home bbs files messages ]

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