Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!news
From: news@usc.edu (USENET News)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: shuttle landing anomaly
Message-ID: <19324@usc.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 89 00:47:13 GMT
References: <4500@portia.Stanford.EDU> <57706@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <3cm0025B4cPV01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <733@east.East.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: barney@skat.usc.edu (Barney Lum)
Organization: USC University Computing Services
Lines: 28

>>> On the video of the landing I saw on the news that night, I did not notice
>>> if the nose was high, but I thought that the nose wheel hit unusually hard.
>>> Maybe they had a hard time getting the nose down and over-corrected.
>>> Anybody else notice anything?
From: barney@skat.usc.edu (Barney Lum)
Path: skat.usc.edu!barney

I didn't get to see the shuttle land (on tv or in person) but was definitely
awakened (at ~6:30am!) by its passing over the LA basin.  From the descriptions
of its nose-high landing, it might be that the shuttle was using its attitude
to dissipate speed.  As speed decreased,  more nose-up is needed to provide
the lift.  When the speed got low to the point of lowering the nose, it may
not able to provide the residual lift to lower it gently.

Back in September(?) of 1981,  the 2nd (?) flight of Columbia had an 
interesting landing where the nose was lowered almost to touchdown then
suddenly raised, then put back down.

John Painter writes:
>Remember that the DOD has avolume in the nose of the shuttle that *WE*
>aren't supposed to question/know the contents of.  perhaps the alternate
>payload stored here was heavy.  

I would think that the mission-folks have considered the weight/balance
effect of the returning shuttle and arranged things (payload and what-nots) 
so that its center of gravity isnt too far forward or aft.

		Barney (@skat.usc.edu) Lum