Is there such thing as plasma (from reentry) creating lift?Calorically perfect gas calculations of re-entry vehiclesCould 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?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

Is the net charge on a capacitor zero? If yes, then why?

Pass on your radiation

What is a word for "atom or molecule"?

"Sack" data structure in C#

I am ask to complete my withdrawal transaction with COT fee of 1200 dollars

What is the narrative difference between a Charisma and Wisdom saving throw?

Sorting marbles based on weightings

What are the disadvantages of using a Zener diode over a linear voltage regulator?

Does the geothermal activity influence the climate in Iceland?

Who started calling the matrix multiplication "multiplication"?

What kind of electrical connector is this and how do I remove it?

Is it possible to kill parasitic worms by intoxicating oneself?

The algorithm of the new quantum factoring record 1,099,551,473,989

How to pair a xrightarrow with text on the top) to a sort of xleftarrow (with text on the bottom)?

Kids traveling with a different passport in theirs parents' country without being previously registred in a consulate

Risk of AIDS Infection - Overestimation?

Putting creatures into play in alternative ways to summoning them

Undesired blank space between some words

Why are the Democrats & Republicans so homogeneous in their opinions of impeaching Trump?

Do the Jovians in "Victory Unintentional" exist in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series?

My boss asked what number would keep me happy?

Does 'hacer alguien matar' mean to make somebody kill or to get sb killed?

Is it appropriate to rewrite and republish another author's useful but very badly written paper?

How to deal with this fundamental problem with the advice: "Don't trust obscure PHP libraries that nobody uses!"?



Is there such thing as plasma (from reentry) creating lift?


Calorically perfect gas calculations of re-entry vehiclesCould 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?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;

.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;








14















$begingroup$


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?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Sep 30 at 22:07

















14















$begingroup$


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?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Sep 30 at 22:07













14













14









14


0



$begingroup$


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?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 2 at 11:49









Jan Doggen

1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges




1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges










asked Sep 30 at 21:49









ymb1ymb1

58911 bronze badges




58911 bronze badges










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Sep 30 at 22:07












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Sep 30 at 22:07







1




1




$begingroup$
Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
$endgroup$
– JCRM
Sep 30 at 22:07




$begingroup$
Plasma is created by the shock formed from the leading edges and flows around the craft
$endgroup$
– JCRM
Sep 30 at 22:07










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















31

















$begingroup$

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.



enter image description here



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.




At a dynamic pressure of about 0.5 lb/ft2, the body flap
was positioned to automatic. Elevon body flap interaction was normal.
The body flap automatically positioned itself to about 80 percent and
appeared to remain there down to about Mach 15
. The elevons were
within their trim limits.




(p. 137, emphasis mine - note 80 percent on the gauge corresponds to ~15 degrees, see final diagram in answer)



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



enter image description here



Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.



enter image description here



Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:50






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Sep 30 at 22:57










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00













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
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















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









31

















$begingroup$

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.



enter image description here



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.




At a dynamic pressure of about 0.5 lb/ft2, the body flap
was positioned to automatic. Elevon body flap interaction was normal.
The body flap automatically positioned itself to about 80 percent and
appeared to remain there down to about Mach 15
. The elevons were
within their trim limits.




(p. 137, emphasis mine - note 80 percent on the gauge corresponds to ~15 degrees, see final diagram in answer)



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



enter image description here



Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.



enter image description here



Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:50






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Sep 30 at 22:57










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00
















31

















$begingroup$

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.



enter image description here



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.




At a dynamic pressure of about 0.5 lb/ft2, the body flap
was positioned to automatic. Elevon body flap interaction was normal.
The body flap automatically positioned itself to about 80 percent and
appeared to remain there down to about Mach 15
. The elevons were
within their trim limits.




(p. 137, emphasis mine - note 80 percent on the gauge corresponds to ~15 degrees, see final diagram in answer)



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



enter image description here



Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.



enter image description here



Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:50






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Sep 30 at 22:57










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00














31















31











31







$begingroup$

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.



enter image description here



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.




At a dynamic pressure of about 0.5 lb/ft2, the body flap
was positioned to automatic. Elevon body flap interaction was normal.
The body flap automatically positioned itself to about 80 percent and
appeared to remain there down to about Mach 15
. The elevons were
within their trim limits.




(p. 137, emphasis mine - note 80 percent on the gauge corresponds to ~15 degrees, see final diagram in answer)



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



enter image description here



Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.



enter image description here



Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$



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.



enter image description here



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.




At a dynamic pressure of about 0.5 lb/ft2, the body flap
was positioned to automatic. Elevon body flap interaction was normal.
The body flap automatically positioned itself to about 80 percent and
appeared to remain there down to about Mach 15
. The elevons were
within their trim limits.




(p. 137, emphasis mine - note 80 percent on the gauge corresponds to ~15 degrees, see final diagram in answer)



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



enter image description here



Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.



enter image description here



Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Oct 1 at 13:33

























answered Sep 30 at 22:27









Organic MarbleOrganic Marble

91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 bronze badges




91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 bronze badges










  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:50






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Sep 30 at 22:57










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:50






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 22:55






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    Sep 30 at 22:57










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    Sep 30 at 23:00








2




2




$begingroup$
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
Sep 30 at 22:50




$begingroup$
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
Sep 30 at 22:50




6




6




$begingroup$
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
Sep 30 at 22:55




$begingroup$
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
Sep 30 at 22:55




1




1




$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Sep 30 at 22:57




$begingroup$
Yeah, body flap is positive down (sigh). Editing answer.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Sep 30 at 22:57












$begingroup$
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
Sep 30 at 23:00




$begingroup$
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
Sep 30 at 23:00




6




6




$begingroup$
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
Sep 30 at 23:00





$begingroup$
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
Sep 30 at 23:00



















draft saved

draft discarded















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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









Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?