Dick ScobeeはChallenger 51LでRTLSを飛ばせましたか?

In a previous question, I explored whether or not, with a call
up from an observant Flight Controller, the SRB’s could be
separated from the STS-51L stack before the destruction of the ET
tank at 73 seconds.
Without commenting on the likelihood of success, I believe it was
Was a method available to save the Challenger Crew?



    標高47,000フィート、速度2900フィート/秒(1,977 mph)、ダウンレンジ9 nm軌道傾斜28.5

  1. ETタンク:87.7%O2および87.9%H2 Nominal RTLS Profile

    私はDick ScobeeとMike Smithが2つのほとんど克服できない問題に直面しているのを見ています。

    1. With the shuttle mass changing in an unpredictable fashion due
      to LH leak the FSW for RTLS will be nearly useless.

      From the training manual for RTLS

      If the RTLS abort is declared early in the flight, some fuel
      wasting is necessary, so the fuel dissipation task takes control of
      guidance. The fuel dissipation task works by assuming an immediate
      pitch around. From this assumption, software predicts the
      trajectory of PPA and flyback phases to compute the shuttle mass at
      MECO. This burnout mass is then compared to the desired 2 percent
      ET propellant remaining. If the predicted mass is less than the
      desired mass, then the pitcharound is initiated immediately. If the
      predicted mass is still greater than the desired mass, then further
      fuel wasting is necessary. The difference in mass between computed
      and desired is then used to compute how much more fuel must be

      I believe the predicted MECO would be well after the actual
      engine fuel starvation. Further, with large quantity of fuel in the
      ET, the fuel dissipation maneuver would take the damaged stack far
      away from the KSC return target.

      Question #1: What if anything could a shuttle pilot do
      in this situation to choose a MECO that is survivable?

    2. The ET tank was breached by the SRB flame at 66 seconds and has
      a hole in the aft wall. It further was of unknown structural
      The PPA maneuver requires exposing the aft end of the ET to the
      slipstream. I believe the actual ET tank failure on 51L occurred
      because the RH SRB rotated into the top of the ET and punctured a
      hole. This hole then created high pressure airflow into the ET tank
      and it literally “blew up” like a balloon and popped. The PPA
      maneuver might expose the aft ET leak to the same circumstance.

      Question #2: Given these risks could a RTLS be executed
      by rolling the STS into a shuttle up position, burning enough fuel
      to gain sufficient altitude for a “safe” ET separation sequence.
      What would be the safe altitude to execute this task, how far
      downrange and what velocity would the Shuttle be at?


    enter image description here(Rogers Commission, Volume II,
    Appendix L, page 15) enter image description here


    enter image description here




仮想的に言えば、ブースターがT +

T + 74sでの加速度はSRBで約23m/s ^ 2です。その時点でのSRBの質量は約 1,200,000
T +

私はこれを決定するために必要な完全な分析は実際には行っていないが、SRBがT +


メールアドレスが公開されることはありません。 * が付いている欄は必須項目です