Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The Space Shuttle Etops?  
User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5903 times:

I am relatively sure it is exempt from such regulations, but technically it DOES overfly a large body of water at some point during its flight...

Anyone know of anywhere to confirm yes or no?


Speedbird Concorde One
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5897 times:

I doubt it has to comply with those regs specifically. There are regs though.

First off, the shuttle is a three-holer once the SRBs have been jettisoned.  

Contingencies for engine out on ascent do exist. The abort modes after take-off are as follows:
- During the first 123 seconds, there are no abort options options since the SRBs cannot be turned off. Not really ideal for a manned vehicle but ok.
- Return To Launch Site (RTLS). If the engine out is in the earliest part of the flight, the shuttle will return to Florida.
- Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL). If the engine out is in a later stage, the shuttle will divert to one of Istres in France, Saragossa in Spain or Moron, also in Spain. There have been other sites. TAL may also be used "early" if the failure is less critical since it is less stressful on the vehicle than RTLS.
- Abort Once Around (AOA). One sub-orbital circle of the Earth and back to Florida. The window for this is so short it is very unlikely to happen.
- Abort to Orbit (ATO). If the engine out is at a very late stage in the ascent, the shuttle will "abort to orbit", making a lower orbit than planned. This has happened once.

If you listen to radio comms during ascent you will hear things like "negative return" (Shuttle is unable to use RTLS) "two engine Saragossa" (two engine can make Saragossa), "press to ATO (abort will now be to orbit) and so forth. These are times when the abort contingency changes.

Incidentally, the shuttle must have landing clearance at a TAL site before lift-off.

[Edited 2010-10-24 20:59:27]

[Edited 2010-10-24 21:02:15]

[Edited 2010-10-24 21:03:57]

[Edited 2010-10-24 21:04:18]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5881 times:

^ Very informative, I did not consider that the Shuttle is actually a trijet in technicality. Some interesting stuff, thank you.


Speedbird Concorde One
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5881 times:

The Shuttle abort modes article on Wikipedia is quite well written and has tons of info.

Very interesting subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes

The Shuttle does has one abort mode which airliners do not: The possibility to abandon the vehicle in flight if they don't think it can be landed. Insanely risky but possible, this was put in place after the Challenger accident.

Before Challenger, the crew and Shuttle would be lost if they lost two or three main engines up to quite far into the ascent. After Challenger, the whole system was redesigned and any main engine failure after SRB burnout is (theoretically) survivable.

[Edited 2010-10-24 21:06:36]



[Edited 2010-10-24 21:08:40]

[Edited 2010-10-24 21:08:58]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5746 times:

The shuttle is a glider. Even if you consider it powered, it's powered by rockets.  


DMI
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5721 times:

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 4):
The shuttle is a glider. Even if you consider it powered, it's powered by rockets.

Heh. In airliner terms, it is only an glider during the approach phase. It still needs engines to reach an airport.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinesteiner From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

From the moment the Shuttle leaves orbit, it's a glider. It does not use rockets on the way back to Earth once out of orbit. Hence the many hours in simulators for the PLT and CDR, there is no second chance. In addition they also have a real plane rigged to behave like the shuttle to facilitate training.
Air International had an article on this a few months ago (July 2010)...

I guess ETOPS only apply to civil aviation?

I visited KSC this march and as one of the astronauts told me "Once the SRB's are ignited, you know you are going somewhere...."  

Cheers,
Steiner


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5618 times:

Quoting steiner (Reply 6):
From the moment the Shuttle leaves orbit, it's a glider.

Yes of course. However I think the ETOPS comparison is more applicable to the ascent phase. After the SRBs separate, there is plenty of alternate and abort stuff dependent on engines shutting down or not.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

ETOPS is for over water flights where you may be more than 60 minutes away from an airport.

The Shuttle is never 60 minutes away since it crosses the Pacific Ocean in just around 30 minutes.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

According to wikipedia (yep, I know, its wikipedia):

"Government-owned aircraft (including military) do not have to adhere to ETOPS regulations."



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineJETSTAR From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1616 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
During the first 123 seconds, there are no abort options options since the SRBs cannot be turned off. Not really ideal for a manned vehicle but ok.

I think I read something many years ago that the space shuttle can jettison the solid rocket boosters before they are fully used and that they can then be destroyed after jettisoning and the space shuttle can use their onboard engines to continue on, gain enough altitude, then jettison the external tank, shut down the main engines and glide to an alternate airport for an emergency landing or even circle back to the Kennedy Space Center.

JetStar


User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2310 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5206 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Moron

I know some people that are from there!



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5193 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 8):
ETOPS is for over water flights where you may be more than 60 minutes away from an airport.

Not just over-water .If not mistaken, there are some over-land routes across northern Russia and Canada that are subject to ETOPS restrictions due to the distance from alternate airports.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5105 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jetblast (Thread starter):
I am relatively sure it is exempt from such regulations, but technically it DOES overfly a large body of water at some point during its flight...

Anyone know of anywhere to confirm yes or no?

Shuttle doesn't have an "N" number so FAA regs do not apply

Quoting JETSTAR (Reply 10):
I think I read something many years ago that the space shuttle can jettison the solid rocket boosters before they are fully used

No. Solid rocket boosters must burn out before they can jettisoned. Even if the shuttle could get off of the SRBs you wouldn't want to fly in close proximity of a powered SRB, no telling where it might go...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineflybaurlax From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5041 times:

Quoting JETSTAR (Reply 10):
I think I read something many years ago that the space shuttle can jettison the solid rocket boosters before they are fully used and that they can then be destroyed after jettisoning and the space shuttle can use their onboard engines to continue on, gain enough altitude, then jettison the external tank, shut down the main engines and glide to an alternate airport for an emergency landing or even circle back to the Kennedy Space Center.

That's incorrect. Once the SRBs are lit, you're along for the ride until they separate. That is one of the reasons why we're going back to capsules, because one can use the little rockets on the escape tower to pull the capsule away from a failing booster.

Sorry ZANL188, I didn't refresh the page before I replied. You're correct. I didn't mean to duplicate what you said.

[Edited 2010-10-25 18:07:37]

[Edited 2010-10-25 18:08:02]


Boilerup! Go Purdue!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4068 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4312 times:

No, in fact it can ferry on one engine according to Tds.. 


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4231 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
No, in fact it can ferry on one engine according to Tds..

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that NASA can do whatever they damn well please with the space shuttle and, as long as they don't overfly a populated area, the FAA will just shrug.

Tom.


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3292 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4208 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

StarlionBlue. A quick question. Once the shuttle initiates a TAL, how long does it need to get there. By the time the SRBs are done burning, its moving pretty quickly and is already very high and quite a bit downrange, no? How long does it take for the orbiter to get to Istres or Saragossa? And has a TAL ever been used?

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 17):
A quick question. Once the shuttle initiates a TAL, how long does it need to get there. By the time the SRBs are done burning, its moving pretty quickly and is already very high and quite a bit downrange, no? How long does it take for the orbiter to get to Istres or Saragossa? And has a TAL ever been used?

They'd touch down in on the other side of the pond 20-25 minutes after the TAL is declared, somewhere in the ballpark of 35 minutes after liftoff.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/167472main_TALsites-06.pdf

And no, it's never been done (the only abort that's ever happened is the abort-to-orbit (ATO) on STS-51-F).


edit: minor gramatical error

[Edited 2010-11-03 21:57:33]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4194 times:

The shuttle isn't ETOPS, but it is EBOAS: Engines Burn Or Astronauts Swim.  
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 17):
And has a TAL ever been used?

No. But bad weather at the TAL sites has scrubbed launches even with perfect weather in Florida.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 17):
By the time the SRBs are done burning, its moving pretty quickly and is already very high and quite a bit downrange, no?

The SRBs are more for altitude than speed. Yeah, the shuttle is moving pretty quickly in absolute terms once the boosters burn out, but in relation to where the speed needs to be, it's still got a ways to go. If I'm not mistaken, there's a period of time after SRB separation where TAL abort is not an option if an engine fails - you need to do an RTLS.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4068 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16):

No, in fact it can ferry on one engine according to Tds..

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that NASA can do whatever they damn well please with the space shuttle and, as long as they don't overfly a populated area, the FAA will just shrug.

C'mon Tom, Smilie was included, just pulling your leg..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6264 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4149 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 17):
And has a TAL ever been used?

The only post-launch abort that has ever been used in real life was an ATO (Abort-to-orbit) on STS-51F. Kind of lame, as the shuttle went into orbit and completed it mission in a (lower-than-planned) orbit  

There have been a couple of pad aborts, where the main engines fire, but are shut down before the SRB's are ignited. A sprinkler system has to spray water on the exhaust nozzles of the SSME's for several minutes after a pad abort. IIRC, this is to prevent them from deforming due to the massive heat that the main engines create within the exhaust nozzle. While the engine is running, the engine is being cooled by cryogenic fuel being circulated on the outside of the nozzle and also by the air through which the engine is travelling. When you shut down the engines, you also shut down the cryogenic fuel circulation through the exhaust nozzles...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4125 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 21):
Kind of lame, as the shuttle went into orbit and completed it mission in a (lower-than-planned) orbit

I agree that it was kinda lame. Are we weird for wanting the insanely cool return to launch site abort to happen, just because it would be insanely cool? 



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4037 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):
C'mon Tom, Smilie was included, just pulling your leg..

I got that, it's all good. Needed my own smilie there.

After I posted, it occurred to me that the shuttle actually gets to zero-engine ferry...by strapping itself to the back of a 747. I suppose one could consider that a four-engine ferry, but then you get the cool bar trivia question of how do you ferry a three-engine aircraft on four engines...

Tom.


User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3905 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 22):
Are we weird for wanting the insanely cool return to launch site abort to happen, just because it would be insanely cool?

plus insanly dangerous... Could the shuttle realistacally withstand that?, how about the astronauts, last i checked there is no auto-land on the space shuttle (but there is a set-up to make the shuttle remote controll up on the ISS).



Boiler Up!
25 Starlionblue : IIRC there is in fact auto-land and it was used once, but my memory could be playing tricks on me. And sure, it could withstand that. Otherwise they w
26 DiamondFlyer : Why couldn't it? There was serious talk at NASA on making STS-1 an RTLS. Its a totally survivable situation, not that I'd want to give it a try unles
27 Mir : IIRC, the apparatus on ISS is for the landing gear - the gear handle has to be moved to the down position on the flight deck for the gear to extend,
28 Post contains links and images nycbjr : That cable was designed as a post return to flight modification, before columbia there was a autoland that was never fully tested (partially tested on
29 Post contains images KELPkid : John Young, the senior NASA astronaut at the time of STS-1, talked NASA into their senses...the danger lies in the G-forces that would be experienced
30 rwessel : Maybe. Remember that the Soviets did it a mere 7 years later. While STS needs a crew to flip a few switches, it's not a lot of stuff, as demonstrated
31 Max777geek : yes, it cross every ocean 8 times a day during route with engines not running. Sounds pretty certified, to me.
32 Post contains images KELPkid : Yeah, but Buran flew unmanned...
33 rwessel : Wasn't your point that there was no practical way to test fly STS unmanned????
34 UAL747 : I can't help but just crack up. Like, I'm sorry, I know this might have been serious, but: that's just classic.....
35 fi642 : The Shuttle is essentially done. Makes no difference whatsoever. The question is now, what will replace the shuttle? I see what you did there.
36 Post contains images KELPkid : Not really, My point was that STS-1 was one bold test flight (as NASA said...). Since the reusable launch vehicle wasn't expendible, you couldn't tes
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Is The Space Shuttle Etops?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Launching The Space Shuttle posted Mon Feb 17 2003 05:19:55 by Boeing4ever
Could The Space Shuttle Do Normal Flights? posted Thu Apr 25 2002 18:15:04 by Sushka
What Is The Full Name Of Etops? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 13:37:30 by Lf278
What Is The Edge Of Space (Altitude In Feet) posted Mon Sep 30 2002 19:27:43 by Wardialer
Is The Database Of British Pilots Online? posted Sun Aug 29 2010 18:33:41 by lenbrazil
What Is The Formula To Determine Block Time? posted Thu Aug 19 2010 09:50:12 by flaps30
Is The 787 More Quiet Than The A380 Both RR And GE posted Sun Aug 1 2010 20:59:53 by Aeroflot001
What Is The Inside The Bump On The FX MD-11 Nose? posted Sat Jun 12 2010 12:49:42 by rktsci
What Is The Vent On The Side Of This DC-10? posted Tue Jun 1 2010 19:18:58 by Gulfstream650
Why Is The 747 Considered To Be "Inflexible"? posted Sun May 30 2010 20:03:00 by b6a322

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format