Wings on Shuttle orbiter

I was under the impression that, while the Shuttle's wing configuration was
dictated by the Pentagon's requirement for crossrange, it still came in handy -
indeedm all of that crossrange is used in the current return trajectory,
especially from ISS orbits. If this is correct, shouldn't people stop beating
up on the Pentagon over this?



Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

(MattWriter) wrote in
:

I was under the impression that, while the Shuttle's wing
configuration was dictated by the Pentagon's requirement for
crossrange, it still came in handy - indeedm all of that crossrange is
used in the current return trajectory, especially from ISS orbits.

Yes, although not particularly moreso for ISS orbits than other kinds of
orbits.

It also greatly increases options for ascent aborts. AOA and ECAL would not
be possible at all without crossrange, and TAL would require special sites
built closer to the groundtrack.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

MattWriter wrote:

I was under the impression that, while the Shuttle's wing configuration was
dictated by the Pentagon's requirement for crossrange, it still came in handy -
indeedm all of that crossrange is used in the current return trajectory,
especially from ISS orbits. If this is correct, shouldn't people stop beating
up on the Pentagon over this?

They should have stopped anyway. They should beat up a NASA that required
every Tom, Dick, and Harry (including a large cast of fictional users) to
justify building the thing in the first place.

Paul

In article ,
MattWriter wrote:
I was under the impression that, while the Shuttle's wing configuration was
dictated by the Pentagon's requirement for crossrange, it still came in handy -
indeedm all of that crossrange is used in the current return trajectory...

More precisely, a fair bit of it is used. Offhand, I don't think they've
ever gone right to the official crossrange limits.

There's no denying that it's useful. The question is whether it's worth
what it cost.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
It also greatly increases options for ascent aborts. AOA and ECAL would not
be possible at all without crossrange...

Not ECAL, no, so long as the groundtrack is offshore.

There would be no problem with AOA, so long as you don't insist on landing
at the launch site. At least, provided you're launching from KSC. (Where
AOA gets sticky without crossrange is launching into a polar orbit from
Vandenberg, since there's nothing but water under the groundtrack one
orbit later.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in
:

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
It also greatly increases options for ascent aborts. AOA and ECAL
would not be possible at all without crossrange...

Not ECAL, no, so long as the groundtrack is offshore.

There would be no problem with AOA, so long as you don't insist on
landing at the launch site.

Correct, of course - I really should have lumped AOA with TAL, not with
ECAL.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Wings on Shuttle orbiter

Will probably be the next thing to fly apart from engineering ineptitude

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:38:08 -0700, "Bad Weather"
wrote:

Wings on Shuttle orbiter

Will probably be the next thing to fly apart from engineering ineptitude

Um, that's essentially what happened on 1 Feb 03.

Brian

Will probably be the next thing to fly apart from engineering ineptitude

Um, that's essentially what happened on 1 Feb 03.

Brian BRBR


That seems a bit unfair. I don't recall from the CAIB report that there was
anything wrong with the design or engineering or construction of the wing.
There was a too-lenient attitude toward allowing debris to strike the leading
edge with a force it was not designed or expected to resist.


Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

(MattWriter) wrote:
That seems a bit unfair. I don't recall from the CAIB report that there was
anything wrong with the design or engineering or construction of the wing.

Indeed. The wing, as well as the entire airframe, held together under
extreme stress.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.