Is there such thing as plasma (from reentry) creating lift?Could the current dragon v2 heat shield withstand...
What ways are there to bypass spell resistance?
Transiting through Switzerland by coach with lots of cash
one-liner vs script
Was post-exposure perspective correction ever practiced in the darkroom?
If LPG gas burners can reach temperatures above 1700 °C, then how do HCA and PAH not develop in extreme amounts during cooking?
How to find an internship in OR/Optimization?
How to discipline overeager engineer
What is the good path to become a Judo teacher?
Can I perform Umrah while on a Saudi Arabian visit e-visa
How long could a human survive completely without the immune system?
Is there such thing as plasma (from reentry) creating lift?
Is there a more efficient alternative to pull down resistors?
A sentient carnivorous species trying to preserve life. How could they find a new food source?
How to measure torque accurately?
What is /dev/null and why can't I use hx on it?
What is the fastest way to move in Borderlands 3?
'Cheddar goes "good" with burgers?' Can "go" be seen as a verb of the senses?
Is there a magnetic attraction between two parallel electron beams?
Is the text of all UK treaties and laws public?
In 1700s, why was 'books that never read' grammatical?
I pay for a service, but I miss the broadcast
Translation Golf XLVIII — We're sorry to see you go
I am confused with the word order when putting a sentence into passé composé with reflexive verbs
3x3 self-descriptive squares
Is there such thing as plasma (from reentry) creating lift?
Could the current dragon v2 heat shield withstand a reentry from the moon?What is the smallest object that would survive a reentry from LEO? What would it be made of?Is powered descent from orbit a viable method of reentry on bodies with an atmosphere?Would plasma sheathes from reentry heating block optical/UV communications as well as radio?If you swam towards Earth from Space would there be a point when you started falling?How long does trash jettisoned by hand from the ISS fall before burning up on reentry?Is there real footage of Tiangong 1 reentry?Two stage reentry from Moon/Mars
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}
$begingroup$
The following was claimed on the aviation site:
In 1981, after years of development and testing, Columbia made its maiden voyage into orbit. Unexpectedly, on re-entry, the nose pitched up much higher than planned. Quick thinking and deployment of the airbrake beneath the rear fuselage (but not the vertical stabilizer "clamshells") prevented potential disaster.
It was later determined that the extreme heat of re-entry at 17,500 mph ionized the atmosphere underneath the nose of the Orbiter enough to torque it upwards more than even the pitch stabilizing influence of the delta wing could handle.
Quick googling for Columbia shuttle 1981 plasma lift comes up empty.
If it does and it's a true story, why would it nose up the Shuttle? The reentry videos I've watched from inside the orbiter looking from the zenith windows seem to suggest the plasma is more near the aft, so if it does create lift, wouldn't that be a nose down?
space-shuttle reentry plasma
asked 9 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
3049 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The following was claimed on the aviation site:
In 1981, after years of development and testing, Columbia made its maiden voyage into orbit. Unexpectedly, on re-entry, the nose pitched up much higher than planned. Quick thinking and deployment of the airbrake beneath the rear fuselage (but not the vertical stabilizer "clamshells") prevented potential disaster.
It was later determined that the extreme heat of re-entry at 17,500 mph ionized the atmosphere underneath the nose of the Orbiter enough to torque it upwards more than even the pitch stabilizing influence of the delta wing could handle.
Quick googling for Columbia shuttle 1981 plasma lift comes up empty.
If it does and it's a true story, why would it nose up the Shuttle? The reentry videos I've watched from inside the orbiter looking from the zenith windows seem to suggest the plasma is more near the aft, so if it does create lift, wouldn't that be a nose down?
space-shuttle reentry plasma
asked 9 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
3049 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
$endgroup$
– JCRM
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The following was claimed on the aviation site:
In 1981, after years of development and testing, Columbia made its maiden voyage into orbit. Unexpectedly, on re-entry, the nose pitched up much higher than planned. Quick thinking and deployment of the airbrake beneath the rear fuselage (but not the vertical stabilizer "clamshells") prevented potential disaster.
It was later determined that the extreme heat of re-entry at 17,500 mph ionized the atmosphere underneath the nose of the Orbiter enough to torque it upwards more than even the pitch stabilizing influence of the delta wing could handle.
Quick googling for Columbia shuttle 1981 plasma lift comes up empty.
If it does and it's a true story, why would it nose up the Shuttle? The reentry videos I've watched from inside the orbiter looking from the zenith windows seem to suggest the plasma is more near the aft, so if it does create lift, wouldn't that be a nose down?
space-shuttle reentry plasma
asked 9 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
3049 bronze badges
$endgroup$
The following was claimed on the aviation site:
In 1981, after years of development and testing, Columbia made its maiden voyage into orbit. Unexpectedly, on re-entry, the nose pitched up much higher than planned. Quick thinking and deployment of the airbrake beneath the rear fuselage (but not the vertical stabilizer "clamshells") prevented potential disaster.
It was later determined that the extreme heat of re-entry at 17,500 mph ionized the atmosphere underneath the nose of the Orbiter enough to torque it upwards more than even the pitch stabilizing influence of the delta wing could handle.
Quick googling for Columbia shuttle 1981 plasma lift comes up empty.
If it does and it's a true story, why would it nose up the Shuttle? The reentry videos I've watched from inside the orbiter looking from the zenith windows seem to suggest the plasma is more near the aft, so if it does create lift, wouldn't that be a nose down?
space-shuttle reentry plasma
space-shuttle reentry plasma
asked 9 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
3049 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
3049 bronze badges
edited 6 hours ago
ymb1
asked 9 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
3049 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
3049 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
ymb1ymb1
3049 bronze badges
3049 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
$endgroup$
– JCRM
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
1
$begingroup$
Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
$endgroup$
– JCRM
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
$endgroup$
– JCRM
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
$endgroup$
– JCRM
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This appears to be a garbled recounting of a problem that occurred during STS-1 entry due to a mis-match between predicted and actual hypersonic pitch trim.
Image Source
All that happened was that the body flap (see aft of Orbiter on diagram) extended 5 degrees more than predicted (which did cause the body flap to see higher heating than predicted as well). There was no "quick thinking" - the body flap was placed in automatic mode when the Orbiter entered the sensible atmosphere - and it was not an "air brake" - it was a pitch control device and a heat shield for the main engines. The commander didn't start flying manually until Mach 4.8 (roll/yaw) and Mach 2.5 (pitch) (p. 138) and even that was temporary. He gave control back to the computers until the vehicle was subsonic and approaching the Heading Alignment Cylinder.
Source: STS-1 Orbiter Final Mission Report, Flight Test Problem Report #39
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered 8 hours ago
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Superb, thank you! / Why would the extra deflection cause exceedance of pitch attitude? When the elevons are deflected down they result in pitching down, why not the same for the body flap, why was it a pitch up?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The automatic control system was working to put the pitch attitude where it should have been by moving the body flap. I doubt there was ever a pitch excursion, it's just that the body flap moved more than predicted to keep the pitch where it should have been. ISTR the sign on the body flap deflection was backwards from what we might expect. I'll research that and put it in the answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The report says "exceeding the planned trim attitude of 8 to 9° (...)", but it doesn't say by how much, and direction. Maybe it's down exceedance?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
It's talking about the position of the body flap, not the orbiter. Orbiter pitch during entry was way more than 8 or 9 degrees, more like 45 degrees.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39135%2fis-there-such-thing-as-plasma-from-reentry-creating-lift%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This appears to be a garbled recounting of a problem that occurred during STS-1 entry due to a mis-match between predicted and actual hypersonic pitch trim.
Image Source
All that happened was that the body flap (see aft of Orbiter on diagram) extended 5 degrees more than predicted (which did cause the body flap to see higher heating than predicted as well). There was no "quick thinking" - the body flap was placed in automatic mode when the Orbiter entered the sensible atmosphere - and it was not an "air brake" - it was a pitch control device and a heat shield for the main engines. The commander didn't start flying manually until Mach 4.8 (roll/yaw) and Mach 2.5 (pitch) (p. 138) and even that was temporary. He gave control back to the computers until the vehicle was subsonic and approaching the Heading Alignment Cylinder.
Source: STS-1 Orbiter Final Mission Report, Flight Test Problem Report #39
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered 8 hours ago
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Superb, thank you! / Why would the extra deflection cause exceedance of pitch attitude? When the elevons are deflected down they result in pitching down, why not the same for the body flap, why was it a pitch up?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The automatic control system was working to put the pitch attitude where it should have been by moving the body flap. I doubt there was ever a pitch excursion, it's just that the body flap moved more than predicted to keep the pitch where it should have been. ISTR the sign on the body flap deflection was backwards from what we might expect. I'll research that and put it in the answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The report says "exceeding the planned trim attitude of 8 to 9° (...)", but it doesn't say by how much, and direction. Maybe it's down exceedance?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
It's talking about the position of the body flap, not the orbiter. Orbiter pitch during entry was way more than 8 or 9 degrees, more like 45 degrees.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This appears to be a garbled recounting of a problem that occurred during STS-1 entry due to a mis-match between predicted and actual hypersonic pitch trim.
Image Source
All that happened was that the body flap (see aft of Orbiter on diagram) extended 5 degrees more than predicted (which did cause the body flap to see higher heating than predicted as well). There was no "quick thinking" - the body flap was placed in automatic mode when the Orbiter entered the sensible atmosphere - and it was not an "air brake" - it was a pitch control device and a heat shield for the main engines. The commander didn't start flying manually until Mach 4.8 (roll/yaw) and Mach 2.5 (pitch) (p. 138) and even that was temporary. He gave control back to the computers until the vehicle was subsonic and approaching the Heading Alignment Cylinder.
Source: STS-1 Orbiter Final Mission Report, Flight Test Problem Report #39
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered 8 hours ago
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Superb, thank you! / Why would the extra deflection cause exceedance of pitch attitude? When the elevons are deflected down they result in pitching down, why not the same for the body flap, why was it a pitch up?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The automatic control system was working to put the pitch attitude where it should have been by moving the body flap. I doubt there was ever a pitch excursion, it's just that the body flap moved more than predicted to keep the pitch where it should have been. ISTR the sign on the body flap deflection was backwards from what we might expect. I'll research that and put it in the answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The report says "exceeding the planned trim attitude of 8 to 9° (...)", but it doesn't say by how much, and direction. Maybe it's down exceedance?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
It's talking about the position of the body flap, not the orbiter. Orbiter pitch during entry was way more than 8 or 9 degrees, more like 45 degrees.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This appears to be a garbled recounting of a problem that occurred during STS-1 entry due to a mis-match between predicted and actual hypersonic pitch trim.
Image Source
All that happened was that the body flap (see aft of Orbiter on diagram) extended 5 degrees more than predicted (which did cause the body flap to see higher heating than predicted as well). There was no "quick thinking" - the body flap was placed in automatic mode when the Orbiter entered the sensible atmosphere - and it was not an "air brake" - it was a pitch control device and a heat shield for the main engines. The commander didn't start flying manually until Mach 4.8 (roll/yaw) and Mach 2.5 (pitch) (p. 138) and even that was temporary. He gave control back to the computers until the vehicle was subsonic and approaching the Heading Alignment Cylinder.
Source: STS-1 Orbiter Final Mission Report, Flight Test Problem Report #39
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered 8 hours ago
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
$endgroup$
This appears to be a garbled recounting of a problem that occurred during STS-1 entry due to a mis-match between predicted and actual hypersonic pitch trim.
Image Source
All that happened was that the body flap (see aft of Orbiter on diagram) extended 5 degrees more than predicted (which did cause the body flap to see higher heating than predicted as well). There was no "quick thinking" - the body flap was placed in automatic mode when the Orbiter entered the sensible atmosphere - and it was not an "air brake" - it was a pitch control device and a heat shield for the main engines. The commander didn't start flying manually until Mach 4.8 (roll/yaw) and Mach 2.5 (pitch) (p. 138) and even that was temporary. He gave control back to the computers until the vehicle was subsonic and approaching the Heading Alignment Cylinder.
Source: STS-1 Orbiter Final Mission Report, Flight Test Problem Report #39
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered 8 hours ago
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
edited 7 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
80.8k4 gold badges244 silver badges347 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
Superb, thank you! / Why would the extra deflection cause exceedance of pitch attitude? When the elevons are deflected down they result in pitching down, why not the same for the body flap, why was it a pitch up?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The automatic control system was working to put the pitch attitude where it should have been by moving the body flap. I doubt there was ever a pitch excursion, it's just that the body flap moved more than predicted to keep the pitch where it should have been. ISTR the sign on the body flap deflection was backwards from what we might expect. I'll research that and put it in the answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The report says "exceeding the planned trim attitude of 8 to 9° (...)", but it doesn't say by how much, and direction. Maybe it's down exceedance?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
It's talking about the position of the body flap, not the orbiter. Orbiter pitch during entry was way more than 8 or 9 degrees, more like 45 degrees.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
Superb, thank you! / Why would the extra deflection cause exceedance of pitch attitude? When the elevons are deflected down they result in pitching down, why not the same for the body flap, why was it a pitch up?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The automatic control system was working to put the pitch attitude where it should have been by moving the body flap. I doubt there was ever a pitch excursion, it's just that the body flap moved more than predicted to keep the pitch where it should have been. ISTR the sign on the body flap deflection was backwards from what we might expect. I'll research that and put it in the answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The report says "exceeding the planned trim attitude of 8 to 9° (...)", but it doesn't say by how much, and direction. Maybe it's down exceedance?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
It's talking about the position of the body flap, not the orbiter. Orbiter pitch during entry was way more than 8 or 9 degrees, more like 45 degrees.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Superb, thank you! / Why would the extra deflection cause exceedance of pitch attitude? When the elevons are deflected down they result in pitching down, why not the same for the body flap, why was it a pitch up?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Superb, thank you! / Why would the extra deflection cause exceedance of pitch attitude? When the elevons are deflected down they result in pitching down, why not the same for the body flap, why was it a pitch up?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
The automatic control system was working to put the pitch attitude where it should have been by moving the body flap. I doubt there was ever a pitch excursion, it's just that the body flap moved more than predicted to keep the pitch where it should have been. ISTR the sign on the body flap deflection was backwards from what we might expect. I'll research that and put it in the answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The automatic control system was working to put the pitch attitude where it should have been by moving the body flap. I doubt there was ever a pitch excursion, it's just that the body flap moved more than predicted to keep the pitch where it should have been. ISTR the sign on the body flap deflection was backwards from what we might expect. I'll research that and put it in the answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The report says "exceeding the planned trim attitude of 8 to 9° (...)", but it doesn't say by how much, and direction. Maybe it's down exceedance?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The report says "exceeding the planned trim attitude of 8 to 9° (...)", but it doesn't say by how much, and direction. Maybe it's down exceedance?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
It's talking about the position of the body flap, not the orbiter. Orbiter pitch during entry was way more than 8 or 9 degrees, more like 45 degrees.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's talking about the position of the body flap, not the orbiter. Orbiter pitch during entry was way more than 8 or 9 degrees, more like 45 degrees.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39135%2fis-there-such-thing-as-plasma-from-reentry-creating-lift%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
$endgroup$
– JCRM
8 hours ago