Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!iconsys!mcd From: mcd@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Dakins) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Shuttle Rolling and Throttle Back Message-ID: <270@iconsys.UUCP> Date: 24 Sep 88 00:55:46 GMT References: <118@avatar.UUCP> <6400003@cpe> Reply-To: mcd@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Dakins) Organization: Icon Systems and Software Inc., Orem, Utah Lines: 29 In article <6400003@cpe> tif@cpe.UUCP writes: | |Written 1:30 am Sep 16, 1988 by viper.UUCP!dave in cpe:sci.space.shuttle ||In article <118@avatar.UUCP> kory@avatar.UUCP (Kory Hamzeh) writes: || |Two questions about the space shuttle: || | || | 1. What is the purpose of the roll maneuver at 7 sec after || | lift off? | |Is there some obvious-to-everyone-but-me reason that the whole launch |pad couldn't be oriented 90 (or whatever) degrees differently so that |the shuttle could be in the same flight position without the roll? | | Paul Chamberlain | Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. | {convex,killer}!ninja!cpe!tif Well, I don't know if it is obvious to everyone but you or not (that is why I am posting rather than mailing). The reason is that the shuttle launch pads are reincarnated Saturn V launch pads. The gantries, rails, vehicle transporters, etc already existed. It was decided to launch in the "wrong" attitude and perform the roll. The alternative would have been to build new launch pads from the ground up and this would have been expensive and time consuming for not much return. -- Mark Dakins, Icon International uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mcd@utah.cs.edu 774 South 400 East, Orem, UT.