>What about making such baffles from a moderately extensible (ie "stretchy")
>material or even one with SOME ability to pass fluid such that energy is
>dissipated in the process and/or you get damping?
The LH2 slosh baffles in the S-IVB were nylon cloth held taut by cords.
However, there was no intent that they be stretchy or porous; they were
(mostly) conventional ring baffles, and the cord tension was high enough
to keep them essentially rigid. It helped that loads were light because
of the low density of LH2.
(Note also that ring baffles usually either are perforated or have a small
gap between the ring and the wall, to ensure drainage.)
> Sure, the flexible "give" of the stretchy material would damp the slosh
>waves better than a firm baffle...
Damping requires energy loss; elastic material takes up energy readily but
also gives it back readily (it slings the stuff back the other way almost
as rapidly as it arrived). For damping, you *want* small rigid surfaces
that the liquid has to flow around in a nice turbulent way, not large
flexible partitions that try to block its motion entirely.
>...and would be lighter in weight and easier to install inside the tank.
Both were indeed noted as advantages of the S-IVB cloth baffles.
>This type of baffled tank design may be better
>for a ship's smaller, auxiliary propellant and pressurization tanks.
Auxiliary propellant tanks often don't need slosh baffles at all. And
pressurization tanks generally hold gas, not liquid.
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
