A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Brute force re-entry



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 9th 04, 01:32 AM
Erik Max Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Miller wrote:

Orbiter with typical ET residuals (15,000lbs): 200,000lbs
Orbiter after expending residuals: 185,000lbs
Specific impulse of the SSMEs in vacuum: 455 sec^-1.


Specific impulse (when measured this way) is measured in seconds, not
inverse seconds.

(455 sec^-1) x (9.8m/s/s) x Natural Log (200,000lbs / 185,000lbs) =
347 m/s.


As this equation can attest to; s^-1 times m/s^2 is m/s^3, not m/s.

--
__ Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
\__/ Never had very much to say / Laugh last, laugh longest
-- Des'ree
  #42  
Old September 9th 04, 10:56 AM
Mike Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Erik Max Francis wrote in message ...

Specific impulse (when measured this way) is measured in seconds, not
inverse seconds.


D'oh! But the number is correct, despite the misplaced unit?

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
  #43  
Old September 9th 04, 11:38 PM
Peter Fairbrother
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Miller wrote:

Erik Max Francis wrote in message
...

Specific impulse (when measured this way) is measured in seconds, not
inverse seconds.


D'oh! But the number is correct, despite the misplaced unit?


Yep, or certainly close enough.

Isp is sometimes measured as x seconds because one pound of propellent will
give one pound of thrust for x seconds;

- or x pounds of thrust for one second. Two pounds of propellant will give
one pound of thrust for 2x seconds, or x pounds thrust for 2 seconds; and so
on.

I hope I got that right!


--
Peter Fairbrother

  #44  
Old September 13th 04, 09:37 PM
Allen Meece
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Since orbital velocity is 8000 m/s, sacrificing the entire shuttle payload
to carry fuel would only allow the shuttle orbiter to decelerate by 16% of
the amount needed to come to rest. The only result would be to enter the
atmosphere at a much steeper angle and thus suffer much greater reentry
forces and heat.
Well, it's not the angle that heats the reentry vessel, it's the SPEED. Speed
compresses the air in front of the vessel and that is what makes the air hot,
not the angle which the vessel is flying. Capice, once and for all, everybody?
Now. Descent, no matter what, uses less fuel than ascent to orbit. Ascent
burns fuel fighting against air drag while descent, of any flight profile,
fast, slow, steep or shallow, cannot help but use drag for braking.
So double or triple the 16% savings and you'll start to see the advisability
of engine braking for reentry.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Astral Space part 2 - Crookes work Majestyk Astronomy Misc 1 April 14th 04 09:44 AM
Astral Form - Crookes work (part 2) expert Astronomy Misc 0 April 13th 04 12:05 PM
disaster warning Anonymous Astronomy Misc 1 January 23rd 04 09:31 PM
Invention: Action Device To Generate Unidirectional Force. Abhi Astronomy Misc 21 August 14th 03 09:57 PM
Invention For Revolution In Transport Industry Abhi Astronomy Misc 16 August 6th 03 02:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 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.