gives the required thrust to put the shuttle into orbit. The ET falls back to earth in a ballistic trajectory to a pre-determined landing zone. There is no guidance system on the ET. Skiman14 —Preceding comment was added at 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the wet workshop idea it is used at various points in fiction e.g. Kim Robinson's Mars Trilogy. Is this also worth a mention? Rufty 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ares I Second Stage
The article currently reads, "Like the Solid Rocket Boosters, the ET will be used in the upcoming heavy-lift Ares V (CaLV) and man-rated Ares I (CLV)." This seems dubious: other description say the Ares I second stage will be a new design. What sources currently support the assertion that the Aries I second stage will be derived from the Shuttle external tank? Sdsds 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Future use as baseline
The assertion that the ET will serve as the "baseline" for the Ares I second stage is totally befuddling. The two aren't even close to the same size! What verifiable source claims the ET is the baseline for the Ares I second stage? Sdsds 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably just confusion as the ET will be used as a "baseline" for the Ares V first stage. Pictures of the Ares I show a second stage that looks similar to an ET in color. When compared to the Ares V, it is obvious that the Ares I second stage is very small, but when taken alone, I can see how one would think it was a derivative of the ET. Anyways, it's a simple mistake; no need for hyperbole here. Cjosefy 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification of "Befuddling" remarks
If you take a look at the recent changes/additions to the area in question, I believe you'll all be in agreement with the clarifications made. WSpaceport 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Under pressure
It seems a bit misleading, in the opening paragraph, to state that the ET provides the fuel and oxidizer under pressure. The SSME has two sets of turbopumps for each (fuel and oxidizer). Using oxidizer as an example, the LPOTP boosts the LOX pressure from 100 to 422 psia, at which point the HPOTP boosts it from 422 to 4,300 psi for injection into the reaction chamber. The 100 psi in the tank isn't really significant pressure compared to the 4,300 psi needed by the SSME.... Or am I missing something? (sdsds - talk) 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Standard US Usage
Some folks seem to be unclear on the appropriate usage of the term "Aluminum". Please see the wikipedia article aluminum for clarification. If this were an article about, say, British efforts to invent and perfect Radar, then referring to an aluminium antenna would be appropriate. This article however, is about the space shuttle, an endeavor unique to the United States, and therefore it is appropriate to maintain standard US usage, and refer to the aluminum/lithium alloy used in the super lightweight tank. When England starts a space program and launches a man to the moon, it will be entirely appropriate to refer to the aluminium used in the boosters. Thank you. Anastrophe 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External tank disposal
We ought to have a section that details how the external tank breaks up and is destroyed after nominal separation to ensure downrange safety, especially since the SRB article has a complete detailing of its typical recovery protocol. For example, I know they leave some of the fuel in both tanks (it doesn't separate totally empty), so upon re-entry the heat causes the fuel to evaporate, expand and burst the tanks, allowing the resultant small pieces to burn up more readily. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CFC-14?!?
It was claimed that the CFC used to blow the foam used as insulator was CFC-14. Anyone familiar with the number protocol for refrigerants knows that there can be no such thing; with four fluorine atoms, a methane is completely replaced and there won't be any chlorine, with four chlorines, there won't be any fluorines, hence, it won't be a CFC cause it doesn't have both! I've replaced it with CFC-11 based on http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/rtf/otte/et_thermal_protection_fact_sheet.doc which mentions CFC-11 as well as HCFC 141b. Zaphraud (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
