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;
$begingroup$
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
edited Oct 2 at 11:49
Jan Doggen
1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges
asked Sep 30 at 21:49
ymb1ymb1
58911 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
edited Oct 2 at 11:49
Jan Doggen
1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges
asked Sep 30 at 21:49
ymb1ymb1
58911 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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
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
edited Oct 2 at 11:49
Jan Doggen
1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges
asked Sep 30 at 21:49
ymb1ymb1
58911 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
edited Oct 2 at 11:49
Jan Doggen
1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges
asked Sep 30 at 21:49
ymb1ymb1
58911 bronze badges
edited Oct 2 at 11:49
Jan Doggen
1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges
asked Sep 30 at 21:49
ymb1ymb1
58911 bronze badges
edited Oct 2 at 11:49
Jan Doggen
1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges
edited Oct 2 at 11:49
Jan Doggen
1,4541 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges
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
asked Sep 30 at 21:49
ymb1ymb1
58911 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
add a comment
|
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
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.
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
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered Sep 30 at 22:27
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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
|
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.
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
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered Sep 30 at 22:27
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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
|
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.
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
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered Sep 30 at 22:27
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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
|
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.
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
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered Sep 30 at 22:27
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 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.
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
Note that body flap movement downwards is considered a positive deflection.
Image Source - Shuttle Crew Operations Manual - page 2.7-17
answered Sep 30 at 22:27
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 bronze badges
edited Oct 1 at 13:33
answered Sep 30 at 22:27
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 bronze badges
answered Sep 30 at 22:27
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
91.1k5 gold badges279 silver badges390 bronze badges
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
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
Sep 30 at 22:07