|
Post by the light works on Nov 4, 2020 15:52:46 GMT
wrap it with glass fiber and spray it with epoxy. Right. Going for "foam core" essentially. That's what we're after - if it were possible. But, we're also trying to stay somewhere in the ballpark of the original, painted weight parameters. Going from latex to enamel would have an increase, but I'd bet far less than fiberglass exterior, of course. yeah, it's one of those things: it doesn't matter how light your rocket is if it doesn't survive liftoff.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 4, 2020 16:46:51 GMT
Right. Going for "foam core" essentially. That's what we're after - if it were possible. But, we're also trying to stay somewhere in the ballpark of the original, painted weight parameters. Going from latex to enamel would have an increase, but I'd bet far less than fiberglass exterior, of course. yeah, it's one of those things: it doesn't matter how light your rocket is if it doesn't survive liftoff. And, remember, in some quasi technical sense, the bare unpainted foam exterior was more-or-less working... in the sense that a majority of the shuttles made it into space, that is. Some have denied that painting the exterior would have done anything of worth, citing that the strength gained would only amount to just a tick increase if anything... But, maybe a tick is enough since we were 99 percent there already?
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 4, 2020 18:06:51 GMT
Paint, better adhesive, different foam formulation, I have no doubt NASA could have found a solution to the foam falling off. The problem was if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And they didn't think foam falling off constituted a "broke."
|
|