Title: | Space Exploration |
Notice: | Shuttle launch schedules, see Note 6 |
Moderator: | PRAGMA::GRIFFIN |
Created: | Mon Feb 17 1986 |
Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 974 |
Total number of notes: | 18843 |
I just heard on the 8AM news that mission control was requesting the shuttle to delay their re-entry for another orbit, and that if the weather conditions at the California landing site hadn't improved by then (10:45AM?), that they'd have to extend the mission another day. While I recall that there were always critical launch and re-entry windows back in the early 60's, I'd thought that with the shuttle (which is somewhat more controllable) this was less of an problem. What types of issues constrain re-entry to specific orbital patterns given today's shuttle technology? -Jack
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
809.1 | Layman insights | HANNAH::REITH | Jim HANNAH:: Reith DSG1/2E6 235-8039 | Wed Jul 08 1992 10:18 | 9 |
They still need to reenter on an orbit that takes them over the landing area. In the old days they were more particular due to the uncontrollability once reentry was begun. With the shuttle they can compensate for being one orbit off but they can't glide across the entire country once in the atmosphere. They also try to make it so that the lighting conditions are certain ways to improve visibility. Rentry to Florida is the backup plan tomorrow if conditions are still not perfect at Edwards. This would be a different orbit than Edwards if needed. You still need to reenter "into the wind" so you want to be "close" to the landing area on your orbital path. | |||||
809.2 | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | Wed Jul 08 1992 14:39 | 5 | ||
I agree with .1 except that the shuttle needs to "land" into the wind, not "reenter" into the wind (or as close as possible into the wind). Other than that, I agree. George | |||||
809.3 | Reentries | LANDO::STONE | Wed Jul 08 1992 14:44 | 40 | |
The reentry window is influenced by a number of factors: 1) Cross range capacity of the orbiter (approximately 1200 miles, but this varies depending on wieght and cg placement. The path does not have to be "over the landing area", but must take the orbiter within the cross range window (with a safety margin). 2) Flight path. Reentry to either Edwards or KSC can be made on either ascending or decending orbital nodes. For example, approaches to KSC from high inclination orbits can take the flight path over the central US down to Florida or up through Central America across the Gulf of Mexico. The preferable path is over the US in order to maintain radar and HF radio contact (after blackout). Although the actual landing is made "into the wind" (or a reasonable cross wind), the terminal glide from aproximately 100K ft to the heading alignment circle (for final approach) is made based on energy management (not wind direction) and is calculated by radar data, flight data from the orbiters air probes, and TACAN navigational data. 3) Atmospherics. Once entering the atmosphere, the flight path can be affected by the jet stream and/or other high altitude weather. In all cases, the flight path is selected so that the orbiter will not encounter moisture ladened clouds. The tiles are most vunerable to damage during approach (far more so than ascent, where the tiles are subject to air pressure for a shorter period of time). 4) Consumables. Once the payload bay doors are closed, the orbiter has approximately a 2.5 hr window to operate in (without the radiators and primary cooling loop operating). This provides only a 2 orbit capability which covers 2 attempts at the primary landing site and usually one at the secondary. After a second "waive off" the payload bay doors are usually opened and the flight extended another day. All in all, there is some flexibility in the reentry opportunities. But if you compare it to the Mercury, Gemini, and earth orbital Apollos where in an emergency you could plunk down in just about any ocean or, for that matter, land mass, there are less landing opporunities. (But in the shuttle, the view is much more spectacular!) | |||||
809.4 | Another failure to notice my wry smile while typing 8^) | HANNAH::REITH | Jim HANNAH:: Reith DSG1/2E6 235-8039 | Wed Jul 08 1992 14:50 | 7 |
Sorry, should have been a smiley face around the "reenter" comment. I simply meant that the forward momentum of the ship will cause it to travel through the upper atmosphere generally along the orbital path. My "into the wind" comment was referring to the relative wind due to reentry. They tend to refrain from making any Mach 20 turns so you want the landing site to be out in front of you when reentering. Touchdown is into the wind as with a normal plane and this helps reduce the actual groundspeed at touchdown. |