re: Picture of a space shuttle leaving Earth, taken by NASA

quote:

---

No, it's not.

---

Yes, it typically was. I already cited my reference earlier. Cite yours.

quote:

---

Sorry that you don't understand the difference in a fuel and oxidizer turbopump and a fuel pump.

---

Sure boss. However, they both serve to increase pressure of fuel delivery. This is in direct contrast to your statement that there are no fuel pumps, and strictly relying on gravity to provide fuel to the combustion chamber.

Now that I got those out of the way...

quote:

---

The Shuttle went into various orbits depending the mission including polar orbits for DoD, launching satellites into geosynchronous orbits, and building the Space Station. The roll program had zero to do with orbit placement.

---

Thank you for confirming part of my original statement that roll is performed depending on the

quote:

---

proper orbit for its mission.

---

I see you are on the East Coast, and since you say you supported the shuttle program, maybe you worked at KSC. I actually supported the program as well. Maybe this source will help you understand what I'm trying to say when I state that

quote:

---

the roll maneuver is performed, among other things, in order to position the shuttle into the proper orbit for its mission.

---

But in no way does it, as you state, have

quote:

---

zero to do with orbit placement

---

Note that

quote:

---

the "roll maneuver" is really a maneuver in all three axes: roll, pitch and yaw. The roll component of that maneuver is performed for the reasons stated

---

quote:

---

The pitch component controls loading on the wings by keeping the angle of attack (q-alpha) within a tight tolerance. The yaw component is used to determine the orbital inclination.

---

Looks like those bats are making contact, afterall?

LINK
^^^I tried to find a KSC source since it appears you hail from the East Coast, although there are many sources of information describing the same thing.

quote:

---

I supported the Shuttle Program from the first flight through the last flight

---

Let me guess, USA? I've been there plenty of times over the years and am not unfamiliar with the Shuttle program at all, I'll just put it that way.

I'm done with this argument.

The journey back is just as dangerous. That would worry more than take off.

Looks like Ant Man jumping out of mashed potatoes

quote:

---

Yes it does. Liquid fuel combustion of the shuttle's main engine emitted carbon dioxide and water vapor

---

The shuttle used liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as fuel. So where does the carbon come from?

However the SRBs do emit quite a bit of CO2.

So that particular image wasn't taken from a commercial aircraft like so many were from approx 30 miles away. What makes you think that FAA airspace restrictions didn't apply to an astronaut in a T-38 training aircraft? This proves nothing WRT your insistence that someone on a commercial aircraft cannot get a shot like this within around 30-40 miles of the pad.

quote:

---

No, I wasn't USA - they didn't exist when Shuttle first flew (I guess your google search failed you again).

---

Not Google. I happened to work with a bunch of those guys though.

quote:

---

Don't try to lecture me on the 3 axes - I worked for the pre-eminent aerospace company in the world for >20 years - your argument on the roll program is a cut and paste of topics you don't understand at an entry level. All 3 axes determine the ascent profile but - again - the roll program is executed EXCLUSIVELY to allow gravity to feed the SSMEs.

---

No, but I will argue points and back it up with data, something that engineers typically are used to doing. So you parrot back part of what we know that's true and present conclusions that are incorrect and not backed up with data while relying on your repeated condescending tone when you know nothing about me. Not that it would matter though, I could list off specific qualifications and it would make no difference to you.

quote:

---

The picture is not from a commercial airplane - the airspace is closed within that range during launch window except to military aircraft.

At launch, by the time the Shuttle clears the pad, it is traveling more than 100 mph - real acceleration.

A few seconds after launch, the Shuttle executed the "roll program" when it would flip on its back. That was done in order to allow gravity to feed the liquid fuel from the External Tank to the Space Shuttle Main Engines - this eliminated the requirement for fuel pumps.

---

Literally nothing you have said here is true.


1. The photo is from a normal citizen on a commercial flight and is of the final launch of Endeavor. STS-134. There was an exceptionally low cloud deck and ceiling that were basically the same low altitude--the weather above that was perfectly clear making this picture possible. The story of the photo was all over the press.

2. That's simply not true. The shuttle reaches 100 mph after clearing the tower--approximately 15 seconds into flight according to the velocity curve. That acceleration isn't actually very impressive--it's a bit of a slow start, but a hell of a lot of force application given the weight of the vehicle.

3. The orbital roll maneuver accomplishes many things--not one of them has anything to do with a gravity assist of draining the external tank. The forward acceleration is far too great to make any sort of orientation to Earth's gravity any way impactful. Just googling "orbital roll maneuver" disproves that statement.

quote:

---

1. The photo is from a normal citizen on a commercial flight and is of the final launch of Endeavor. STS-134. There was an exceptionally low cloud deck and ceiling that were basically the same low altitude--the weather above that was perfectly clear making this picture possible. The story of the photo was all over the press.

---

NASA has this for the photo

quote:

---

STS134-S-061 (16 May 2011) --- Photographed from a shuttle training aircraft, space shuttle Endeavour and its six-member STS-134 crew head toward Earth orbit and rendezvous with the International Space Station.

---

LINK

quote:

---

All 3 axes determine the ascent profile but - again - the roll program is executed EXCLUSIVELY to allow gravity to feed the SSMEs.

---

At best you are half right.


It wasn't to allow gravity to feed the mains.

Think that shite through, if you are as qualified and experienced as you keep going on about. What difference does gravity make as a primary driver of fluid flow on a vehicle that is experiencing 3 Gs along its thrust axis?

The roll may have had a component in factoring in the force vectors so that the pumps don't have to work incredibly hard to needlessly resist the force.

But to use words like gravity, exclusively, and to bypass the need for a fuel pump to describe this is just flat out wrong.

Speaking of....please why don't you educate us all as to why a turbo pump is some kind of completely separate thing from a fuel pump as opposed to just a type of fuel pump?

Edit: Nvm, I see someone else beat me to the punch.

Still pretty interested to see his response.

quote:

---

I supported the Shuttle Program from the first flight through the last flight...you're welcome.

---

Me too, I've been paying taxes since the 70s.

It's amazing how many internet "experts" here have simply read a Wikipedia article on their subject.

Both my dad and FIL were intimately involved in the Shuttle program. Apollo and SS paid for my upbringing.

quote:

---

They would not launch with that much cloud cover.

---

Not all clouds are created equal. We were not allowed to fly through anvil clouds.

You can try googling NSTS 16007 Launch Commit Criteria and see what comes up. It will define what weather conditions we were allowed to launch in.