It is my belief as a pilot and aircraft mechanic that both accidents share a critical design flaw: The crew vehicle for some bizarre reason was carried next to its rockets instead of on top where it belongs. It meant that Challenger had no way to escape, no launch escape tower could take them away from an exploding lower stage, and it put Columbia in a place where debris shed by the lower stage could hit it. Nothing could fall off of an Apollo first stage and hit the capsule because it was a hundred feet ahead.
And it was vectored down through the floor at the center of mass somewhere in the big orange tank, which is why the shuttle always did a sick Tokyo drift off the pad.
Thrust from rocket engines(or jet engines) is not lift. The force they genarate is perpindicular to the focre genarated by lift. All of the lift being genarated in front of the CG would cause the rocket to pich over and crash back into the ground.
The amount of lift made has a lot to do with the angle of attack, the angle between the relative wind and the mean chord of the wing. While the space shuttle is in gliding flight, it flew with a very nose high attitude in a reasonably steep descent, thus the angle of attack. Under rocket power on ascent, the relative wind would be coming pretty much nose on, so a very low angle of attack, thus very little lift.
If the angle of attack goes negative, the wing will lift in the other direction, which is how planes can fly upside down.
I’m going to bet that we won’t see another spacecraft of the same plan as the shuttle. We barely got it to work, the Soviets managed a single unmanned test flight of something similar, and we’ve got vertically landing reusable rockets now. Large space planes I think are a dead end.
The only way I can see another “space-plane” design is if we actually get skyhooks working. As long as we are using rockets it doesn’t make sense. Sure it was cool AF when we were kids, but yeah, the design is just a safety nightmare
It is my understanding that at least one small, unmanned space plane is in use by the US military. Something small enough to fit in the payload fairing of a commercial or military rocket that can be put in space, flown for a little while then landed at an air force base probably serves some function.
But I’m convinced large space planes on the order of the space shuttle are now museum pieces and/or debris.
It is my belief as a pilot and aircraft mechanic that both accidents share a critical design flaw: The crew vehicle for some bizarre reason was carried next to its rockets instead of on top where it belongs. It meant that Challenger had no way to escape, no launch escape tower could take them away from an exploding lower stage, and it put Columbia in a place where debris shed by the lower stage could hit it. Nothing could fall off of an Apollo first stage and hit the capsule because it was a hundred feet ahead.
Not a rocket scientist so I can’t say.
But I’m betting a room full of them and NASA engineers thought through all of their options based on the criteria and current tech.
Having been to NASA and seen their museum and the launch pads and shit and gotten to talk to people who work there:
You’d think they thought it through, but small details get missed all the time in Nassau history
I mean, sure hindsight is 20/20.
But Columbia would have never happened if Congress hadn’t pulled funding for the titanium heat shield they wanted.
The issue is that they wanted to really pump up the reusable launch vehicle part, so it couldn’t be this little thing on the top with 4 SRBs.
They died for the marketing.
And more than a little scope creep.
Aerodynamics called: your center of lift being far infront of your center of gravity does not work
When basically all of your “lift” is coming from thrust, sure it does. As if the space shuttle stack was a work of aerodynamic genius.
Like 30% of the shuttles launch thrust came from the main engines.
And it was vectored down through the floor at the center of mass somewhere in the big orange tank, which is why the shuttle always did a sick Tokyo drift off the pad.
Thrust from rocket engines(or jet engines) is not lift. The force they genarate is perpindicular to the focre genarated by lift. All of the lift being genarated in front of the CG would cause the rocket to pich over and crash back into the ground.
Aerodynamic lift has a lot to do with angle of attack. Source: I am a flight instructor.
Wings still genarate lift when in a vertical climb. The force genarated is reative to the wings not gravity
The amount of lift made has a lot to do with the angle of attack, the angle between the relative wind and the mean chord of the wing. While the space shuttle is in gliding flight, it flew with a very nose high attitude in a reasonably steep descent, thus the angle of attack. Under rocket power on ascent, the relative wind would be coming pretty much nose on, so a very low angle of attack, thus very little lift.
If the angle of attack goes negative, the wing will lift in the other direction, which is how planes can fly upside down.
But but, it could glide*!
*Kinda, and the parachutes are slower. It also has to piggyback on a 747 to be moved anywhere.
I’m going to bet that we won’t see another spacecraft of the same plan as the shuttle. We barely got it to work, the Soviets managed a single unmanned test flight of something similar, and we’ve got vertically landing reusable rockets now. Large space planes I think are a dead end.
The only way I can see another “space-plane” design is if we actually get skyhooks working. As long as we are using rockets it doesn’t make sense. Sure it was cool AF when we were kids, but yeah, the design is just a safety nightmare
It is my understanding that at least one small, unmanned space plane is in use by the US military. Something small enough to fit in the payload fairing of a commercial or military rocket that can be put in space, flown for a little while then landed at an air force base probably serves some function.
But I’m convinced large space planes on the order of the space shuttle are now museum pieces and/or debris.