A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

STS 2 through 4 handflown



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 27th 09, 06:13 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Danny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown

I just read at a different site that STS-2 through 4 were
intentionally hand flown all the way down to mitigate a problem with
sideslip in the DAP that was discovered in STS-1. Can anyone confirm
this?

Danny Deger
  #2  
Old June 27th 09, 03:25 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown

"Danny" wrote in message
...
I just read at a different site that STS-2 through 4 were
intentionally hand flown all the way down to mitigate a problem with
sideslip in the DAP that was discovered in STS-1. Can anyone confirm
this?

Danny Deger


Yes. Do a search on history of this group, Mary has mentioned it a couple
of times.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/.../msg00161.html


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

  #3  
Old June 29th 09, 03:13 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown


"Danny" wrote in message
...
I just read at a different site that STS-2 through 4 were
intentionally hand flown all the way down to mitigate a problem with
sideslip in the DAP that was discovered in STS-1. Can anyone confirm
this?


Mary has posted this info (perhaps numerous times). Why don't you use
Google Groups to search for her post(s) on this topic?

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #4  
Old June 30th 09, 06:31 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Danny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown

On Jun 29, 9:13*am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Danny" wrote in message

...

I just read at a different site that STS-2 through 4 were
intentionally hand flown all the way down to mitigate a problem with
sideslip in the DAP that was discovered in STS-1. *Can anyone confirm
this?


Mary has posted this info (perhaps numerous times). *Why don't you use
Google Groups to search for her post(s) on this topic?

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


My info was originally a cut and paste from this group from Mary's
posts. I have an update from a NASA source that the first non-zero
roll command was flown at a reduced roll rate on 2 through 4 to
prevent an over shoot and oscillation. Apparently the entire entry
was not hand flown. I bet the roll oscillation and sideslip indicator
being pegged did get Captain Youngs attention. Mary's description of
his reaction was dead on. She really knows her stuff!!!

Danny Deger

Danny Deger
  #5  
Old June 30th 09, 08:24 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown


"John" wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 8:37 pm, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)"
wrote:
Sure. I can. It's even explicitly mentioned in a couple of reports
about the Orbiter's stability and control derivatives. Go to the
Dryden tech report server and look for Iliff.



Mary,

I loved your answer and immediately went looking. With tremendous
respect for you however, I hated the result. I tried searchs on two
unrelated subjects and got abstracts with links to the document in PDF
format. Clicked on the PDF link and got this reply:

To obtain additional information or request a copy of this report
please write to:
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)
7115 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076-1320


You're not trying very hard. I searched for the title of the book (the
first hit when you search for Iliff on the Dryden Tech Report Server) and
got this:

http://www.amazon.com/runway-orbit-R.../dp/B0006S8PGW

You can get a used copy for $39.60 + $3.99 shipping, which isn't bad for a
book that appears to be out of print.

But, since you're looking for the "easy" way to get this book, scrolling
down the Google search result page, I spotted "free" and clicked on the link
to find that if you want a free PDF, you can find it he

From Runway to Orbit: Reflections of a NASA Engineer
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media.php?id=4666

Perhaps there is a good reason, but it seems to defeat the purpose for
having a publically-available tech report server.


Part of this is the government's fault. That said, I think you gave up far
too easily.

Remember, Google is your friend!

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #6  
Old June 30th 09, 09:13 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown


"Danny" wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 9:13 am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Danny" wrote in message

...

I just read at a different site that STS-2 through 4 were
intentionally hand flown all the way down to mitigate a problem with
sideslip in the DAP that was discovered in STS-1. Can anyone confirm
this?


Mary has posted this info (perhaps numerous times). Why don't you use
Google Groups to search for her post(s) on this topic?

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


My info was originally a cut and paste from this group from Mary's
posts. I have an update from a NASA source that the first non-zero
roll command was flown at a reduced roll rate on 2 through 4 to
prevent an over shoot and oscillation. Apparently the entire entry
was not hand flown. I bet the roll oscillation and sideslip indicator
being pegged did get Captain Youngs attention. Mary's description of
his reaction was dead on. She really knows her stuff!!!


An interesting paragraph from the book :

The DFI recorder in the payload bay was to remain there
for one more flight, because most of the DFI data had been
lost on STS-1 and STS-4. This was a change in plans, but
it could be accommodated. We had by then expanded the
allowable flight center-of-gravity positions by several
inches fore and aft as well as half an inch or so left and
right of the centerline. This was important for the
operational phase of the vehicle, although it was more of
a bureaucratic definition for starting to fly useful
payloads in the Shuttle. Those of us trying to understand
the Shuttle's aerodynamic, aerothermodynamic, performance,
and structural characteristics continued to work for
varying lengths of time. The stability-and-control analysis
was going to continue for 15 more years over more than 80
flights.

This supports the assertion that the shuttle was much more a research
vehicle than an operational vehicle (STS-5 being called the first
"operational" flight by NASA).

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #7  
Old July 1st 09, 12:43 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Danny Deger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
snip
An interesting paragraph from the book :

The DFI recorder in the payload bay was to remain there
for one more flight, because most of the DFI data had been
lost on STS-1 and STS-4. This was a change in plans, but
it could be accommodated. We had by then expanded the
allowable flight center-of-gravity positions by several
inches fore and aft as well as half an inch or so left and
right of the centerline. This was important for the
operational phase of the vehicle, although it was more of
a bureaucratic definition for starting to fly useful
payloads in the Shuttle. Those of us trying to understand
the Shuttle's aerodynamic, aerothermodynamic, performance,
and structural characteristics continued to work for
varying lengths of time. The stability-and-control analysis
was going to continue for 15 more years over more than 80
flights.

This supports the assertion that the shuttle was much more a research
vehicle than an operational vehicle (STS-5 being called the first
"operational" flight by NASA).

Jeff


I trained the autopilot to the astronauts from 1990 to 1995. We were still
working hard on updates to the autopilot and c.g. expansion even then.

Danny Deger
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #8  
Old July 1st 09, 05:29 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown

"Danny Deger" wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
snip

This supports the assertion that the shuttle was much more a research
vehicle than an operational vehicle (STS-5 being called the first
"operational" flight by NASA).

Jeff


I trained the autopilot to the astronauts from 1990 to 1995. We were still
working hard on updates to the autopilot and c.g. expansion even then.


So? When I was on the '655 boat in the mid 80's, we were still tuning
a wide variety of operational techniques. Some class specific (even
though the class was approaching twenty years old) some more general
(even though we had been submarining for most of a century).

Boeing is still doing the same for each of it's models still in
service.

That NASA was doing so with the Shuttle seems to me to be weak support
for the assertion at best.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #9  
Old July 2nd 09, 02:54 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Danny Deger" wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
snip

This supports the assertion that the shuttle was much more a research
vehicle than an operational vehicle (STS-5 being called the first
"operational" flight by NASA).

Jeff


I trained the autopilot to the astronauts from 1990 to 1995. We were
still
working hard on updates to the autopilot and c.g. expansion even then.


So? When I was on the '655 boat in the mid 80's, we were still tuning
a wide variety of operational techniques. Some class specific (even
though the class was approaching twenty years old) some more general
(even though we had been submarining for most of a century).

Boeing is still doing the same for each of it's models still in
service.

That NASA was doing so with the Shuttle seems to me to be weak support
for the assertion at best.


I strongly disagree with this statement.

The shuttle ALT tests gave NASA good data for subsonic flight only. At the
time, CFD was still in its infancy and supersonic wind tunnels were not only
few and far between, but had problems of their own (very small size, run
time limited to seconds, and etc.). In the 70's, we simply did not have a
good handle on the aerodynamics of *any* winged vehicle traveling at
hypersonic speeds. That's one of the reasons why there was a problem with
the flight control system on STS-1 which resulted in a very frightening
maneuver which briefly took the stagnation point off the RCC nose cap. This
is precisely why STS-2 through STS-4 were handflown (the very subject of
this thread).

In other words, read the Space Shuttle chapters of this book:

From Runway to Orbit: Reflections of a NASA Engineer
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media.php?id=4666

As someone with an aerospace engineering degree, I found it extremely
enlightening. From an aerodynamics, flight dynamics, thermodynamics, and
etc. point of view, the shuttle program was very much a research program
over *much* more than STS-1 through STS-4 which was NASA's official orbital
flight test program. In fact, data recorder failures were rampant on those
early flights, so the team didn't even get much good data from those early
"test flights".

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #10  
Old July 3rd 09, 05:46 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default STS 2 through 4 handflown

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Danny Deger" wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
.. .
snip

This supports the assertion that the shuttle was much more a research
vehicle than an operational vehicle (STS-5 being called the first
"operational" flight by NASA).

Jeff

I trained the autopilot to the astronauts from 1990 to 1995. We were
still working hard on updates to the autopilot and c.g. expansion even then.


So? When I was on the '655 boat in the mid 80's, we were still tuning
a wide variety of operational techniques. Some class specific (even
though the class was approaching twenty years old) some more general
(even though we had been submarining for most of a century).

Boeing is still doing the same for each of it's models still in
service.

That NASA was doing so with the Shuttle seems to me to be weak support
for the assertion at best.


I strongly disagree with this statement.


Drawing a curve through a point and repeating oneself isn't much of a
disagreement.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.