Using wings => Shuttle

[jschaef5]

How did the idea come to put wings on the space shuttle? I know they wanted to make it reusable and such but seriously, if you are going to launch into space with a rocket why do you want wings. For liftoff its just dead weight. And what aid does it do for landing compared to using parachutes/heat shielding. I could see the need for wings if the shuttle flew up to high altitude and then used its rockets to boost it into space, but when analyizing the components to a shuttle to a 'pod' it seems like a pod would be a much better design. The reason this qusetion comes to me is that the Russians seem to have a very good working rocket to get humans to space.. the Soyez and they are switching to a shuttle type design. And we have a shuttle and are switching to a reusuable pod. It seems like we are going in the right direction. I just don't understand why we would want wings when there are other ways that seem lighter and get the job done just as well. The shuttle design has worked almost flawless to date except for minor ET details but would it not have been cheaper if we had gone with an idea like the CEV a long time ago? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

You need wings for cross range. The shuttle was supposed to be able to do a single polar orbit and then land back where it started from, this was an airforce requirement. However if you try that you find that your landing site is 1000 miles east because the earth has rotated while you were in orbit.<br /><br />You need the wings to fly these 1000 miles back to your starting point. <br /><br />I'm still working out why the Klipper has wings, currently it is planed for that craft to have wings, parachutes and land on a runway. That confuses me.

 

[drwayne]

There have been a number of discussions of the history of shuttle wings (versus a more lifting body design) here in the past. I encourage you to rummage about.<br /><br />Short version - the wings are there to give the shuttle more cross range capability - a requirement from the early days of the design when the military was reluctantly on board with the process.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nolirogari]

I think the best answer to this thread is to go out and buy a copy of "Space Shuttle" by Jenkins. It details all.

 

[jschaef5]

the cross range capability requirement seems like quite an expensive one that doesn't seem needed.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Yep.

 

[jschaef5]

I don't ever remember seeing these numbers or if they even exist, but what would be a good guess at the operating cost of the CEV versus the shuttle on a mission that would do relatively the same thing. Just a guess or estimate... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

remember the Space Shuttle was a product of the cold war. It had the polar orbit requirement for this reason. It is hard for us younger ones to think with the mentality of delivering nuclear weapons or spy satelites over Russia The space shuttle therefore got the capabilities that the military wanted, or else there probably wouldn't have been a shuttle or manned space program in the first place. even a terrible shuttle is better than no shuttle

 

[vt_hokie]

I don't quite understand why Kliper would have both wings and a parachute, and I wonder if someone was perhaps misquoted in the recent article that stated such. The only way that makes sense to me is if they're looking at an X-38/CRV type of parafoil design.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">The only way that makes sense to me is if they're looking at an X-38/CRV type of parafoil design.<br /><br /><font color="white">I think that might be the case, but I have no hard information on that.</font></font>

 

[mlorrey]

Any lifting body of any sort is going to need fins of some sort for stability, unless it is along the lines of a nuke IRV: a thin cone or some derivation thereof, which would be made of exotic material and not be runway landable. Fins make a lifting body runway landable and allow, as previously stated, cross range. Cross range is for more than just what was described: it allows a reentering vehicle a choice of landing sites, which is essential for vehicle reliability and survivability. If one landing site is unavailable, one needs to be able to find someplace else to land.

 

[jschaef5]

You can bring a pod down almost anywhere. I'm not sure on how much work would be needed to make it float in water but most continents have large flat areas that would be very easy to parachute a pod down onto. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">How did the idea come to put wings on the space shuttle? ... when analyizing the components to a shuttle to a 'pod' it seems like a pod would be a much better design.</font>/i><br /><br />There were many reasons (especially at the time):<br /><ul><br /><li>Reusability. One of the primary criticisms of the Apollo-era manned rockets is that everything was thrown away each time, thus making each launch very expensive. The shuttle design allowed them to bring the rockets back with them. Unfortunately, the refurbishment costs were a lot higher and the launch rates a lot lower than anticipated, so the costs-per-launch ended up much higher than expected.<br /><br /><li>Down cargo capability. As far as I know, nothing even remotely planned has the down cargo capability of the shuttle, and that was an important selling point for getting the shuttle funded. Commercial satellites could be retrieved, repaired on Earth, and returned. Soviet satellites could be snatched and brought home. Large experiments could be launched and returned. Results from space manufacturing facilities could be returned. Unfortunately, the down cargo capability was not used as much as expected.<br /><br /><li>Cross-range capability. This resulted in larger wings. When NASA was trying to get the Shuttle funded, it felt it needed the Military's support. The military thought about doing a once-around polar launch to snatch a soviet satellite and bring it back to the launch site (Vandenberg AFB, CA). Because the Earth rotates while the shuttle is doing this snatch and grab, Vandenberg would be much further East upon return, so the shuttle needed the extra wings to give it cross range capabililty to return to Vandenberg. Unfortunately, the shuttle never did polar orbits, launched from Vandenberg, or did any snatch and grab (that we know of <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />).<br /><br /></li></li></li></ul><br /><br />What we forget today is the pressure NASA was under during th</i>

 

[mlorrey]

NASA had trouble funding because it had been so predatory toward competetive projects: it was NASA's influence that resulted in cancelling Dyna-Soar, MOL, Blue Gemini, and a host of military space and hypersonics projects that offered alternative roads to space infrastructure: XB-70, X-24C, among a slew of others that were either cancelled outright, or driven into black programs to be completed. NASA made a lot of enemies in military space units, and it is commonly believed the USAF refused to sign off on shuttle unless it met their requirements, many of which were required if only to make NASA program impossible to meet or allow the military its own program.<br /><br />Between Macnamara, Mondale, Carter, among others, our early chances were all stillborn or mutations destined to be failures.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA had trouble funding because it had been so predatory toward competetive projects</font>/i><br /><br />Some random thoughts, and I reserve the right to withdraw them at a later point...<br /><br />Apollo was an anomaly driven by the cold war. The mission wasn't putting a man on the moon but showing to the rest of the world the superiority of the West over the Godless Communists.<br /><br />The problem for NASA, especially the manned space program, is that they didn't realize they were only a tool in the Cold War and that once they accomplished the mission they were no longer really needed. Had NASA realized Apollo was an anomaly, they might have readjusted their sights to more basic technology, but instead they tried to hold the post-Apollo vision (von Braun's dreams) together as best as they could -- shuttle, eventual space station, and on to Mars.<br /><br />Ultimately NASA was forced to fall back on the minimal part of the vision -- the shuttle. And because of its high costs, it pretty much consumed all the money grounding so many other efforts over the years. Had NASA abandon the von Braun vision, at least in the near term (e.g., 10+ years) and returned to developing basic technology, we might be at a better place now.<br /><br />However, NASA is run by humans. Can you imagine all the managers, contractors, employees, etc. admitting "mission accomplished", now lets give up our grand dreams for years, disband, and find new jobs. I don't think so.</i>