Researchers Find Way to Keep Metal Surfaces Free of Ice

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to the new Rapture! Where leaks and deep sea temperatures are no-longer fatal!
Buy it now! Just with 40 adams and you get yourself a bargin~
 
This is a boon for aircraft.
First the obvious safety that comes from this: Ice can form at high elevations, northern areas etc etc resulting in the risk of crashes.
Second the not so obvious. This will mean that aircraft will no longer need to carry heaters on the wings or not as many heaters. Resulting in a lighter aircraft that requires less fuel or can carry more people/cargo or both.
This can also mean that the engines of aircraft will not need heaters as well, resulting in lighter engines/more efficient engines.
 
Also, this could have been used on the tanks of the space shuttle... Preventing at least one disaster and possibly saving the shuttle program itself. After the second shuttle was lost, too many politicians got emotional about it.... *Each* space shuttle was designed to go 100 missions a piece... we did 134 missions.. total... what a waste....
 
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]This is a boon for aircraft.First the obvious safety that comes from this: Ice can form at high elevations, northern areas etc etc resulting in the risk of crashes.Second the not so obvious. This will mean that aircraft will no longer need to carry heaters on the wings or not as many heaters. Resulting in a lighter aircraft that requires less fuel or can carry more people/cargo or both. This can also mean that the engines of aircraft will not need heaters as well, resulting in lighter engines/more efficient engines.[/citation]

Aren't aircraft beginning to use composite materials instead of metal?
 
[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]Aren't aircraft beginning to use composite materials instead of metal?[/citation]

They're so expensive that they take a while for the older aircraft (70's and 80's) to be replaced, and it doesn't help that the airline industry is trying to delay replacements to save money.
 
The leading edge is still a metallic Component (the substructure though can be composite), it has to withstand alot of abuse and fatigue as well as undergoing alot of repairs, servicing and replacements (which composite aren't so great at), it also only accounts for 1 tenth of the Mass of the wing and is where ice build up more frequently occurs due to direct exposure to the air stream
 
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]This is a boon for aircraft.First the obvious safety that comes from this: Ice can form at high elevations, northern areas etc etc resulting in the risk of crashes.Second the not so obvious. This will mean that aircraft will no longer need to carry heaters on the wings or not as many heaters. Resulting in a lighter aircraft that requires less fuel or can carry more people/cargo or both. This can also mean that the engines of aircraft will not need heaters as well, resulting in lighter engines/more efficient engines.[/citation]

Could I ask where you got the number 100 from? I ask because I remember after the challenger disaster a teacher of mine saying that they estimated 25 missions per vessel before the risk of disaster. Seems that numbers can be completely arbitrary if you ask me.
 
If anybody's ever wondered what those black strips on airplane wings and bodies are, they're ice detector strips. They have a rough, tacky texture so one of the line crew can take a long pole and scrape them with it. If it slides easily then you've got "black ice" (a thin layer of totally transparent ice) on the aircraft, and you've got to defrost it before taking off. If you don't, the ice can break free during flight, get sucked into the engine and cause a flameout.
 
[citation][nom]clivene09[/nom]Could I ask where you got the number 100 from? I ask because I remember after the challenger disaster a teacher of mine saying that they estimated 25 missions per vessel before the risk of disaster. Seems that numbers can be completely arbitrary if you ask me.[/citation]
The initial estimates were hopelessly optimistic. NASA envisioned something similar to an airliner, launching as frequently as every two weeks.

The realities of the expense and difficulty in getting them ready for launch resulted in a much longer turnaround time, with the record being two launches for one shuttle in 54 days. After Challenger, they added even more safety precautions, and launches were even less frequent, with the post challenger record being twice in 88 days.
 
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]Also, this could have been used on the tanks of the space shuttle... Preventing at least one disaster and possibly saving the shuttle program itself. After the second shuttle was lost, too many politicians got emotional about it.... *Each* space shuttle was designed to go 100 missions a piece... we did 134 missions.. total... what a waste....[/citation]
Um, what? The space shuttle Challenger was destroyed in 1986 because of a solid rocket booster "O" ring failure, in part caused by low temperatures at launch. The space shuttle Columbia was destroyed on reentry in 2003, cause attributed to the left wing being hit by a piece of foam from the Space Shuttle External Tank during launch. Ice had nothing to do with either disaster. What ice are you talking about?
 
this metal can help with the guys who do LN2 OC. yes, nasa originally planned for the space shuttles to have a 100 launches before replacement. in the end, the space shuttles never met their goal of providing cheaper flights to space (costs nearly the same to launching a regular rocket)
 
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Um, what? The space shuttle Challenger was destroyed in 1986 because of a solid rocket booster "O" ring failure, in part caused by low temperatures at launch. The space shuttle Columbia was destroyed on reentry in 2003, cause attributed to the left wing being hit by a piece of foam from the Space Shuttle External Tank during launch. Ice had nothing to do with either disaster. What ice are you talking about?[/citation]
I assume he was just a bit confused about Challenger. The failure was the result of the o-ring being too cold and becoming brittle. It wasn't actually ice, of course, but it was frozen. This technology would have done nothing to prevent it.
 
[citation][nom]TheBigTroll[/nom]this metal can help with the guys who do LN2 OC. yes, nasa originally planned for the space shuttles to have a 100 launches before replacement. in the end, the space shuttles never met their goal of providing cheaper flights to space (costs nearly the same to launching a regular rocket)[/citation]
OK No more ice during suicide LN2 runs.... But then what do we do with the water?
 
[citation][nom]K2N hater[/nom]OK No more ice during suicide LN2 runs.... But then what do we do with the water?[/citation]
The water would, of course, run off. I think the savings could be that the tanks would not have to be as insulated if they did not get 'frosted', saving weight and space?
 
door handles in cold environments and other items like walkways would benefit from it. there are probably interior things like engine parts and such that would also benefit from this
 
Ok, some of you guys wonder where I got the magic 100 missions number at?
I worked with engineers from Rockwell(the guys who built the shuttle) in Logan UT.... That's where they built/rebuilt the booster rockets at....

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom