Mr Squiggle's rocket always landed on its arse. On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Mike Borgelt < [email protected]> wrote:
> There were no enclosed wings on the Shuttle. There is plenty of Youtube > video of shuttle launches and landings. > It was a miserable, extremely dangerous flying machine (this is just the > orbiter, not the rest of the vulnerabilities built in to the system) with > an L/D of something like 3 or 4 and a high wing loading and no go round > capability. This resulted in quite severe re-entry heat loads and Columbia > disintegrated at around 210,000 feet while still going Mach 12 or so. You > want to shed energy higher up and a "fluffier" re-entry vehicle does this. > Shuttle got the wing design it did in order to have a higher hypersonic L/D > so it had more cross range capability on re-entry. This was to meet a USAF > requirement for it to be able to be launched either from Cape Canaveral or > Vandenberg and be recovered to the same place after one orbit, aka "the > silly ass once around mission". This was meant to be a quick reaction > reconnaisance mission but by the time the thing got built nobody believed > in this mission anymore and anyway "quick reaction" didn't describe a > shuttle launch. Atlantis was in processing for launch in a month when > Columbia was launched on her last flight. I've seen a report that said they > could have speeded up processing and would have had a window of 3 days to > rendezvous, transfer the crew and either put Columbia into re-entry for > disposal or park it in a higher orbit where it might have been able to be > repaired on a later mission. > > Whether a vehicle has wings or not you need to burn a small amount of fuel > to get your orbit to intersect the upper atmosphere. After that, the winged > vehicle doesn't need to burn more fuel. A wingless rocket powered lander > will need a small amount to cancel its terminal velocity in the lower > atmosphere for landing . Correctly designed this should be only 100M/sec or > so. Falcon 9 from what I could see from the last flight was less than > 300M/sec but this booster stage wasn't originally designed for optimum > rocket powered landing. (I think you want a conical shape for greater base > area). Wings are pretty awful on re-entry. Very high temperatures on > relatively small in area stagnation points. Heat shielding on a properly > designed wingless stage will likely weigh a lot less. > > The upper stage of Falcon 9 was meant to re-enter and be recovered but the > payload hit meant that idea was abandoned but in light of the success of > the booster landings the plan has been dusted off. There is talk of > attempting upper stage recovery on the first flight of Falcon Heavy (3 > Falcon 9 booster stages strapped together). It is planned to recover all 3 > boosters and at least one of them has flown before. See also Elon Musk ITS. > ITS is the proposed Mars ship. Highly entertaining video of Elon Musk > describing this at an IAU meeting in Mexico last September. SpaceX is > actually testing the full scale carbon fiber tanks for this and the Raptor > engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family) is in > test and has been fired. > > All you ever want to know about spaceships flown and proposed at > www.astronautix.com > > This is the REAL space age. > > Mike > > > > > > > At 09:50 PM 5/12/2017, you wrote: > > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01D2CB65.94F90990" > Content-Language: en-us > > I agree Mark and disagree with your comments Mike. > > The shuttles were capable of rotating to an AoA after re-entry so that > they could slowed sufficiently to extend enclosed wings and be turned into > a much safer flying device that operated with much more flexibility on its > return to Terra Firma. > > Noel. > > *From:* Aus-soaring [ mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Mark Newton > *Sent:* Friday, May 12, 2017 7:18 PM > *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] High speed glider landing > > Might be fine for a booster, but not so good for an orbiter, where you’d > need to take many expensive kilograms of landing fuel all the way into > orbit and back. > > > > - mark > > > On May 12, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Mike Borgelt < mborgelt@borgeltinstruments. > com> wrote: > > About how the Shuttle used to land except the vehicle is a lot smaller. > > > > I think wings are the most useless things on spaceships though. Just land > it vertically on rocket thrust as SpaceX is now doing routinely. > > > Mike > > > At 09:54 AM 5/12/2017, you wrote: > > https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/top-secret-air-force- > spaceplane-lands-with-sonic-boom-after-two-years-in-orbit/ > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring > instrumentation since 1978 > www.borgeltinstruments.com > tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 > <+61%207%204635%205784> > mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 > P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > > *Borgelt Instruments* - > *design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 * > www.borgeltinstruments.com > tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 > mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 > P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > >
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
