Re: The Cold Equations
- From: "tomcat" <jlavine@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Dec 2005 07:58:46 -0800
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> Really? Where did "NASA" point that out? That 13-second number came from
> the CAIB, not NASA.
>>From my point of view, whether the "13 seconds" came from NASA or CAIB
is immaterial. My statements were an analysis, not NASA knocking.
> > Today, we know that 'steel' would have been the better choice.
> No, you don't "know" that. And stop using 'steel' as your codeword for
> titanium; we all know what your particular hobby-horse is. As Henry
> Spencer pointed out, titanium has poor thermal conductivity compared to
> aluminum. When exposed to localized heating, as in the case of Columbia,
> aluminum tends to spread the heat out a lot more, so although it has a
> much lower melting point, it tends to reach that melting point more
> slowly.
The X-15 program had a similiar problem. Certain fittings were made of
copper because copper was highly thermal conductive and would "spread
the heat out a lot more . . .". The copper, however, melted anyway.
Then they developed niconel X.
Put simply: Aluminum is not a good material for high temperature
applications.
tomcat
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Cold Equations
- From: Brad Guth
- Re: The Cold Equations
- From: Brad Guth
- Re: The Cold Equations
- From: Jorge R. Frank
- Re: The Cold Equations
- References:
- Re: The Cold Equations
- From: tomcat
- Re: The Cold Equations
- From: Jorge R. Frank
- Re: The Cold Equations
- From: tomcat
- Re: The Cold Equations
- From: Jorge R. Frank
- Re: The Cold Equations
- Prev by Date: First CEV flight in 2008?
- Next by Date: Re: Would this sell?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Cold Equations
- Next by thread: Re: The Cold Equations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading