Shuttle crashs

I wasn't commenting on you either. I agree that conditions are not always optimal, but the fact that the rollouts are most often short of 10000' is an indication that even sub-optimal conditions would allow operation from a field of that length.
I was talking more about fact manufacturing like the following:

Quote from: messierhunter on June 15, 2008, 03:38:18 PM

  10,000ft is the bare minimum requirement for a survivable landing. The orbiter would melt its wheel brakes and/or run off the end of it and be heavily damaged. 

It seems to be the RE motto that if you can't support an argument invent something and claim it is common knowledge or has authority. Then cross your fingers and hope no one can call your bluff.

I was going on the conditions NASA accepts for using a runway in an emergency.  Protocol is to not use anything less than 10,000ft.  I would think that the high number of landings that required much more than 10,000' would cause you to see why, but apparently you lack any intellectual honesty whatsoever.  Upon looking into the shuttle's rollout+touchdown miss length I find good reason to believe that there's a better chance than not that any landing occuring on a runway of even less length is probably not going to be survivable.  It might be, but I wouldn't expect it, especially during a late TAL situation where the shuttle has less time than usual to bleed off speed.

Listen, if I was flying deadstick on to a huge lakebed or an field of sufficient length, I would use the extra space given to me. I'd look at the Vsro add abit to get Va (around 150kn) for lateral control and another 30 or 40 for the wife and kids. That doesn't mean I couldn't land at Va if the conditions demanded it necessary. Also the fact that a completely automated landing system exists and is not used leads me to believe the margin of error could be even smaller in the pinch.

As someone who has flown a small bit myself, I would agree with Ski here, despite my own opinions regarding RE/FE. I most definitely would use all the space given to me in an airstrip, so merely saying that some shuttle landings have taken over 10,000 means little. However, finding a case where in an emergency, where they opened all stops, and went over 10,000 would mean a good deal.

And the fact that a rollout of 6000' has been observed without the use of a chute, I find it hard to believe that an emergency stop would take 10000'.

Listen, if I was flying deadstick on to a huge lakebed or an field of sufficient length, I would use the extra space given to me. I'd look at the Vsro add abit to get Va (around 150kn) for lateral control and another 30 or 40 for the wife and kids. That doesn't mean I couldn't land at Va if the conditions demanded it necessary.

Nice analogy, but the shuttle's usual touchdown miss distance isn't that great compared to their rollout distance.  It is, however, a factor you consistently fail to account for.  You don't even mention the dirty word when claiming victory, but if it's no big deal, why didn't you account for it from the start?  You ignore the fact that some missions, the rollout length alone was enough to have killed them at wideawake.  You also continue to ignore the fact that their current launch azimuth does not permit a landing at wideawake.  The question is not whether it's theoretically possible to pull off, the question is whether it's possible to pull it off every single time.

Also the fact that a completely automated landing system exists and is not used leads me to believe the margin of error could be even smaller in the pinch.

Like they'd use an automated system in an emergency landing situation where there's no margin for error... yeah right.

And the fact that a rollout of 6000' has been observed without the use of a chute, I find it hard to believe that an emergency stop would take 10000'.

6000' is far from the norm, they came in with much less energy on that landing than they usually do.  Not to mention, a TAL-style abort leaves them with more energy than a typical reentry.

You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others; I'm not sure which to believe.

You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others; I'm not sure which to believe.

O.K., coming from a FEr, thats is PRICELESS.

You either completely misunderstand the relevant points...

I agree with wordsmith.  Considering how you've consistently and completely ignored the two most relevant points to this debate, namely launch azimuth and increased energy during a tal landing.  By the way, even longer rollouts have sometimes resulted in brake damage, such as the STS-3 landing at white sands which had a 13,000ft rollout.  The KSC runway was built with special grooves designed to increase friction and slow the orbiter down as well as act as drainage for rainwater, though these were more recently ground out to a lower depth in order to prevent there being too much friction - tire failures tended to occur with the original design.  Other normal runways do not have these grooves, however.

And the fact that a rollout of 6000' has been observed without the use of a chute, I find it hard to believe that an emergency stop would take 10000'.

Is there any chance that you will ever let us know what the conditions of that 6000' rollout were?  Or even on which mission it occurred?

Is there any chance that you will ever let us know what the conditions of that 6000' rollout were?  Or even on which mission it occurred?

It was a DoD mission. STS-28.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-28/mission-sts-28.html

At Edwards where there was plenty of room, so we can't say there was an emergency reason for slowing down.
There may have been shorter ones, I've been too lazy to look them all up. I just happen to already know about STS-28. There are several that have been under 8000' as well.

At Edwards where there was plenty of room, so we can't say there was an emergency reason for slowing down.

They didn't do anything to "slow down" faster than normal, they slowed down with their normal deceleration.  They touched down with an initial speed about 40 knots slower than nominal.  They had a landing speed of 156 knots.  The minimum manuever speed for the orbiter is between 150-250 knots depending on payload mass.  In other words, we can't say that their rollout distance reflected the amazing braking capabilities of the orbiter.  What we can say, however, is that had they been coming in any slower they would have exceeded the maximum angle of attack for touchdown and probably crashed.

I'm not sure what the wing loading was, so I cannot do the math, but 150kn seems about right for Va. You could in theory lower your touchdown speed beyond Va with a flare above the threshold and still safely land.

I agree we cannot/should not attribute it to the braking system of STS-28. We should attribute it to the basic aerodynamic properties of the orbiter.

But I appreciate your final admission that a short landing was safely demonstrated without severe breaking or a drag chute.

A little research showed me that STS-41C had a touchdown speed of 220kn (rather high by shuttle landings- it may be the highest I've heard of, actually) and a rollout of 8700'.

STS-28 and STS-37 both put down at Edwards where there is plenty of room and no need for hard breaking and still managed to have rollouts less than 7000'.

But I appreciate your final admission that a short landing was safely demonstrated without severe breaking or a drag chute.

Final admission?  I've already mentioned in previous posts that it's possible to pull it off in theory, but in practice it rarely happens that way, even with a high friction runway unlike what you'd find at wideawake.  Even with 15,000' available there has been a mission where brake damage occured because they came in too fast.

A little research showed me that STS-41C had a touchdown speed of 220kn (rather high by shuttle landings- it may be the highest I've heard of, actually) and a rollout of 8700'.

220 knots is not the highest touchdown velocity.  The very next mission had a touchdown velocity of 216 knots and a rollout of 10,275 feet.  STS-3 had a touchdown velocity of 233 knots, rollout of 13,737 WITH brake damage.  The key there is that they landed at white sands, which did not have a grooved runway like what the orbiter normally uses at edwards and kennedy so it's a much better example of what you can expect to see happen at a runway not built to handle the orbiter when the orbiter is coming in faster than normal, as would be expected of a late TAL-style abort landing.

STS-28 and STS-37 both put down at Edwards where there is plenty of room and no need for hard breaking and still managed to have rollouts less than 7000'.

Stop taking this on a case by case basis looking for ANY example of a short rollout and just admit that the orbiter does not normally stop that short for a nominal touchdown speed.  Like 28, STS-37's touchdown speed was also abnormally low at 157 knots, so it proves nothing.  In fact, STS-37 touched down short of the runway because of an incorrect call on the winds aloft, resulting in an approach with too little energy to reach the runway.

220 knots is not the highest touchdown velocity.  The very next mission had a touchdown velocity of 216 knots and a rollout of 10,275 feet.

So we can conclude that long distance rollouts are a choice, rather than a necessity borne by a higher landing speed.

STS-3 had a touchdown velocity of 233 knots, rollout of 13,737 WITH brake damage.

Source please? I show a touchdown velocity of just under 220 kn. The same touchdown speed as STS-41C whose rollout was 8700'. So wouldn't it be more likely to conclude the brake damage was the cause of the longer rollout, not the the other way around? Both before drag chutes, as well.

...when the orbiter is coming in faster than normal, as would be expected of a late TAL-style abort landing.

I see no reason that a "TAL-style abort landing" would lead to a higher Va, unless you are saying that some how the orbiter's aerodynamic qualities are somehow modified?

Like 28, STS-37's touchdown speed was also abnormally low at 157 knots, so it proves nothing. 

It proves that the orbiter is capable of safely flying at "abnormal" speeds, and that "abnormal" speeds may be "normal" depending on requirements, doesn't it? That would suggest that "abnormally" short landing distances are possible, even likely, if one's energy state is properly managed.

Quote

STS-3 had a touchdown velocity of 233 knots, rollout of 13,737 WITH brake damage.

Source please? I show a touchdown velocity of just under 220 kn.

Oh great, now we get into a pissing matching with our sources.  Fun shit I tell ya.  You keep derailing this damn discussion from anything of substance because you know it proves you wrong; you're still ignoring my point about launch azimuth.  Ascencion Island is not a viable TAL landing site for any mission with a northeast launch heading.  Anyway, here to piss on your number is my source:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/fdf/pdfs/history.pdf
233 knots bitch.

The same touchdown speed as STS-41C whose rollout was 8700'. So wouldn't it be more likely to conclude the brake damage was the cause of the longer rollout, not the the other way around? Both before drag chutes, as well.

41C's touchdown speed was lower, I conclude that the increased touchdown speed led to brake damage as they had more energy to bleed off than 41C.

I see no reason that a "TAL-style abort landing" would lead to a higher Va, unless you are saying that some how the orbiter's aerodynamic qualities are somehow modified?

A late tal abort results in the orbiter having more energy to bleed off in less distance than a normal reentry, so their velocity is greater at all parts of the approach.  Slightly off-topic, the aerodynamic heating is likewise worse for TAL than a nominal reentry, so it has lead to fears of what should happen should a TAL abort be needed after an unrelated severe foam strike on ascent.

Quote

Like 28, STS-37's touchdown speed was also abnormally low at 157 knots, so it proves nothing. 

It proves that the orbiter is capable of safely flying at "abnormal" speeds,

What part of "came up short of the damn runway" is safe?  Lucky in that case, but certainly not safe.

Oh great, now we get into a pissing matching with our sources.  Fun shit I tell ya.  You keep derailing this damn discussion from anything of substance because you know it proves you wrong; you're still ignoring my point about launch azimuth.  Ascencion Island is not a viable TAL landing site for any mission with a northeast launch heading.  Anyway, here to piss on your number is my source:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/fdf/pdfs/history.pdf
233 knots bitch.

Name calling only shows the weakness of your argument.
I show 220kn: http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts3.htm
I'd be interested to see a third source to confirm which is correct. Perhaps one from NASA is available.

A late tal abort results in the orbiter having more energy to bleed off in less distance than a normal reentry, so their velocity is greater at all parts of the approach.  Slightly off-topic, the aerodynamic heating is likewise worse for TAL than a nominal reentry, so it has lead to fears of what should happen should a TAL abort be needed after an unrelated severe foam strike on ascent.

Quote

There are several ways to bleed off energy. I'm not sure you understand the dynamics involved. Losing energy is fairly easy in flight.

I just read another source that said the reason for the higher than normal landing speed was the altitude density at White Sands and that the landing was short because of PIO; everything prior to the PIO was according to plan. If the flight had been left in the "hands" of the automated system things would have been nominal.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 20, 2008, 12:33:32 PM

Oh great, now we get into a pissing matching with our sources.  Fun shit I tell ya.  You keep derailing this damn discussion from anything of substance because you know it proves you wrong; you're still ignoring my point about launch azimuth.  Ascencion Island is not a viable TAL landing site for any mission with a northeast launch heading.  Anyway, here to piss on your number is my source:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/fdf/pdfs/history.pdf
233 knots bitch.

Source pissing only shows the weakness of my argument.
I show 233kn: http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts114/fdf/pdfs/history.pdf
I'd be interested to see why I'm still arguing this.

Fixed.
"The effects of environmental parameters on Shuttle orbiter landing dynamic loads" by R.E. Gatto (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1983) also shows a landing speed of 233 knots.  Academic paper FTW!

Quote

A late tal abort results in the orbiter having more energy to bleed off in less distance than a normal reentry, so their velocity is greater at all parts of the approach.  Slightly off-topic, the aerodynamic heating is likewise worse for TAL than a nominal reentry, so it has lead to fears of what should happen should a TAL abort be needed after an unrelated severe foam strike on ascent.

There are several ways to bleed off energy. I'm not sure you understand the dynamics involved. Losing energy is fairly easy in flight.

Losing energy in a short period of time where you must land at a specific airfield in a shorter-than-desired distance is not necessarily easy, especially when you have a cargobay full of crap.  Even should you succeed, your rollout WILL be longer due to whatever is in the payload bay at the time, which is usually partly or completely expelled or delivered during the course of the mission.  Also, the RCS will still have more fuel than at the end of a mission, even after the abort's propellant dump which removes all but about a third of the fuel.  A mission though will sometimes exhaust as much as 50% just to reach the initial target or orbit, and have much less than a third left after the week or two on orbit and deorbit burn are completed.  Quite simply, an aborted shuttle's inertia will be greater for any given touchdown velocity than a shuttle that's reached the end of its mission.

So we don't know which data is correct. I suggest contacting NASA as my source claims it took the numbers from the NASA mission summary. I'm curious which one is correct (I'm not claiming only my source can be).

It really doesn't matter, as we've seen the short landing runs at lower speeds proving your "impossible" is indeed possible.

So we don't know which data is correct. I suggest contacting NASA as my source claims it took the numbers from the NASA mission summary. I'm curious which one is correct (I'm not claiming only my source can be).

I gave you two sources, one was an academic source, and you still want to play the source pissing game?  Damn, you're just full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and no I really don't care if you whine about namecalling because frankly, it's the truth! 

It really doesn't matter, as we've seen the short landing runs at lower speeds proving your "impossible" is indeed possible.

Good job ignoring nearly my entire post.  Seeing as how nearly every shuttle mission comes back with less mass in the payload bay than it left with, a TAL landing would have more inertia and have a longer rollout than at the end of any given "ordinary mission" for any given landing speed.  And seeing as how a late TAL approach has more energy to dissipate in less time, a slower-than-normal touchdown speed is not a fair assumption.  The question, for the last time, is not just whether it's possible to pull it off once or even on a minority of tries, but whether it's safely doable 100 times without fail.

Quote

It really doesn't matter, as we've seen the short landing runs at lower speeds proving your "impossible" is indeed possible.

Good job ignoring nearly my entire post.  Seeing as how nearly every shuttle mission comes back with less mass in the payload bay than it left with, a TAL landing would have more inertia and have a longer rollout than at the end of any given "ordinary mission" for any given landing speed.  And seeing as how a late TAL approach has more energy to dissipate in less time, a slower-than-normal touchdown speed is not a fair assumption.  The question, for the last time, is not just whether it's possible to pull it off once or even on a minority of tries, but whether it's safely doable 100 times without fail.

To be fair to the conspiracy, if the shuttle isn't going to orbit anyway, why bother loading the payload in the first place?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 23, 2008, 01:06:39 PM

Quote

It really doesn't matter, as we've seen the short landing runs at lower speeds proving your "impossible" is indeed possible.

Good job ignoring nearly my entire post.  Seeing as how nearly every shuttle mission comes back with less mass in the payload bay than it left with, a TAL landing would have more inertia and have a longer rollout than at the end of any given "ordinary mission" for any given landing speed.  And seeing as how a late TAL approach has more energy to dissipate in less time, a slower-than-normal touchdown speed is not a fair assumption.  The question, for the last time, is not just whether it's possible to pull it off once or even on a minority of tries, but whether it's safely doable 100 times without fail.

To be fair to the conspiracy, if the shuttle isn't going to orbit anyway, why bother loading the payload in the first place?

If there's no cargo on board then it greatly expands the list of people who must be in on it to include pad workers and other personnel who could otherwise think they really were preparing and loading cargo to fly to orbit.  Ordinarily those contractors and employees need not be on the "conspiracy list."  I myself have seen various payloads being prepared for flight in person, though I have yet to see it at the moment it is loaded into the payload bay.

If this image is faked and the payload preparation personnel are really just actors with fake props that are never actually loaded on-board, then the conspiracy must expand to include the thousands of contractors and civil servants who work on the shuttle at kennedy just prior to launch.

Quote from: Ski on June 23, 2008, 12:33:41 PM

So we don't know which data is correct. I suggest contacting NASA as my source claims it took the numbers from the NASA mission summary. I'm curious which one is correct (I'm not claiming only my source can be).

I gave you two sources, one was an academic source, and you still want to play the source pissing game?  Damn, you're just full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and no I really don't care if you whine about namecalling because frankly, it's the truth! 

I said that there seems to be a conflict in the listed sources and that we should find out which one was correct from NASA. I even went so far as to say yours might be the correct number just so you wouldn't have to imply it from the text and there would be no question of my intent. How is that intellectually dishonest? You're claiming that only your source could be correct and that mine must be incorrect. Isn't that the more intellectually dishonest?

I'm sure the payload is offloaded at the interim site. Just as I'm sure that site has an adequate landing facility. Is your claim now that NASA is collectively incompetent?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 23, 2008, 01:06:39 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 23, 2008, 12:33:41 PM

So we don't know which data is correct. I suggest contacting NASA as my source claims it took the numbers from the NASA mission summary. I'm curious which one is correct (I'm not claiming only my source can be).

I gave you two sources, one was an academic source, and you still want to play the source pissing game?  Damn, you're just full of it, no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and no I really don't care if you whine about namecalling because frankly, it's the truth! 

I said that there seems to be a conflict in the listed sources and that we should find out which one was correct from NASA. I even went so far as to say yours might be the correct number just so you wouldn't have to imply it from the text and there would be no question of my intent. How is that intellectually dishonest? You're claiming that only your source could be correct and that mine must be incorrect. Isn't that the more intellectually dishonest?

Considering one of mine comes from an academic source, a much higher standard than yours, no, it's not. You should have dropped it back then, yet you persist.  FE theory seems to thrive on distractions and stupid shit like this.  Here's a PDF directly from the NASA technical reports site.  Page 14 of the pdf (A-26 of the document) confirms a horizontal landing velocity of 233 knots.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830014024_1983014024.pdf
Your source is full of failure, you should have dropped it a long time ago.

I'm sure the payload is offloaded at the interim site. Just as I'm sure that site has an adequate landing facility. Is your claim now that NASA is collectively incompetent?

No, my claim is that NASA couldn't use wideawake as a regular "interim" site because the shuttle launches in the wrong direction for nearly all current flights (HST repair might be the last exception, not sure what heading they need for that), and with a heavy payload on-board and fast TAL approach it would most likely not be able to stop in time without incurring some kind of damage, possibly heavy damage.

Of course, if there is no payload, or more probably if the payload is not as it appears to be...

Of course, if there is no payload, or more probably if the payload is not as it appears to be...

Then thousands of Kennedy contractors and employees need to be in on "the hoax."  Perhaps FE'ers don't mind this massive requirement though. It seems that typically, non-FE apollo hoax believers (similar to shuttle hoax believers, but slightly less crazy) get in a huff anytime someone claims that their hoax requires a large number of people to be in on it.  FE'ers, on the other hand, don't seem to care about how many people it would take to pull off, and have no trouble dismissing how unlikely it is that such a secret could be kept till death by so many thousands of people without a peep from a single one of them.  Interestingly though, if one claims this is the case, then one does not need to claim that the shuttle can land at its hidden wideawake airfield everytime without damage; even if it's damaged, conspirators are the only ones who handle and service the shuttle, so they could be repairing it in secret without anyone's knowledge.

But does any single employee or contracter have access to all the information and procedures? In all likelyhood, they all do their specific job largley ignorant of everything else. The scope for fooling people in a project that big is immense; the more people involved, or the mor convoluted the process, and hence the easier it is to tie people in knots.

But does any single employee or contracter have access to all the information and procedures? In all likelyhood, they all do their specific job largley ignorant of everything else. The scope for fooling people in a project that big is immense; the more people involved, or the mor convoluted the process, and hence the easier it is to tie people in knots.

All they need to have access to is the payload.  Either the payload is loaded on board or it isn't.  There are thousands of employees and contractors at NASA who can observe the payload being readied for launch.  Either they're in on it and the payload is never actually loaded or they're not and the payload really is on board.  You like to speak in broad over-generalizing terms, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, it's not so simple.  It's not like there's just one or two guys with pad and payload access.  Even Ski is not in agreement with you on this matter.

All of whom weigh the 'satellite' they know nothing about before loading it. Think about it: how easy would it be to have a payload loaded that is not what it appears to be?