Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site quest.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!quest!dave
From: dave@quest.UUCP (David Messer)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Re: orbiter ascent attitude
Message-ID: <367@quest.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 03:29:20 EST
Article-I.D.: quest.367
Posted: Thu Mar  6 03:29:20 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 00:13:05 EST
References: <999@burl.UUCP> <6357@utzoo.UUCP>, <510@iham1.UUCP> <6404@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Quest Research Inc., Burnsville, MN
Lines: 21

> > > As I understand it, it's simply so that the tank and SRB's don't block
> > > line-of-sight for radio communications between the orbiter and the ground.
> > 
> > But, why the role?  Why doesn't it just fly straight onto its back?
> 
> The attitude at launch is constrained by the structure of the launch site.
> Things like the flame trenches were originally set up for the Saturn V,
> and rebuilding the pads totally for the shuttle wasn't thought reasonable.
> So the shuttle lifts off in an attitude that's different from what's wanted
> in flight.  Hence the roll.

Also, if you think back to the Apollo days, you will notice that
the Saturn launches also had a roll program.  Apollo also flew
upside-down.
-- 
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Disclaimer:                       |     David Messer                 |
| I'm always right and I never lie. |                                  |
| My company knows this and agrees  |     UUCP:  ...ihnp4!quest!dave   |
| with everything I say.            |     FIDO:  14/415  (Sysop)       |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+