🚀 go-pugleaf

From Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net

hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes:
>>>>>> On 20 Dec 90 23:38:17 GMT, eidetics@cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) said:
>
>>   SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS ARE *LESS* DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE IS *NO* CHANCE OF
>>BURNING UP ON RE-ENTRY.  EXPERIENCE IN ONE TYPE OF VEHICLE IS *NOT* MUCH HELP
>>WITH A NEW AND DIFFERENT ONE.  ROCKET LAUNCHES DO *NOT* REQUIRE A PILOT, NOR DO
>>PARACHUTE LANDINGS.
>
>WHY did the ENTERPRISE need SHUTTLE TILES then, as you have previously
>stated?

The type of mission under discussion is one where re-entry is made from a
ballistic trajectory at a maximum height of 125 miles.  The tiles are still
needed at this height because there is still a fair amount of heat generated
and the aluminum skin of the shuttle has to be protected (aluminum loses its
strength above 350 degrees F).  It may not be the kind of heat generated from
full-fledged re-entry from orbit, where the risk of burning up is far greater,
but at those temperatures I would think it would still be preferable to have
the tiles in place as an added safety factor rather than risking the aluminum
skin.