 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / November 2007Why can't the OMS engine be used during glide?
If for some reason the shuttle would lack sufficient energy to make the Cape Kennedy runway, could the Shuttle's on-board rocket engines be fired up momentarily to give it the necessary boost to "stretch the glide?" It would seem to me they must carry sufficient fuel reserves in excess to what is required for the de-orbital burn to allow for some emergency use of rocket thrust. I wonder what technical limitation there exists for not being able to utilitze the OMS engines in the atmosphere during low-altitude glide. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it > If for some reason the shuttle would lack sufficient energy to make > the Cape Kennedy runway, could the Shuttle's on-board rocket engines > be fired up momentarily to give it the necessary boost to "stretch the > glide?" 1. They were designed to operate in vacuum and are way over-expanded to operate stably in atmosphere, especially at low altitudes. Damage to the engines may result, possibly catastrophic, from turbulent flow separation in the nozzle. 2. Insufficient thrust to be of much use in atmospheric flight. They wouldn't maintain airspeed and might not even extend a descent very much. --Damon Listening carefully, I got the impression that dumping energy is the main problem, not not having enough. Seems to me that they dump energy then increase the dive to generate it again so they get a softish landing by utilising the energy as they pull up from the dive. Hence the line the commentator always says about the steepness of the approach compared with a normal aircraft. After all the only power source they have then is gravity! Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> If for some reason the shuttle would lack sufficient energy to make >> the Cape Kennedy runway, could the Shuttle's on-board rocket engines [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > --Damon > 1. They were designed to operate in vacuum and are way over-expanded > to operate stably in atmosphere, especially at low altitudes. > Damage to the engines may result, possibly catastrophic, from > turbulent flow separation in the nozzle. Are we talking about the main engines? They are used at liftoff, which isn't in a vacuum and about as low altitude as you can get. >> 1. They were designed to operate in vacuum and are way over-expanded >> to operate stably in atmosphere, especially at low altitudes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are we talking about the main engines? They are used at liftoff, which > isn't in a vacuum and about as low altitude as you can get. No, he's referring to the OMS engines, the only ones (besides the RCS which are obviously way to small) with on-board fuel. The SSMEs of course have no fuel. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in news:13jj4lmibre8l05@corp.supernews.com: > The SSMEs of course have no fuel. Yes, I realized that after my post. Haven't had my coffee yet. :) "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> writes: > >> 1. They were designed to operate in vacuum and are way over-expanded > >> to operate stably in atmosphere, especially at low altitudes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The SSMEs of course have no fuel. JD, This photo shows the three flavors: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/196750main_196592main_scott_full.jpg Main engines are the 3 big'uns, OMS I believe are the two next-largest ones, and the 4 RCS nozzles are in pairs at the top left and top right. -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ > No, he's referring to the OMS engines, the only ones (besides the RCS > which are obviously way to small) with on-board fuel. > > The SSMEs of course have no fuel. Wait a minute, wait a minute! Where did they get the fuel to fly the shuttle off of the carrier aircraft in "MOONRAKER". This is a conspiracy. Like the boosters crossing (or not crossing, I forget which) on Challenger that that one guy is always going about. I can't find any video on Youtube, so NASA (CIA) must have deleted it....THAT PROVES IT. Sasquatch / Nessie 2008....for the children |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2008 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.