Neither of those would have any difference. And why doesn't flying heads up even matter?Having LFBs and flying heads up would have been better.
No.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?
Could it be theoretically possible to create an insulating material that would prevent the build up of ice as a hazard?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.
Could it be theoretically possible to create an insulating material that would prevent the build up of ice as a hazard?
There was no "icy" foam. It was just foam.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?
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.Could it be theoretically possible to create an insulating material that would prevent the build up of ice as a hazard?
If it was possible at the time.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.
Aerogel is too frail for such tasksI 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?
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.Aerogel is too frail for such tasks
no need for ablative coatings on shuttle tiles, just make the tiles thicker
No, just stick with one and make it thicker. No advantage to use different layers.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.
Not even with respect to mass savings for high delta-v missions? Everything's a requirements/design/cost/performance tradeoff in aerospace.No, just stick with one and make it thicker. No advantage to use different layers.