From: 1@2.com.retro.com   
      
   --   
   (All advice is checked, re-checked and verified to be questionable....)   
      
      
   "Jorge R. Frank"  wrote in message   
   news:Xns954B5B203B45jrfrank@216.196.97.130...   
   > Alcore  wrote in   
   > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0408190938590.28902-100000@uurth.com:   
   >   
   > > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:   
   > >   
   > >>Lizerd wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Re: Brute force re-entry   
   > >>>   
   > >>I wouldn't have expected using the atmosphere to slow you down would   
   > >>be considered using a 'brute force' method of slowing down. I would   
   > >>think it would be considered elegant, and spending fuel to slow down   
   > >>or just running directly into the planet at full speed would be   
   > >>consider the brute force approaches.   
   > >   
   > > I think the point that he was trying to make was that given the steep   
   > > angle of re-entry that NASA always uses,   
   >   
   > Incorrect. The space shuttle re-enters at a flight path angle typically   
   > between -1 and -1.5 degrees. That's hardly "steep".   
   >   
   True, 1 to 1.5 is shallow....   
   But I was picturing the shuttle reentering at closer to 15 to 20.   
   I do know it is piched up at 33 to 35 degrees.   
   >From Hollywood, (I know that they only produce fact!), it looked   
   more like about 45 degrees.   
   (Now that is steep....)   
      
   > > I think the basic idea here is that there is a *lot* of energy being   
   > > shed by steep re-entry... and if there's enough energy to heat the air   
   > > blasting past the spacecraft into a plasma, is doesn't *seem* like so   
   > > much of a stretch to try and use some of that energy to alter the   
   > > spacecraft trajectory upwardly... in order to deliberately remain in   
   > > the thinnest air possible or even deflect completely outside the   
   > > atmosphere briefly.  Which in turn, should reduce the heat loading.   
   > > (Or at least stretch out the heat loading over a long enough period of   
   > > time to allow some scheme to manage it more efficiently.)   
   >   
   > The shuttle already does this, to the extent possible. It reduces the peak   
   > heating, at the expense of increasing the total heat load.   
   >   
   >   
   > --   
   > JRF   
   >   
   > Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,   
   > check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and   
   > think one step ahead of IBM.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)