Orbiter wing utilization

The present wings were sized to permit some kind of military performance
specification. Something to do with turning to landing sites away from the
orbital path.

Was there even one mission where the orbiter has used that capability??? I
know that there were some "military" missions in the first years before
Challenger, but I don't think those ever landed at a site other than KSC or
Edwards.

bw wrote:

The present wings were sized to permit some kind of military performance
specification.

Was there even one mission where the orbiter has used that capability???

Flights from the ISS tend to have about 2 or 3 possible landing opportunities
in consecutive orbits due to this cross range capability. So if there is a
storm at KSC, they can wait until the next orbit and land after the storm has
passed instead of having to wait another day. (would be half day if NASA
accepted landings on the descending node coming from canada down to florida).


When NASA goes to capsules, landing at a specific spot will require very
precise de-orbiting with no play at all and no opportunity in following orbit.

In article , John Doe wrote:
bw wrote:

The present wings were sized to permit some kind of military performance
specification.

Was there even one mission where the orbiter has used that capability???

Flights from the ISS tend to have about 2 or 3 possible landing opportunities
in consecutive orbits due to this cross range capability.

Crossrange capability is also used to allow the Shuttle to land at one
of several possible abort landing sites during a launch emergency.

That one hasn't happened yet.

-Dan

Are we sure, then that they will go to capsules? Where would they land? Back
on the see again? I always thought this was an accident waiting to happen.
I'm surprised that the Russians have not had mor problems, landing on terra
firma as well. Would not some small version of a Shuttle type device,
launched via expendable be the way to go?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"John Doe" wrote in message ...
bw wrote:

The present wings were sized to permit some kind of military performance
specification.

Was there even one mission where the orbiter has used that capability???

Flights from the ISS tend to have about 2 or 3 possible landing
opportunities
in consecutive orbits due to this cross range capability. So if there is a
storm at KSC, they can wait until the next orbit and land after the storm
has
passed instead of having to wait another day. (would be half day if NASA
accepted landings on the descending node coming from canada down to
florida).


When NASA goes to capsules, landing at a specific spot will require very
precise de-orbiting with no play at all and no opportunity in following
orbit.

Bruce Palmer wrote:

ISTR they used 800 miles of crossrange once (out of ~1,500 available)
but I don't recall the details.

Jenkins' Space Shuttle quotes 910 miles for STS-53. Having a quick scan,
most cross-range figures seem to be centred around 500 miles, with a lot
of variation. The smallest appears to be 3 miles on STS-61.

White Sands in New Mexico was used for
at least one landing but I don't know if that was a military mission.

STS-3, due to heavy rains at EAFB.

--Chris

Build ANYTHING to meet everyones needs,
end up with something that does nothing well

Typical comitee designed effort........

John Doe wrote:
When NASA goes to capsules, landing at a specific spot will require very
precise de-orbiting with no play at all and no opportunity in following orbit.

Capsules will still use a lifting re-entry (like Apollo). That gives
them some cross-range ability, though almost inevitably less than the
shuttle.

Mark

Wonder what the orbiter would look like if it were being designed without
the need to be launched/land at Vandenberg....

"Bruce Palmer" wrote in message
...
bw wrote:
The present wings were sized to permit some kind of military performance
specification. Something to do with turning to landing sites away from
the orbital path.

They wanted to be able to lift off from the west coast in a polar
trajectory, release (or pick up) a spysat, and come right back down again.
In the 90 minutes it takes to go around, the landing site would have
rotated some miles away. USAF wanted enough crossrange capability to be
able to get back to Vandenberg.

Was there even one mission where the orbiter has used that capability???
I know that there were some "military" missions in the first years before
Challenger, but I don't think those ever landed at a site other than KSC
or Edwards.

ISTR they used 800 miles of crossrange once (out of ~1,500 available) but
I don't recall the details. White Sands in New Mexico was used for at
least one landing but I don't know if that was a military mission.

In article . com,
wrote:

Capsules will still use a lifting re-entry (like Apollo). That gives
them some cross-range ability, though almost inevitably less than the
shuttle.

But as much as has ever actually been used, except for one occasion.

Note also that since a capsule does not need a runway, it has far more
opportunities for emergency landings and so far less need for
cross-range capability. There are suitable flat spots inside almost
every given 500 mile wide swath of land. And it can make water landings.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. uk...
Are we sure, then that they will go to capsules? Where would they land?

How about the dry lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base?

Back
on the see again?

Very doubtful since they're planning on reusing them.

I always thought this was an accident waiting to happen.
I'm surprised that the Russians have not had more problems, landing on
terra
firma as well. Would not some small version of a Shuttle type device,
launched via expendable be the way to go?

You mean like X-38, which needed to land using the world's biggest parafoil,
because it's landing speed (on a runway) would have been far too high?

If your lifting body doesn't have enough lift to put it on a runway without
a parafoil, why bother? There should be fewer things to go wrong on a
biconic capsule with parachutes than on a lifting body with a parafoil.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.