rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) (08/15/89)
CBS news reported during the landing the nose appeared high. Perhaps, if this is so, they had to bring back the KH-12. There was speculation during the earlier Lacoss launch mission that the shuttle was babysitting it for a couple days to see if everything works OK and held the option of returning it. Did anyone see twin satellites as during the Lacoss mission?
mcmillan@adena.cis.ohio-state.edu (Harold McMillan) (08/16/89)
In article <4500@portia.Stanford.EDU> rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) writes: >CBS news reported during the landing the nose appeared high. On the video of the landing I saw on the news that night, I did not notice if the nose was high, but I thought that the nose wheel hit unusually hard. Maybe they had a hard time getting the nose down and over-corrected. Anybody else notice anything? -=- Hal McMillan | mcmillan@cis.ohio-state.edu | "Open the pod bay doors, HAL". CompuServe 72627,642 |
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/17/89)
In article <57706@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Harold McMillan <mcmillan@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >... I thought that the nose wheel hit unusually hard. >Maybe they had a hard time getting the nose down and over-corrected. Easy to do, I believe, because the nose gear is short enough that with all wheels on the ground, the wing's angle of attack is negative (leading edge lower than trailing edge) and it is pushing *down*. This is also why on landing, especially with a heavy load, they try to hold the nose gear off the ground for a while -- putting the nose down immediately worsens the load on the main gear, which is already a somewhat marginal design. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
phg421@zodiac.ukc.ac.uk (08/17/89)
Could I just point out a bulletin on sci.space, #1188, which I offer as a thought to conjure with w.r.t. this small matter? T.Stevenson U.S.S. UKC
ronk@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ron Kraynick) (08/18/89)
In article <57706@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Harold McMillan <mcmillan@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > >On the video of the landing I saw on the news that night, I did not notice >if the nose was high, but I thought that the nose wheel hit unusually hard. >Maybe they had a hard time getting the nose down and over-corrected. >Anybody else notice anything? >Hal McMillan | >mcmillan@cis.ohio-state.edu | "Open the pod bay doors, HAL". >CompuServe 72627,642 | Yes, I noticed this too. Usually the nose gear comes down rather slowly until about the last 10 feet. The nose did also appear to be a bit high upon the rear wheels touching. Maybe they got a little nervous. It's not everyday you land a shuttle. 8-) Ron
reddy@uts.amdahl.com (T.S. Reddy) (08/19/89)
In article <57706@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, mcmillan@adena.cis.ohio-state.edu (Harold McMillan) writes: > In article <4500@portia.Stanford.EDU> rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) writes: > >CBS news reported during the landing the nose appeared high. > > On the video of the landing I saw on the news that night, I did not notice > if the nose was high, but I thought that the nose wheel hit unusually hard. > Maybe they had a hard time getting the nose down and over-corrected. > Anybody else notice anything? > -=- > Hal McMillan | > mcmillan@cis.ohio-state.edu | "Open the pod bay doors, HAL". > CompuServe 72627,642 | I saw the same thing. The suspension (or whatever else it is called) came into play quite a bit, with the nose dipping on impact and levelling out. -- T.S.Reddy Arpa: reddy@uts.amdahl.com uucp:...!{ames,decwrl,uunet,pyramid,sun}!amdahl!reddy
jpainter@tjp.East.Sun.COM (John Painter - Sun BOS Hardware) (08/22/89)
>> On the video of the landing I saw on the news that night, I did not notice >> if the nose was high, but I thought that the nose wheel hit unusually hard. >> Maybe they had a hard time getting the nose down and over-corrected. >> Anybody else notice anything? >> -=- >> Hal McMillan | >> mcmillan@cis.ohio-state.edu | "Open the pod bay doors, HAL". >> CompuServe 72627,642 | Remember that the DOD has avolume in the nose of the shuttle that *WE* aren't supposed to question/know the contents of. perhaps the alternate payload stored here was heavy. Any photometrics people care to make a prediction? /Tjp -disclaimer (It's not my fault. ... (Hans Solo ... The Empire Strikes Back)
news@usc.edu (USENET News) (08/22/89)
>>> On the video of the landing I saw on the news that night, I did not notice >>> if the nose was high, but I thought that the nose wheel hit unusually hard. >>> Maybe they had a hard time getting the nose down and over-corrected. >>> Anybody else notice anything? From: barney@skat.usc.edu (Barney Lum) Path: skat.usc.edu!barney I didn't get to see the shuttle land (on tv or in person) but was definitely awakened (at ~6:30am!) by its passing over the LA basin. From the descriptions of its nose-high landing, it might be that the shuttle was using its attitude to dissipate speed. As speed decreased, more nose-up is needed to provide the lift. When the speed got low to the point of lowering the nose, it may not able to provide the residual lift to lower it gently. Back in September(?) of 1981, the 2nd (?) flight of Columbia had an interesting landing where the nose was lowered almost to touchdown then suddenly raised, then put back down. John Painter writes: >Remember that the DOD has avolume in the nose of the shuttle that *WE* >aren't supposed to question/know the contents of. perhaps the alternate >payload stored here was heavy. I would think that the mission-folks have considered the weight/balance effect of the returning shuttle and arranged things (payload and what-nots) so that its center of gravity isnt too far forward or aft. Barney (@skat.usc.edu) Lum