Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Space Flight / July 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Shuttle orientation during climb.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rick Jones - 19 Jun 2006 21:57 GMT
I've been curious about the roll the Shuttle does during ascent.  One
reference I came across:

http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/sts_ascent.htm

says:

   About 20 seconds into the flight, the shuttle makes an unusual
   move. It rolls! The whole shuttle, also called the stack, turns so
   the orbiter lies under the external fuel tank and the solid rocket
   boosters. This roll is important for a number of reasons. First,
   it reduces the stress on the orbiter's delicate wings and tail
   created by the near mach one speed of the shuttle at this point
   into the flight. Second, it makes it easier for the computer to
   control the shuttle during the remainder of the ascent. Third, it
   enables the astronauts to see the horizon, giving them a reference
   point should the mission have to be aborted and the shuttle forced
   to land. How much the shuttle rolls depends on the inclination of
   the shuttle's orbit. (Inclination refers to the angle of the orbit
   relative to the earth's equator. Greater the inclination, the
   greater the angle of roll required.)

And a couple of questions come to my peanut gallery mind:

1) Is it really that much harder for the computer to control the
  shuttle without the roll?

2) Given the historical failure pattern for the shuttle is there
  really that much value in the astronauts having a view of the
  horizon?

3) Are the stresses on the "delicate" wings and tail that much more
  than during reentry?

Without the roll, junk coming off the ET would be rather less likely
to strike the orbiter no?

rick jones
Signature

No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision.  - Jobert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Kurt - 02 Jul 2006 11:18 GMT
> I've been curious about the roll the Shuttle does during ascent.  One
> reference I came across:
>
> http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/sts_ascent.htm

I can't reply specifically to the questions you raise, Rick, but IIRC
another and a key reason that they roll is so that voice and telemetry
signals from the orbiter to ground are not masked by the ET. In other
words, it unblocks communication.

Kurt

- no sig, sorry
Rick Jones - 05 Jul 2006 21:48 GMT
>> I've been curious about the roll the Shuttle does during ascent.  One
>> reference I came across:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> signals from the orbiter to ground are not masked by the ET. In other
> words, it unblocks communication.

A good point - which leads me to ask :) Don't we have TDRS for that?

rick jones
Signature

portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Steve Willner - 11 Jul 2006 22:34 GMT
> I've been curious about the roll the Shuttle does during ascent.  One
> reference I came across:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>     the orbiter lies under the external fuel tank and the solid rocket
>     boosters. ...

I'm wondering if the reason for the roll might be that the stack is
not pointed exactly into the relative wind.  It seems to me the
thrust has to point a little above the direction of motion because
the acceleration is the vector sum of thrust and gravity.  If that's
correct, having the orbiter "on top" would mean the wind load would
be trying to pull the orbiter away from the ET, whereas "on the
bottom" the wind load is pushing the orbiter towards the ET.  Total
stress should probably be less in the latter configuration because
the orbiter should develop less lift.  Debris strikes might also be
less likely in the latter position, though I doubt that concern is
the major reason for the choice.

Can someone who actually understands this comment?

Signature

Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123     swillner@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement.  Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

snidely - 12 Jul 2006 03:56 GMT
[...]
> 1) Is it really that much harder for the computer to control the
>    shuttle without the roll?

Could be; center-of-gravity and gimbal angles come to mind as reasons
why.

> 2) Given the historical failure pattern for the shuttle is there
>    really that much value in the astronauts having a view of the
>    horizon?

"Pattern"?  2 very different events don't make a pattern.  But look up
RTLS, an "abort back to KSC" scenario that requires flying the shuttle.

> 3) Are the stresses on the "delicate" wings and tail that much more
>    than during reentry?

Yes.  Max Q (pressure) during launch also requires the engines to be
throttled back for  short time.  Remember that the shuttle is trying to
go very fast but hasn't left the dense part of the atmosphere.  On
reentry, the shuttle is going very fast in the thin part of the
atmosphere.

> Without the roll, junk coming off the ET would be rather less likely
> to strike the orbiter no?

Maybe.  Maybe not. The flow of air between the ET and the Orbiter  is
the main issue, and aerodynamics rather than gravity dominates the
motion of debris.  The flow of air between the ET and the Orbiter is
sensitive to Angle of Attack, but not to heads-upvs heads-down.

/dps
thecase - 17 Jul 2006 12:52 GMT
> 1) Is it really that much harder for the computer to control the
>    shuttle without the roll (orientation)?

I don't think a computer would have a problem, but if one thinks about
the entire flight control system, it could make a difference.  I
believe the shuttle has a guidance system that includes a
gyro/accelerometer based inertial platform.  These mechanical
assemblies are prone to something called "gimbal lock" ) that may occur
when two of the axis align themselves in the same direction. This is
bad!

I worked on Poseidon missiles while I was on a sub in the Navy,  In the
training we were taught that the missile does a roll orientation
shortly after launch to align the Z-Axis (I think) downrange.  This can
clearly be seen in any video shown of these big sub-launched missiles
(no those puny Tomahawks). Aligning the Inertial platform helped
prevent the dreaded "Gimbal Lock".
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.