Can the space shuttle take off from a runway?

[SonicIce]

Can it take off like a normal plane using its rocket engines and fly around a bit and land again? Does it even have a fuel tank of its own?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

It does have its own fuel tank, but it needs far more thrust to escape the Earth's atmosphere.

To my knowledge it can (at least in theory) take off and land on its own, but I am not 100% sure about it.

 

[herm0016]

the aerodynamics are built for gliding, and it even sucks at that. I don't know if it would generate enough lift.

 

[Aberforth]

To escape earth's gravity, the space shuttle has to travel at 11.4 km/s (6.9 miles/sec), that's why people build rockets, the escape velocity becomes lower as the altitude increases, yes space shuttle does have a fuel tank- that's for coming down- which is easy.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

 

[Gibsons]

I suspect, like herm0016 was saying, it probably can't even get airborne, nevermind orbital velocity. Small wings, large fuselage, not a whole lot of on-board fuel.

 

[Modelworks]

No it cannot take off from a runway. Planes that take off have airfoil shaped wings designed so that air moves at a different rate over the top than the bottom to create lift. The shuttles are not designed like that, they are shaped for gliding and not providing lift.

 

[dkozloski]

If you have enough power you can make a barn door fly. Getting the space shuttle off the ground in a normal manner under its own power would be a series of technical problems involving issues like getting the fuel and oxidizer into the tanks and getting them to feed in a horizontal attitude. The next trick would be to get it turned around and headed back toward the runway at an altitude sufficient to make the runway. It would be a difficult and dangerous operation for no good purpose other than to satisfy curiosity but it could be done.

 

[AeroEngy]

Couldn't you only fire the OMS on the ground since there would be no external fuel tank for the Mains? There are only two of those to provide any forward thrust at 6,000 lbf each. So 12,000lbf total thrust for something that big ... no chance that gets of the ground. Plus the OMS is not designed for long burns so you would be out of fuel really quick.

 

[SonicIce]

Yea I didn't mean make it to space. But you guys are probably right about the wings not meant for providing lift.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Planes that take off have airfoil shaped wings designed so that air moves at a different rate over the top than the bottom to create lift. The shuttles are not designed like that, they are shaped for gliding and not providing lift.

Okay, not to be mean, but you're completely wrong.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Planes that take off have airfoil shaped wings designed so that air moves at a different rate over the top than the bottom to create lift. The shuttles are not designed like that, they are shaped for gliding and not providing lift.

Okay, not to be mean, but you're completely wrong.

You're not mean, but mornic pointing out someone is wrong without stating reasons.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
Can it take off like a normal plane using its rocket engines and fly around a bit and land again? Does it even have a fuel tank of its own?

It absolutely can not take off like a normal plane. It would require LARGE engines to do that. It does have a fuel tank for the reentry rockets and maneuvering jets. However, those do not provide anything close to takeoff speeds. In fact, they are so useless that they arent used in the atmosphere to provide a 'go around' if they miss an approach on reentry. If they miss their glide slope, they crash, period, there is no ability to generate thrust on the vehicle in atmosphere to further control its landing location.

The russian version included two jet engines to provide some maneuverability in the atmosphere. We considered that but ultimately choose not to for weight reasons (those engines and fuel are heavy, requiring more power to launch the whole stack to begin with and it cuts from cargo capacity)

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Planes that take off have airfoil shaped wings designed so that air moves at a different rate over the top than the bottom to create lift. The shuttles are not designed like that, they are shaped for gliding and not providing lift.

Okay, not to be mean, but you're completely wrong.

You're not mean, but mornic pointing out someone is wrong without stating reasons.

It should be pretty obvious that wings provide lift, and there is no real difference between 'gliding' and 'providing lift'. Otherwise, what you have is a rock on a ballistic trajectory.... Whats missing is thrust to make the wings remotely useful. The shuttles only power is really inertia from launch...

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Planes that take off have airfoil shaped wings designed so that air moves at a different rate over the top than the bottom to create lift. The shuttles are not designed like that, they are shaped for gliding and not providing lift.

Okay, not to be mean, but you're completely wrong.

You're not mean, but mornic pointing out someone is wrong without stating reasons.

It should be pretty obvious that wings provide lift, and there is no real difference between 'gliding' and 'providing lift'. Otherwise, what you have is a rock on a ballistic trajectory.... Whats missing is thrust to make the wings remotely useful. The shuttles only power is really inertia from launch...

Except for the shuttle's three main engines that each produce 400,000 lbs of thrust... of course with all that fuel and no SRBs you're not going very far.

Anyway, back to the airfoil subject - the whole idea that airfoils are specially shaped so air goes faster over the top is BS. As someone pointed out, a barn door gets lift too. In fact, at the same angle of attack (at smaller angles where most planes cruise), a barn door section and an airfoil with the same length will get the same lift.

Airfoils are just designed to get their lift with less drag and prevent flow separation at higher angles of attack. The orbiter's airfoils are probably closer to a barn door than a subsonic aircraft's curvy airfoils to be better at the high Mach numbers it flies at and to create the leading vortex at high angles to push the maximum lift way up there.

 

[bsobel]

Except for the shuttle's three main engines that each produce 400,000 lbs of thrust... of course with all that fuel and no SRBs you're not going very far.

The fuel for the ME's come from the ET. The onboard fuel is for the reentry thrusters...

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Planes that take off have airfoil shaped wings designed so that air moves at a different rate over the top than the bottom to create lift. The shuttles are not designed like that, they are shaped for gliding and not providing lift.

Okay, not to be mean, but you're completely wrong.

You're not mean, but mornic pointing out someone is wrong without stating reasons.

It should be pretty obvious that wings provide lift, and there is no real difference between 'gliding' and 'providing lift'. Otherwise, what you have is a rock on a ballistic trajectory.... Whats missing is thrust to make the wings remotely useful. The shuttles only power is really inertia from launch...

The difference between a glider and airfoil is big. Gliders do not provide lift, they rely on resistance against the surface. It is like someone dropping a sheet of paper versus one balled up. The paper isn't generating lift, its using the air resistance to slow it down as it falls.

Airfoil move air at one speed over the top and another below it, lower air pressure above the wing allows the higher air pressure below the wing to push the wing up, that is lift.


I'll stick with what a NASA engineer said " The shuttle is a rock in a controlled free-fall to the ground"

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Planes that take off have airfoil shaped wings designed so that air moves at a different rate over the top than the bottom to create lift. The shuttles are not designed like that, they are shaped for gliding and not providing lift.

Okay, not to be mean, but you're completely wrong.

You're not mean, but mornic pointing out someone is wrong without stating reasons.

It should be pretty obvious that wings provide lift, and there is no real difference between 'gliding' and 'providing lift'. Otherwise, what you have is a rock on a ballistic trajectory.... Whats missing is thrust to make the wings remotely useful. The shuttles only power is really inertia from launch...

The difference between a glider and airfoil is big. Gliders do not provide lift, they rely on resistance against the surface. It is like someone dropping a sheet of paper versus one balled up. The paper isn't generating lift, its using the air resistance to slow it down as it falls.

Airfoil move air at one speed over the top and another below it, lower air pressure above the wing allows the higher air pressure below the wing to push the wing up, that is lift.


I'll stick with what a NASA engineer said " The shuttle is a rock in a controlled free-fall to the ground"

What does "gliders do not provide lift" mean? Wings provide lift, including the wings on gliders.

 

[Aberforth]

has anyone tried a sailplane? It doesn't have any engines, it can stay in the air for as long as you want. It has a instrument called Variometer that helps detecting the rising turbulant air, it beeps louder when the air is rising, at that time you pull back on the stick to go up- you can maintain the airspeed of 80knots like that. Unlike Vertical Speed Indicator, the variometer shows the speed of the air not the speed of the aircraft through the air, You can try this yourself if you have Flight Simulator X.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcEeZvtMWYE

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The difference between a glider and airfoil is big. Gliders do not provide lift, they rely on resistance against the surface. It is like someone dropping a sheet of paper versus one balled up. The paper isn't generating lift, its using the air resistance to slow it down as it falls.

Airfoil move air at one speed over the top and another below it, lower air pressure above the wing allows the higher air pressure below the wing to push the wing up, that is lift.

I'll stick with what a NASA engineer said " The shuttle is a rock in a controlled free-fall to the ground"

"Gliders do not provide lift?" They provide lift in the exact same way any other airplane wing does. The orbiter is definitely creating lift during its decent. In the latter half of reentry it's acting just like any other glider.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I've always wondered why they can't just create a giant solonoid, put the rocket in it (rebuild it in thick steel / possibly some lead for shielding the inside). Apply billions of volts for a few seconds to the solonoid, WHAM, in space.

They'd need doctors at the space station to rectify the whiplash of all people onboard though, and the aim better be good.

But seriously, if done properly, would that concept work? Save on shitload of fuel. (probably brown out every single power plant in the contry in the process though)

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I've always wondered why they can't just create a giant solonoid, put the rocket in it (rebuild it in thick steel / possibly some lead for shielding the inside). Apply billions of volts for a few seconds to the solonoid, WHAM, in space.

They'd need doctors at the space station to rectify the whiplash of all people onboard though, and the aim better be good.

But seriously, if done properly, would that concept work? Save on shitload of fuel. (probably brown out every single power plant in the contry in the process though)

Basically thats similar to using a railgun to launch payloads. It's a bit more tricky that simply 'rectifying' the whiplash, cause at launch velocity even with a launch tube 1000's of feet long you kill the crew. Its been discussed for hardened payloads, they have to be designed for the very intense acceleration and atmospheric heating (the shuttle has to dissipate heat mainly on reentry since launch isnt so fast as to cause much, railgun payloads are subject to intense atmospheric friction during the launch phase)

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I've always wondered why they can't just create a giant solonoid, put the rocket in it (rebuild it in thick steel / possibly some lead for shielding the inside). Apply billions of volts for a few seconds to the solonoid, WHAM, in space.

They'd need doctors at the space station to rectify the whiplash of all people onboard though, and the aim better be good.

But seriously, if done properly, would that concept work? Save on shitload of fuel. (probably brown out every single power plant in the contry in the process though)

Basically thats similar to using a railgun to launch payloads. It's a bit more tricky that simply 'rectifying' the whiplash, cause at launch velocity even with a launch tube 1000's of feet long you kill the crew. Its been discussed for hardened payloads, they have to be designed for the very intense acceleration and atmospheric heating (the shuttle has to dissipate heat mainly on reentry since launch isnt so fast as to cause much, railgun payloads are subject to intense atmospheric friction during the launch phase)

Text

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I've always wondered why they can't just create a giant solonoid, put the rocket in it (rebuild it in thick steel / possibly some lead for shielding the inside). Apply billions of volts for a few seconds to the solonoid, WHAM, in space.

They'd need doctors at the space station to rectify the whiplash of all people onboard though, and the aim better be good.

But seriously, if done properly, would that concept work? Save on shitload of fuel. (probably brown out every single power plant in the contry in the process though)

Basically thats similar to using a railgun to launch payloads. It's a bit more tricky that simply 'rectifying' the whiplash, cause at launch velocity even with a launch tube 1000's of feet long you kill the crew. Its been discussed for hardened payloads, they have to be designed for the very intense acceleration and atmospheric heating (the shuttle has to dissipate heat mainly on reentry since launch isnt so fast as to cause much, railgun payloads are subject to intense atmospheric friction during the launch phase)

Text

http://research.lifeboat.com/ieee.em.pdf

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The difference between a glider and airfoil is big. Gliders do not provide lift, they rely on resistance against the surface. It is like someone dropping a sheet of paper versus one balled up. The paper isn't generating lift, its using the air resistance to slow it down as it falls.

Airfoil move air at one speed over the top and another below it, lower air pressure above the wing allows the higher air pressure below the wing to push the wing up, that is lift.

I'll stick with what a NASA engineer said " The shuttle is a rock in a controlled free-fall to the ground"

"Gliders do not provide lift?" They provide lift in the exact same way any other airplane wing does. The orbiter is definitely creating lift during its decent. In the latter half of reentry it's acting just like any other glider.

did you even read his explanation? air resistance != lift

 

[bsobel]

did you even read his explanation? air resistance != lift

He's wrong, the shuttles wings generate lift, otherwise it wouldn't be in a controlled glide, it would follow a ballistic trajectory to its impact point. "Gliders can have four or five times the lift that shuttles have, while jets have nearly three times a shuttle's lift. When a shuttle is thrown dramatically off course, it can be very difficult to stabilize."