|
Posted by Brian Gaff on April 10, 2006, 6:09 am
Please log in for more thread options
I noted with interest that the returning crew when seen on the video
footage were heard to remark that re entry, though 'nominal' was very bumpy
and that they had, as you know who said, one heck of a ride and some
comments about Disneyland as I recall... working from memory.
Does this happen, ie, are some re-entries in capsules just more violent than
others, or is this just inherent in the uncontrollability and chute systems
etc?
I ask as most Shuttle entries seem pretty smooth, if the comments are
anything to go by. Of course, I realise that there is somewhat of a
different scale here, and so I guess you should expect it to be bumpier in a
capsule.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
Posted by Jim Oberg on April 10, 2006, 2:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Bumpy, and higher G's than expected -- why?
Russian TV "Vesti" news on April 9:
[Presenter] The 12th Expedition to the ISS has landed. Olga Pastukhova
show/hide quoted text
reports from Mission Control Centre <snip>
The report further quoted Tokarev as saying that during re-entry, the
g-forces had exceeded those that had been expected but everything had passed
off OK.
|
|
Posted by Brian Gaff on April 11, 2006, 4:35 am
Please log in for more thread options than expected -- why?
show/hide quoted text
> Russian TV "Vesti" news on April 9:
> [Presenter] The 12th Expedition to the ISS has landed. Olga Pastukhova
> The report further quoted Tokarev as saying that during re-entry, the
> g-forces had exceeded those that had been expected but everything had
> passed off OK.
Hmm, there was some talk of the chutes being deployed making the capsule
hang off centre for a while. It worries me a little that now the US is
returning to capsules, that we apparently know so little about what affects
the smoothness of the re-entry. Or what can be done to make it less of a
bumpy ride.
I'm sure the Soyuz is over engineered deliberately as its an evolved design,
but the CEV is going to be a new design.
Brian
--
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
From my IMAP account
Brian Gaff
"J
|
|
Posted by John Doe on April 11, 2006, 3:10 pm
Please log in for more thread options Brian Gaff wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> hang off centre for a while. It worries me a little that now the US is
> returning to capsules, that we apparently know so little about what affects
> the smoothness of the re-entry. Or what can be done to make it less of a
> bumpy ride.
You need to take media reports with a grain of salt since they tend to
put things out of context if it makes their report look more sensationalistic.
It is a given that the capsules will not give the "cadillac" comforts
that the shuttle provides, and that the landings will not be smooth and
that they may experience higher Gs during re-entry. It's just a
capsule. But it seems that uit will be pretty easy to ensure that the
capsule will provide a survivable G force environment no matter what
mistakes are made. Even the Soyuz provides survivable G forces even when
its primary computer fails and it reverts to a simpler ballistic
re-entry.
Capsules are not designed for comfort. They are a very primitive device
for transport. They work and they are cheap. So if you're willing to
forgo the luxuries of the shuttle, they make for a decent taxi ride
between the ground and LEO.
"Rougher than expected" could simply be the equivalent of a person's
first ride in a car over an unpaved road. It doesn't mean that it is
anywhere near dangerous, just that the person had expected it to be smoother.
And while the shuttle gives "cadillac" landings, the shuttle is actually
rougher on occupants during lift-off due to the noise/vibration from the
SRBs, while the more primitive Soyuz gives a quieter environment.
Of course, the "CEV" will be the worse of both worlds: SRBs for liftoff
giving lots of vibration/noise, with capsule for re-entry. Hopefully by
being on top of the stack, the CEV will have less noise/vivration
resonate to the capsule.
|
|
Posted by John on April 11, 2006, 5:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options Interesting. Does anyone know if the rough ride is a function of the
solids themselves or perhaps rather another factor such as the more
complex aerodynamics of the stack, especially at lower altitudes?
Do other solid fueled vehicles such Ariane 5 (a liquid-solid hybrid),
or Minuteman or Trident, or Titan III (which lifted off on solids only)
also provide a relatively rough ride?
John
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Sally Ride, why? | August 27, 2009, 6:05 am |
| NASA Working On $500 Million Dollar ISS Ride! | August 8, 2008, 1:12 pm |
| Microscopic Passengers to Hitch Ride on Space Shuttle | August 23, 2006, 4:17 pm |
| Space shuttle ride takes off (Florida Today) | May 26, 2007, 4:05 am |
| SHUTTLE ATLANTIS ROLLS BACK TO LAUNCH PAD TO RIDE OUT ERNESTO | August 29, 2006, 11:16 pm |
| A Piece of the Past Hitches a Ride on Next Space Shuttle Mission | June 5, 2007, 7:15 pm |
| Experience a space shuttle ride while sitting on Earth (The Times of India) | June 4, 2007, 6:06 am |
| Space Shuttle Takes Expensive First-Class Ride Home (NBC 15 Mobile) | December 12, 2008, 10:12 am |
| US will NOT pay for Soyuz | October 16, 2005, 11:33 am |
| Shuttle or Soyuz? | August 27, 2006, 9:24 pm |
|
XML Sitemap