Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!tank!oddjob!mimsy!dftsrv!ames!pasteur!agate!eos!steve
From: steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Soviet and American Shuttles
Message-ID: <1703@eos.UUCP>
Date: 12 Oct 88 20:45:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: eos.1703
References: <1574@nunki.usc.edu> <3020@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Reply-To: steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson)
Distribution: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 62

In article <3020@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> david@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes:
>In article <1574@nunki.usc.edu> birenboi@sal6.usc.edu (Aaron Birenboim) writes:
>>
>>To say that the Soviet shuttle has no engines, however, is a misnomer.
>>THE SOVIET SHUTTLE HAS JET ENGINES.  The soviet shuttle is actually a 
>>full fledged PLANE.  They have flown it around, and it has the ability
>>to take off from the ground, as a plane does!  No more talk about the

>I sincerely doubt that this is true.

   I haven't been reading this group very long, but still I am amazed at
the amount of noise, mis-information, and uninformed speculation here.
The sincer doubters should try reading Aviation Week once in a while.
Many of the issues bludgeoned to death in this group are clearly explained
in "Av Leak".   Some time ago, Av Week ran a few short articles on 
the Soviet "shuttle".  It was fitted with jet engines for atmospheric
test flights.  I think (not sure) that it was capable of rising off
ground under it's own power.  As I recall, it was not planned to use
them for re-entry maneuvering -- they would likely be removed prior
to space flight.  I leave it to anyone really interested to look it up.

>2) How fast do you thin the shuttle needs to go to get enough lift to
>go UP?  Right now, the shuttle decends at about 100 feet per second
>throughout the re-entry: The thing does NOT fly, it drops like a brick.
>The wings just increase the manoeverability.

   I've never seen a brick flare and land softly.  It may require a
large amount of thrust to make it sustain altitude or climb, but it
doesn't have to be flying extremely fast.

>3) The Shuttle is such a bizarre handling aircraft that pilots tend to
>put it into PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation).  [...]  This is
>why it is NOT landed by pilots, but by the auto-land system.  I watched
>the pilots try to land it on the Rockwell simulator, and I NEVER saw
>anybody do it: they ALWAYS crashed.  The first landing on the runway
>at Edwards by the Enterprise, in front of all the political luminaries,
>was almost a disaster: they started that approach with the pilots
>on the sticks, and the gound controllers had to shut them off because
>they were approaching to structural limits of the airframe!  The autoland
>system greased it on that time, and has hit the numbers every time since.
>The pilots DO NOT land the shuttle!  [...]

  No kidding!  Do you remember one of the early shuttle flights where
just after touchdown, the nose got very high before it finally was
lowered for main gear touchdown?  That happened because the pilot
flying made an error.  That was no autoland system flying, but an
old style human being. The shuttle is routinely hand flown through the 
final segment of the approach.  It IS flown through a flight control
computer and NOT by direct control (which is reported to be extremely
difficult).  BTW, there was a factual article that described the shuttle
control system and hand flying techniques in either _Analog_ or one
of the other major SF mags as early as 1977-78.  At that time, mission
pilots were practicing to proficiency in hand flying by direct control
to touchdown.

   You'd probably really enjoying some technically correct articles.
Aviation Week is available at libraries everywhere.  Try it some time.
-- 

						   Steve
					(the certified flying fanatic)
					    steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov