Ceramic Shuttle Tiles Had History of Glitches (Technicians Spit In Glue)

Washington Post ^ | Friday, February 7, 2003 | Rob Stein and Guy Gugliotta

[Paleo Conservative]

It took forever to glue on the thermal tiles that shielded the space shuttle from the scorching heat of reentry -- nearly two man-years of work for every flight -- and the glue dried so fast that technicians had to mix a new batch after every couple of tiles. But they came up with a solution: spit in the glue so it took longer to harden.

[Paleo Conservative]

Unbelievable!

[Petronski]

It's a mortifying revelation.

[demosthenes the elder]

shocking "hold muh beer" alert

[mhking]

"Hold muh beer 'n watch this!" PING....

If you want on or off this list, please let me know!

[strela]

There is of course no truth to the rumor that the head technician's name was Luigi ...

[ChemistCat]

My grandfather, a petrochemical engineer, worked on the development of these tiles. They were the best we could do--in the mid-70s! It's time to build Phoenix or some other safer, saner, more efficient way to get mass into orbit. BANG BANG if nothing else. (But the eco freaks would go bananas.)

[coloradan]

Is it true that if the wings were made of titanium instead of aluminum, tiles would be much less vital, if needed at all?

[Paleo Conservative]

I haven't heard from you in a while ChemistCat, how is your back doing?

I doubt we will have any new manned space vehicles for at least a decade. We will have to fix the shuttle's problems. We also ought to rethink some of the uses of the shuttle. Why risk human lives to do things that unmanned missions can do just as well or even better? I can't see why the space station modules have to be delivered by unmanned rockets.

I have posted on previous threads about using some of the hardware from the shuttle program to launch non-returnable cargo modules that could carry up to 300,000 pounds to orbit instead of the 50 - 60 thousand pound payloads that the shuttle can carry. Instead of 50+ shuttle missions to build the space station, there could be 6 or 7 unmanned launches to deliver the modules for the space station. The reduction in the number of missions required ought to pay for any development costs for the new hardware.

The space shuttle ought to be used only for missions that absolutely require humans to be in space. I don't believe the odds NASA has calculated for the shuttles risk of catastrophic loss at 1:400. I think it is really somewhere between 1:25 - 1:100. Who knows how a space shuttle might fail in the future. Even if we fix the problems that caused the Columbia's destruction, there is no guarantee that some other combination of problems could cause another catastrophic loss.

[Arkinsaw]

The space shuttle ought to be used only for missions that absolutely require humans to be in space. I don't believe the odds NASA has calculated for the shuttles risk of catastrophic loss at 1:400. I think it is really somewhere between 1:25 - 1:100. Who knows how a space shuttle might fail in the future. Even if we fix the problems that caused the Columbia's destruction, there is no guarantee that some other combination of problems could cause another catastrophic loss.

I agree completely. I love the old birds for what they have done for us but I think we now know the odds and its time to break down and spend the money for new technology.

No more space tourists and no more ant colonies. Just serious business of building a space infrastructure.

But even then, if we replace the shuttle with new technology, its not going to help much if a 5 inch piece of metal slams into the windshield at 17,000 miles per hour.

[ToTheStars]

Even if we fix the problems that caused the Columbia's destruction, there is no guarantee that some other combination of problems could cause another catastrophic loss.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that there will be more catastrophes...given that we are venturing into dangerous places with fragile bodies that require complex life-support. The real question is, do we have the stomach for exploration? Our forefathers had the guts, but maybe we have lost our nerve.

[Brian Allen]

As anyone who has ever objectively assessed the worth of NASA's Rube-Goldberg/Heath-Robinson/Joint-Venture designed and Low-andCorrupt-Bidder built bonndoggle [Aand/or has hit a three-pound bird in a C-185 at 135 Knots] will tell you [FRrom either experience] this inevitable event was not an accident.

It was an effective "Deliberate"

And has already been and will continue to be exploited to the max by NASA corrupt and by NASA's corrupt Jobs-And-Kickbacks-Industries-Inc "contractors" and "suppliers" -- and by every "Grow-The-Feral-Gummint-At-Any-Cost" politician.

Including, I am ashamed, in this time of war, to say, My President.

[SSN558]

"Is it true that if the wings were made of titanium instead of aluminum, tiles would be much less vital, if needed at all?"

How is yes and no for an answer. I hate it when that happens.

The Aluminum used for the shuttle structural elements is actually an Aluminum-ceramic composite and it combines the properties of light weight, "lighter than Aluminum alloys" and improved high temperature strength. It begins to lose strength at around 350 deg. F.

Titanium on the other hand is heavier and would require less payload, more propellant, or some other trade off. TI melts at 3020 deg F but it would still begin losing strength at around 700 deg F depending on the specific alloy. A Titanium shuttle would still need a thermal protection system and would weight around 20% more.

Thermal protection systems have come a long way since the days of glued on cork. Yup, this has been used for space vehicles.

A shuttle type vehicle designed and built today would make much greater use of carbon-fiber-epoxy composites, and would be much lighter than present shuttles. Also, a shuttle built today would make much greater used of carbon-carbon composite. This is the material used on the shuttle leading wing edges and also for newer aircraft brake disks. Carbon-Carbon exhibits an increase in strength at red heats and can make use of fastening systems other than glue. Carbon-Carbon is the material that will take a licking and keep on ticking. It is used on the nozzle throat of Peacekeeper where it gets blasted by supersonic white hot aluminum oxide particles.

Little was known about these materials when space shuttle was still in the concept stage, and failures in the manufacturing process were common. Today use of these materials are routine they can be found on race cars, sports equipment, and other applications.

[pttttt]

Bet you their pay was docked or there were penalties if the workers kept having to mix new glue batches and didn't work fast enough. There were substantial penalties if launches were delayed. This was a system which punished slowness and didn't reward safety (lack of safety is never punished, hey stuff happens, ain't it a shame). While no one yet is pointing the finger at O'Keefe, this is consistent with his mode of doing business, which works well in many situations but maybe not this (watch it if he enters the business world and takes over an airline). You don't want to fly on something where the incentives are like that.

The huge mission catastrophe penalty can be discounted, the contractor probably figured they'd find a way to get that forgiven or show it was the government's fault. The contractor may have also been 3rd-party insured for that but self-insured for the smaller but still hefty delay penalties.

See related article, same source: Space Shuttle Safety - Follow The Money.

Besides technology, the national space enterprise needs to find a new way of doing business.