Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!bigtex!james From: james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Orbiter/SRB separation Message-ID: <1869@bigtex.uucp> Date: 10 May 88 01:19:20 GMT References: <48048@ti-csl.CSNET> Reply-To: james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) Organization: F.B.N. Software, Austin TX Lines: 28 IN article <48048@ti-csl.CSNET>, kas@hp-pcd.hp.com (Ken Scofield) wrote: > Why > not just jettison the entire shuttle craft from the tank/booster assembly? > [...] Two arguments I've heard against > this are: The shuttle would break up due to aerodynamic forces, and/or it > would be burned up in the departing booster's firetail. Neither of these set > well with me, because (a) the shuttle is designed to re-enter the atmosphere > in excess of Mach 25, and (b) do so with skin temperatures of several thousand > degrees. So, what's the big problem? You may post this one, too, if desired. Shuttle is designed to re-enter at certain angles, with stress & temperature in certain places. Will not take large aerodynamic forces in wrong places, and will NOT take heat in wrong places. Heat shielding is by no means uniform even along the front/bottom of orbiter. Seems unlikely that (1) "aerodynamic" pressure within SRB exhaust is same as re-entry aerodynamic pressure (momentum of SRB is likely much greater than that of gases striking orbiter on re-entry) and (2) that shuttle could safely maintain exact attitude in that exhaust. If orbiter rotated or translated just a little bit, surfaces exposed to exhaust would change. Lastly, I'm not sure what if any provisions exist for steering SRB and external tank away from orbiter after separation. Center of mass moves significantly, so SRB/tank may want to change course. I don't believe SRB nozzles can be gimbled. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746