Hmmmmm ... ALL of the Apollo heat shields worked fine (allegedly) ... Why do we keep reinventing the wheel?

Can’t we just copy the shields that worked? … If not … Why?

NASA Inspector Alarmed by Extensive Damage to Heatshield of Astronaut Moon Vehicle.

They lost the recipe for the Apollo heat shields when all the previous moon landing records were “stored away”?

…could be … or maybe there weren’t any “recipes” to begin with. More than likely our “contracts” with the Nazis expired. :slight_smile:
Recall that we have already been through this with the parachute systems a couple of years ago.

GIZA merch idea …
T-shirts, bumper stickers that read … BRING BACK THE APOLLO / SATURN SYSTEMS!


Make Apollo/SaturnV Systems Great Again, Spacers!


… these words are because you need a certain number of characters to say

AWESOME! … very NICE! :slight_smile:

1 Like

#MANGA instead ——

Make the Axis/Nazis Great… Again.

Lots of articles on ‘AVCOAT’ out there. This is the material they selected for use. I didn’t find anything specific on old design vs new but you can assume there are engineering/economic reasons for a change. Space Shuttle tiles for example were very labor intensive, needing major maintenance after every flight…they were like a ceramic foam material …that was glued directly to the shuttle skin. Fragile stuff…you could make an imprint in it with your fingernail. This link shows the current design;

avcoat - Search (

Not sure on previous re-entry vehicles if they bonded the ablative (sacrifices itself with heat) material directly to the capsule, or if (current design) they ‘bolted on’ sub-assemblies with the ablative AVCOAT installed. If they’re intending to re-us capsules a ‘bolt on’ solution would make refurbishing for next use much easier / faster. When I visited the Smithsonian and looked at previous re-entry capsules they were pretty badly scorched. Looked to me that the material was applied directly to the capsule skin. Not a very supportable solution.