Titanium was rejected as the buidling material for the Space Shuttle because of its high machining costs. Aluminum is one of the easiest metals to work while titanium is one of the most difficult. However this was classic false economy because the silica tiles proved very expensive to manufacture and maintain. Each tile was unique and manufactured on an NC mill. Installing the tiles was incredibly fiddly and required many workers to maintain them. A titanium structure is very insensitive to single point failures like losing an RCC leading edge tile. In the long run, going with a titanium structure and thermal protection system would have been cheaper. Also, a hot titanium structure has the added advantage of being annealed after every flight. Unlike aluminum which gets work hardened and brittle after several flights, a titanium structure is theoretically immortal. We could fly titanium shuttles for a century, periodically taking them off line for tear down inspection and replacement of wiring and non-titanium components. Titanium is the clear obvious choice of material for a fully reusable launch vehicle. Only a bean counter or a politician would be unable to see this. Unfortunately it's bean counters or a politicians who run the Space Program.
Gary
Space/Science » in reply to re: Delicate heatshield?
More about titanium
The whole thread (44 posts)
- Mike Griffin's road map to Mars
- I think rocket technology is about as good as it's going to get
- Other good points
- I agree
- The 30+ years hasn't been a complete waist.
- re: I agree
- Could the shuttles be redesigned?
- I agree