A titanium structure would have survived the heat of reentry with that failure of the carbon-carbon composites.
Yes, the shuttle would have been badly damaged, at a minimum, landing gear and tires would have failed on that side. But there wouldn’t have been a high altitude multi-mach burn through and total disintegration if the whole craft.
Yes, the shuttle would, at the very best, had to do a wheels up landing and been damaged beyond any hope of economic repair, but at least the crew would have had an good chance of survival.
Both shuttles died because engineering considerations were overridden by political considerations.
You’re making a false assumption. Under perfect conditions, a shuttle orbiter with an all-titanium heat shield would survive reentry, using the proper alloy of titanium. We probably wouldn’t be having this discussion either because the foam probably wouldn’t have damaged the titanium enough to cause a wing rupture.
But, the assumption that a titanium structure would have survived long enough to make an intact touchdown is a false one. We probably would have seen an effect akin to that of the WTC on 9/11. The titanium would have softened causing the wing structure to collapse.
Challenger, you are 100% correct. NASA had “GO-fever” and didn’t listen to the contractors telling them that the shuttle was not safe to launch. And 7 crew members paid the price.
Columbia, well foam shedding was a known issue, but nobody cared enough to try to mitigate it as it wasn’t seen as a large issue. If you really want to trace it back, the change from the standard ET to the LWT and then finally the SLWT would probably be the path that I’d take. The standard ET had a coat of paint that held the foam together better. Unfortunately when you’re dealing with cryogenic fuels, the metal expands and contracts so much that if you put anything with a lower coefficient of thermal expansion over it (foam) it’s going to be difficult to keep it all in one piece.
Agreed, Carter was a disaster.
But so is your idea.
Titanium is at least 50% heavier than aluminum. The STS is already a flying rock. Ti would make it even more difficult to land normally.
The RCC/ceramics/aluminum was an engineering design decision to meet a design goal.
Political concerns about the foam killed that one, not the POTUS. You can't afford to replace the RCC surface with Ti for weight, therefore you have to accept and minimize the risk of damage. Is there evidence that the Flight Control Computers could've maintained flight with a hole shredded in the leading edge?
Boeing and Airbus and Embraer and all private aerospace companies have had missteps and oversights that got people killed, and had nothing to do with politics overriding engineering. Although I favor privitization of NASA, I am under no illusion that it wouldn't have Apollo 1 or 13 problems going to Mars or beyond.
Oh, and this is STS-124, I believe. 124 missions. 2 hull losses. That's pretty impressive for as old as the design tradeoffs are.