Why couldn't the space shuttle slow down in space?

  • Thread starter zuz
  • Start date

zuz

47
25
Why couldn't the space shuttle slow down in space and eliminate the dangerous temps during reentry?
 

davenn

Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,565
5,263
Why couldn't the space shuttle slow down in space and eliminate the dangerous temps during reentry?

and how does that eliminate the fiery re-entry ?
Coming in at almost any speed will produce friction heat
 
148
69
I suppose that they could, theoretically. But there's no practical way to carry the fuel that would require up to orbit. Dealing with reentry heat is a much easier problem.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,599
4,877
As said before, the Shuttle didn't carry enough fuel to do that. Indeed, the fuel it would take to do this would weigh substantially more than the Shuttle itself.
 

zuz

47
25
OK Thanks.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,440
4,135
You'd have to bring up an equal amount of fuel to slow the shuttle as you need to launch it into orbit. Except all that extra fuel would need even MORE fuel at launch to get it into orbit. So you'd actually need somewhere around 10x the normal fuel to get all that mass into orbit.

The tyranny of the rocket equation...
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,931
3,598
Using the braking of the atmosphere is really good value (weight for weight, compared with fuel). You need to dump all the orbital energy and, at the same time, you can't allow the inside of the vehicle to get too hot. So there are time constraints. The the process needs to be fairly quick and to be over in time for the cooling effect of the lower atmosphere to remove the heat of the skin outwards rather than letting it roast the occupants. Ablation of the whit hot outer surfaces of the protective tiles removes a lot of heat from the skin.
Gliding down, more slowly would still result in the same amount of energy dissipation but would result in more heating of the occupants.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,440
4,135
Using the braking of the atmosphere is really good value (weight for weight, compared with fuel).
Indeed. Landing on the Moon required the Lunar Module to carry roughly 18,000 lbs (8,200 kg) of fuel in its descent stage. You could replace all of this fuel with an aerodynamic fairing (not sure if you need a heat shield since the initial descent speed isn't that high) if the Moon had a substantial atmosphere. This fairing would have a fraction of the mass of all that fuel.
 
649
163
A one-off entry is easy enough to arrange, but there are also 'skip' approaches, where craft dips into the atmosphere, dissipates some velocity, then bobs out again to cool off. Rinse and repeat...
IIRC, skewing 'skips' also allow for significant 'orbital plane' changes with scant fuel use...

Downside, your heat-shield & structure must tolerate such 'short cycling', must not 'soak' cumulative heat and, yes, must dissipate one dip's heat before starting the next...

FWIW, I don't think any crewed craft have used this (Per '2010' ?), only some space probes doing Mars' atmospheric braking to save fuel...
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,931
3,598
FWIW, I don't think any crewed craft have used this (Per '2010' ?), only some space probes doing Mars' atmospheric braking to save fuel...
Who'd want to test pilot such a re-entry system? Several 'déja vue' situations in a row and each one just as likely to involve frying.
 
104
38
Also keep in mind that the earlier you try to decelerate to avoid the heat, the longer gravity pulls you and thus the more fuel you need to constantly stay below the velocity needed to avoid the heat.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,931
3,598
Also keep in mind that the earlier you try to decelerate to avoid the heat, the longer gravity pulls you and thus the more fuel you need to constantly stay below the velocity needed to avoid the heat.
You don't solve any problems if you just use fuel to try to avoid the heating. That way is a straight trade off of fuel against heating penalty as far as I can see.
You have to accept the heat and dissipate it as effectively as possible without using fuel. You must either bite the bullet and play fireballs or use multiple mini-entries and dissipate the heat / energy in stages at the highest points in a series of eccentric orbits. I guess that the control available using present software can look after the need for an optimum.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,931
3,598
dissipate it as effectively as possible without using fuel.
Perhaps not "without using fuel" but with some intelligent refrigeration system. The temperature difference between the surface of a 'hot' craft and the effective temperature of surrounding space is actually quite large so the performance coefficient could be pretty good.
 

Filip Larsen

Gold Member
1,188
120
Downside, your heat-shield & structure must tolerate such 'short cycling', must not 'soak' cumulative heat and, yes, must dissipate one dip's heat before starting the next...

FWIW, I don't think any crewed craft have used this (Per '2010' ?), only some space probes doing Mars' atmospheric braking to save fuel...
Aerobreaking for orbiters (for the few cases it has been employed) only dip into the top of the atmosphere to reduce mechanical and thermal loads. As far as I know aero-capture (i.e. dropping from hyperbolic to elliptical speeds via aerodynamic drag alone - a more intense form of aero-breaking) has not been performed in practice yet.

The skip-entry maneuver I know about was a design idea to extend range of suborbital aerospace vehicles and thus, not per-see for aero-capture (with hyperbolic speed).

I believe the Apollo direct-entry from moon orbit (the fastest manned reentry we have done so far) is a good example of a practical lifting entry that made it possible to bleed of speed much higher in the atmosphere thus significantly limiting the g-loads and thermal load compared to a non-lifting (ballistic) reentry. I seem to recall a figure around 9G minimum peak load for ballistic reentries, compared to much lower for a lifting reentry. However, the Apollo reentries were not skip-entries as such either since the capsules stayed in the atmosphere for the whole reentry.

Regarding "soaking up" heat in the heat shield I do not think that is an option, skip-entries or otherwise. Some (older) designs use the conceptually simple ablative heat shield where the material of the heat shield itself would carry the heat away. Due to the power levels involved, non-ablative heat shields are more or less forced to have a design that allow it to radiate away all incoming power without any significant amount of storage. Or put in other words, storing heat only makes it worse to deal with. The space shuttle TPS, for instance, had tiles that could be white hot on one side and almost room temperature on the other:

 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,440
4,135
I seem to recall a figure around 9G minimum peak load for ballistic reentries, compared to much lower for a lifting reentry.
Over 11 g's for mercury capsules if I recall correctly.
 
32,585
8,465
Perhaps not "without using fuel" but with some intelligent refrigeration system. The temperature difference between the surface of a 'hot' craft and the effective temperature of surrounding space is actually quite large so the performance coefficient could be pretty good.
The front is really hot, the side is still very hot, and the back is a vacuum where you only have radiation. Dumping the heat into stuff inside the spacecraft is the only reasonable option for things that need cooling.
As far as I know aero-capture (i.e. dropping from hyperbolic to elliptical speeds via aerodynamic drag alone - a more intense form of aero-breaking) has not been performed in practice yet.
Zond 6 and 7 made a full orbit after slowing in the atmosphere.
 

Filip Larsen

Gold Member
1,188
120
Zond 6 and 7 made a full orbit after slowing in the atmosphere.
Didn't knew about those probes, thanks.

You mention they did a full orbit after aero-breaking, so I assume the probes did a "simple" ballistic aero-capture followed by reentry at next perigee? The wikipedia article mentions they employed skip-entry, but as I understand skip-entry that is a maneuver for sub-orbital speeds where lift is used to turn the trajectory upwards to extend the range.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,931
3,598
The front is really hot, the side is still very hot, and the back is a vacuum where you only have radiation.
I wouldn't argue with that but refrigeration systems do not rely on external convection to shed heat in principle. I did use the term "intelligent refrigeration" and that would need to involve a very hot heat sink. Obvs a liquid based refrigeration cycle wouldn't work.
I was thinking in terms of something 'electrical' like a high temperature Peltier system. In fact, if the orbit were elliptical, the cooling would be better during the lower speed portion of the orbit and then the whole surface of the craft could radiate heat. The energy generated during the slowing process would need to be stored and released during the (much longer) part of the orbit when the friction is not there.
There is a problem with the energy (fuel) needed to change orbit and that would be significant.
It would be interesting to know the ratio of heat generated from friction and the amount of heat loss during the frictionless phase. That would be the clincher, I think. Helping the process along with some refrigeration wouldn't perhaps make too much difference.
 
It's really a matter of fuel. The shuttle had tiny little tanks and big thirsty engines (the most powerful throttleable rocket engines on Earth ouat). At best it could fire about 8 seconds of thrust with the main engines, assuming they could get the things lit in space.
But if you had the fuel, yes, you could fire your engines until your speed was 0, and fall straight down, negating the need for a heat shield.
But we're talking about a lotta fuel.


I have actually tested this very scenario in my simulator and although the shuttle had the thrust to get from ground to 25k with it's onboard fuel (empty shuttle), it does not have the thrust to overcome 17k worth of orbital velocity. The best I could ever get it to do was drop to maybe 9 or 10k.

Fun stuff with flight simulators

 
Here is proof that the shuttle actually flies better than people think.
Everyone always says it flies like a brick, but I have flown a brick and it does not fly this well.
Really. The shuttle flies just fine as long as you fly her right.

 

Filip Larsen

Gold Member
1,188
120
Everyone always says it flies like a brick
The shuttle had (by design) a pretty low L/D around 1 (between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude lower than normal airplanes) which combined with the fact that it is unpowered gave it a fairly steep approach that for most regular pilots would likely be more comparable to controlled falling than level flying. I think its fair to say that most regular pilots probably would not be able to successfully land the shuttle manually without some study and training first :smile:

The instrumentation, flight control system and approach maneuvers were also specially designed to allow a safe landing despite the steep approach, so in its own way the shuttle flew exactly as it should. Later: found a nice summary of the landing process.

By the way, you can get a feeling for the actual steepness and fast pace of events near landing on this video:

There is also this longer, but low-quality video
 
Last edited:
Yep. Shuttle was the result of the lifting body tests combined with the X15.
But her gliding is on par with a 747.
Just keep her at <370KIAS and she flies well enough
What's hard is flying the full approach by hand. I think Story Musgrove was the only one to do it in real life, but he was the Chuck Norris of astronauts. I've done it in the sim, but I've created a smoking hole as many times as I have pulled it off successfully.
 
32,585
8,465
Didn't knew about those probes, thanks.

You mention they did a full orbit after aero-breaking, so I assume the probes did a "simple" ballistic aero-capture followed by reentry at next perigee? The wikipedia article mentions they employed skip-entry, but as I understand skip-entry that is a maneuver for sub-orbital speeds where lift is used to turn the trajectory upwards to extend the range.
I don't find the orbit description any more that I read a while ago but you can check e.g. Beyond Earth. Page 81 describes the Zond 6 re-entry, the first skip reduced the velocity to 7.6 km/s, that is the velocity of a low Earth orbit. With a eccentricity that gives you nearly a full revolution before you enter the atmosphere again. You could call it a very long skip.
In fact, if the orbit were elliptical
You are not in orbit in the situation considered here.
For aerocapture or atmospheric skips you get maximum heat emission if you let the surface stay hot.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,405
4,653
Yep. Shuttle was the result of the lifting body tests combined with the X15.
But her gliding is on par with a 747.
Just keep her at <370KIAS and she flies well enough
Well, Google tells me the shuttle has an L/D max (glide ratio) of 4.5 on approach, but a 747 is 15. A Cessna 172 is 9. Sure, the method is the same - pitch for the glide airspeed - but it's a lot steeper.
 
Is that an empty 747?
I usually fly the 747 full, and the shuttle empty.
I imagine they'd handle the same on a dead stick.

Heh, I once put rockets on a 747 just to see if it would get into orbit.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Why couldn't the space shuttle slow down in space?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top