Could Starlite have saved the Shuttle?

D

danwild6

F-14 Fan
Joined
30 March 2012
Messages
78
Reaction score
32
Many have heard of the insulating and fire resistant abilities of Starlite but could it have reduced or eliminated the icy foam build up that lead to the destruction of the Columbia?
 
danwild6 said:
Many have heard of the insulating and fire resistant abilities of Starlite but could it have reduced or eliminated the icy foam build up that lead to the destruction of the Columbia?
Click to expand...
No.
a. the capabilities and characteristics of "Starlite" are not defined enough to make a judgement.
B. The foam on the tank was insulation to maintain the propellants in a cryogenic state. It isn't a heat shield. That wasn't demonstrated for Starlite
C. If Starlite were to replace the tiles on the orbiter, it would have to weigh the same or less. But it wasn't the tiles, it was the RCC on the wing leading edge. No demonstration of that type of structure was done.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
No.
a. the capabilities and characteristics of "Starlite" are not defined enough to make a judgement.
B. The foam on the tank was insulation to maintain the propellants in a cryogenic state. It isn't a heat shield. That wasn't demonstrated for Starlite
C. If Starlite were to replace the tiles on the orbiter, it would have to weigh the same or less. But it wasn't the tiles, it was the RCC on the wing leading edge. No demonstration of that type of structure was done.
Click to expand...
Could it be theoretically possible to create an insulating material that would prevent the build up of ice as a hazard?
 
danwild6 said:
Could it be theoretically possible to create an insulating material that would prevent the build up of ice as a hazard?
Click to expand...

In theory, sure. Of course, no such material is known to exist (with suitable thermal characteristics, weight, durability, etc.) or NASA would have used it.
 
There were allot issue with Starlite

The biggest was its inventor Maurice Ward (1933–2011)
He keep recipe secret, botch up negotiations with big corporation and took his secret with in his grave (according some sources)

NASA and Boeing in 1994 study Starlite as replacement for Shuttle heat shield
but failed because Ward outraging demands and obstinacy (according some sources).

According Keith Lewis, a retired MOD officer,
noted that the material only guards against thermal damage and not the physical damage, which can destroy the insulating layer.

in other words Starlite is fragile like Shuttle heat shield material
Also seem that Starlite can be use only once and has to be removed afterwards.
other issue was that Starlite transform into foam if heated, what could change drastic the Aerodynamic of Shuttle.

this and problems Ward caused is reason NASA never took Starlite as heat shield material...



Sources:
en.wikipedia.org

Starlite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

www.bbc.com

How does the 'wonder material' Starlite actually work? - BBC Reel

We ask material experts how Starlite is able to withstand such high temperatures. Part two of six.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
danwild6 said:
Could it be theoretically possible to create an insulating material that would prevent the build up of ice as a hazard?
Click to expand...
There already was. It was the existing foam that was on the External tank. That is what it was for, keep the propellant cold and keep ice of the exerior. And it did the job well. The only issue was joints and protuberances. The foam sheds. The issue is that the Orbiter tiles are not impact resistant. Almost all launch vehicle (especially ones using cryogenic propellants) create a debris shedding environment during ascent. This is not usually an issue. The problem arises with vehicles that have parallel stages or configurations with hardware next to a shedding environment.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I guess the only way would to address the issue would be a titanium based structure for the orbiter and maybe a tungsten backing for the wing leading edge Carbon fiber.
 
TomS said:
In theory, sure. Of course, no such material is known to exist (with suitable thermal characteristics, weight, durability, etc.) or NASA would have used it.
Click to expand...
If it was possible at the time.

There a bunch of materials and Alloys that we can make now, in bulk let alone the special stuff, that the 1970s Nasa Engineers would have cheerfully Sacrifice their first and second born, Murder half their Families, and Sold both nuts for.

And while not there is no ONE material that meets the criteria... YET.

There are more than enough stuff that if they made the Shuttle today?

As in they never did in the 1970s, instead started it today?

It a completely different beast that be far, far safer even without the lessons learned from Challenger and Columbia.
 
Starlight was just goop. Maybe some in the hole of the RCC with aerogel packing?

Of interest
phys.org

Recycling the non-recyclable: New epoxy resin resists flames and reduces waste

Empa researchers have developed an epoxy resin that can be repaired and recycled, in addition to being flame-retardant and mechanically strong. Potential applications range from coating for wooden flooring to composites in aerospace and railways.
phys.org phys.org
 
Last edited:
I wonder if starlite could be made to flow through aerogel tubes.

In terms of transpiration cooling...has anyone looked at the heated working fluid doing a chemical reaction with another fluid so as to lose heat before a fresh circulation?

Lastly...say I want a sample return coming in very fast.

Any work done with ablative coatings on shuttle tiles?
 
I think Starlite reusability without the need for renewal/removal/reapplication was never demonstrated, but I'd be elated to be proven wrong.
 
publiusr said:
I wonder if starlite could be made to flow through aerogel tubes.

In terms of transpiration cooling...has anyone looked at the heated working fluid doing a chemical reaction with another fluid so as to lose heat before a fresh circulation?

Lastly...say I want a sample return coming in very fast.

Any work done with ablative coatings on shuttle tiles?
Click to expand...
Aerogel is too frail for such tasks
no need for ablative coatings on shuttle tiles, just make the tiles thicker
 
Byeman said:
Aerogel is too frail for such tasks
no need for ablative coatings on shuttle tiles, just make the tiles thicker
Click to expand...
Better yet be using Titanium for the frame which would allow use of a less insulating but structurally stronger material be used in place of the Carbon Carbon tiles.

Like the Original Design called for before all types of fun games happened for reasons that never panned out, instead of the Aluminum that it ended up using

Which force the use of the better insulation of Carbon Carbon Tiles blah blah, go look in the Shuttle thread here it has it all.
 
Tiles and ablatives in combination might be good for outer solar system sample return. I imagine they would could come in so fast you might want a combination.
 
publiusr said:
Tiles and ablatives in combination might be good for outer solar system sample return. I imagine they would could come in so fast you might want a combination.
Click to expand...
No, just stick with one and make it thicker. No advantage to use different layers.
 
Byeman said:
No, just stick with one and make it thicker. No advantage to use different layers.
Click to expand...
Not even with respect to mass savings for high delta-v missions? Everything's a requirements/design/cost/performance tradeoff in aerospace.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom