Starlite

louis · 2012-04-22 17:46:34

I saw a TV prog which mentioned the material Starlite which I had never heard about before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite

The demonstrations did seem to indicate a remarkable (and lightweight) material that could be used as a heat shield.

Just wondered if people were aware of this.

Void · 2012-04-23 15:56:05

I have no reply as to a spacecraft, but if we targeted something like that with solar concentrators, and place a mixture of water steam and CO2 on it, could hydrocarbons be generated, and diluted in the upward rushing stream of atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses?

SpaceNut · 2012-04-23 18:17:35

that is the basis of the Sabitier reactor as it takes the insitu CO2 and Hydrogen from a seed tank or from electrolysis of water to create Methane in a chamber...There are also some other methods to do the same as well....

As to the topic it so secret that even the details of it not being followed up by Nasa would make for the feeling that it is bunk...

JoshNH4H · 2012-07-24 19:56:10

I had not heard of it before but it sounds like it could be useful as a heat shield material, or at least more or less on par with the materials that are used now. I would point out that the 10,000 C laser probably led to ablation as temperatures that high will separate any chemical bond.

NeoSM · 2012-07-25 14:29:05

After reading this thread, I assumed Starlite to be an elaborate hoax, so I decided to look a little bit deeper into its history and current status. Here's what I took away from it:

1. Maurice Ward - the inventor - was tremendously secretive of his "invention". He wouldn't let even a peice of it leave his sight, refusing to patent the product, or give potential buyers/investors a sample; out of fear that someone may reverse engineer it. He even went so far as to bringing his daughter with him when he went to a testing facility to grab up any flakes that may fall off the material in a hoover vac.
2. There are a fairly large number of well-documented tests by agencies of various governments and first-hand reports from numerous scientists and engineers attesting to Starlites validity; aparently it was able to withstand the force of 75 hiroshimas without breaking a sweat.
3. After 20 years of holding the product he was never able to meet the terms set down by the various interested parties (goverments, private companies ect.).
4. Ward was a very greedy man, always demanding greater and greater amounts for his "invention" - when agencies/buyers/investors met his price, he would just jump it up higher, leading the price up to unrealistic heights.
5. Maurice Ward died in 2011, all updates on Starlite "talks" stopped in 2009, his website even losing it's domain name. Ward NEVER wrote down the "recipe" for Starlite; it's not lost, because aparently his close family knows what it is now.

Ward always raved about how Starlite could save endless lives (obviosly it could if it could do what it claimed), it's my opinion that it was ethically wrong not to release it, as it would have gone to the betterment of mankind.

I'm still a bit skeptical of Starlite, and doubt it will ever see the light of day; after twenty years of Maurice Ward dragging it along without a single investor/buyer, there were questions as to whether or not he even posessed the skill to replicate it. (maby it's just a peice of material he got off an alien crash ooooooo )

The implications this material would have on the aerospace industry are profound. It would be great for a heat shield or blast barrier - I would also like to see if it could be used as radiation shielding.

Last edited by NeoSM (2012-07-25 14:36:57)

louis · 2012-07-25 16:04:44

NeoSM wrote:

After reading this thread, I assumed Starlite to be an elaborate hoax, so I decided to look a little bit deeper into its history and current status. Here's what I took away from it:
1. Maurice Ward - the inventor - was tremendously secretive of his "invention". He wouldn't let even a peice of it leave his sight, refusing to patent the product, or give potential buyers/investors a sample; out of fear that someone may reverse engineer it. He even went so far as to bringing his daughter with him when he went to a testing facility to grab up any flakes that may fall off the material in a hoover vac.
2. There are a fairly large number of well-documented tests by agencies of various governments and first-hand reports from numerous scientists and engineers attesting to Starlites validity; aparently it was able to withstand the force of 75 hiroshimas without breaking a sweat.
3. After 20 years of holding the product he was never able to meet the terms set down by the various interested parties (goverments, private companies ect.).
4. Ward was a very greedy man, always demanding greater and greater amounts for his "invention" - when agencies/buyers/investors met his price, he would just jump it up higher, leading the price up to unrealistic heights.
5. Maurice Ward died in 2011, all updates on Starlite "talks" stopped in 2009, his website even losing it's domain name. Ward NEVER wrote down the "recipe" for Starlite; it's not lost, because aparently his close family knows what it is now.
Ward always raved about how Starlite could save endless lives (obviosly it could if it could do what it claimed), it's my opinion that it was ethically wrong not to release it, as it would have gone to the betterment of mankind.
I'm still a bit skeptical of Starlite, and doubt it will ever see the light of day; after twenty years of Maurice Ward dragging it along without a single investor/buyer, there were questions as to whether or not he even posessed the skill to replicate it. (maby it's just a peice of material he got off an alien crash ooooooo )
The implications this material would have on the aerospace industry are profound. It would be great for a heat shield or blast barrier - I would also like to see if it could be used as radiation shielding.

There is video of it being tested (independently on one of our TV progs) and apparently being completely unaffected by blow torches and the like. That's all I know. It could have been a hoax I guess.

Last edited by louis (2012-07-25 16:05:21)

JoshNH4H · 2012-07-25 18:00:20

It seems to me that it wasn't necessarily a hoax but you never know. Was any specific technical information ever released? Starlite might have simply been made irrelevant by more recent advances in materials science.

louis · 2012-07-25 18:14:37

JoshNH4H wrote:

It seems to me that it wasn't necessarily a hoax but you never know. Was any specific technical information ever released? Starlite might have simply been made irrelevant by more recent advances in materials science.

My understanding is that Starlite (as claimed) exceeds the performance of other modern materials. Part of its attraction was the way it could be applied I believe,as a coating.

JoshNH4H · 2012-07-25 21:53:22

Well, that certainly is interesting. Do you by any chance have any more technical links on the subject?

louis · 2012-07-26 06:31:41

JoshNH4H wrote:

Well, that certainly is interesting. Do you by any chance have any more technical links on the subject?

Nothing technical but it's still "Live" - here's a press article from earlier this year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … ecret.html

NeoSM · 2012-07-26 06:41:55

Here is Ward's blog:
http://mauricewardstarlite.blogspot.com/

Reading the posts (which end in 2009), you'll find some references to the tests carried out on Starlite. I also see that most of the comments (under the posts) are from this year, what was it this year that pushed people to find out more about it? I guess someone should tell all the commentors that Ward died in 2011 and that their questions and comments will go unanswered.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-04-22 17:46:34

Starlite

#2 2012-04-23 15:56:05

Re: Starlite

#3 2012-04-23 18:17:35

Re: Starlite

#4 2012-07-24 19:56:10

Re: Starlite

#5 2012-07-25 14:29:05

Re: Starlite

#6 2012-07-25 16:04:44

Re: Starlite

#7 2012-07-25 18:00:20

Re: Starlite

#8 2012-07-25 18:14:37

Re: Starlite

#9 2012-07-25 21:53:22

Re: Starlite

#10 2012-07-26 06:31:41

Re: Starlite

#11 2012-07-26 06:41:55

Re: Starlite

Board footer