Talk:Space Shuttle thermal protection system

AFD nomination
On 17 Feb 2005, this page was nominated for deletion. Several suggestions were made to improve this article either through renaming, redirecting or rewriting. See Articles for deletion/Thermal Protection System for a record of the debate. Further discussions should occur here.


 * I think merging Thermal Protection System into Atmospheric reentry is a good idea. I would be happy to do the necessary cut and paste if there is a consensus for this merger. Egg plant 06:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As discussed in Articles for deletion/Thermal Protection System, the Atmospheric reentry article is already over the Wikipedia recommended size limit. Adding yet more info would further exceed this.


 * I'd recommend:


 * Rename the current Thermal protection system article to "Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System"
 * Extract the TPS info from the Atmospheric Reentry article to a separate article called "Thermal Protection System". Put a small TPS summary section in Atmospheric Reentry article which points to new TPS article for more info. This is line with How to break up a page.
 * Put top links in the TPS and Space Shuttle TPS article to each other.


 * Benefits of doing this:


 * Keeps Atmospheric Reentry article under the recommended size limit
 * Fixes the poor name for the current TPS article
 * Creates article & titles people most likely search for
 * Avoids going through a disambig page for most common searches
 * Provides a quick & obvious way to reach the related article via top links. Joema 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is already very old, so my comments will unlikely not get acted upon. I have a dislike for a gratuitous use of acronyms. (I don’t know what an AFD nomination is.) A use of acronyms in a Wikipedia article where one is seeking to learn about how space shuttle must be protected from high heat during re-entry virtually implies readers would be unfamiliar with space flight jargon. Is this necessary? Petedskier (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

As discussed above, if there are no further objections I'll rename this article "Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System", and update the links in all referencing articles to point directly to the new title. This should free up the original title if needed for a general purpose TPS article. Joema 00:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article should be Space Shuttle specific.-Astrowikizhang 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As previously discussed above, renamed this article to "Space shuttle thermal protection system". I'll fix up all pointers to "Thermal Protection System", so that title should become available for a generic TPS article (non-shuttle-specific). Joema 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All links formerly pointing to "Thermal Protection System" now point to "Space shuttle thermal protection system". Joema 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Revisions and additions
I'm making some revisions and additions to this article. Any comments or questions, please discuss here. Joema 15:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I’m working on some drawings for this article. I will replace the NASA image of the Space Shuttle diagram for a better one, and I will also upload the translated version of a drawing I created for the Spanish version. All this, plus some references and bibliography, in a couple of days. Luis María Benítez 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the tile drawing was added, but I still have to upload 2 more: a thermogram of heat impact on the Shuttle’s surfaces and other showing the tiles’ locations. I’m slowly working on this. Luis María Benítez 15:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

silica picture
Is the description for the silica tile accurate? I mean if that thing really is 2300F then it can't be held. I think something like "after placing it in 2300F oven for X duration, it can be safely held" ... or something...

SI Units?
Shouldn't the main measurement units be SI rather than Imperial? (Celsius not Farenheit, Kilograms not Pounds, etc)? I know it's a US vehicle but it's internationally significant.

Ewen 12:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be good to do it in both measurements. Gingermint (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP policy is to use both (preferably using conversion templates such as -- see WP:UNITS).
 * Whereas almost every country outwith the USA would have used metric units in the 1970s, NASA (or its US contractors) could have used almost anything, and I haven't checked the sources for the references, nor would I always rely on them being given as original (rather than conversions). Just to note that in the notionally Metric UK, newspapers will often convert foreign metric measurements without giving the original, so Eurostar trains run at 186 mph.
 * Looking at this article, I see things such as " 371 °C " giving "371 °C", but I suspect that the original was "700 &deg;F", and so it should be given as " 700 °F " to give "700 °F", or if metric is required first: " 700 °F " to give "700 °F" (this obviously doesn't currently work for temperature conversions).
 * I have a note to sort out these conversions (using the correct source), but it needs the question of "which unit first" resolving if possible, else I'd just used the source unit first, even if it gives a mixture of metric or customary first. Tim PF (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Better diagram?
What do you think of this coloured version?



Ewen 13:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it, I think a bit more contrasting color wouldn't be bad either though. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm not sure I'm clear about what you mean by 'contrasting color'. I didn't want to change the black/white contrast too much so I used pastel shades rather than stronger colours. I'm no expert but I also tried to be mindful of Color blindness issues.


 * Ewen 07:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Early missions
It should be noted somewhere that early Columbia missions featured an all tile (no felt) design which was later refurbished and brought in line with the new felt system that all the later orbiters were delivered with. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Damage image
This image should be used here I think to make clear how normal Tile damage was before the Columbia accident, and how much damage the orbiter can take as long as it's not RCC damage. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
The article was recently moved from "Space shuttle thermal protection system" to "Space Shuttle thermal protection system" with the summary "Space Shuttle is always capitalized". This is incorrect. The word "space shuttle/shuttle" is not a proper noun, nor is orbiter, unless they are used in conjunction with a specific, named orbiter, such as Space Shuttle Discovery. Please refer to NASA's own shuttle page, which has the header image seen here: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/133493main_openingtext2c.gif, and at the left, a "Fact" box, which this month has: "Mission STS-122 will be the eighth time space shuttle Atlantis has visited the International Space Station.", as well as NASA's technical TPS documents linked in this article, which do not capitalize orbiter, or shuttle, here, along with the media, as seen from The Associated Press, Aviation Week, Space.com and CBS. It is a common misconception, but it is like saying that "sedan" is capitalized, or "hatchback", when referring to a car. If the car's name has "Sedan" in it, then it is capitalized, but when speaking of a generic sedan, it is not.

The precedence for this naming on Wikipedia can be seen in the Featured List, List of space shuttle missions, which would not have been featured had it been named improperly, and the peer review of Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which also concurs. "The article capitalizes "shuttle" in many places, I think incorrectly. Space shuttle isn't a proper noun so should be lower-case." Finally, I refer to Webster's dictionary definition, which does not capitalize it, and clarifies it is not a proper noun: "Main Entry: space shuttle, function: noun, definition: A reusable spacecraft designed to transport people and cargo between earth and space." Confirmed by YourDictionary: here. I did contact the editor who moved the article, but they did not reply to my query, and do not seem to be active.

I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to move this to Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System, as it seems to be a full, proper noun when used all at once, and it was suggested this way above, during the AFD discussion. However, if it isn't technically a proper name, it should be moved back to "Space shuttle thermal protection system", for proper capitalization. Thoughts? Ariel ♥  Gold  11:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated information
I wanted to address several issues with the information in the article.

-The use of the term "Advanced Flexible Reusable Surface Insulation (AFRSI)" in the context of the orbiter is incorrect. AFRSI is a term used during the development of an improvement on the flexible insulation. The wide spread use of this term for orbiter TPS could be from the citing of old, out-of-date sources. Flexible Insulation Blanket or FIB is the correct terminology for the newer improved flexible insulation that has replaced most of the LRSI tiles and FRSI blankets. I do not know for sure if AFRSI is an early term for FIB, or if they are two different products. However, I do know that Flexible Insulation Blankets (FIB's) are used on the orbiter today. I suggest replacing every instance of "Advanced Flexible Reusable Surface Insulation (AFRSI)" with "Flexible Insulation Blanket (FIB)."

-It might should be noted that the "ShuttleTPS2col" image is of the original orbiter TPS layout and is not accurate of today's configuration. For example the image shows a large number of LRSI tiles, when there are only a few used today around the crew windows and OMS pods.

-Currently there are approximately 24,300 tiles not 31,000 used due to LRSI reduction.

-Strain Isolator Pads (SIP) and gap filler are described but filler bar isn't (not to be confused with gap filler). Filler bar is crucial in countering the "zipper effect" and should also be included.

-The sentence; "HRSI tiles have the black glossy appearance because of waterproofing coating made of tetrasilicide and borosilicate glass," is misleading. The coating on the tiles is Reaction Cured Glass (RCG) of which borosilicate glass is one of several ingredients. It is not applied for waterproofing but to protect the porous silica and to increase the heat sink properties. The tiles aren't coated on the bottom with RCG so it would be useless as waterproofing. Dimethylethoxysilane is injected into tiles to waterproof. Densifying the tile with tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) helps some aslo. LRSI tiles also have an RCG coating but are white because of differing ingredients.

Most of my data is from first hand accounts of USA tile techs and management. For an good online reference go here 93f2 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

LI-900 tiles are not mentioned in this article
LI-900 tiles are not mentioned in this article. They are typical Space Shuttle TPS tiles that have remarkable thermal protection properties. (An LI-900 tile exposed to a temperature of 1000 K on one side will remain merely warm to the touch on the other side.) WinterSpw (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TPS Report
Hey, Although I dont have a source yet for the information (heard it from someone who worked at NASA), when a shuttle launches and returns, the system is examined and from that a TPS report is generated. Would it be worthwhile (with sources) to include that such a report exists, seeing as it is similar to the movie Officespace? (and yes, the TPS team does get office flack for the cover sheets :P)Dtheweather9 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * absolutely ! --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The low end of the temperatures experienced by the shuttle is not so close to absolute zero
The article mentions at the end of this paragraph Space_shuttle_thermal_protection_system that the HRSI is useful in protecting against the large differences in temperature experienced in LEO when the shuttle alternates between direct Sun exposure and the Earth's shadow. While these differences are great, the low end mentioned in the article (-270 C) is not realistic. That kind of temperature takes a long time to reach even in intergalactic space, far far away from any powerful source of radiation. Since in LEO any object experiences radiation from at least two important sources (the Sun and reflections from the Earth) plus the added energy from friction with rarefied gas molecules, the temperature is much higher than -270 C in the shade. AFAIK, the number is somewhere around -160 C but I have no linkable source for that and I'm no scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.61.55 (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/Space_Station/status/1091096471179587590
FOLD IN HALF

https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-XXL-Gaming-Mouse-Pad/dp/B06VVXMJ1S/ref=sr_1_3_acs_sk_pb_2_sl_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549021672&sr=8-3-acs&keywords=mouse+mat+large

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-npRNeJzU8T0/US8hOaldHMI/AAAAAAAAAs8/5EyhnCFT4iE/s1600/The-Pyramids-at-Giza.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system

YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE ANY ENGINEERING PROBLEMS???

86.171.248.126 (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Lighter than styrofoam?
The article currently claims

An uncoated HRSI tile held in the hand feels like a very light foam, less dense than styrofoam, and the delicate, friable material must be handled with extreme care to prevent damage. The coating feels like a thin, hard shell and encapsulates the white insulating ceramic to resolve its friability, except on the uncoated side. Even a coated tile feels very light, lighter than a same-sized block of styrofoam. As expected for silica, they are odorless and inert.[citation needed]

However, it also says that the tile density was 140 kg/m^3. According to the Polystyrene article, the density of expanded polystyrene is 11-32 kg/m^3, and the density of extruded polystyrene is 28–45 kg/m^3, so this seems dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilhelm.s (talk • contribs) 21:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How many tiles on each orbiter
How many tiles did each Orbiter have ? Article says 24,300 but the adjacent source seems not ideal. Later it says Columbia had 31,000 tiles (a tertiary source says 30,759). Maybe smaller tiles were replaced with fewer larger tiles during the life of an orbiter ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)