2 ms·
IIRC it was Kapton tape, technically what they did was fine, Kapton tape is commonly used for things like that. The problem was that they used it in places that
by dotnet00 2y ago
IIRC it was Kapton tape, technically what they did was fine, Kapton tape is commonly used for things like that. The problem was that they used it in places that might get hotter than the tape was rated for.
Edit: Actually, looking around a bit, doesn't seem like there's any official mention of what kind of tape it was. Kapton tape seems to be the popular assumption but there's no evidence of it.
- belter 2y agoDigging a little bit on this, it seems it could be a one digit part number difference and fat fingering... P212. Silicon adhesive with up to 200 C insulation. https://www.nitto.com/au/en/products/e_parts/heat_resistant020/ https://www.nitto.com/au/en/products/e_parts/heat_resistant0... P213. Acrylic adhesive with up to 155 C insulation. https://www.nitto.com/au/en/products/e_parts/heat_resistant022/ https://www.nitto.com/au/en/products/e_parts/heat_resistant0... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=gm840mthgoia6o31fcbjpspdi1&topic=56372.msg2510392#msg2510392 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=gm840m...
- idiotsecant 2y agoIt might not even be a fat-finger, they might legitimately use 200C rated tape where it's needed and 155C tape where the higher spec is not needed. I am not a kapton expert but maybe higher temp ratings are less flexible or less resistant to hard vacuum or something like that. This might just be a plain old engineering QA issue. These are complex machines, and these sorts of things happen. I don't know how space-rated QA works, as I am but a lowly terrestrial engineer, but I imagine there are specs for each portion of the machine calling out electrical ratings, temperature ratings, vibration ratings, etc. If the spec definitions for that section of machine are bad it's hard to do proper QA against those specs.