Foam RTLS question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nacnud

Guest
If the sensors on the leading edge of the Orbiters Wing detected a foam strike would they trigger a return to launch site abort?
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
My understanding is that the data has to be transferred to a laptop by the crew after MECO and downlinked to (MSFC? JSC?) for analysis. So no, nothing would be detected in time for RTLS. Besides, isn't RTLS actually harder on the TPS than a nominal reentry? (not sure about that one)
 
N

nacnud

Guest
I don't know but I though RTLS happend at relatively low speeds only just after SRB seperation. TAL and AOA might produce higher thermal loads though.
 
V

vogon13

Guest
I was aware the TAL option really heats up the thermal system, I did not know the RTLS (assuming it initiated at SRB jettison) heated the vehicle much. The SRB's have no RCC or silica tiles.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
IIRC, the SRB APU's, rather delicate beasties, are at the aft end and aren't really protected either, also the fustrums with the parachutes inside are aluminum. The range safety package on the side of the SRB casing might be rather susceptible to heat, also.<br /><br />And even if it isn't, I would treat it as though it was. Considering.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
Okay, I expect you guys are right about the thermal loads during RTLS. I must have confused it with TAL.<br />I'm pretty confident that data from the leading edge sensors can't trigger an RTLS though.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I was under the impression that RTLS is extremely risky anyway, even with a perfectly healthy vehicle, which obviously one doesn't have if one is attempting RTLS. I'm not sure I'd feel very safe ordering an RTLS on the basis of unquantified RCC damage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>I was under the impression that RTLS is extremely risky anyway, even with a perfectly healthy vehicle...</i><p>Three-engine RTLS isn't <i>that</i> risky - in the grand scheme of things - it's the engine-out variety that gets really scary. Two engine-out is almost inevitably fatal. Shuttle_guy had said that the program had actually considered making STS-1 a RTLS test, but the idea was quickly scuppered, not least because the RTLS "test" launch would have exposed the crew to just as much danger as an orbital launch, would have cost pretty much the same amount and would have required the first landing at KSC.</p>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Ah, because of having to cancel out the enormous downrange velocity on only two engines or less, right? That makes sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts