trinxat
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:54 am

Landing The Space Shuttle

Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:37 am

Hi everybody

I made a search for this question but found no specific content

Does anyone know if the space shuttle could carry out a missed approach and a go-around successfully while landing? Or is it a "try just once" thing?

The aircraft does not look very flyable indeed. What is the minimum height in which they could still abort a landing and try again?

Thanks for your insight
 
zanl188
Posts: 3443
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting Trinxat (Thread starter):
Does anyone know if the space shuttle could carry out a missed approach and a go-around successfully while landing? Or is it a "try just once" thing?

The aircraft does not look very flyable indeed. What is the minimum height in which they could still abort a landing and try again?

The shuttle has no air breathing engines. Therefore it has no go around capability.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
USAFHummer
Posts: 10261
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 12:22 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:43 am

Quoting Trinxat (Thread starter):
Does anyone know if the space shuttle could carry out a missed approach and a go-around successfully while landing? Or is it a "try just once" thing?

It's a "Try just once" thing...There is no option for a missed approach in the shuttle...in its landing phase, it is a glider, and thus has no means of providing thrust for a go-around...
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
 
3DPlanes
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:12 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:12 am

Quoting Trinxat (Thread starter):
What is the minimum height in which they could still abort a landing and try again?

Orbit...


Once they do the de-orbit burn, they ARE going to come down. In theory, they could possibly adjust the "landing" spot by doing additional burns of the OMS engines. But in reality, they would have so little fuel left that any change wouldn't be significant...
"Simplicate and add lightness." - Ed Heinemann
 
zanl188
Posts: 3443
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:29 am

Quoting 3DPlanes (Reply 3):
In theory, they could possibly adjust the "landing" spot by doing additional burns of the OMS engines. But in reality, they would have so little fuel left that any change wouldn't be significant...

They could also change the energy dissipating S-turns to allow for a change in location.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:45 am

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
They could also change the energy dissipating S-turns to allow for a change in location.

IIRC, the maximum cross range from the orbital track is 1,000 nm.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:44 pm

There are many alternate (emergency) landing options if needed, but its carried out to such stringent guidelines that there would be no reason that it (the shuttle & crew) would be in a go-around situation. At that point, they are committed to the approach they are on. Most military installations with adequate runways are technically available emergency landing sites. Hell...we even had a checklist (real old) for that senario at Langley...Probably only because NASA is right there also.
 
bhill
Posts: 1309
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:01 am

Errr...Bricks can't do "go arounds"...  Wink
Carpe Pices
 
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:45 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
IIRC, the maximum cross range from the orbital track is 1,000 nm.

It's actually 1,100 miles (to the East), taking into consideration for the Earth's rotation after a single circumpolar orbit assuming it was lauched from a West Coast facility, such as Vandenburg AFB. [Source: Columbia Accident Investigation Report]
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:47 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 9):
t's actually 1,100 miles (to the East),

No, Earth's rotation is immaterial to crossrange capability. The ~1000 mile crossrange allows them to reach KSC on two or three successive orbits. First, by flying to the west of their groundtrack toward a KSC that Earth's rotation hasn't brought to the orbital plane yet, then on the orbit that does pass over KSC, and finally on the orbit after plane-crossing, with the Shuttle using crossrange to the east to reach KSC. It depends on orbital inclination... NASA usually tries two opportunities at KSC per day.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:27 am

Quoting Thorny (Reply 10):
No, Earth's rotation is immaterial to crossrange capability

"The Department of Defense wanted the Shuttle to carry a 40,000-pound payload in a 60-foot-long payload bay and, on some missions, launch and return to a West Coast launch site after a single polar orbit. Since the Earth's surface -- including the runway on which the Shuttle was to land -- would rotate during that orbit, the Shuttle would need to maneuver 1,100 miles to the east during re-entry. This "cross-range" requirement meant the Orbiter required large delta-shaped wings and a more robust thermal protection system to shield it from the heat of re-entry."

[Source: Columbia Accident Investigation Report, pg. 22]
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:08 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 11):
the Shuttle would need to maneuver 1,100 miles to the east during re-entry.

1,000 nautical miles approximately equals 1,100 statute miles.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 9):
It's actually 1,100 miles (to the East), taking into consideration for the Earth's rotation after a single circumpolar orbit assuming it was lauched from a West Coast facility

Why would that be relevant when the Shuttle has never been placed in a polar orbit? The Shuttle has cross-range performance whether it is returning from a polar or inclined orbit. For example, when the orbital track passes within 1,000 nm (north or south) of KSC, the Shuttle could still perform a landing.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:46 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
1,000 nautical miles approximately equals 1,100 statute miles.

 checkmark 

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
Why would that be relevant when the Shuttle has never been placed in a polar orbit?

Because one of the original purposes of the Shuttle was to fly on occasion circumpolar flights. The original intent of the Shuttle was to cover both military and civilian space requirements. DOD envisioned at one time of launching shuttles from Vandenburg on circumpolar orbits. See my above post #11. It was after the Challenger accident that DOD decided to mothball the shuttle launch complex at Vandenburg and go back to traditional launch vehicles. However, had the Challenger accident not occurred then we would have seen the first shuttle launch from Vandenburg by around 1988 (I think).

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
The Shuttle has cross-range performance whether it is returning from a polar or inclined orbit. For example, when the orbital track passes within 1,000 nm (north or south) of KSC, the Shuttle could still perform a landing.

Yes, the cross range performance is there on inclined orbits as well. My reply #11 in response to Thorny's reply #10 was because he said Earth's rotation was immaterial to crossrange capability, which in a sense is true. However, Earth's rotation is the precise reason why the shuttle ended up with delta wings -- to meet a DOD requirement for landing at the launch site after a single circumpolar orbit. In the end, that cross-range capability has other benefits but it was originally conceived for a specific purpose dictated by DOD.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 11):
Since the Earth's surface -- including the runway on which the Shuttle was to land -- would rotate during that orbit, the Shuttle would need to maneuver 1,100 miles to the east during re-entry. This "cross-range" requirement meant the Orbiter required large delta-shaped wings and a more robust thermal protection system to shield it from the heat of re-entry."

Correct. But your message to which I replied, strongly suggested that Shuttle's crossrange was limited to the eastward direction. That isn't true. The Shuttle is fully capable of flying crossrange to the west, too. Crossrange is an aerodynamic quality, not orbital dynamics. Orbtial dynamics just means that the crossrange used is usually eastward. A landing at White Sands would use westward crossrange, if coming back from ISS on ascending node (as most landings are now). And most of the Shuttle landings from ISS/Mir that came in from the north (over Canada, Chicago, Atlanta...) used westward crossrange, albeit not much. (That practice was discontinued after Columbia.)

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13):
However, had the Challenger accident not occurred then we would have seen the first shuttle launch from Vandenburg by around 1988 (I think).

Mission 1V (aka STS-62A) was on the books for September, 1986. Not much chance that was going to happen though.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
Why would that be relevant when the Shuttle has never been placed in a polar orbit?

DoD's crossrange was the driving reason for the Delta Wing, but it all likelihood, Shuttle would have ended up with one anyway (albeit smaller without DoD's 60 ft payload bay). Thermal conditions are easier than a straight or swept wing, and the crossrange has been very useful to NASA, allowing many more landing opportunities each day. (KSC technically has three tomorrow, but is only being stood up for the second two.)
 
Wolverine
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:54 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:10 am

Did the russian "Buran" have his air breathing engines for manouvres like go-arounds, or was there another reason to equip it with such engines?
Face your fears, live your dreams! (No Fear)
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:22 am

Quoting Wolverine (Reply 15):
Did the russian "Buran" have his air breathing engines for manouvres like go-arounds

No.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:25 am

Quoting Wolverine (Reply 15):
Did the russian "Buran" have his air breathing engines for manouvres like go-arounds, or was there another reason to equip it with such engines?



Quoting Thorny (Reply 16):
No.

 checkmark 

The airbreathers were intended to be there for added safety, such as extending the glide or even allowing for landing in circumstances that would otherwise not be considered "nominal" by normal shuttle standards, such as higher crosswinds. Also, I don't think Buran's airbreathers were not installed on the first and only space flight; they were intended to be installed on subsequent flights. However, there was a test copy that had four airbreathing engines attached to it that took-off under its own power from a conventional runway and was used to test/validate low altitude flight characteristics before the actual space flight.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:29 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17):
Also, I don't think Buran's airbreathers were not installed on the first and only space flight; they were intended to be installed on subsequent flights.

No, they were dumped from the final design for the same reason NASA dumped it: the payload hit is too big. They were test systems only.
 
Wolverine
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:54 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:36 am

So this Buran, they found in the middle east was just for testing? I saw a picture of it, and I think, it has those airbreathers..Looks strange..
Face your fears, live your dreams! (No Fear)
 
curlyheadboy
Posts: 813
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:26 am

Hey guys, I was browsing YouTube for some shuttle videos when I came across this very nice HUD footage of a landing at Edwards AFB, just wanted to share it  Smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9elcSXVNlMw
If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:47 am

Quoting Wolverine (Reply 19):
So this Buran, they found in the middle east was just for testing? I saw a picture of it, and I think, it has those airbreathers..Looks strange..

Yes. The jets were only there for test flights similar to the 1977 Approach and Landing Tests in the U.S. The vehicle is designated OK-GLI, or "Buran Analogue". It first flew in 1985.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/burlogue.htm
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:28 pm

Quoting Thorny (Reply 18):
No, they were dumped from the final design for the same reason NASA dumped it: the payload hit is too big. They were test systems only.

I didn't realize they were dumped entirely. If so, why? I thought the Buran, not having main ascent engines installed on the orbiter like the Shuttle, had more payload capability than the Shuttle which, therefore, would allow for turbine engines to be installed for landings without too much weight penalty.

[Edited 2007-06-24 05:29:45]
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:09 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 22):
I didn't realize they were dumped entirely. If so, why? I thought the Buran, not having main ascent engines installed on the orbiter like the Shuttle, had more payload capability than the Shuttle which, therefore, would allow for turbine engines to be installed for landings without too much weight penalty.

Buran didn't have the Main Engines internally like the U.S. Shuttle, but the Energiya still had them all the way to 99% of orbital velocity, so the changed location of the Mains didn't effect payload versus Shuttle all that much (Buran essentially was payload on the Energiya.) Worse, Energiya needed four 7,000 lbs "Main Engines" to achieve what Shuttle did with three 6,000 lbs. SSMEs. So when all was said and done, mass to OMS-1 was about the same for the two systems. The only big savings were that OMS-2 (or Russia's equivalent) had 18,000 lbs. less of Orbiter to circularize into LEO. And Buran's weight-and-balance at landing were somewhat easier to work with (explaining the automated landing.)

Buran's theoretical payload capacity was a little bigger than Shuttle's, but not spectacularly so, mostly from the lack of the heavy thrust structure carried by the U.S. Shuttle. Maybe 5,000 lbs. But that's only theoretical. In the real world, the U.S. Shuttle's best payload was from launching due east from the Cape, a major advantage over Buran at 51.6 degrees. Operationally, Buran probably would not have had greater payload than U.S. Shuttle. Adding 3,000 lbs. of engines, a few thousand pounds of increased structure to handle jet engines, and the weight of jet fuel tankage would have cut that quite severely. The only space for jet fuel would be in the payload bay, which was essentially the same as the U.S. Shuttle's, so carrying enough jet fuel to make a difference would have badly eaten away at payload space.

Then there's the problem of protecting four jet engines in the slipstream during entry at Mach 25...

Russia dumped the engines as not worth the hassle. I'm not sure when that happened, but my guess would be early-on, just like with the U.S. Shuttle.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:36 pm

Quoting Thorny (Reply 23):

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the detailed insight!  Smile
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
sudden
Posts: 3934
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:20 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:54 pm

Can anyone post a video of STS-117 approach/landing, please!
Am not able to find anything on the web.

Aim for the sky!
Sudden
When in doubt, flat out!
 
RHAnthony
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:17 pm

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:37 am

Search Youtube.com for "117 edwards" and it comes right up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=504a-bzwVLo
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8536
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Landing The Space Shuttle

Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:03 pm

Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 20):
Hey guys, I was browsing YouTube for some shuttle videos when I came across this very nice HUD footage of a landing at Edwards AFB, just wanted to share it Smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9elcS...VNlMw

Fantastic video, thanks for the link. Nothing like going from Mach 15+ to 0 in the space of a few minutes.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests