Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: capitan_refugio
"you jettison and leave the Space lab in orbit."

About 10%, it's the one thing that probably would have really helped.

The reentry path is already minimum heating one.

Thanks, John
238 posted on 02/04/2003 9:12:55 AM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]


To: John Jamieson
Thanks for the reply. Oberg had an interesting quote in the papers Monday.

"Still, as James Oberg, a former shuttle flight controller and author who has been bombarded by Armageddon-type resuce ideas via e-mail, said Sunday, 'They may be implausible, but not by much.' He added: 'There's always to question of miracles.'" I very much enjoyed his Soviet disasters book from the early/mid-80's.

In the same article, the author concluded with:

"In theory, NASA could have had the shuttle descend through the atmosphere at a much shallower angle of entry in hopes of relieving the heat on the ship. But that could have had life-threatening dangers too. That kind of flight profile almost certainly would have had the shuttle coming in too fast to make a safe landing."

Since you are very much an expert in this field, what is the maximum landing speed of the shuttle? I saw it come in to Edwards a couple or times. That final flare seemed to burn off some speed. Could a shuttle hold that flare from a higher altitude if it was coming in "hot"? Was it ever contemplated what would happen if the gears could not be lowered and the shuttle pancaked in on a dry lake?

254 posted on 02/04/2003 10:47:11 AM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson