Author Topic: Shuttle Elevons  (Read 390 times)

Offline davidpt40

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
Shuttle Elevons
« on: February 01, 2003, 08:38:30 PM »
I heard on the news that the elevons on the shuttle (combination elevator-ailerons, like on me163) possibly malfunctioned and fluttered, causing the catastrophic breakup.

Offline crowMAW

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1179
Shuttle Elevons
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2003, 12:36:06 AM »
I suppose it is possible, but I would think at that alt the elevons would not be effective enough to cause any major change in attitude even at full deflection.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Shuttle Elevons
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2003, 12:54:35 AM »
Controls are effective at that point.  They were in the middle of a couple bank maneuvers (like S-turns) to bleed off speed.  What I'm reading is that they started losing telemetry on left side hydraulics, landing gear, etc. a few minutes before the accident.  That indicates either a thermal or a structural problem (or both) on that side.  One guy pointed out that even if the left wing didn't fail, but just had more drag, that kind of assymetry could cause her to break up because of dynamic forces.  It's like diving into a pool sideways instead of head first.

So you could have:
Tile loss/damage on left wing causes drag which causes structural failure.
Tile loss/damage on left wing causes overheat of left wing and structural failure.
Tile loss/damage on left wing causes damage to left wing (thermal or aerodynamic) which causes flutter which causes structural failure.
Or the takeoff damage could have directly effected the elevon.
Or a zillion other things.  Too early to say.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Shuttle Elevons
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2003, 01:02:38 AM »

Offline crowMAW

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1179
Shuttle Elevons
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2003, 12:14:51 PM »
The banking maneuvers are not performed by the control surfaces until there is 10 lb/ft^2 pressure over the wing.  Until that time, the RCS (Reaction Control System) rockets control roll.  The RCS also controls pitch until dynamic pressure reaches 20 lb/ft^2.  Yaw control is only partially transferred from the RCS to the rudder once speed has decreased to Mach 3.5 and is completely transferred once below Mach 1.  The control surfaces only gradually become effective between 400k (atmosphere entry interface point) and 45k (yaw control transfer).  Think about in AH how significant the roll rate difference is from sea-level to 20k...now extrapolate that to 200k.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover-landing.html

"These thrusters are used during much of the reentry pitch, roll and yaw maneuvering until the orbiter's aerodynamic, aircraft-like control surfaces encounter enough atmospheric drag to control the landing. This is called Entry Interface (EI) and usually occurs 30 minutes before touchdown at about 400,000 ft. At this time, a communications blackout occurs as the orbiter is enveloped in a sheath of plasma caused by electromagnetic forces generated from the high heat experienced during entry into the atmosphere.

As the orbiter glides toward a landing, initially at a velocity of 25,000 feet per second at the EI point, its velocity is gradually slowed by a series of banks and roll reversals. As the atmospheric density increases, the forward RCS thrusters are turned off, while the aft RCS jets continue to maneuver the orbiter until a dynamic pressure of 10 lb. per square foot is sensed by instruments on board. At this point, the ailerons on orbiter's delta-shaped wings begin to operate and the aft RCS roll thrusters are stopped."

So how do the dynamic forces that do exist at high alt cause a break-up of a spacecraft?  If the left wing disintegrated from heat after the loss of critical tiles, there would be an imbalance of dynamic loads between the left and right side causing the craft to tumble.  The Shuttle has dynamic load limits for sideslip, which at that point were almost certainly exceeded and therefore led to airframe failure.

One interesting point...Columbia was fitted with a special nose cone and tail a decade ago for experiments to collect data on the dynamic loads and heat experienced during decent.  The Shuttle Entry Air Data System (SEADS) in the nose and the Shuttle Infrared Leeside Temperature Sensing (SILTS) infrared camera package in the top cap of the tail were designed to send data to the OEX for post flight analysis.  I don't believe these systems were removed after the experiments were conducted as they required special modifications to the Orbiter.  However, they may not have been capturing data on this trip.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2003, 12:28:12 PM by crowMAW »