Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?If there was a non-rotating skyhook in Earth orbit, what would re-entry be like after dropping from its foot?Why didn't the Space Shuttle have a launch escape system?How many Solid Rocket Boosters were there in the Space Shuttle program?Why didn't NASA use the shuttle to make a profit?While decending from orbit can a blimp glider skip an atmosphere to shed speed?Is getting IN or OUT of orbit easier for the Space Shuttle?Why didn't the space shuttle SRBs have wings and tires?Why didn't the SRBs of the Space Shuttle use carbon instead of aluminium?How many times were there thirteen people inside the ISS? Is it hard on the station?Why didn't the space shuttle use non-foam-shedding external tanks?Why can't you just parachute down right from orbit?
"Whatever a Russian does, they end up making the Kalashnikov gun"? Are there any similar proverbs in English?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
Error: Syntax error. Missing ')' for CASE Statement
What is ls Largest Number Formed by only moving two sticks in 508?
Is a 5 watt UHF/VHF handheld considered QRP?
Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba?
Where did Arya get these scars?
Passing args from the bash script to the function in the script
How to find the right literary agent in the USA?
Are all CP/M-80 implementations binary compatible?
The art of proof summarizing. Are there known rules, or is it a purely common sense matter?
How to keep bees out of canned beverages?
What if Force was not Mass times Acceleration?
Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?
Do you need a weapon for Thunderous Smite, and the other 'Smite' spells?
Book with legacy programming code on a space ship that the main character hacks to escape
Did the Roman Empire have penal colonies?
How to count in linear time worst-case?
How to not starve gigantic beasts
Does Feeblemind produce an ongoing magical effect that can be dispelled?
Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?
Do I need to protect SFP ports and optics from dust/contaminants? If so, how?
Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?
Additive group of local rings
Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?If there was a non-rotating skyhook in Earth orbit, what would re-entry be like after dropping from its foot?Why didn't the Space Shuttle have a launch escape system?How many Solid Rocket Boosters were there in the Space Shuttle program?Why didn't NASA use the shuttle to make a profit?While decending from orbit can a blimp glider skip an atmosphere to shed speed?Is getting IN or OUT of orbit easier for the Space Shuttle?Why didn't the space shuttle SRBs have wings and tires?Why didn't the SRBs of the Space Shuttle use carbon instead of aluminium?How many times were there thirteen people inside the ISS? Is it hard on the station?Why didn't the space shuttle use non-foam-shedding external tanks?Why can't you just parachute down right from orbit?
$begingroup$
From this video, I got know that Space Shuttle did reentry around 5000 miles away from landing site. It's angle of attack is maintained around 40 degrees during re-entry. If it is more than that, it bounces back to space.
Why don't we let the Shuttle bounce back into space many times as possible and skim a lot of atmosphere so that it loose lot of kinetic energy over there? I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
space-shuttle reentry
edited 21 mins ago
MackTuesday
1033
asked 21 hours ago
SRDSRD
31818
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From this video, I got know that Space Shuttle did reentry around 5000 miles away from landing site. It's angle of attack is maintained around 40 degrees during re-entry. If it is more than that, it bounces back to space.
Why don't we let the Shuttle bounce back into space many times as possible and skim a lot of atmosphere so that it loose lot of kinetic energy over there? I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
space-shuttle reentry
edited 21 mins ago
MackTuesday
1033
asked 21 hours ago
SRDSRD
31818
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
To be clear, it's not AoA which prevents the shuttle from skipping; it's banking - pointing the lift vector sideways instead of up. An increase in AoA from 40° would most likely reduce the chance of skipping.
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
16 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
5000 nautical miles away. The answer is in the video but easy to miss; he notes very quickly, and only once, that slowing too much: you'll drop out the sky like a rock (which is the penultimate concern at all times only to 'rapid unplanned disassembly'). It's bad enough that it's already a flying brick.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From this video, I got know that Space Shuttle did reentry around 5000 miles away from landing site. It's angle of attack is maintained around 40 degrees during re-entry. If it is more than that, it bounces back to space.
Why don't we let the Shuttle bounce back into space many times as possible and skim a lot of atmosphere so that it loose lot of kinetic energy over there? I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
space-shuttle reentry
edited 21 mins ago
MackTuesday
1033
asked 21 hours ago
SRDSRD
31818
$endgroup$
From this video, I got know that Space Shuttle did reentry around 5000 miles away from landing site. It's angle of attack is maintained around 40 degrees during re-entry. If it is more than that, it bounces back to space.
Why don't we let the Shuttle bounce back into space many times as possible and skim a lot of atmosphere so that it loose lot of kinetic energy over there? I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
space-shuttle reentry
space-shuttle reentry
edited 21 mins ago
MackTuesday
1033
asked 21 hours ago
SRDSRD
31818
edited 21 mins ago
MackTuesday
1033
asked 21 hours ago
SRDSRD
31818
edited 21 mins ago
MackTuesday
1033
edited 21 mins ago
MackTuesday
1033
edited 21 mins ago
MackTuesday
1033
1033
asked 21 hours ago
SRDSRD
31818
asked 21 hours ago
SRDSRD
31818
asked 21 hours ago
SRDSRD
31818
31818
$begingroup$
To be clear, it's not AoA which prevents the shuttle from skipping; it's banking - pointing the lift vector sideways instead of up. An increase in AoA from 40° would most likely reduce the chance of skipping.
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
16 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
5000 nautical miles away. The answer is in the video but easy to miss; he notes very quickly, and only once, that slowing too much: you'll drop out the sky like a rock (which is the penultimate concern at all times only to 'rapid unplanned disassembly'). It's bad enough that it's already a flying brick.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To be clear, it's not AoA which prevents the shuttle from skipping; it's banking - pointing the lift vector sideways instead of up. An increase in AoA from 40° would most likely reduce the chance of skipping.
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
16 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
5000 nautical miles away. The answer is in the video but easy to miss; he notes very quickly, and only once, that slowing too much: you'll drop out the sky like a rock (which is the penultimate concern at all times only to 'rapid unplanned disassembly'). It's bad enough that it's already a flying brick.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
To be clear, it's not AoA which prevents the shuttle from skipping; it's banking - pointing the lift vector sideways instead of up. An increase in AoA from 40° would most likely reduce the chance of skipping.
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
To be clear, it's not AoA which prevents the shuttle from skipping; it's banking - pointing the lift vector sideways instead of up. An increase in AoA from 40° would most likely reduce the chance of skipping.
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
16 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
5000 nautical miles away. The answer is in the video but easy to miss; he notes very quickly, and only once, that slowing too much: you'll drop out the sky like a rock (which is the penultimate concern at all times only to 'rapid unplanned disassembly'). It's bad enough that it's already a flying brick.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
5000 nautical miles away. The answer is in the video but easy to miss; he notes very quickly, and only once, that slowing too much: you'll drop out the sky like a rock (which is the penultimate concern at all times only to 'rapid unplanned disassembly'). It's bad enough that it's already a flying brick.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
13 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
Your thinking is reasonable as far as it goes...
But once you lose too much velocity and become deeply sub-orbital, you will sink like a rock into thicker atmosphere.
Within five minutes you'll either be toast from heating or jelly from pulling 15-20 gees.
In this answer I did a calculation for a different spacecraft (a Dragon capsule) with lift to drag between 0 and 0.3 and the scenario was always the same. Being significantly slower results in falling too deeply to quickly, and the higher density results in huge heat production and unsurvivably large accelerations.
answered 20 hours ago
uhohuhoh
41.7k19158522
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
uhoh, you just owe to the community the tools (Excel formulas, I believe) you used to make these charts.
$endgroup$
– Arris
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Arris uhoh is all about the python, not XL.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's "lose", not loose. Too short for me to do an edit.
$endgroup$
– Monty Harder
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@MontyHarder thank you for that. For some reason those two wires are permanently crossed.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
50 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skipping reentries aren't unheard of. The Apollo command module performed a single skip when returning from lunar missions. However, there are several reasons why a skipping reentry (especially one involving multiple skips) would be disadvantageous for the shuttle:
- As uhoh points out, a skipping reentry results in losing lateral speed at a very high altitude. In turn, you lose the ability to control your descent rate. By the end of entry you'd practically be in a free-fall which the vehicle would be unlikely to survive due to the heat and/or stress of attempting to pull out of the dive.
- The shuttle's thermal protection system was not designed to withstand long drawn-out reentries. Here's a quote from the "Entry, TAEM, and Approach/Landing Guidance Workbook":
On the flip side of high surface temperatures, there are high backface temperatures. If
you fly at high temperatures for a long time, heat will flow through the tiles to the
aluminum underneath. This can happen if you fly a low drag profile. In fact, backface
temperature is the current low limit to the drag profile. - Several other systems weren't designed for long drawn-out reentries either. The APUs only have the fuel capacity to run for about 110 minutes, which wouldn't be enough to support both launch and an extended reentry. The radiators, which were cold-soaked before entry, may have needed additional capacity to absorb heat build up during entry. The RCS may have needed more reserves.
- Flying a low-drag profile gives you less margin for error. Flying a middle-of-the-road drag profile means you have room to increase or decrease your drag as necessary in order to make the landing site. If your designed flight path is already on the low-end and you end up in a low energy condition, there's not much you can do about it.
- It's not impossible to develop guidance for a skipping reentry, but it is definitely a more difficult problem.
I suspect there are other reasons I haven't thought of.
On the flip side, I can't think of any advantages. The shuttle's reentry was already comparatively gentle (well under 2g's the whole time) and the heat was perfectly managable as-is.
answered 15 hours ago
Bret CopelandBret Copeland
53437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is a very thorough answer,+1!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the limitations due to other systems.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The APU's a non-issue (it had power for days) but everything else seems right.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Joshua no, the APUs had very little fuel reserves. See the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2.1-2: "The hydrazine is stored in a fuel tank with a total capacity of about 350 pounds.... The fuel supply supports the nominal power unit operating time of 90 minutes in a mission or any defined abort mode, such as an abort once around, when the APUs run continuously for approximately 110 minutes. Under operating load conditions, an APU consumes approximately 3 to 3.5 pounds of fuel per minute."
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BretCopeland: Seems I mixed it up with the on-orbit fuel cells. nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html
$endgroup$
– Joshua
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35741%2fwhy-didnt-the-space-shuttle-bounce-back-into-space-as-many-times-as-possible-so%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
Your thinking is reasonable as far as it goes...
But once you lose too much velocity and become deeply sub-orbital, you will sink like a rock into thicker atmosphere.
Within five minutes you'll either be toast from heating or jelly from pulling 15-20 gees.
In this answer I did a calculation for a different spacecraft (a Dragon capsule) with lift to drag between 0 and 0.3 and the scenario was always the same. Being significantly slower results in falling too deeply to quickly, and the higher density results in huge heat production and unsurvivably large accelerations.
answered 20 hours ago
uhohuhoh
41.7k19158522
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
uhoh, you just owe to the community the tools (Excel formulas, I believe) you used to make these charts.
$endgroup$
– Arris
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Arris uhoh is all about the python, not XL.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's "lose", not loose. Too short for me to do an edit.
$endgroup$
– Monty Harder
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@MontyHarder thank you for that. For some reason those two wires are permanently crossed.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
50 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
Your thinking is reasonable as far as it goes...
But once you lose too much velocity and become deeply sub-orbital, you will sink like a rock into thicker atmosphere.
Within five minutes you'll either be toast from heating or jelly from pulling 15-20 gees.
In this answer I did a calculation for a different spacecraft (a Dragon capsule) with lift to drag between 0 and 0.3 and the scenario was always the same. Being significantly slower results in falling too deeply to quickly, and the higher density results in huge heat production and unsurvivably large accelerations.
answered 20 hours ago
uhohuhoh
41.7k19158522
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
uhoh, you just owe to the community the tools (Excel formulas, I believe) you used to make these charts.
$endgroup$
– Arris
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Arris uhoh is all about the python, not XL.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's "lose", not loose. Too short for me to do an edit.
$endgroup$
– Monty Harder
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@MontyHarder thank you for that. For some reason those two wires are permanently crossed.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
50 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
Your thinking is reasonable as far as it goes...
But once you lose too much velocity and become deeply sub-orbital, you will sink like a rock into thicker atmosphere.
Within five minutes you'll either be toast from heating or jelly from pulling 15-20 gees.
In this answer I did a calculation for a different spacecraft (a Dragon capsule) with lift to drag between 0 and 0.3 and the scenario was always the same. Being significantly slower results in falling too deeply to quickly, and the higher density results in huge heat production and unsurvivably large accelerations.
answered 20 hours ago
uhohuhoh
41.7k19158522
$endgroup$
I think bounce back causes intermittent heating so heat shield tiles get a lot of time of radiate heat out.
Your thinking is reasonable as far as it goes...
But once you lose too much velocity and become deeply sub-orbital, you will sink like a rock into thicker atmosphere.
Within five minutes you'll either be toast from heating or jelly from pulling 15-20 gees.
In this answer I did a calculation for a different spacecraft (a Dragon capsule) with lift to drag between 0 and 0.3 and the scenario was always the same. Being significantly slower results in falling too deeply to quickly, and the higher density results in huge heat production and unsurvivably large accelerations.
answered 20 hours ago
uhohuhoh
41.7k19158522
edited 51 mins ago
answered 20 hours ago
uhohuhoh
41.7k19158522
answered 20 hours ago
uhohuhoh
41.7k19158522
answered 20 hours ago
uhohuhoh
41.7k19158522
41.7k19158522
2
$begingroup$
uhoh, you just owe to the community the tools (Excel formulas, I believe) you used to make these charts.
$endgroup$
– Arris
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Arris uhoh is all about the python, not XL.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's "lose", not loose. Too short for me to do an edit.
$endgroup$
– Monty Harder
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@MontyHarder thank you for that. For some reason those two wires are permanently crossed.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
50 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
uhoh, you just owe to the community the tools (Excel formulas, I believe) you used to make these charts.
$endgroup$
– Arris
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Arris uhoh is all about the python, not XL.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's "lose", not loose. Too short for me to do an edit.
$endgroup$
– Monty Harder
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@MontyHarder thank you for that. For some reason those two wires are permanently crossed.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
50 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
uhoh, you just owe to the community the tools (Excel formulas, I believe) you used to make these charts.
$endgroup$
– Arris
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
uhoh, you just owe to the community the tools (Excel formulas, I believe) you used to make these charts.
$endgroup$
– Arris
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Arris uhoh is all about the python, not XL.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Arris uhoh is all about the python, not XL.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It's "lose", not loose. Too short for me to do an edit.
$endgroup$
– Monty Harder
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It's "lose", not loose. Too short for me to do an edit.
$endgroup$
– Monty Harder
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@MontyHarder thank you for that. For some reason those two wires are permanently crossed.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
50 mins ago
$begingroup$
@MontyHarder thank you for that. For some reason those two wires are permanently crossed.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
50 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skipping reentries aren't unheard of. The Apollo command module performed a single skip when returning from lunar missions. However, there are several reasons why a skipping reentry (especially one involving multiple skips) would be disadvantageous for the shuttle:
- As uhoh points out, a skipping reentry results in losing lateral speed at a very high altitude. In turn, you lose the ability to control your descent rate. By the end of entry you'd practically be in a free-fall which the vehicle would be unlikely to survive due to the heat and/or stress of attempting to pull out of the dive.
- The shuttle's thermal protection system was not designed to withstand long drawn-out reentries. Here's a quote from the "Entry, TAEM, and Approach/Landing Guidance Workbook":
On the flip side of high surface temperatures, there are high backface temperatures. If
you fly at high temperatures for a long time, heat will flow through the tiles to the
aluminum underneath. This can happen if you fly a low drag profile. In fact, backface
temperature is the current low limit to the drag profile. - Several other systems weren't designed for long drawn-out reentries either. The APUs only have the fuel capacity to run for about 110 minutes, which wouldn't be enough to support both launch and an extended reentry. The radiators, which were cold-soaked before entry, may have needed additional capacity to absorb heat build up during entry. The RCS may have needed more reserves.
- Flying a low-drag profile gives you less margin for error. Flying a middle-of-the-road drag profile means you have room to increase or decrease your drag as necessary in order to make the landing site. If your designed flight path is already on the low-end and you end up in a low energy condition, there's not much you can do about it.
- It's not impossible to develop guidance for a skipping reentry, but it is definitely a more difficult problem.
I suspect there are other reasons I haven't thought of.
On the flip side, I can't think of any advantages. The shuttle's reentry was already comparatively gentle (well under 2g's the whole time) and the heat was perfectly managable as-is.
answered 15 hours ago
Bret CopelandBret Copeland
53437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is a very thorough answer,+1!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the limitations due to other systems.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The APU's a non-issue (it had power for days) but everything else seems right.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Joshua no, the APUs had very little fuel reserves. See the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2.1-2: "The hydrazine is stored in a fuel tank with a total capacity of about 350 pounds.... The fuel supply supports the nominal power unit operating time of 90 minutes in a mission or any defined abort mode, such as an abort once around, when the APUs run continuously for approximately 110 minutes. Under operating load conditions, an APU consumes approximately 3 to 3.5 pounds of fuel per minute."
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BretCopeland: Seems I mixed it up with the on-orbit fuel cells. nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html
$endgroup$
– Joshua
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Skipping reentries aren't unheard of. The Apollo command module performed a single skip when returning from lunar missions. However, there are several reasons why a skipping reentry (especially one involving multiple skips) would be disadvantageous for the shuttle:
- As uhoh points out, a skipping reentry results in losing lateral speed at a very high altitude. In turn, you lose the ability to control your descent rate. By the end of entry you'd practically be in a free-fall which the vehicle would be unlikely to survive due to the heat and/or stress of attempting to pull out of the dive.
- The shuttle's thermal protection system was not designed to withstand long drawn-out reentries. Here's a quote from the "Entry, TAEM, and Approach/Landing Guidance Workbook":
On the flip side of high surface temperatures, there are high backface temperatures. If
you fly at high temperatures for a long time, heat will flow through the tiles to the
aluminum underneath. This can happen if you fly a low drag profile. In fact, backface
temperature is the current low limit to the drag profile. - Several other systems weren't designed for long drawn-out reentries either. The APUs only have the fuel capacity to run for about 110 minutes, which wouldn't be enough to support both launch and an extended reentry. The radiators, which were cold-soaked before entry, may have needed additional capacity to absorb heat build up during entry. The RCS may have needed more reserves.
- Flying a low-drag profile gives you less margin for error. Flying a middle-of-the-road drag profile means you have room to increase or decrease your drag as necessary in order to make the landing site. If your designed flight path is already on the low-end and you end up in a low energy condition, there's not much you can do about it.
- It's not impossible to develop guidance for a skipping reentry, but it is definitely a more difficult problem.
I suspect there are other reasons I haven't thought of.
On the flip side, I can't think of any advantages. The shuttle's reentry was already comparatively gentle (well under 2g's the whole time) and the heat was perfectly managable as-is.
answered 15 hours ago
Bret CopelandBret Copeland
53437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is a very thorough answer,+1!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the limitations due to other systems.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The APU's a non-issue (it had power for days) but everything else seems right.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Joshua no, the APUs had very little fuel reserves. See the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2.1-2: "The hydrazine is stored in a fuel tank with a total capacity of about 350 pounds.... The fuel supply supports the nominal power unit operating time of 90 minutes in a mission or any defined abort mode, such as an abort once around, when the APUs run continuously for approximately 110 minutes. Under operating load conditions, an APU consumes approximately 3 to 3.5 pounds of fuel per minute."
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BretCopeland: Seems I mixed it up with the on-orbit fuel cells. nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html
$endgroup$
– Joshua
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Skipping reentries aren't unheard of. The Apollo command module performed a single skip when returning from lunar missions. However, there are several reasons why a skipping reentry (especially one involving multiple skips) would be disadvantageous for the shuttle:
- As uhoh points out, a skipping reentry results in losing lateral speed at a very high altitude. In turn, you lose the ability to control your descent rate. By the end of entry you'd practically be in a free-fall which the vehicle would be unlikely to survive due to the heat and/or stress of attempting to pull out of the dive.
- The shuttle's thermal protection system was not designed to withstand long drawn-out reentries. Here's a quote from the "Entry, TAEM, and Approach/Landing Guidance Workbook":
On the flip side of high surface temperatures, there are high backface temperatures. If
you fly at high temperatures for a long time, heat will flow through the tiles to the
aluminum underneath. This can happen if you fly a low drag profile. In fact, backface
temperature is the current low limit to the drag profile. - Several other systems weren't designed for long drawn-out reentries either. The APUs only have the fuel capacity to run for about 110 minutes, which wouldn't be enough to support both launch and an extended reentry. The radiators, which were cold-soaked before entry, may have needed additional capacity to absorb heat build up during entry. The RCS may have needed more reserves.
- Flying a low-drag profile gives you less margin for error. Flying a middle-of-the-road drag profile means you have room to increase or decrease your drag as necessary in order to make the landing site. If your designed flight path is already on the low-end and you end up in a low energy condition, there's not much you can do about it.
- It's not impossible to develop guidance for a skipping reentry, but it is definitely a more difficult problem.
I suspect there are other reasons I haven't thought of.
On the flip side, I can't think of any advantages. The shuttle's reentry was already comparatively gentle (well under 2g's the whole time) and the heat was perfectly managable as-is.
answered 15 hours ago
Bret CopelandBret Copeland
53437
$endgroup$
Skipping reentries aren't unheard of. The Apollo command module performed a single skip when returning from lunar missions. However, there are several reasons why a skipping reentry (especially one involving multiple skips) would be disadvantageous for the shuttle:
- As uhoh points out, a skipping reentry results in losing lateral speed at a very high altitude. In turn, you lose the ability to control your descent rate. By the end of entry you'd practically be in a free-fall which the vehicle would be unlikely to survive due to the heat and/or stress of attempting to pull out of the dive.
- The shuttle's thermal protection system was not designed to withstand long drawn-out reentries. Here's a quote from the "Entry, TAEM, and Approach/Landing Guidance Workbook":
On the flip side of high surface temperatures, there are high backface temperatures. If
you fly at high temperatures for a long time, heat will flow through the tiles to the
aluminum underneath. This can happen if you fly a low drag profile. In fact, backface
temperature is the current low limit to the drag profile. - Several other systems weren't designed for long drawn-out reentries either. The APUs only have the fuel capacity to run for about 110 minutes, which wouldn't be enough to support both launch and an extended reentry. The radiators, which were cold-soaked before entry, may have needed additional capacity to absorb heat build up during entry. The RCS may have needed more reserves.
- Flying a low-drag profile gives you less margin for error. Flying a middle-of-the-road drag profile means you have room to increase or decrease your drag as necessary in order to make the landing site. If your designed flight path is already on the low-end and you end up in a low energy condition, there's not much you can do about it.
- It's not impossible to develop guidance for a skipping reentry, but it is definitely a more difficult problem.
I suspect there are other reasons I haven't thought of.
On the flip side, I can't think of any advantages. The shuttle's reentry was already comparatively gentle (well under 2g's the whole time) and the heat was perfectly managable as-is.
answered 15 hours ago
Bret CopelandBret Copeland
53437
edited 4 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
Bret CopelandBret Copeland
53437
answered 15 hours ago
Bret CopelandBret Copeland
53437
answered 15 hours ago
Bret CopelandBret Copeland
53437
53437
$begingroup$
This is a very thorough answer,+1!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the limitations due to other systems.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The APU's a non-issue (it had power for days) but everything else seems right.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Joshua no, the APUs had very little fuel reserves. See the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2.1-2: "The hydrazine is stored in a fuel tank with a total capacity of about 350 pounds.... The fuel supply supports the nominal power unit operating time of 90 minutes in a mission or any defined abort mode, such as an abort once around, when the APUs run continuously for approximately 110 minutes. Under operating load conditions, an APU consumes approximately 3 to 3.5 pounds of fuel per minute."
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BretCopeland: Seems I mixed it up with the on-orbit fuel cells. nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html
$endgroup$
– Joshua
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
This is a very thorough answer,+1!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the limitations due to other systems.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The APU's a non-issue (it had power for days) but everything else seems right.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Joshua no, the APUs had very little fuel reserves. See the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2.1-2: "The hydrazine is stored in a fuel tank with a total capacity of about 350 pounds.... The fuel supply supports the nominal power unit operating time of 90 minutes in a mission or any defined abort mode, such as an abort once around, when the APUs run continuously for approximately 110 minutes. Under operating load conditions, an APU consumes approximately 3 to 3.5 pounds of fuel per minute."
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BretCopeland: Seems I mixed it up with the on-orbit fuel cells. nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html
$endgroup$
– Joshua
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is a very thorough answer,
+1!$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is a very thorough answer,
+1!$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the limitations due to other systems.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the limitations due to other systems.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The APU's a non-issue (it had power for days) but everything else seems right.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
The APU's a non-issue (it had power for days) but everything else seems right.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@Joshua no, the APUs had very little fuel reserves. See the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2.1-2: "The hydrazine is stored in a fuel tank with a total capacity of about 350 pounds.... The fuel supply supports the nominal power unit operating time of 90 minutes in a mission or any defined abort mode, such as an abort once around, when the APUs run continuously for approximately 110 minutes. Under operating load conditions, an APU consumes approximately 3 to 3.5 pounds of fuel per minute."
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Joshua no, the APUs had very little fuel reserves. See the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual page 2.1-2: "The hydrazine is stored in a fuel tank with a total capacity of about 350 pounds.... The fuel supply supports the nominal power unit operating time of 90 minutes in a mission or any defined abort mode, such as an abort once around, when the APUs run continuously for approximately 110 minutes. Under operating load conditions, an APU consumes approximately 3 to 3.5 pounds of fuel per minute."
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BretCopeland: Seems I mixed it up with the on-orbit fuel cells. nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html
$endgroup$
– Joshua
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BretCopeland: Seems I mixed it up with the on-orbit fuel cells. nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html
$endgroup$
– Joshua
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35741%2fwhy-didnt-the-space-shuttle-bounce-back-into-space-as-many-times-as-possible-so%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
To be clear, it's not AoA which prevents the shuttle from skipping; it's banking - pointing the lift vector sideways instead of up. An increase in AoA from 40° would most likely reduce the chance of skipping.
$endgroup$
– Bret Copeland
16 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
5000 nautical miles away. The answer is in the video but easy to miss; he notes very quickly, and only once, that slowing too much: you'll drop out the sky like a rock (which is the penultimate concern at all times only to 'rapid unplanned disassembly'). It's bad enough that it's already a flying brick.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
13 hours ago