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".