Why Doesn't the Space Shuttle Deploy Its Wings During Reentry?

  • Thread starter mheslep
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Wings
In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of mechanically deploying the wings and vertical stabilizer of the shuttle during re-entry at lower mach numbers. The drawbacks of keeping the aerial control surfaces attached during ascent and high mach re-entry are mentioned, as well as the challenges of storing and deploying the surfaces in flight. The weight and space constraints, as well as potential failures, are also considered. However, the benefits of reducing drag and eliminating the need for a fragile, tile-based heat shield are discussed. Ultimately, the complexity and risk of implementing this idea are deemed too high, and it is decided that the shuttle needs its wings for re-entry.
  • #1
mheslep
Gold Member
364
729
Just saw Endeavor return safely at night which inspired me to follow up on a question I've long pondered: why not deploy the wings and vertical stabilizer after ascent or even late into re-entry in the lower mach numbers?

The draw backs of dragging along the the aerial control surfaces on ascent and high mach re-entry are obvious after Columbia:
1. Susceptible to damage from high velocity debris on ascent - foam/ ice.
2. Drag
3. Complex and difficult to maintain tiled heat shield required to conform to the aerial surfaces.
In other words, when the shuttle is performing as a rocket, it should look like a big cylinder as does any other rocket, and start looking like an aircraft only when it is required to perform like one.

The idea instead would be to mechanically deploy wings and stabilizer well into reentry at low mach when the aerial surfaces don't need to withstand high temperatures, say 60,000ft? Before then it would use some kind of monolithic heat shield as did the earlier manned missions which might be ejected. Even deploying the surfaces in orbit is still a big plus as that approach still saves on ascent drag and keeps the surfaces out of harms way.

Storing, and then deploying the surfaces in flight must be difficult (impossible?). I know of some imperfect analogies - the F14 in flight and of course carrier aircraft in general that fold wings for storage. No doubt this has been considered. Can anyone explain why its not done?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I can't give you specific details or numbers, but I can say for certain that the weight of the actuator mechanisms alone would be enough to make the thing nearly un-launchable. There's also the matter of internal space to store the parts while they're not in service. Last, but not least, there would be serious fluid flow problems resultant of the various slots and ports needed for storage of the flight surfaces while retracted. An F-14 or any other swing-wing aeroplane doesn't face anything like max-Q.
 
  • #3
The shuttle needs its wings for re-entry. They are what slow it down.
 
  • #4
The shuttle is already the most complex machine on the planet. I think that adding these features are going to add way too many places for possible failures. The return isn't worth the risk.
 
  • #5
mheslep said:
Storing, and then deploying the surfaces in flight must be difficult (impossible?). I know of some imperfect analogies - the F14 in flight and of course carrier aircraft in general that fold wings for storage. No doubt this has been considered. Can anyone explain why its not done?
Storing the wing and tail would be problematic (compare wing/tail dimensions with fuselage), and for that reason alone it is not practical. Moreover movable/deployable wings/tail would require additional mechanical systems which would increase probability of failure, and that wing system must sustain heavy loading during the slowing down in the atmosphere. Thirdly, the thermal protection system must provide a tight, continuous seal otherwise hot gases may leak through and undermine the structural integrity of the wing/fuselage as was the case with the loss of Columbia.
 
  • #6
Thanks for the replies all!

Danger said:
I can't give you specific details or numbers, but I can say for certain that the weight of the actuator mechanisms alone would be enough to make the thing nearly un-launchable.
This one I don't follow. The actuators on swept wing aircraft don't make them impractical. If there's some non-linear factor in scaling that up to the shuttle I don't see it. Also I am proposing to lose the heat shield weight by the time the wings deploy - so perhaps that counters the actuator weight a bit.

Danger said:
There's also the matter of internal space to store the parts while they're not in service.
Yes that might be show stopper.
Danger said:
Last, but not least, there would be serious fluid flow problems resultant of the various slots and ports needed for storage of the flight surfaces while retracted.
Why does there need to be any fluid flow during storage? I would think only during deploy and only then if you went hydraulic vs electric.

Danger said:
An F-14 or any other swing-wing aeroplane doesn't face anything like max-Q.
Well that supports my point. I want to totally remove the aerial surfaces from ascent and max Q. That implies a much reduced drag coefficient on ascent and thus some substantial (?) savings in fuel. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle#Launch":
Around a point called Max Q, where the aerodynamic forces are at their maximum, the main engines are temporarily throttled back to avoid overspeeding and hence overstressing the Shuttle, particularly in vulnerable areas such as the wings.

russ_watters said:
The shuttle needs its wings for re-entry. They are what slow it down.
Well of course in general a re-entry vehicle historically does not need wings to slow it down, it only needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry#Blunt_body_entry_vehicles" drag to slow it down as has been done in the past with Apollo et al. The shuttle happens to use its wings for that purpose in a series of high G turns.

FredGarvin said:
The shuttle is already the most complex machine on the planet. I think that adding these features are going to add way too many places for possible failures. The return isn't worth the risk.
Yes, I'm suggesting wing storage does away some significant contributors to that complexity: that fragile, tile based heat shield which must be seen as an Achilles heal of the current design; I read now that management of the surface foam on ascent (which killed Columbia) is problematic - requiring telescopic inspection of the shuttle in orbit, etc, etc. A stored wing does away with all of that and use a traditional monolithic heat shield as has been done in the past.

Astronuc said:
Storing the wing and tail would be problematic (compare wing/tail dimensions with fuselage), and for that reason alone it is not practical.
Likely so, though that's not clear to me. I was thinking the wings we be scissored, overlapped for storage underneath the fuselage.
Astronuc said:
Moreover movable/deployable wings/tail would require additional mechanical systems which would increase probability of failure,
Yes, but there's experience w/ swept wing mechanicals and I'm proposing elimnation of much more complexity in return, I believe.
Astronuc said:
and that wing system must sustain heavy loading during the slowing down in the atmosphere.
Not if they don't deploy until late into re-entry. I suggest deployment a little higher than when the shoots popped on capsule re-entries.
Astronuc said:
Thirdly, the thermal protection system must provide a tight, continuous seal otherwise hot gases may leak through and undermine the structural integrity of the wing/fuselage as was the case with the loss of Columbia.
Yes exactly, replace all of that a single monolithic shield. Eject the shield as done w/ capsules exposing deployable wings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
mheslep said:
Just saw Endeavor return safely at night which inspired me to follow up on a question I've long pondered: why not deploy the wings and vertical stabilizer after ascent or even late into re-entry in the lower mach numbers?

Honestly, it's hard to imagine why anyone decided to put wings on a spacecraft in the first place. Parachutes are well-understood, reliable, smaller, and lighter. For the weight of the wings, the Shuttle could easily carry a multiply-redundant parachute system. Considering what people on parachutes are doing these days, a system like that is probably going to be more flight capable than the existing shuttle anyway. I have no idea how important the wings are to the earlier aspect of the shuttle's reentry, or what kind of cost equation goes to retrofitting the shuttle with a parachute system of some variety.

I guess that a parachute is exactly what you're describing - internally stored aerodynamic surface deployed only in the later stages of reentry. As a bonus it puts almost no restrictions on the shape of the craft for that part of reentry.
 
  • #8
Here's a graphic of my foolishness:tongue2:
 

Attachments

  • storedwings.gif
    storedwings.gif
    8.5 KB · Views: 580
  • #9
NateTG said:
...I guess that a parachute is exactly what you're describing - internally stored aerodynamic surface deployed only in the later stages of reentry. As a bonus it puts almost no restrictions on the shape of the craft for that part of reentry.
Yes I suppose aerodynamically that's an accurate description, not what I had in mind but yes. Certainly makes the mechanical situation simpler.

The trouble with traditional chutes is, given the mass of the shuttle, I don't see a way to get to a soft landing on tierra firma. I know the Soviets did it, but that was with a ~monolithic capsule, no exposed rocket nozzles, etc. I can't see away to get to the soft touchdown w/ chutes on land w/ an orbiter mass.
 
  • #10
mheslep said:
Well of course in general a re-entry vehicle historically does not need wings to slow it down, it only needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry#Blunt_body_entry_vehicles" drag to slow it down as has been done in the past with Apollo et al. The shuttle happens to use its wings for that purpose in a series of high G turns.
No, the entire under surface of the space shuttle, which includes its wings, acts as a big aerobrake during the beginning of re-entry. You could, of course, design a system that doesn't require the wings, but remember that ballistic re-entry craft get hotter, experience higher g-forces, and are uncontrollable during re-entry. If the shuttle could be redesigned to behave similarly, it would take longer to slow down, meaning it would start with less deceleration and end with more deceleration - in a denser part of the atmosphere.

Moreover, during liftoff, the wings do not provide a significant fraction of the drag. The SRBs and ET are the bulk of it at first, and once supersonic, the ET is almost all of it.

It really wouldn't provide the benefits you are suggesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
NateTG said:
Honestly, it's hard to imagine why anyone decided to put wings on a spacecraft in the first place.
To land on a runway and reuse more of the craft.
Parachutes are well-understood, reliable, smaller, and lighter.
But are at the mercy of the wind and require a water landing and recovery - and you can't just lift a 727-sized object out of the water and drop it onto an aircraft carrier with a helicopter.
I have no idea how important the wings are to the earlier aspect of the shuttle's reentry
Extremely, but they could be gotten rid of if the system were completely redesigned.
or what kind of cost equation goes to retrofitting the shuttle with a parachute system of some variety.
for the shuttle itself, it simply isn't possible. It would require a completely different vehicle.
As a bonus it puts almost no restrictions on the shape of the craft for that part of reentry.
Well, no, the restrictions are quite similar to the restrictions on earlier capsules. There is some complex aerodyanamics and thermodynamics at work there.
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
No, the entire under surface of the space shuttle, which includes its wings, acts as a big aerobrake during the beginning of re-entry. You could, of course, design a system that doesn't require the wings, but remember that ballistic re-entry craft get hotter, experience higher g-forces, and are uncontrollable during re-entry. If the shuttle could be redesigned to behave similarly, it would take longer to slow down, meaning it would start with less deceleration and end with more deceleration - in a denser part of the atmosphere.

Moreover, during liftoff, the wings do not provide a significant fraction of the drag. The SRBs and ET are the bulk of it at first, and once supersonic, the ET is almost all of it.

It really wouldn't provide the benefits you are suggesting.
Ok, little or no reduced drag benefit. Doing away w/ that fragile tiled heat shield still stands though, as does less structural support required for wings that no longer have withstand max Q, and the overall safety benefits of not subjecting the wings to impacts during ascent. Also, I don't follow how the maneuverability gives the shuttle a high alt. re-entry advantage over pure ballistic? I assumed that was all to find a runway.
 
  • #13
mheslep said:
This one I don't follow. The actuators on swept wing aircraft don't make them impractical. If there's some non-linear factor in scaling that up to the shuttle I don't see it.

The STS uses redundant systems for everything important. That means that you'd have to have at least 2 sets of actuators per function. The individual ones themselves would have to be a lot beefier than those used on a military jet.

mheslep said:
Why does there need to be any fluid flow during storage?
I worded that sentence badly. I meant aerodynamic flow around the shuttle, not internal working fluids. It would be disrupted by deploying extra surfaces during flight.
 
  • #14
In my opinion the blended wing spacecraft is the most practical and cost effective. Like said before the shuttle is the most complex machine on earth.

The blended body wings have many purposes: acting as airbrakes to slow the spacecraft down, the allow the shuttle to glide safetly, etc. If NASA engineer were to use the idea you have explained and drew, well then the should have just used the Saturn V with a payload. With that said, your idea whould not be capable of using the current and previous propulsion system the Space Shuttle has had since it was first launched in April 12, 1981. This includes the external fuel tank and the SRB's. The whole purpose of design the shuttle was to make manned space flight to places safe and efficient. By doing this the shuttle was born and the main benefit was that it was reusable.

Also, if the shuttle was to have a wing deployment system such as foldable wings many mechanical systems would have to be designed so that the flaps and other mechanics that are involved in the wings can work. This is very crucial to the safe landing of the shuttle. Since the wings enable the shuttle to eaisly glide to the landing spot and be used over again. Also the wings on the shuttle do not pose a big problem of drag in take-off since the total thrust of the shuttle is 7,000,000 lbs or 31,000,000 N. So when the drag of the shuttle is factored in the wings effect on the total drag is very minimal.

As for a parachute design finding the right materials that can be used to with the stand heat and the speed of the shuttle's reentry will take a lot of time and money. Also chances are a new parachute will have to be manufactured and replaced for each new shuttle launch.

So in conclusion the design of the shuttle is perfectly fine right now. The shuttle will be able to serve the US Space program until it is retired and the new space vehicle in produced and flown. Although we have lost two shuttle's we are learning and making manned space flight safer and more efficient. These include heating elements in the external fuel tank to eliminate the build up of ice that caused damage to the tiles of the Columbia. So until the new spacecraft is used the shuttle is the best designed and most effective spacecraft we have. Hopefully the United States can keep our position as number one in space travel
 
Last edited:
  • #15
mheslep said:
Also, I don't follow how the maneuverability gives the shuttle a high alt. re-entry advantage over pure ballistic? I assumed that was all to find a runway.
I said controllability, not maneuverability (it doesn't steer during the initial decent, just regulates the decent). The shuttle regulates its deceleration and decent rates by controlling its angle of attack during reentry. I'm actually not certain about how much of a benefit this is, but I suspect this gives is much more flexibility in re-entry envelope (ie, different profiles due to different orbit altitudes). The ballistic craft were always on the edge - a little too steep and they burn up or kill the astronaut with g's (they maxed-out at about 12 g's during re-entry), too shallow and they bounce off and drift away into space.

Now, the next shuttle, iirc, is going to be more of a lifting body than this one is, which will probably enable some of the improvements you suggest while retaining the ability to land on a runway and control the decent.
 
  • #16
Danger said:
The STS uses redundant systems for everything important. That means that you'd have to have at least 2 sets of actuators per function.
Doubling up on everything doesn't necessarily add to reliability. Obviously there are many important systems not doubled nor could they be: landing gear, ET, and of course - wings.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
1] Why retract those surfaces at all? For protection? Then how do you protect the thing that's protecting them? It's still susceptible to damage.

2] Sweeping wings are much more complex, much more prone to failure, much more expensive. But ultimately,the most expensive cost is in added mass. An airplane is simply not comparable to a rocket. A rocket's payload-to-delivery-system ratio is so low that science institutions compete vehemently to shave grams off their payloads.
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
1] Why retract those surfaces at all? For protection? Then how do you protect the thing that's protecting them? It's still susceptible to damage.
Two reasons: 1. as an example recall the Saturn V - no oblique surfaces in the air flow, no damage worries on ascent even if there is a shower of detached ice raining down. 2. No complicated heat shield required to tailor fit to complicated flight surfaces.

2] Sweeping wings are much more complex, much more prone to failure, much more expensive.
Well I expected that might be the case, but there are successful precedents so I've kept going. F14s didn't regularly fall out of the sky. Can you provide any more precision?

Note that there's a great deal to be gained here as a trade off. The shuttle heat shield is composed of thousands of tiles, every one of them different and custom made to high tolerances. In near every mission some of them fail/are damaged and require manual replacement. The dam thing goes away with stored flight surfaces.

But ultimately,the most expensive cost is in added mass. An airplane is simply not comparable to a rocket. A rocket's payload-to-delivery-system ratio is so low that science institutions compete vehemently to shave grams off their payloads.
Yes mass is an issue. There are trades there too: 1. I am guessing that wings that don't experience max Q can be lighter, 2. If mass is that tight Id still like to see the orbiters drag coefficient because that would improve w/o wings and save lift fuel mass. BTW, I also just saw a write up on the new 'impact sensor' system deployed recently in the wings - more mass that goes away w/ storage.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Danger said:
There's also the matter of internal space to store the parts while they're not in service.
I'm going to return to this for a moment because I'm not sure if the significance came across the first time. Storing the wings internally would entail completely redesigning the internal systems in order to make room. That would include the engine gimbaling mechanisms, fuel delivery, and everything else behind the cabin.
 
  • #20
Danger said:
I'm going to return to this for a moment because I'm not sure if the significance came across the first time. Storing the wings internally would entail completely redesigning the internal systems in order to make room. That would include the engine gimbaling mechanisms, fuel delivery, and everything else behind the cabin.
Retrofitting is a completely different ball of worms.

Let's assume that we're not talking about retrofitting an existing craft. Let's assume we're building a craft from scratch using mheslep's design but using existing technology**.

**I'm trying to make the comparison with the shuttle a fair one. If we were designing a new craft today, it would be completely different - eg. it might have an aerospike, or might not be reusable at all, considering the criticism of the shuttle's intended usage. So, no new technology.



Maybe the question could be qualified as: when we built the shuttle lo those years ago, how would it have been improved if we knew then what we know now? What if we'd given it depoyable wings?
 
  • #21
DaveC426913 said:
...Maybe the question could be qualified as: when we built the shuttle lo those years ago, how would it have been improved if we knew then what we know now? What if we'd given it depoyable wings?
Agreed.
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
Maybe the question could be qualified as: when we built the shuttle lo those years ago, how would it have been improved if we knew then what we know now? What if we'd given it depoyable wings?

Orbital Spaceplanes don't exactly have an excellent record for practicality. There's a reason that NASA is going back to a capsule/parachute approach.

If you're looking at rocket-only, I'd be suggesting something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)
Combined with some sort of specialized satellite retrieval payload. (One of the design goals of the shuttle is to retrieve sattelites.)

In practical terms, some sort of initial catapult makes a lot of sense. If I were going to go for a gee-whiz approach, that's what I'd be looking at. Catapults do have the drawback that they tend to do better with high-G approaches that are not suitable for humans.

The Russians researched a hinged wing body-lift plane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uragan_%28spaceplane%29#Uragan [Broken]

I'm not sure how well something like that could be scaled up...
So, I'd be looking at three stages:
1. Catapult
2. Ramjet Mothership
3. Rocketplane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
DaveC426913 said:
Let's assume that we're not talking about retrofitting an existing craft. Let's assume we're building a craft from scratch using mheslep's design but using existing technology**.

Fair enough.
My initial impression that Mheslep was attempting a retrofit apparently was mistaken. The diagram did seem to support it, though. (And you can't help noticing that in the picture, the wings scissor right through the engines. Well, I assume that they're under the engines, but that would still interfere with a lot of equipment.)
 
  • #24
I have thought of the parachute idea myself, in the past, and it seems to make a lot of sense. Not a traditional round parachute, mind you, but something more like a huge ram-scoop parachute. With minimal effort such a chute could be fitted with controls operated from inside the cabin by a normal stick-and-pedals arrangement. This would amount to a deployable wing, on which the craft could glided to a landing strip much like the current landing method, but at much lower speeds in a much more forgiving vehicle. This would indeed constitute a significant reduction in takeoff weight, as parachutes are much lighter than rigid wings.
 
  • #25
it'd cost a lot of money to do that.
 
  • #26
Aren't parachutes much cheaper than rigid wings?
 
  • #27
LURCH said:
Aren't parachutes much cheaper than rigid wings?
Yes but as Russ Waters pointed out in #11 its probably impractical to fish the shuttle out of the ocean.
 
  • #28
Honestly, it can't be that hard to pull the shuttle (or something shuttle-sized) out of the ocean. If nothing else, it could be lifted on some kind of bladder and towed to a port. It's probably more difficult to get it to float in the first place.

The x-38 prototype - which is big, though not as big as the orbiter - has made parafoil landings on land.
 
  • #29
NateTG said:
Honestly, it can't be that hard to pull the shuttle (or something shuttle-sized) out of the ocean. If nothing else, it could be lifted on some kind of bladder and towed to a port. It's probably more difficult to get it to float in the first place.

The x-38 prototype - which is big, though not as big as the orbiter - has made parafoil landings on land.
The X-38 is interesting; looks like NASA also would like to get rid of wings. However it doesn't prove much in the way of 'chute or foil landings: Wiki says the airfoil used for the little 12 ton X-38 was the 'largest ever made'; 12 tons is a payload to LEO for the current 120 ton orbiter, and by size almost two X-38s could fit in the orbiter bay. The scales aren't even close. Think 747 scale when considering the Orbiter. The goal of the discussion wasn't to discover some freakishly expensive alternative, rather I am more interesting to discover the boundaries of practical improvements over the current design which, despite its problems, works.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
LURCH said:
...This would amount to a deployable wing, on which the craft could glided to a landing strip much like the current landing method, but at much lower speeds in a much more forgiving vehicle...

mheslep said:
Yes but as Russ Waters pointed out in #11 its probably impractical to fish the shuttle out of the ocean.

I'm not talking about fishiong the Shuttle out of the ocean, but landing on a landing strip using a ram-scoop deployable wing rather than a rigid one.
 
  • #31
LURCH said:
I'm not talking about fishiong the Shuttle out of the ocean, but landing on a landing strip using a ram-scoop deployable wing rather than a rigid one.
Ok, what is your estimate of the the rough order magnitude size of an air foil that would touch down a 120 ton vehicle at ~ 5 ft/sec, i.e., slow enough for a dry landing?
 
  • #32
Actually, the Shuttle typically lands at over 300 ft/sec. Also, the shuttle would be considerably lighter without the rigid wings.

But the usual figure I've always heard was about 1 ft2/lb. o, I would guess that a 120 ton vehicle would need to be about 80,000 yd2. Perhaps this company...

http://www.paraflite.com/pdfs/ADS%20DRAGONFLY%20PAPER.pdf [Broken]

...could scale up their current project?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
LURCH said:
Actually, the Shuttle typically lands at over 300 ft/sec. Also, the shuttle would be considerably lighter without the rigid wings.
I'm referring to the rate of descent. If the vehicle touch downs in water in can have a greater final descent rate.

But the usual figure I've always heard was about 1 ft2/lb. o, I would guess that a 120 ton vehicle would need to be about 80,000 yd2. Perhaps this company...

http://www.paraflite.com/pdfs/ADS%20DRAGONFLY%20PAPER.pdf [Broken]

...could scale up their current project?
Giving you what final rate of descent? Personnel chutes will put you down 10 ft/sec - too rough for a cargo carrying spacecraft . I am guessing you need 2ft^2. Even at 1ft^2/lb that's 850 ft on a side? A foil having > 1000 ft on the long side? That can't be deployed in the usual pop-it-into-the-air-stream manner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
You've seen people land with personal chutes. They are not decending at 10 ft/sec when they touch down. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting dropping the vehicle straight down like a mercury capsule, I'm talking about gliding down much like it does currently.

Deployment would indeed be a problem. Obviously, deploying the chute would have to wait until re-entry drag has slowed the vehicle to subsonic speeds. The size of the wing and the fact that it needs to open to a specific shape could necessitate the use of pyrotechnics for deployment.
 
  • #35
LURCH said:
You've seen people land with personal chutes. They are not decending at 10 ft/sec when they touch down. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting dropping the vehicle straight down like a mercury capsule, I'm talking about gliding down much like it does currently.
Common military (T-10, non gliding) chutes touch down at 22-24 feet/sec. Rule of thumb: 'chute touch down rate is the same as jumping off a 10' wall, or V=sqrt(2gh)=25f/s non gliding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATPS

Gliding must improves things, but I'm unfamiliar w/ how that system gathers and bleeds off energy.
 
<h2>1. Why doesn't the space shuttle deploy its wings during reentry?</h2><p>The space shuttle does not deploy its wings during reentry because it is designed to use its heat-resistant tiles and thermal protection system to withstand the high temperatures and friction during reentry. The wings are not needed for stability during this phase of flight.</p><h2>2. How does the space shuttle maintain stability during reentry without its wings?</h2><p>The space shuttle maintains stability during reentry through its aerodynamic design, which includes its shape, center of mass, and control surfaces. The shuttle is also equipped with reaction control system thrusters that can adjust its orientation if needed.</p><h2>3. Can the space shuttle deploy its wings during reentry if needed?</h2><p>No, the space shuttle cannot deploy its wings during reentry. The wings are fixed in place and cannot be extended or retracted once the shuttle is in orbit.</p><h2>4. What would happen if the space shuttle's wings were deployed during reentry?</h2><p>If the space shuttle's wings were deployed during reentry, it could potentially cause instability and lead to a catastrophic failure. The wings are not designed to withstand the extreme heat and pressure of reentry and could also disrupt the shuttle's aerodynamics.</p><h2>5. Why do other spacecraft, such as the SpaceX Dragon, deploy their wings during reentry?</h2><p>Other spacecraft, such as the SpaceX Dragon, have different designs and purposes than the space shuttle. These spacecraft may use their wings for stability and control during reentry, while the space shuttle relies on its heat-resistant tiles and aerodynamic design for the same purpose.</p>

1. Why doesn't the space shuttle deploy its wings during reentry?

The space shuttle does not deploy its wings during reentry because it is designed to use its heat-resistant tiles and thermal protection system to withstand the high temperatures and friction during reentry. The wings are not needed for stability during this phase of flight.

2. How does the space shuttle maintain stability during reentry without its wings?

The space shuttle maintains stability during reentry through its aerodynamic design, which includes its shape, center of mass, and control surfaces. The shuttle is also equipped with reaction control system thrusters that can adjust its orientation if needed.

3. Can the space shuttle deploy its wings during reentry if needed?

No, the space shuttle cannot deploy its wings during reentry. The wings are fixed in place and cannot be extended or retracted once the shuttle is in orbit.

4. What would happen if the space shuttle's wings were deployed during reentry?

If the space shuttle's wings were deployed during reentry, it could potentially cause instability and lead to a catastrophic failure. The wings are not designed to withstand the extreme heat and pressure of reentry and could also disrupt the shuttle's aerodynamics.

5. Why do other spacecraft, such as the SpaceX Dragon, deploy their wings during reentry?

Other spacecraft, such as the SpaceX Dragon, have different designs and purposes than the space shuttle. These spacecraft may use their wings for stability and control during reentry, while the space shuttle relies on its heat-resistant tiles and aerodynamic design for the same purpose.

Similar threads

  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
22
Views
17K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • Sticky
  • Aerospace Engineering
2
Replies
48
Views
60K
Back
Top