Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mordor.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:rsf@Pescadero From: @S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:rsf@Pescadero Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Space shuttle abort to orbit Message-ID: <2864@mordor.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 16:50:07 EDT Article-I.D.: mordor.2864 Posted: Tue Jul 30 16:50:07 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 20:41:15 EDT Sender: daemon@mordor.UUCP Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL Lines: 26 From: Ross Finlayson Dick King asks why the shuttle couldn't attain its required orbital speed simply by burning its two remaining engines longer than usual. My guess is that since the fuel that would have been burned up by the third engine is burned up more slowly than usual (now that only two engines are working), the shuttle doesn't lose weight (due to fuel burning) at the same rate as before. That is, some of the fuel gets to be lifted a little higher than before, leading to a a decrease in the shuttle's final kinetic energy. I'm sure this isn't the whole story; I'll leave it to the experts to fill in more details. Also, in this morning's paper, I read that apparently a second engine was beginning to show signs of overheating (after the first had already been shut down). This can't have been as serious, however, because apparently the crew manually shut down the backup sensor for this engine, to prevent the computers from shutting down this engine as well. Does anyone know what plans exist for aborting a shuttle launch from Vandenberg? Since the shuttles will be launched in a north-to-south direction for polar orbits (correct?), where could they land following an early abort? The only places that come to mind are the Galapagos Islands, and Easter Island, but I don't know if there are sufficiently long runways there. I'm sure NASA would rather not have the shuttle land in Antarctica! Ross.