# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![KeithT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@KeithT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KeithT)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/21 "2005-08-16T03:41:30Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > Heeey, what’dya know. [According to wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank): > :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. But the change to CFC-free foams **did not** have an impact (heh) on Columbia. A CFC-free foam (NCFI 24-124 foam, blown with HCFC 141b) was used to cover the large expanses of flat acreage about the tank in an automated process, but this foam was not involved in the accident. The piece that pierced the shuttle’s wing broke off the left bipod ramp of the external tank. This area was hand sprayed by experienced technicians, but used a different formulation, called BX250. This material is blown using Freon-11, as it has been since the beginning of the shuttle program. Cite: Section 11 of the Working Summary of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board ([34 MB PDF](http://t2www.nasa.r3h.net/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D07.PDF)) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/22 "2005-08-16T04:13:16Z")
Actually the net idea would work if it was imbedded during the foaming process. It would be the same principle used in cement, lathe, or adobe. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/23 "2005-08-16T07:41:56Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > 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. There isn’t any foam on the far side of the tank. The foam is there to insulate the pylons that attach the shuttle to the tank, to keep the fuel flowing into the shuttle from freezing. ---
**Author:** ![pretend\_my\_name\_is\_witty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b9e5f3/32.png) [@pretend\_my\_name\_is\_witty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pretend_my_name_is_witty)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/24 "2005-08-16T10:01:57Z")
When I first read the thread title, I thought this was going to be a suggestion for an alternative to landing the shuttle…catch it in some enormous net. Now that I’d like to see. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/25 "2005-08-16T15:50:14Z")
> [@sturmhauke](#): > > There isn’t any foam on the far side of the tank. The foam is there to insulate the pylons that attach the shuttle to the tank, to keep the fuel flowing into the shuttle from freezing. You sure about that? IIRC, the entire outside surface of the external tank is insulated, not just the pylons. It was foam from near the pylons that broke off on Columbia, but that’s not the only foam. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/26 "2005-08-16T17:04:45Z")
> [@sturmhauke](#): > > There isn’t any foam on the far side of the tank. The foam is there to insulate the pylons that attach the shuttle to the tank, to keep the fuel flowing into the shuttle from freezing. Then they should sell ad space on the other side of the tank to get back some of the costs. How about sponsors for astronauts? They could have patches all over their jumpsuits like race car drivers. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/27 "2005-08-16T18:47:12Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > Heeey, what’dya know. [According to wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank): > :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. You beat me to the Wikipedia quote. We lost a shuttle and crew due to NASA’s being too wussy to tell the environmentalists to stick it. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/28 "2005-08-16T19:00:13Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > 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? Yes, it would add weight. They stopped painting the fuel tank after someone (a school kid I believe) sent in the suggestion that it would save fuel by lightening the load. I don’t think paint would have any effect on the foam insulation. ---
**Author:** ![KeithT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@KeithT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KeithT)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/29 "2005-08-16T19:25:05Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > You beat me to the Wikipedia quote. We lost a shuttle and crew due to NASA’s being too wussy to tell the environmentalists to stick it. :dubious: > [@KeithT](#): > > The piece that pierced the shuttle’s wing broke off the left bipod ramp of the external tank. This area was hand sprayed by experienced technicians, but used a different formulation, called BX250. This material is blown using Freon-11, as it has been since the beginning of the shuttle program. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/30 "2005-08-16T19:36:44Z")
> [@sturmhauke](#): > > There isn’t any foam on the far side of the tank. The foam is there to insulate the pylons that attach the shuttle to the tank, to keep the fuel flowing into the shuttle from freezing. What could cause the liquid hydrogen to freeze, and how would insulation help? 😕 That there is a _cryogenic_ tank. It needs insulation to minimize heat input, and to prevent water, ice or even liquid air from condensing on the tank. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/31 "2005-08-16T22:39:56Z")
I have always assumed the insulation was to keep moisture in the atmosphere from freezing to the tank and falling off as ice-cicles. ---
**Author:** ![Emerald\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Emerald\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emerald_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/32 "2005-08-16T22:59:16Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > Then they should sell ad space on the other side of the tank to get back some of the costs. > > How about sponsors for astronauts? They could have patches all over their jumpsuits like race car drivers. Why just the back of the tank? Why not [go all out](http://www.danamongden.net/archives/images/shuttle_ads.jpg)? ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/33 "2005-08-16T23:32:41Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > What could cause the liquid hydrogen to freeze, and how would insulation help? 😕 > > That there is a _cryogenic_ tank. It needs insulation to minimize heat input, and to prevent water, ice or even liquid air from condensing on the tank. Hmm, that’s true. I was going off of a diagram I saw somewhere, Newsweek maybe. I’m probably misremembering. I also thought that the tank was contstructed something like a giant Thermos bottle, with a gap between the inner and outer skins to minimize heat transfer. ---
**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 17, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/34 "2005-08-17T04:19:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I have always assumed the insulation was to keep moisture in the atmosphere from freezing to the tank and falling off as ice-cicles. That’s what I thought, too. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955/35 "2005-08-17T14:11:24Z")
> [@Emerald Hawk](#): > > Why just the back of the tank? Why not [go all out](http://www.danamongden.net/archives/images/shuttle_ads.jpg)? That’s what I’m talking about! We have that ad for Canada on the robot arm, so why not! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-shuttle-why-not-use-a-net/316955.md?page=1)