Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpcvia!kas
From: kas@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM (ken_scofield)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: shuttle escape systems
Message-ID: <23280001@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM>
Date: 25 Oct 89 19:22:20 GMT
References: <1989Oct12.021826.7915@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon
Lines: 37


>In article <409@illusion.UUCP> marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes:
>>BTW, does anybody know what the chances of the orbiter surviving the powered
>>pitch over maneuver in the RTLS abort sequence is? ...
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>  ...
>(For those who aren't up on this, a Return To Launch Site abort involves
>doing a U-turn at hypersonic speeds.)
>--      ^^^^^^
>A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

  OK, here's a question I've been wanting to ask for a long time:  Why is the
  (apparently) preferred manuever a "pitch over"?  

  I assume that the manuever is a half-inside-loop, such that the initially
  upside-down shuttle comes out of the bottom of the loop right-side-up and
  heading back toward KSC.  This seems fairly simple in principle, but isn't
  there going to be a loss of gobs and gobs of (I assume) precious altitude?
  Why not do a 180-degree roll first (to get right-side-up), then turn like
  any ol' normal airplane (well, sorta :-) )?  The altitude loss would be 
  much less, and the chances of getting back to KSC would be improved.

  And one last question:  Is the ET still attached during RTLS abort, or is
  it dropped first?

    
   
                   Ken Scofield   
                   Hewlett-Packard, ICO
                   1020 NE Circle Blvd.
                   Corvallis, OR  97330
                   Phone:  (503)757-2000
			ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!kas
                        kas@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM

Cute Disclaimer:  Nobody ever listened to me before, so why start now?