NASA's Atlantis Ready For June 8 Launch

lifuchi writes "The guys and girls at NASA are at it again with Atlantis. The newly repaired space shuttle is set launch on June 8. The hail-damaged fuel tank has been repaired and is said to be a bit of an eyesore. Zee News is quoted as saying, 'Instead of being a uniform orange, it has a patchwork of white spots where technicians sprayed, scraped and filled fresh foam into the more than 4200 areas that were damaged during a freak hailstorm in February.'"

Comments

So a can of orange paint was out of the budget

[Timesprout]

Hmm, doesn't exactly fill you with confidence does it.

Re:So a can of orange paint was out of the budget

[Professor_UNIX]

The external fuel tank isn't painted orange, that's the natural color of the foam. Apparently the replacement foam for patch jobs is just naturally white so they can easily tell where they've added it.

Re:So a can of orange paint was out of the budget

[topical_surfactant]

The only shuttle launch that ever had the external fuel tank painted was the first - Columbia (RIP), April 12th 1981, where the tank was painted white to match the rest of the vehicle.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010412.html

Re:So a can of orange paint was out of the budget

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Actually, the first TWO launches had white painted tanks. Then NASA realized that the paint added a lot of additional weight for zero benefit...

Re:So a can of orange paint was out of the budget

[arielCo]

From TFA:

The tank`s deep orange colour is caused by ultraviolet light from the Sun striking the foam insulation over time. The fresh foam on Atlantis` tank is however, light-coloured, some of it bright white and some off-white, indicating different repair techniques were used in separate areas.

So it's more like new foam on top of old foam. Apparently it happens very quickly, since every tank I've seen after STS-1/2 is orange.

Now for the obligatory Wikipedia quote:

The external tanks of the first two missions were painted white, which added an extra 600 pounds (273 kg) of weight to each ET. Subsequent missions have had unpainted tanks showing the natural orange-brown color of the spray-on foam insulation. The orange-brown color results from ultraviolet light from the sun striking the foam insulation over time.[1] The lighter, unpainted tanks have increased the payload capacity by almost the entire weight savings of 600 pounds.

What the hell...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Inspires confidence."
"Why not replace it?"


WHO CARES? This is a rocket... going into space... manned by men and woman who know that they have a more than average chance of dying. Paint adds weight and takes away from the mission payload (for reference... painting a 747 adds about 1,000 lbs to the overall take off weight). On the shuttle it's there for a functional purpose... not for feng shui.

Get them off the ground... get them in space and do it safely and as cheaply as possible (so they can do it more often). Leave fashion and style for the paris hilton's of the world. mmm-kay?

Re:What the hell...

[Timesprout]

Get them off the ground... get them in space and do it safely and as cheaply as possible (so they can do it more often). Leave fashion and style for the paris hilton's of the world. mmm-kay?

OK Paris, sound advise there for NASA. Any chance of some more girl on girl action pics from your stint in the slammer?

Re:What the hell...

[Anonymous Coward]

The foam will not come apart as easy if it was painted. They figured that out during the testing. the paint film reduces turbulance and also provides a bit of surface adhesion that can make up for errors on surface adhesion.

Orange!

[suv4x4]

Instead of being a uniform orange, it has a patchwork of white spots where technicians sprayed, scraped and filled fresh foam into the more than 4200 areas that were damaged during a freak hailstorm in February.

Oh no! Stop the engines, damn it, and don't even think of thinking of going anywhere with that non-uniform orange fuel tank! We don't want to be embarassed in front of the perfectly uniform green aliens we know absolutely nothing about and forget what I just said.

-- NASA guy in a black suit

The phrase

[Professr3]

"overfilled twinkie" comes to mind...

Scary

[lightversusdark]

"There's not at all a problem with this," Chapman said. "We have total confidence in the integrity of the repairs but I'm telling you right now that your mind will have a hard time convincing your eyes."

That must not be very reassuring for the astronauts.
There has been a new fuel tank built for the shuttle. Last weekend NASA were still deciding whether to use the new tank on this mission or go with the patched-up one.
They have opted to instead keep the new tank for the Endeavour mission in August (STS-118).

The mission overview is here.

Re:Scary

[$RANDOMLUSER]

That must not be very reassuring for the astronauts.

"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract."
--Alan Shepard

Re:Scary

[DerekLyons]

ET-124 (the external tank currently attached to Atlantis) is going to fly - period, as there aren't any spare tanks in the pipeline. With a limited number of flights left on the manifest, and a hard end-of-life deadline for the Orbiters, the contracts for the ET and it's components are already being allowed to expire. (Not to mention the need to start converting the Michoud facility from producing the ET over to producing the Porklauncher V.)
 
Thus, the question isn't which tank will be used to fly STS-117, but rather where ET-124 can be inserted into the sequence with the least impact on schedule, budget, and safety. (I know that many folks think the last should be the absolute overriding priority - but NASA has to live in the real world, not a fantasy one.)
 
The only real option is to repair ET-124, as shipping it back to Michoud for a complete replacement of its foam on the forward ogive isn't in the cards due to expense and schedule impact. Unstacking Atlantis and swapping ET-124 for a different tank doesn't make the repairs any easier, and increases the risk of damaging the various parts of the stack during handling. (The last is an important consideration, and one not often realized by the armchair astronaut. Every time you break (or make) a connection, or hoist something into the air, you risk damaging it.) It also potentially effects the schedule for two flights, STS-117 and whichever flight 'donates' the tank.
 
Thus it breaks down as follows; Rework is not in the cards due to the vast expense and schedule impact. Since there is no option to not fly ET-124, where is the best place to repair it? Repairing it at the Cape seems the best option - as you avoid the risks and expense of transporting to and from Michoud. (The repairs will be done by the same people in any instance.) If the repair is done at the Cape - it doesn't make any sense to destack the Orbiter, as doing so will not make the repair easier and increases the risk of damage to system components during handling. Equally, since -117 can be rescheduled as a unit, and other flights moved as a unit, it makes sense to retain the stack and avoid the nasty complexity of swapping hardware between flights.

orbiter simulator?

[oni]

Did anyone else notice that the picture in the story appears to be a screenshot from Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator? (it's free by the way, and very cool)

Nasa needs to...

[Lumpy]

Have someone paint giant band-aid images all over the tank.

Just to scare the crap out of the know nothings out there in the country that would be freaked out about the foam repairs.

Maybe add a dixie flag to the top of the shuttle and paint 01 on the sides, that would make it complete.