• Captain Aggravated
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 month ago

    It is my belief as a pilot and aircraft mechanic that both accidents share a critical design flaw: The crew vehicle for some bizarre reason was carried next to its rockets instead of on top where it belongs. It meant that Challenger had no way to escape, no launch escape tower could take them away from an exploding lower stage, and it put Columbia in a place where debris shed by the lower stage could hit it. Nothing could fall off of an Apollo first stage and hit the capsule because it was a hundred feet ahead.

    • @InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 month ago

      The issue is that they wanted to really pump up the reusable launch vehicle part, so it couldn’t be this little thing on the top with 4 SRBs.

      They died for the marketing.

    • @GhostPain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 month ago

      Not a rocket scientist so I can’t say.

      But I’m betting a room full of them and NASA engineers thought through all of their options based on the criteria and current tech.

      • Captain Aggravated
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 month ago

        When basically all of your “lift” is coming from thrust, sure it does. As if the space shuttle stack was a work of aerodynamic genius.

        • @technowizard22@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Thrust from rocket engines(or jet engines) is not lift. The force they genarate is perpindicular to the focre genarated by lift. All of the lift being genarated in front of the CG would cause the rocket to pich over and crash back into the ground.

          • Captain Aggravated
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 month ago

            Aerodynamic lift has a lot to do with angle of attack. Source: I am a flight instructor.

              • Captain Aggravated
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 month ago

                The amount of lift made has a lot to do with the angle of attack, the angle between the relative wind and the mean chord of the wing. While the space shuttle is in gliding flight, it flew with a very nose high attitude in a reasonably steep descent, thus the angle of attack. Under rocket power on ascent, the relative wind would be coming pretty much nose on, so a very low angle of attack, thus very little lift.

                If the angle of attack goes negative, the wing will lift in the other direction, which is how planes can fly upside down.

                • @technowizard22@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 month ago

                  Yes but it would still generate lift - a force witch would not be aligned with the center of mass and while not massive would be enough to pitch over the rocket and destroy it. There is a reason the x37 flies in a payload faring.

        • Lv_InSaNe_vL
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 month ago

          Like 30% of the shuttles launch thrust came from the main engines.

          • Captain Aggravated
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 month ago

            And it was vectored down through the floor at the center of mass somewhere in the big orange tank, which is why the shuttle always did a sick Tokyo drift off the pad.