BCal10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 25 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4210 times:
No doubt there are huge sighs of relief that Discovery is home. One question now is bugging me. Can the shuttle fly like an ordinary aircraft, ie take off from a runway. If not why not and how are they going to get it from Edwards AFB back to Florida.
Lrockeagle From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 82 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4196 times:
Piggy-back it on a 747. I saw one of the shuttles come through LRAFB once years back on top of a 747. really awesome
Lrockeagle From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 82 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4104 times:
BCal10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4100 times:
Ok I admit I forgot about the 747. Same idea as the Buran and the An-225. Why could it not be made to fly normally like a delta wing shaped aircraft like Concorde. Is this to do with heat shield tiles and engine/rocket types?
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4084 times:
The main engines require fuel to work and that requires a large tank to be strapped to the bottom. There is no tankage for the main engines on the orbiter itself.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3102 posts, RR: 47 Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4063 times:
From the moment of the De-orbit burn which occurs roughly an hour before scheduled touchdown, to get the shuttle into the right position for reentry (a 40 degree nose up angle) and at 17,000 mph, there is no engine use. From that moment forward the shuttle becomes the most sophisticated glider ever built. To decelerate the shuttle goes through a series of left and right banks after reentry. It goes subsonic approximately 25 miles away from the landing facility and approximately 4 minutes before touchdown. From that moment, the shuttle commander (in the case of STS-114, Eileen Collins) "flies" the craft in manually. People seem to often misunderstand that they only get one shot at this. Either way, that shuttle is going to hit the ground on that pass, regardless of whether or not its on the runway. If they miscalculate by a second during their last few orbits, it'll wind up missing the runway by miles. I watched the whole thing this morning from about 3:30 CDT to touchdown. I was fascinated by it. NASA has a link to a video inside mission control with live radio communications.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3102 posts, RR: 47 Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4028 times:
Quoting B744F (Reply 14): I was under the impression that the shuttle was fully automated
Amazingly enough...nope. You'd think something so technologically sophisticated would be, but it still needs a pilot to land.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4024 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 16): Amazingly enough...nope. You'd think something so technologically sophisticated would be, but it still needs a pilot to land.
What's the point in exhaustively screening for the best pilots only to put them on a robot?
BCal10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4020 times:
Thanks Longhornmaniac for the detailed description of the landing. I can see now why they they will not let it land in bad weather. If it were blown off course it it cant go around. This to seems incredibly risky. Surely small jet engines and a little fuel for a go around would have made good sense. Still no one's needed them yet.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3102 posts, RR: 47 Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4002 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 17): What's the point in exhaustively screening for the best pilots only to put them on a robot?
Point Taken Glom
Quoting BCal10 (Reply 18): Thanks Longhornmaniac for the detailed description of the landing. I can see now why they they will not let it land in bad weather. If it were blown off course it it cant go around. This to seems incredibly risky. Surely small jet engines and a little fuel for a go around would have made good sense. Still no one's needed them yet.
Haha, no problem BCal. I agree with you that its incredibly risky but one could argue that that ship doesn't need any more combustibles or explosives on it either.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5251 posts, RR: 55 Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3995 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 16): Amazingly enough...nope. You'd think something so technologically sophisticated would be, but it still needs a pilot to land.
While the deorbit sequence is, I believe, automated, as pointed out earlier the mission commander pilots it on final approach. From what I remember, NASA and/or Rockwell originally planned for landing to be automated as well, but the astronauts raised a stir about the possibility of the computer lowering the landing gear too early which could have led to a potential catatastrophe. Compare that to Buran which could be flown entirely in an automated mode.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
NASOCEANA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3992 times:
Yeap! A truly awesome site to see the shuttle ferried back to Cape Canaveral on back of the modified B747. I think it will cost NASA something like $1 million to have this done.
Sean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3986 times:
A few Questions:
Are the Shuttle main engines not used after the center tank is dropped? I assumed smaller tanks would be inside as well.
How does the Shuttle maneuver? I observed little holes on the nose section, probably thrusters I assume. What is the power source for these thrusters/ what type of thrusters are these?
Has the shuttle ever left the orbit of the earth?
Sean
25 Glom: No. There is no tankage in the orbiter itself for the SSMEs. ET jettison is performed after MECO. Initial orbit insertion at MECO is too low to be su
26 Glom: I just thought of another reason for the orbiter being unable to return itself to Complex 39 aside from the lack of propellents. The SSMEs are virtual
27 SATL382G: No, all the fuel for the SSMEs is stored in the External Tank. Once it is jettisoned any fuel remaining in the engines or lines is purged. The thrust
28 SATL382G: Oh yeah? You might want to rethink that or post a reference.....
29 Bongo: Just a question: Why don't NASA launch it from Edwards AFB next time ? So they can save the transport to Fla again.
30 KDTWFlyer: The entire shuttle reentry was hand flown once by a ex-marine pilot who was ready for the ultimate risk and challenge... http://www.x-plane.com/orbite
31 SATL382G: No launch pads for shuttle at Edwards.... This guy is refering to a computer game, not the real shuttle
32 Glom: Because the refurbishment and launch facilities are all at Complex 39. Yeah. Okay, so perhaps I exaggerate with the "destroy" remark. But indeed, the
33 Garnetpalmetto: No launch facility at Edwards. The original plan was for there to be an alternate launch site at Vandenberg AFB, but after the Challenger incident an
34 SATL382G: Not in flight certainly, but they are routinely restarted on the ground without major disassembly.
35 Glom: I've got this so far. In section 3.2 it makes a vague reference to the SSMEs requiring refurbishment after every flight. I know it's not much. Let me
36 Glom: I've got this so far. In section 3.2 it makes a vague reference to the SSMEs requiring refurbishment after every flight. I know it's not much. Let me
37 SATL382G: BIG difference between "virtually destroyed" and "requires refurbishment"
38 Glom: Since I've been abandoned at Bad Astronomy, I will cede. So could they used be for a regular flight if suitable propellents were loaded?
39 SATL382G: The reentry starts well before the first roll reversal (S-turn)...... If you, Glom, want to try that go right ahead.... I am merely saying that the S
40 Glom: I already admitted to getting hyperbolic.
41 Sean1234: Interesting stuff! I need some clarification on the escape velocity. As I recall the escape velocity of the earth is about 11k/ sec. What has the shut
42 SATL382G: A vertical profile would never (at least with the amount of propellant shuttle has on board) go into orbit, it would be a very spectacular ballistic
43 MD11Engineer: Actually the Vandenberg Shuttle launch facility exists, but has never been used (be happy, American tax payers!) In any case it could only be used for
44 SATL382G: The space shuttle variation of Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 for short or as the locals call it Slick-6) was never completed (damn near though!) and
45 Glom: The speed needed for LEO is about 8km/s. Not really because escape speed requires the orbit be able to go on forever without ever falling back. Not e
46 SATL382G: By definition an object which has achieved escape velocity from a body is no longer in orbit about that body. So if escape velocity is achieved the o
47 Glom: Astrodynamically false. An object with escape speed is in a parabolic orbit. An object with more than escape speed is in a hyperbolic orbit. These ar
48 SATL382G: It must suck when reality doesn't support your theoretical point of view... Why is it a red herring? You said they did not achieve escape velocity ("
49 Glom: You said that when a body achieves escape speed, it is no longer in orbit. That is not true. It is in an open orbit. The reality bit only comes into
50 SATL382G: Let's go down to KSC tommorrow and ask the contractors launching MRO if MRO will still be in earth orbit after Centaur achieves escape velocity. I th
51 Glom: This is matter of semantics. For the time that Earth is the dominant gravitational influence, the spacecraft will be in a hyperbolic orbit. It's an o
52 Thorny: No, they're not. With the introduction of the new turbopumps beginning in the late 1990s, Rocketdyne certified each Main Engine as being capable of s
53 SATL382G: By itself as in uncommanded or by itself as in commanded but without the CSM/LM? This is a new bit of Apollo trivia for me....... I stand corrected I
54 SATL382G: Answering my own question... A bit of useless but cool trivia from the Apollo 9 Press Kit, Launch vehicle section "Third Stage Third Burn The third s
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 25 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 82 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8306 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
to see the shuttle fire its rockets and zoom down the runway like an ordinary bird. VR in under 10 seconds? 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
