Re: Orbiter can save itself!

It's important to understand what this capability is, and even moreso,
what it *isn't*. NASA's term for it, "Remote Controlled Orbiter (RCO)"
tells you a lot. This is not an automated or autonomous capability; it's
a barebones, minimal capability to try to get a damaged vehicle back. It
requires inflight maintenance by the crew to install it and a
considerable amount of ground commanding (and ergo, long periods of good
solid comm) to operate it. No, I take that back - it requires some of the
most elaborately choreographed ground commanding that any spacecraft has
ever seen. It carries a considerable risk of vehicle loss, and therefore
should only be used as a last resort when the vehicle has been declared
unsafe for entry with the crew.

A fully autonomous capability would require more massive
software/hardware upgrades. It simply ain't going to happen before the
fleet retires.

By fully autonomous, do you mean that simply uploading deorbit command would
result in a successful landing on the first orbiter-selected time? That can
indeed be impossible in the timeframe available, and very very time critical
remote commanding of orbiter functions need to be made before and after
deorbit burn. But what happens after it?

I've been told that the orbiter could land itself after deorbit burn has
been made & correct entry software started, with the exclusion of the air
data probes, landing gear deployment and chute deployment. Does the remote
controlled orbiter scenario / software involve actual flying, similar to
current CDR/PLT stick flying, or would only those deployments be made
remotely?

--
Mika Takala


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... > that once a prototype went into service, it was not taken out of service ... single vehicle could be quite difficult for unscheduled ... I am revisting the single-engine carrier and single- ... Allowing the orbiter to be unmanned, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Shuttle proves being superb manned spacecraft
    ... This can be ameliorated somewhat by adding insulation to the outside of the tank, but now we have the issue of chunks of insulation hitting the vehicle. ... The ice formation/foam shedding only happens because of the use of cryogenic fuels in the tank, and it is only a hazard because the orbiter TPS is fragile. ... Choice of propellant, internal versus external propellant tanks, etc. Had the orbiter been equipped with internal propellant tanks, the peak entry temperatures would have been lower and a more robust TPS could have been employed, negating the debris problem. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Shuttle proves being superb manned spacecraft
    ... This can be ameliorated somewhat by adding insulation to the outside of the tank, but now we have the issue of chunks of insulation hitting the vehicle. ... The ice formation/foam shedding only happens because of the use of cryogenic fuels in the tank, and it is only a hazard because the orbiter TPS is fragile. ... Choice of propellant, internal versus external propellant tanks, etc. Had the orbiter been equipped with internal propellant tanks, the peak entry temperatures would have been lower and a more robust TPS could have been employed, negating the debris problem. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: DO we really need a new manned launcher?
    ... vehicle that provides poor and confusing "seat of the pants" feedback. ... The orbiter tends to rotate around its nose rather than around its center ... This two-part response is ... tailcone on, ...
    (sci.space.history)