Cavity behind the RCC leading edge

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:14:59 -0800, rschmitt23 wrote:

This issue has been raised several times during the past 6 months. There is
a fairly large class of space-qualified materials that could be used to
protect the aluminum wing spar behind the RCC parts. They're called ablators

Hmmm...
....ablating...
...."being worn away, carried away"...
.... ablating to...
....
.... where?

Later
Ray Schmitt

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Chuck Stewart wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:14:59 -0800, rschmitt23 wrote:

This issue has been raised several times during the past 6 months. There is
a fairly large class of space-qualified materials that could be used to
protect the aluminum wing spar behind the RCC parts. They're called ablators

Hmmm...
...ablating...
..."being worn away, carried away"...
... ablating to...
...
... where?


That's something Ray doesn't want you to think about... It might
point up the absurdity of the concept.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Chuck Stewart wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:14:59 -0800, rschmitt23 wrote:

This issue has been raised several times during the past 6 months.
There is
a fairly large class of space-qualified materials that could be used to
protect the aluminum wing spar behind the RCC parts. They're called
ablators

They could replace the whole spar with a Carbon/Carbon part. Granted, I've
never heard of a major C/C structural part like a spar before but hey, this
*is* rocket science. At least then you wouldnt be adding parasitic weight.
Maybe it'd even be lighter.

The would mean a major rebuild of the wing though. Billions and billions of
$.

Patrick

Patrick McConnell wrote:
They could replace the whole spar with a Carbon/Carbon part. Granted, I've
never heard of a major C/C structural part like a spar before but hey, this
*is* rocket science.

Airbus is using composites for main wing structure for its A380. Also, the
tail fins will be all composite. Whether this experience can translate into
space worthy structures, I do not know.

The would mean a major rebuild of the wing though. Billions and billions of

I think this would be more like a major rebuild of the orbiter since wings are
so integrated into it. Just think of all the wiring between the orbiter and
wing. Consider the landing gear assemblies.

however, if they are going to rebuild it, they might as well make a landing
gear assembly that allows in-orbit inflating of tires.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:08:16 -0500, Patrick McConnell wrote:

They could replace the whole spar with a Carbon/Carbon part. Granted, I've
never heard of a major C/C structural part like a spar before but hey, this
*is* rocket science.

Hmmm... how would the C/C compare in strength vs. weight against aluminum?

At least then you wouldnt be adding parasitic weight. Maybe it'd even be
lighter.

Err... isn't it denser than aluminum?... have to look it up.

The would mean a major rebuild of the wing though. Billions and billions of
$.

But would a c/c spar have saved the electric. electronic, and hydraulic
runs? Or would they have been cut anyway?

In other words if the aluminum hadn't melted, but all the leads and runs
were cut... would the orbiter have survived to bailout altitude?

Patrick

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Chuck Stewart wrote:
In other words if the aluminum hadn't melted, but all the leads and runs
were cut... would the orbiter have survived to bailout altitude?

You are still changing the airflow over the wing, still have plasma
inside the leading edge of the wing...

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:54:46 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:

Chuck Stewart wrote:

In other words if the aluminum hadn't melted, but all the leads and runs
were cut... would the orbiter have survived to bailout altitude?

You are still changing the airflow over the wing, still have plasma
inside the leading edge of the wing...

It don't look too good...

I was just wondering if someone had simmed a situation with wing intact
but loss of systems in that wing.

D.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Chuck Stewart wrote:

I was just wondering if someone had simmed a situation with wing intact
but loss of systems in that wing.

I suspect that once you lose the hydraulics or power to the hydraulic
controllers, it's over.

Paul

In article , says...
Chuck Stewart wrote:

I was just wondering if someone had simmed a situation with wing intact
but loss of systems in that wing.

I suspect that once you lose the hydraulics or power to the hydraulic
controllers, it's over.

In a "normal" earthly glider you can pretty much get down safely with
lots of bits missing, except the evevators on the tail. Without those
it's bale-out time. The other bits have a lot to do with *where* one
will land, and less with *how*.

The parallels between the beautiful fibreglass creatures I slope around
the skies in and the shuttle on its astronomical glide are thin of
course, but might be worth something.

--
ICQ 40628243 Tel 07092057581 Fax 07092308800

Peter Harding writes:

In article , says...
Chuck Stewart wrote:

I suspect that once you lose the hydraulics or power to the hydraulic
controllers, it's over.

In a "normal" earthly glider you can pretty much get down safely with
lots of bits missing, except the evevators on the tail. Without those
it's bale-out time. The other bits have a lot to do with *where* one
will land, and less with *how*.

The parallels between the beautiful fibreglass creatures I slope around
the skies in and the shuttle on its astronomical glide are thin of
course, but might be worth something.

Without hydraulics or power to the controllers, you lose the
equivalent of your "elevators on the tail" in the orbiter.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.