Was watching this documentary where a Space Shuttle going from
California to England on the SCA passed over the Yukon (questionable
trajectory :-) and was stolen. The thieves ignited the SSMEs and flew
off the 747 and managed to get the shuttle (called Moonraker) all the
way to a secret base in Brazil.

All an all, an amazing accomplishemnent to fly that distance on SSMEs
without any fuel :-)

But this brings me to this question:

Lets assume the Shuttle had internal tanks of 0 weight and infinite fuel
for sake of question. No ET. no SRB.

Could it take off from a more or less normal length runway and maintain
level flight at some altitude/speed? Or upon take off, would it require
such a nose up attitude that it would be more ballistic than a plane?

Or in similar vein: during re-entry, could the pilots "fly" the shuttle
to maintain level flight at some altitude for some period of time? or
would doing this require the nose to flare up so much pilots couldn't
see horizon and the shuttle would then stall and they woudln't be able
to pitch down to regain speed/control ?

Just curious if the vehicle could be a "plane" with enough lift from
delta wings, or whether it was truly limited to a ballistic vehicle with
controlled fall and a last minute ability to slow descent rate just
above runway? (do they even see the runway during that final flare up?)

BTW, Moonraker's release was meant to coincide with Columbia's first
flight in 1979, but later was delayed to 1981. So Moonraker was general
public,s first glimpse at the shuttle, and the producers had to imagine
and create a launch since they hade no footage from NASA they could use.

JF Mezei suggested that ...

[plot points skipped]

> Just curious if the vehicle could be a "plane" with enough lift from
> delta wings, or whether it was truly limited to a ballistic vehicle with
> controlled fall and a last minute ability to slow descent rate just
> above runway? (do they even see the runway during that final flare up?)

The shuttle couldn't do level flight, except maybe in the hypersonic
portion of its flight. But it wasn't ballistic, either. It was a
glider, but with a very poor glide slope in the subsonic portions.
Push a brick fast enough, and it will produce a significant amount of
lift. The shuttle was slightly better.

Watch some shuttle landings. The last mission just had a major
anniversary, and NASA TV reran a lot of video from the flight, but you
shouldn't have any trouble finding youtubes of other landings.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

On 2021-07-17 13:12, Snidely wrote:

> The shuttle couldn't do level flight, except maybe in the hypersonic
> portion of its flight.

Thanks. In a re-entry sequence, there would not have been any need for
level flight, but got curious if it could have had they wanted to.

> But it wasn't ballistic, either. It was a
> glider, but with a very poor glide slope in the subsonic portions.

This is partly why I got curious. At time of landing, it has bled off
most of its speed and yet still able to get its vertical speed down to
what an airlineer would have touching down on runway.

So was curious on whether at higher altitudes/speeds, its wings could
create lift to keep level flight or whether the wings act more like a
parachute (drag for vertical speed) than a lift creating device.

Different question: did the shuttle have any cross range capacbility for
forward speed? Or was the east west component dictated by when de-orbit
burn was done and the shuttle only had left/right cross range via its
aerodynamic surfaces?

aka: if the shuttle kept its nose a bit more up during aerodynamic
phase, could it end up landing further east? or would doing so result
in faster bleeding of airspeed followed by faster descent rate and end
up touching ground at roughly same spot?

Remember Saturday, when JF Mezei asked plainitively:
> On 2021-07-17 13:12, Snidely wrote:
>
>> The shuttle couldn't do level flight, except maybe in the hypersonic
>> portion of its flight.
>
> Thanks. In a re-entry sequence, there would not have been any need for
> level flight, but got curious if it could have had they wanted to.
>
>
>
>> But it wasn't ballistic, either. It was a
>> glider, but with a very poor glide slope in the subsonic portions.
>
> This is partly why I got curious. At time of landing, it has bled off
> most of its speed and yet still able to get its vertical speed down to
> what an airlineer would have touching down on runway.
>
> So was curious on whether at higher altitudes/speeds, its wings could
> create lift to keep level flight or whether the wings act more like a
> parachute (drag for vertical speed) than a lift creating device.
>
> Different question: did the shuttle have any cross range capacbility for
> forward speed? Or was the east west component dictated by when de-orbit
> burn was done and the shuttle only had left/right cross range via its
> aerodynamic surfaces?
>
> aka: if the shuttle kept its nose a bit more up during aerodynamic
> phase, could it end up landing further east? or would doing so result
> in faster bleeding of airspeed followed by faster descent rate and end
> up touching ground at roughly same spot?

There was no opportunity for a go-around. The kinetic energy was
managed very carefully. The flight path was just enough to get them to
the runway, with some margin for having to go around something like a
thunderstorm cell (which could pop up after the go/no-go decision,
perhaps).

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

On Jul/17/2021 at 19:58, Snidely wrote :
> Remember  Saturday, when  JF Mezei asked plainitively:
>> On 2021-07-17 13:12, Snidely wrote:
>>
>>> The shuttle couldn't do level flight, except maybe in the hypersonic
>>> portion of its flight.
>>
>> Thanks.  In a re-entry sequence, there would not have been any need for
>> level flight, but got curious if it could have had they wanted to.
>>
>>
>>
>>> But it wasn't ballistic, either.  It was a glider, but with a very
>>> poor glide slope in the subsonic portions.
>>
>> This is partly why I got curious. At time of landing, it has bled off
>> most of its speed and yet still able to get its vertical speed down to
>> what an airlineer would have touching down on runway.
>>
>> So was curious on whether at higher altitudes/speeds, its wings could
>> create lift to keep level flight or whether the wings act more like a
>> parachute (drag for vertical speed) than a lift  creating device.
>>
>> Different question: did the shuttle have any cross range capacbility for
>> forward speed? Or was the east west component dictated by when de-orbit
>> burn was done and the shuttle only had left/right cross range via its
>> aerodynamic surfaces?
>>
>> aka: if the shuttle kept its nose a bit more up during aerodynamic
>> phase, could it end up landing further east?   or would doing so result
>> in faster bleeding of airspeed followed by faster descent rate and end
>> up touching ground at roughly same spot?
>
> There was no opportunity for a go-around.  The kinetic energy was
> managed very carefully.  The flight path was just enough to get them to
> the runway, with some margin for having to go around something like a
> thunderstorm cell (which could pop up after the go/no-go decision,
> perhaps).
>
> /dps

The way the kinetic energy was managed was mostly by taking a slalom
path. If more energy needed to be dumped, more curves were taken, if
less energy needed to be dumped, a straighter path was taken. There was
also a little control by pointing the nose a little more or a little
less up, but that was minimal.

Alain Fournier

"Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.8a647e575f340ff3.127094@snitoo...
>
>JF Mezei suggested that ...
>
>[plot points skipped]
>
>> Just curious if the vehicle could be a "plane" with enough lift from
>> delta wings, or whether it was truly limited to a ballistic vehicle with
>> controlled fall and a last minute ability to slow descent rate just
>> above runway? (do they even see the runway during that final flare up?)
>
>The shuttle couldn't do level flight, except maybe in the hypersonic
>portion of its flight. But it wasn't ballistic, either. It was a glider,
>but with a very poor glide slope in the subsonic portions. Push a brick
>fast enough, and it will produce a significant amount of lift. The shuttle
>was slightly better.

I've wondered this myself since I believe the Russian Enterprise equivalent
of Buran, OK-GLI apparently could fly itself.
So while as a glider (i.e. w/o engines) I agree 100% , I've wondered with
the different center of mass and all if a US orbiter could do the same given
engines and fuel.

I think the biggest issue is, given the short nose-gear, I'm not sure an
orbiter could ever take off.

>
>Watch some shuttle landings. The last mission just had a major
>anniversary, and NASA TV reran a lot of video from the flight, but you
>shouldn't have any trouble finding youtubes of other landings.
>
>/dps
>

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/