3 ms·

Neither the space shuttle nor Starship use ablative heat shield tiles.

ramesh31 3y ago
>Neither the space shuttle nor Starship use ablative heat shield tiles. They are effectively ablative in the sense that neither vehicle has (or will) be able to complete successive missions without massive replacement of damaged and missing tiles. The fundamental approach is not suitable to reusability, as we learned with the shuttle.
- idontwantthis 3y ago
  You might end up right but that’s still not what ablative means.
- timschmidt 3y ago
  Shuttle tiles were unique, and glued in place. Starship tiles are mostly identical, and secured with steel spring pins.
- tekla 3y ago
  The heat shield is not ablative. You are simply wrong.
- 0xfae 3y ago
  What you are doing is effectively mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you used the incorrect word.
  - plorg 3y ago
    That could be because there are a dozen replies fixated on the use of the wrong word and maybe one that responds to the substance of the comment.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  First of all, that's not what ablative means. Tiles potentially falling of does not make the heat shield ablative. Because tiles falling off is not a the heat transfer mechanism, rather a mechanical failure. The Dragon Capsule for example has an Ablative Heat-Shield. But that doesn't necessarily mean it can't do multiple missions in a row. It just depends on how the shield is designed. The Dragon could potentially do many earth missions without replacing the heat shield. Second, you are wrong in that there is anything fundamental about Starship or Shuttle heat shield not being able to fly multiple missions. If the tiles are still attached and not damaged, then all that has to happen is for the tiles to cool down. After that they are ready for another flight, meaning the tiles are not ablative. Now experience on Shuttle has shown that if you are not careful tiles could fall of or be damaged. Damage can be reduced in various was and Starship without an external tank is already much better by design. Additionally Shuttle had to glue tiles to a fragile aluminum frame making the installation very hard and the tiles very fragile. Starship on the other hand uses welded studs on a steel frame. So even if a tile is lots, the steel should still hold up pretty well. In on case Shuttle was saved because there just so happened to be steel under a damaged tile. So you are right, heat shield is one of the biggest issue that could cause problems with rapid reputability. You are wrong, the tiles are not ablative cooled. But Starship tiles are totally different then Shuttles, they have made many improvements in the heat shield and its construction and in the heat shield tiles themselves. Starship can likely survive even with a number of missing tiles if required. In some position tile lose can certainty be fatal.
  - avmich 3y ago
    Starship has another advantage over Shuttle orbiters - orbiters were about 80 tons when landing, while Starship is about 120 tons empty, but has much bigger size - diameter and length, which makes it braking higher in the atmosphere where the heat flux is smaller.

>Neither the space shuttle nor Starship use ablative heat shield tiles. They are effectively ablative in the sense that neither vehicle has (or will) be able to complete successive missions without massive replacement of damaged and missing tiles. The fundamental approach is not suitable to reusability, as we learned with the shuttle.

idontwantthis 3y ago
You might end up right but that’s still not what ablative means.
timschmidt 3y ago
Shuttle tiles were unique, and glued in place. Starship tiles are mostly identical, and secured with steel spring pins.
tekla 3y ago
The heat shield is not ablative. You are simply wrong.
0xfae 3y ago
What you are doing is effectively mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you used the incorrect word.
- plorg 3y ago
  That could be because there are a dozen replies fixated on the use of the wrong word and maybe one that responds to the substance of the comment.
panick21_ 3y ago
First of all, that's not what ablative means. Tiles potentially falling of does not make the heat shield ablative. Because tiles falling off is not a the heat transfer mechanism, rather a mechanical failure. The Dragon Capsule for example has an Ablative Heat-Shield. But that doesn't necessarily mean it can't do multiple missions in a row. It just depends on how the shield is designed. The Dragon could potentially do many earth missions without replacing the heat shield. Second, you are wrong in that there is anything fundamental about Starship or Shuttle heat shield not being able to fly multiple missions. If the tiles are still attached and not damaged, then all that has to happen is for the tiles to cool down. After that they are ready for another flight, meaning the tiles are not ablative. Now experience on Shuttle has shown that if you are not careful tiles could fall of or be damaged. Damage can be reduced in various was and Starship without an external tank is already much better by design. Additionally Shuttle had to glue tiles to a fragile aluminum frame making the installation very hard and the tiles very fragile. Starship on the other hand uses welded studs on a steel frame. So even if a tile is lots, the steel should still hold up pretty well. In on case Shuttle was saved because there just so happened to be steel under a damaged tile. So you are right, heat shield is one of the biggest issue that could cause problems with rapid reputability. You are wrong, the tiles are not ablative cooled. But Starship tiles are totally different then Shuttles, they have made many improvements in the heat shield and its construction and in the heat shield tiles themselves. Starship can likely survive even with a number of missing tiles if required. In some position tile lose can certainty be fatal.
- avmich 3y ago
  Starship has another advantage over Shuttle orbiters - orbiters were about 80 tons when landing, while Starship is about 120 tons empty, but has much bigger size - diameter and length, which makes it braking higher in the atmosphere where the heat flux is smaller.