Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.space.policy    |    Discussions about space policy    |    106,651 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 105,480 of 106,651    |
|    Alain Fournier to Snidely    |
|    Re: Space Shittle flying    |
|    17 Jul 21 20:52:21    |
      From: alain245@videotron.ca              On Jul/17/2021 at 19:58, Snidely wrote :       > Remember Saturday, when JF Mezei asked plainitively:       >> On 2021-07-17 13:12, Snidely wrote:       >>       >>> The shuttle couldn't do level flight, except maybe in the hypersonic       >>> portion of its flight.       >>       >> Thanks. In a re-entry sequence, there would not have been any need for       >> level flight, but got curious if it could have had they wanted to.       >>       >>       >>       >>> But it wasn't ballistic, either. It was a glider, but with a very       >>> poor glide slope in the subsonic portions.       >>       >> This is partly why I got curious. At time of landing, it has bled off       >> most of its speed and yet still able to get its vertical speed down to       >> what an airlineer would have touching down on runway.       >>       >> So was curious on whether at higher altitudes/speeds, its wings could       >> create lift to keep level flight or whether the wings act more like a       >> parachute (drag for vertical speed) than a lift creating device.       >>       >> Different question: did the shuttle have any cross range capacbility for       >> forward speed? Or was the east west component dictated by when de-orbit       >> burn was done and the shuttle only had left/right cross range via its       >> aerodynamic surfaces?       >>       >> aka: if the shuttle kept its nose a bit more up during aerodynamic       >> phase, could it end up landing further east? or would doing so result       >> in faster bleeding of airspeed followed by faster descent rate and end       >> up touching ground at roughly same spot?       >       > There was no opportunity for a go-around. The kinetic energy was       > managed very carefully. The flight path was just enough to get them to       > the runway, with some margin for having to go around something like a       > thunderstorm cell (which could pop up after the go/no-go decision,       > perhaps).       >       > /dps              The way the kinetic energy was managed was mostly by taking a slalom       path. If more energy needed to be dumped, more curves were taken, if       less energy needed to be dumped, a straighter path was taken. There was       also a little control by pointing the nose a little more or a little       less up, but that was minimal.                     Alain Fournier              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca