Why is the space shuttle experiencing continued heat shield problems?

Question

Why is it that apparently just NASA's space shuttle seems to be experiencing continued heat shield problems, whereas the Russians NEVER report any such problems with their space crafts? Do they have better scientists than NASA?

Answer 1

The Russians don't have a shuttle -- they have Soyuz 3-man spacecraft. They also have Progress cargo ships (unmanned Soyuz) which, btw, burns up in the atmosphere after every flight.

The 2 designs are very much different, and the techniques for protecting the 2 spacecraft (shuttle and Soyuz) are very much different.

I wouldn't call this problem with the shuttle heat shield a 'continuing' problem ,either. This problem is not related to anything in the past with Endeavor's heat shield system. Ice chunks and pieces of foam have been hitting the space shuttle tiles during launch since probably since the first Columbia flight in the early 1980s. It wasn't considered a problem until Columbia burned up a few years ago -- now they really pay attention to missing tiles, gouges, etc.

The cause of the problem may be labeled as continuing but there will always be condensed water turned to ice on most any rocket vehicle that uses cryogenic materials for launch fuel (liquid hydrogen and oxygen), and this ice will tend to break off in chunks no matter what NASA does.

The next NASA manned space vehicle will be closer in design to a Soyuz type vehicle, so ice chunks hitting heat shield tiles won't be a problem in the future.

.

Answer 2

NASA Engineers push the limits of anything that has been done before. There are bound to be issues as they exceed items that were limits in the past.

30 years ago, we lost over 90% of the equipment that was used to propel Saturn rockets into space. The only thing that came back was the command module which was basically the size of a small bathroom under the stairs in my sisters house. It also came back totally out of control- dropping out of the sky into the ocean with a parachute popping for the last thousand feet or so. Then it had to be plucked out of the ocean by a helicopter and returned to an aircraft carrier. I believe they were only used once and then retired to the smithsonian institution.

Now we have the space shuttle that still drops back into orbit somewhat out of control but then control is regained once it hits the atmosphere and it is flown in and landed under manual (with computer assist) control. This requires a lot of insulation whereas the Saturn only had insulation on the bottom of a 8 foot diameter disk. The most important qualities of the insulation are that its lightweight (so that it doesn't make the shuttle too heavy for liftoff) and that it has a high insulation quality (also known as R value so that it protects the ships hull from heat damage). It would be nice if the third quality of strength could be improved and it eventually will be. However, strength and resistance to impact trail far behind on the priority list of heat shield properties.

I really admire what the people at NASA have done and how their inventions have benefited our entire society (computers, hydrogen fuel cells, advanced materials ( composites, titanium, etc.), tang instant breakfast drink (that was a joke), atmospheric research on green house gases and the ozone layer, etc. People just like to focus on the drama and danger and ignore all the good things that we seldom hear about.

Answer 3

The shuttle has had issues with chipped and cracked tiles on every flight since the begining. The public becomes aware of it when there is a catastrophic failure.

Most of the stuff that we need to get into space does not requre a manned crew. Heavy reliance on the shuttle is more marketing and PR, than sound engineering.

Answer 4

curiously you're too youthful to bear in mind the Apollo and gemini Missions yet velocity had little to do with the warmth at reentry. you may sluggish it right down to a pass slowly and it won't make it pointless to have a warmth shield. particularly that's what the previous area pills use to do. They nonetheless lit up from the end results of gravity pulling them down at an speeded up fee of velocity. Your question is are you able to chop back velocity to the element that the warmth generated by utilising gravity is disipated. answer No. The slower you bypass the warmer you will become. in case you had to lose warmth you will possibly could bypass swifter not slower. although, in going swifter the end results of gravity and centripetal tension will make stearing the deliver almost impossible and according to risk creat a clean warmth signature on the right of the trip from the further g tension because of the further cetripedal tension. you're additionally speaking approximately wanting extra gas, and gas is a combustable. it would be like using a stick of dynamite. I even have self belief you will possibly burn out the hydralics on the flaps, brakes and stearing once you tried to navigate the deliver. Now in case you may arise with some form of anti-gravitational tension container which does not exist suited now then you fairly might desire to decelerate the trip to the place it could make a steady landing without warmth. in any different case the present landing procedures are the suitable available answer. It limits warmth generally to the warmth shield. It diminishes velocity. And, it facilitates the pilot to bypass as we communicate to steer after reentry. Sorry yet that's purely how that's. that's a relative mass and velocity ingredient.

Answer 5

The russians use a capsule system like the old Apollo spacecrafts. They don't have the same abilities as the shuttle. But trying to compare the two spacecraft is comparing apples to organges.

Answer 6

The ablative tiles have to be somewhat fragile to work.
The system is the result of striking a difficult balance.

The Russians NEVER admit to embarrassing problems.
They once lost a manned mission without acknowledging it publicly.

Answer 7

Space shuttle is a obsolete machine, it is a 25 year old design. No wonder why it is has so many problems.

Answer 8

NASA has a well-deserved reputation for arrogance and complacency. They should have fixed this problem years ago.