 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / August 2007Shuttle question
How are the manuvers (roll, pitch, etc.) during shuttle boost phase performed? Are they done through the RCS, gimboling the engines, or by moving aerodynamic surfaces? Obviously once it's out of the atmosphere the areo surfaces have no effect. > How are the manuvers (roll, pitch, etc.) during shuttle boost phase > performed? Are they done through the RCS, gimboling the engines, or by > moving aerodynamic surfaces? Obviously once it's out of the atmosphere the > areo surfaces have no effect. The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engines) are gimbaled. If you get the chance, watch either the NASA channel or the Discovery channel right before the next launch. During the pre-launch checklist, they gimbal the SSME to verify operation. There are RCS on the orbiter as well but they're mainly used while in orbit. -Aaron The SRB's also use thrust vectoring during the first stage of ascent. > The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engines) are gimbaled. If you get the > chance, watch either the NASA channel or the Discovery channel right [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Aaron > The SRB's also use thrust vectoring during the first stage of ascent. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > -Aaron Oh one thing, the flapperons are used during the early parts of the ascent when there is atmosphere around the vehicle; i.e. the first 100,000 feet or so... Lunar > Oh one thing, the flapperons are used during the early parts of the They're elevons, not flapperons. > "lunarlosREMOVE2EM...@juno.com" <lunar...@juno.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They're elevons, not flapperons. Sigh ... this is why I have the attitude that I take with most of you. Its not that I am all that, no its mostly that you aren't that. All I have to do is keep one step ahead of you and I win. I win in life. In income level, in comfort, good health and longevity. As long as you don't try, and I try just a little ... I win... Let me educate you ... why bother as it is a f.cking waste of my tendons and mind to type this, but here goes any ways ... The control surface on the Space Shuttle both American an Russian are called Flaperons. A flaperon is a type of control surface that combines aspects of both flaps and ailerons. There are also Rudderons that combine Rudder and Elevons. The Russian and ESA, Clipper mini- shuttle utilizes these. Please follow this link to learn about the Clipper: http://tinyurl.com/ch3hs As for the naming of the Shuttle Control Surfaces, I will guide you to a paper written about that very same subject by people who know a lot more than you and I combined: Pitch control of the space shuttle training aircraft Berenji, H.R.; Saraf, S.; Ping-Wei Chang; Swanson, S.R. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on Volume 9, Issue 3, May 2001 Page(s):542 - 551 Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/87.918906 Summary:A set of shuttle training aircrafts (STAs) are used by NASA to train astronaut pilots to land the space shuttle after returning from orbit. The STA simulates the dynamics of the much larger and heavier space shuttle with the help of some hardware and software modifications. We present a STA controller that tracks the shuttle pitch trajectory. Our control system includes a feedforward controller based on zero phase error tracking control and a fuzzy proportional derivative (PD) feedback controller. Test results on a ground hardware simulator used at the Ellington Field of NASA Johnson Space Center show that the new controller significantly reduces pitch following errors between the shuttle and the STA, when compared to the existing controller People use laymen terms for laymen. The Shuttle's trailing edge surfaces act in three roles: Pitch, Roll, and airfoil dynamics, e.g. flaps/trim. Its not like a radio control plane or an Estes Space Shuttle kit. No its far far more complex than that. They are flaperons. If you want to call them elevons, then I can't stop you, but they do more than just roll and pitch the shuttle. They camber and set trim during the glide. They really do act as flaps... but hey I won't split hairs ... they are surfaces that act to control pitch, roll, and lift. What you call them is up to you my friend. Oh well, what you are lacking is a Britteny update, so lets find one... hold a sec... ah here you are: http://www.britneyspears.com/ "You'll never see it my way because you are not me" - Brittney Spears Wow she is a GENIUS! I mean Albert Einstein was a MORON compared to this blond bombshell! Ok I hope that gets you over your hump :) Lunar - And you wonder why I have such an elitist attitude towards most of you and the rest of the world. I rise above all of you because I just try a little, while the rest don't even try ... think about that as you ponder Britteny! >> They're elevons, not flapperons. > > Sigh ... this is why I have the attitude that I take with most of Again, you've proven yourself to be a clueless f.cking idiot. They're ELEVONS. Now, piss off. I sure am glad this guy doesn't fly in NW Nevada. People that think they know everything usually know very little, and that makes them dangerous. I don't like dangerous people on my range. Makes me nervous. I like people that ask questions, gather information, seek to improve themselves and their knowledge base. People that think they don't need that are dangerous, to themselves, and to those around them. Lunar, please stay off my range. I don't want you hurting anyone, including yourself, at one of my launches. Thank you, J >>> They're elevons, not flapperons. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Now, piss off. "lunarlosREMOVE2EMAIL@juno.com" $hit a mouth full: > <partial mouthfull of #hit deleated> > Lunar - And you wonder why I have such an elitist attitude towards > most of you and the rest of the world. I rise above all of you > because I just try a little, while the rest don't even try . Your elitist attitude is exceeded only by your alligator mouth, hidden behind an anonymous troll posting name backed up by a paper canary a$$. Like several who post here, you degrade individuals in a manner you would temper face to face, out of fear and common sense, probably in that order. Fred Wallace remove and replace the obvious fredewallaceatyahoodotcom. Plonk... J >> "lunarlosREMOVE2EM...@juno.com" <lunar...@juno.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > because I just try a little, while the rest don't even try ... think > about that as you ponder Britteny! > "lunarlosREMOVE2EM...@juno.com" <lunar...@juno.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They're elevons, not flapperons. A quick google... "Elevons are aircraft control surfaces that combines the functions of the elevator (used for pitch control) and the aileron (used for roll control), hence the name. They are frequently used on tailless aircraft such as flying wings. An elevon which not part of the main wing, but instead is a separate tail surface, is a taileron." Used on aircraft such as the F-117A, F4D-SkyRay, and Yes the STS. "A flaperon is a type of control surface that combines aspects of both flaps and ailerons. In addition to controlling the roll or bank of an airplane like conventional ailerons, both flaperons can be lowered together to function much the same as a dedicated set of flaps would. (Both ailerons could also be raised, which would give you spoilerons.)" Used on aircraft such as the F-16 and the X-37 Doug > How are the manuvers (roll, pitch, etc.) during shuttle boost phase > performed? Are they done through the RCS, gimboling the engines, or by > moving aerodynamic surfaces? Obviously once it's out of the atmosphere the > areo surfaces have no effect. The STS uses ALL of the above mentioned ways to achieve orbit except for Reaction Control System (RCS). The SRBs are actually throttled by changing the nozzle geometry (the exit nozzle is lengthened). The Main Engines are gimbled and used also. The Flapperons are used to change roll and pitch. During the criminal manslaughter flight of STS-26 (Challenger), the vehicle tried to compensate for the thrust created by the new exhaust plume from the SRB gap. The vehicle was winning the battle until the strut broke lose and the SRB pivoted out from the base, and the drove itself up into the External tank, breaching the LOX tanks, and causing the explosion. If the strut had just held for another 8 seconds... Several NASA managers had to step down in order to avoid criminal prosecution for Man Slaughter. The Challenger Explosion was COMPLETELY avoidable. As for the Orbital Maneuvering Engines (OMEs), they are used to give final course correction and orbital insertion. Remember, it requires at least 2 rocket burns to place an object into orbit: The SRB and Mains get you the altitude an required speed. The OMEs make sure you have the desired orbital velocity. Notice I used speed as a scalar, then velocity as a vector. The speed just says I have enough momentum to stay in some orbit, while velocity says I chose this orbit over that orbit. You can have orbital speed, but if you chose the wrong velocity, you re-enter the atmosphere and burn to death... and we don't want that. Speaking of burning, the Shuttle Endeavor has a 3 inch gouge in its belly. Maybe a bad thing ... maybe not. What really bothers me is why we continue to fly a flawed design. The STS system is a plethora of compromises in the name of costs over safety. First the SRBs are flawed as their segment joints trap dirt and water. Where there is water and cold weather, there is ice. Ice expands, then the volume shrinks as it passes back into liquid state. This causes breaches in the O-Rings and well do we really need another, "Challenger you are go for throttle up... Roger throttle up..."? Next the External Tank is flawed as it allows debris in the form of foam and ice to rain down upon the vehicle; this first happened with STS-1 where large ice chunks struck the top of the crew cabin. The orbiter has no power once it re-enters the atmosphere, so if the flight computers fail or some unpredicted miscalculation occurs, the shuttle ends up in the ocean or dead sticking it out in some dry lake bed somewhere; the Russian's Buran shuttle had jet engines that extended its range by 1500 miles... not bad thinking or such a politically and socially backwards society. The list goes on and on, but I don't want to keep you from you Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton worship. Sorry to show intelligence and scientific understanding. You know in revolutions, that makes people like me the first targets... so I will just keep fade away... Lunar - I'm the hand that writes and quickly moves away... Luny, there is so much bullshit in that post, it's hard to know where to begin shoveling. So let's just toss it out in its entirety, because the corrections would take longer to list than the original. Among the worst - your description of orbital mechanics is hilariously incompetent, and the Soviet's Buran shuttle did NOT have jet engines to extend its range. > The list goes on and on, but I don't want to keep you from you > Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton worship. Sorry to show intelligence The list of your bullshit DOES go on and on... oh and sorry, but you haven't shown us any intelligence here at all. Go back to watching your fellow losers on Jerry Springer. > Luny, there is so much bullshit in that post, it's hard to know where > to begin shoveling. So let's just toss it out in its entirety, because [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Go back to watching your fellow losers on Jerry Springer. And this is why, I just don't respect you people ... The orbiter itself was an external copy of the American Shuttle but with a number of differences in design details. Although Soviet engineers considered a number of exotic and innovative lifting body configurations for the reusable spacecraft, none appeared to be superior to the shape chosen by the Americans for their orbiter. The Soviets did add a few changes of their own, however. Most notably, removing the propulsion system from the orbiter allowed the vehicle to carry a larger payload of 30 tons into orbit compared to the 25-ton maximum of the US Shuttle. The landing weight was similarly increased to 20 tons from the 15-ton limit for the American orbiter. The Soviets also made provisions to add a pair of jet engines to the aft end of their orbiter so that the final stage of landing could be performed under power. By contrast, the US orbiter is unpowered and must glide to its landing. The engines would have given the Buran an additional safety factor to overcome adverse winds or waveoff and make a new approach to the runway. However, the idea was never implemented on Buran since it was ultimately deemed unnecessarily complicated. from the site: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0153.shtml See I don't open my mouth unless I know what the f.ck I am talking about ... just another sheeple ... look, stop trying to think. Just goto work and get to paying those taxes like a good little sheeple ... Lunar My god, I am surrounded by fools ... Luny, why waste time backing up your bullshit claim with more weasel bullshit? THE BURAN DID NOT USE JET ENGINES TO EXTEND ITS RANGE!!! That was your claim, and it was bullshit. Trying to worm your way out of it by throwing out piles and piles of bullshit saying "they made provisions yada yada", doesn't matter. Cutting and pasting from other sources doesn't make you an authority, either. The ANALOG test vehicle that they used to develop their shuttle system had jet engines on it, that's all. You're still a clueless f.cking idiot. Just a VERBOSE, clueless f.cking idiot. For the record, your original statement: "the Russian's Buran shuttle had jet engines that extended its range by 1500 miles... " Bite it. >> Luny, there is so much bullshit in that post, it's hard to know where >> to begin shoveling. So let's just toss it out in its entirety, because [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > My god, I am surrounded by fools ... On Aug 13, 12:02 pm, "lunarlosREMOVE2EM...@juno.com" <lunar...@juno.com> wrote: > See I don't open my mouth unless I know what the f.ck I am talking > about ... I just post what the f.ck I don't know about on Usenet. <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*> crickets <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*> >On Aug 13, 12:02 pm, "lunarlosREMOVE2EM...@juno.com" ><lunar...@juno.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > crickets ><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*> Hey Bill We're having a meeting tonight. Come by if you can. There is a link on the web site for directions. Phil >Speaking of burning, the Shuttle Endeavor has a 3 inch gouge in its Endeavour. >The list goes on and on, but I don't want to keep you from you >Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton worship. Sorry to show intelligence Oh the irony.  SignatureDarren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/ NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk/ /UKRA #1094 /L2 /RSO http://www.ukra.org.uk/ > Oh the irony. Netkooks often suffer from delusions of grandeur, but this particular netkook wouldn't even merit delusions of adequacy. >>Speaking of burning, the Shuttle Endeavor has a 3 inch gouge in its > > Endeavour. It irks me that they seem to be willing to allow reentry without repairing the gash. (have they forgotten there are PEOPLE aboard??) IMO,they should take this as an opportunity to practice the repair;send a guy out to trowel some "NASA bondo" into the gash,and then paint that coating over it. IMO,it would reduce the chance of a burn-thru and even greater damage,if the shuttle survives at all(without repair). IMO,it's better than doing nothing. Then they can evaluate the repair effectiveness after the shuttle reenters and survives. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > It irks me that they seem to be willing to allow reentry without > repairing the gash. (have they forgotten there are PEOPLE aboard??) Please allow me to jump in here, I have extended experience in glass aerogel (although not as used on the shuttle). The tiles in question are glass aerogel overlaid with a thin layer of carbon fiber/epoxy. They have a very thin, but tough and somewhat brittle coating. Under this coating, they are very brittle and about as tough as styrofoam. You can easily crush aerogel, or put your finger through a block. This is the risk in doing the repair; you can damage the tile further or gouge other tiles. Without doing detailed simulations (either computer or blow-torch) the actual risk of re-entering without repair is not known. The aluminum skin might be just fine w/o repair. The aerodynamics might be such that the heat won't penetrate to the skin, or the skin might be able to dissapate any heat that gets down to it. I can understand that there is a great need to be seen to be "dooing something" to fix the problem, but the brave folks up there are in no immediate danger. I do not think the shuttle tiles are aerogel and I KNOW they are not coated with carbon fiber/epoxy. Why not look up facts first before posting them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle_thermal_protection_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle_thermal_protection_system#High-temper ature_reusable_surface_insulation_.28HRSI.29 Not used in shuttle TPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel#Uses Signature"""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply. http://www.sirius.com/ >> It irks me that they seem to be willing to allow reentry without >> repairing the gash. (have they forgotten there are PEOPLE aboard??) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to be seen to be "dooing something" to fix the problem, but the brave folks > up there are in no immediate danger. Risk of spacewalk under the shuttle causing more horrific damage. Risk of "patch" falling off and scraping a giant gash/damage path. Are you a TPS expert? Signature"""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply. http://www.sirius.com/ >>>Speaking of burning, the Shuttle Endeavor has a 3 inch gouge in its >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Then they can evaluate the repair effectiveness after the shuttle reenters > and survives. > Risk of spacewalk under the shuttle causing more horrific damage. > > Risk of "patch" falling off and scraping a giant gash/damage path. Risk of shuttle TPS burnthru and loss of shuttle and CREW. > Are you a TPS expert? Oh,does one now have to be a EXPERT to have an opinion? that would eliminate just about ALL of you. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Nobody's recommending CA or epoxy yet? What's happening to this newsgroup anyhow!? :-) > Nobody's recommending CA or epoxy yet? What's happening to this > newsgroup anyhow!? :-) from what I've read,the filler NASA has is epoxy-based. That's why I called it "NASA bondo". ;-) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Nobody's recommending CA or epoxy yet? What's happening to this newsgroup > anyhow!? :-) We haven't had a glue thread in quite a while. ; ) Paul Diming where are you??? Randy www.vernarockets.com > Nobody's recommending CA or epoxy yet? What's happening to this newsgroup anyhow!? :-) O.k. then, if you could glue Lunarlos' hands together, so that he was unable to abuse a keyboard anymore, which would you use? CA? Epoxy? Thin or thick, slow- or fast-setting? Or is someone going to jump in with a vote for plain, good old yellow wood glue? >> Nobody's recommending CA or epoxy yet? What's happening to this newsgroup anyhow!? :-) > > O.k. then, if you could glue Lunarlos' hands together, so that he was > unable to abuse a keyboard anymore, which would you use? CA? > Epoxy? Thin or thick, slow- or fast-setting? Or is someone going to > jump in with a vote for plain, good old yellow wood glue? Your assuming we would be able to put his hands together in the first place. Remember, he is one of those trolls that uses *one* hand to type on the keyboard. That being the case I recommends the quick-setting CA. A certain scene in American Pie 2 comes to mind :) Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 <snip> > Your assuming we would be able to put his hands together in the first > place. Remember, he is one of those trolls that uses *one* hand to type [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > TRA#5512 > IEAS#75 Ah, I can see it now: "CA in Space!" They could use my unofficial CA Emergency Field Repairs instruction sheet: Step 1. Open CA tube, accidentally gushing CA all over fingers. Step 2. Rage! Step 3. Ball hands into fists. Step 4. Rage! Hmm... no more steps :-) Dwayne Surdu-Miller >Nobody's recommending CA or epoxy yet? What's happening to this newsgroup >anyhow!? :-) Everyone knows this is a job for white glue -right Bob> 8-) |
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
|
©2012 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.