# Space Shuttle: why not use a net? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 14, 2005, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955 "2005-08-14T12:05:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/1 "2005-08-14T12:05:23Z")
Since they’re so worried about bits falling off the external tank, why not simply put a net around it? Something like a fishing net, but extra-light - silk, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/2 "2005-08-14T12:16:17Z")
Would it burn up, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/3 "2005-08-14T13:08:35Z")
I think everything would heat up too much, and would just melt the silk. So lets go with a steal net of some kind. Like a thin, strong meshed metal fence wrapped around the tank. This might lead to some drag problems though. ---
**Author:** ![Tuco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tuco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuco)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/4 "2005-08-14T13:11:01Z")
What’s the problem with it burning up? Surely all the net would need to do is protect the underside of the shuttle during lift-off? Maybe a hard plastic covering that can be cast away in space would be a way forward? ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/5 "2005-08-14T13:55:23Z")
> [@Tuco](#): > > Maybe a hard plastic covering that can be cast away in space would be a way forward? Sounds like it would work, and would likely be cheaper then 1 billion dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/6 "2005-08-14T14:10:05Z")
> [@Tuco](#): > > What’s the problem with it burning up? Surely all the net would need to do is protect the underside of the shuttle during lift-off? I should know how fast the Shuttle flies on liftoff, but I don’t. I do know that it’s very fast. Friction would be a problem, especially with a ‘rough’ surface like a net. The SR-71 actually expands about a foot in high-speed flight. I’m guessing a net would burn off on liftoff, creating more FOD. ---
**Author:** ![FairyChatMom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fairychatmom/32/21906_2.png) [@FairyChatMom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FairyChatMom)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/7 "2005-08-14T14:39:27Z")
My husband works at Goddard Space Flight Center for a NASA contractor. He’s not involved in the shuttle program, but by default, he hears lots of discussions that aren’t common knowledge. I asked him the same question, and he said weight is a major concern. Actually, I asked why they don’t imbed fibers in the foam to help hold it together, and said for the size of the area insulated, all additional weight adds cost to the launch. I’m sure that’s not the only reason, but I expect it’s a still a significant factor. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/8 "2005-08-14T14:40:30Z")
I know someone who asked this exact question to someone on the Columbia accident investigation board. The answer is that yes, it would probably work. The problem is, it would be a major change and can have unintended consequences, some of which have been pointed out in this thread already. To certify the modified design for manned flight requires extensive testing. Designing the net and doing the necessary testing would take about 3 years and $1 billion. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/9 "2005-08-14T17:36:09Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > To certify the modified design for manned flight requires extensive testing. Designing the net and doing the necessary testing would take about 3 years and $1 billion. Doesn’t this just exemplify all that is wrong with the shuttle program? ---
**Author:** ![imthjckaz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/imthjckaz/32/3223_2.png) [@imthjckaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imthjckaz)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/10 "2005-08-14T22:58:44Z")
No need for a net. How about they build a Shuttle that doesn’t have parts fall off? Crazy, I know, but it’s possible. We have the technology. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/11 "2005-08-15T02:24:44Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Doesn’t this just exemplify all that is wrong with the shuttle program? I think you are radically underestimating the difficulty of space flight. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/12 "2005-08-15T03:35:53Z")
A Net? You mean a net mounted on the external tank? One that stays on the tank all the way up? If so, I don’t think you are taking into account the immense drag something like that would have. The wires on biplanes, for example, were a significant source of drag. And the force on that net would be very large. It would have to be very strong. I’m not even sure we have the materials you would need that would stay on the vehicle until the foam problem was gone. That means a net that can sit out in the windstream at multiple mach speeds. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/13 "2005-08-15T06:19:11Z")
So giant panty hose is out too, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/14 "2005-08-15T06:45:19Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > So giant panty hose is out too, I suppose. How about a really really big condom? ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/15 "2005-08-15T08:07:03Z")
I’m not so keen on having all that condom lube on our spacecraft. Since it’s all, like, pristine… I don’t suppose _painting_ it, like on the first couple of shuttle launches, would do a whole hell of a lot of anything? ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/16 "2005-08-15T08:13:05Z")
Heeey, what’dya know. [According to wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank): > [@](#): > > Prior to 1997, the foam insulation was made using freon, a chemical known for its destructive effect on the ozone layer. Although NASA was exempted from legislation that called for a reduction in freon use, and the amount of freon used in the tank contributed minimally to total freon use, the composition of the foam was changed in response. The new foam has proven to be much more likely to peel or flake off, causing over a **tenfold increase in impacts** with shuttle tiles over the old foam. :dubious: Not to sound cold hearted…but if that’s the case, if it’d help the shuttle before it’s replacement comes around, I think maybe the atmosphere can take one more for the team. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/17 "2005-08-15T21:23:32Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > A Net? You mean a net mounted on the external tank? One that stays on the tank all the way up? No - only far enough to ensure the safety of the shuttle. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/18 "2005-08-15T21:50:46Z")
So NASA didn’t design a new tank in the 2-1/2 years that the shuttles were grounded because it would have cost too much but they changed one of the key materials and never looked back. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/19 "2005-08-16T01:02:23Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > No - only far enough to ensure the safety of the shuttle. Pieces of foam have broken off at Mach 2. That’s why that light little foam can do so much damage. You’d probably have to keep the net at least until the point of max pressure, which means the most extreme loading possible. Then if you’re going to shed the net, you have to worry about THAT hitting the shuttle. It’s not feasible. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/20 "2005-08-16T01:15:30Z")
I wonder if they could use the freon just on the side of the tank that is next to the shuttle? That way you don’t use as much freon and you still get the protection. After all the foam on the other side isn’t going to hit the shuttle. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955.md?page=2)