Re: Brute force re-entry

From: Lizerd (1_at_2.com.retro.com)
Date: 08/25/04 

To: sci-space-tech@moderators.isc.org
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:00:18 GMT



--
(All advice is checked, re-checked and verified to be questionable....)
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg.retro.com> wrote in message
news:Xns954B5B203B45jrfrank@216.196.97.130...
> Alcore <alcore@uurth.com> wrote in
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0408190938590.28902-100000@uurth.com:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
> >
> >>Lizerd wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Re: Brute force re-entry
> >>>
> >>I wouldn't have expected using the atmosphere to slow you down would
> >>be considered using a 'brute force' method of slowing down. I would
> >>think it would be considered elegant, and spending fuel to slow down
> >>or just running directly into the planet at full speed would be
> >>consider the brute force approaches.
> >
> > I think the point that he was trying to make was that given the steep
> > angle of re-entry that NASA always uses,
>
> Incorrect. The space shuttle re-enters at a flight path angle typically
> between -1 and -1.5 degrees. That's hardly "steep".
>
True, 1 to 1.5 is shallow....
But I was picturing the shuttle reentering at closer to 15 to 20.
I do know it is piched up at 33 to 35 degrees.
>>From Hollywood, (I know that they only produce fact!), it looked
more like about 45 degrees.
(Now that is steep....)
> > I think the basic idea here is that there is a *lot* of energy being
> > shed by steep re-entry... and if there's enough energy to heat the air
> > blasting past the spacecraft into a plasma, is doesn't *seem* like so
> > much of a stretch to try and use some of that energy to alter the
> > spacecraft trajectory upwardly... in order to deliberately remain in
> > the thinnest air possible or even deflect completely outside the
> > atmosphere briefly.  Which in turn, should reduce the heat loading.
> > (Or at least stretch out the heat loading over a long enough period of
> > time to allow some scheme to manage it more efficiently.)
>
> The shuttle already does this, to the extent possible. It reduces the peak
> heating, at the expense of increasing the total heat load.
>
>
> --
> JRF
>
> Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
> check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
> think one step ahead of IBM.
Quantcast