-
STS-117 Landing Gear Slow to Drop?
by
edkyle99
on 24 Jun, 2007 17:46
-
I saw an Aviation Week headline that said "Atlantis Had Slow Landing Gear". I couldn't access the online story, but I did notice that the right main gear looks slow to drop in this video.
- Ed Kyle
-
#1
by
psloss
on 24 Jun, 2007 17:52
-
-
#2
by
Andrewwski
on 24 Jun, 2007 18:01
-
It was discussed a bit in the flight day thread, but I don't think anything ever came of it.
-
#3
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 24 Jun, 2007 18:09
-
Ok the right one was a little slower, but as long as they're down and locked by the time they hit the runway
then there isn't really much to be concerned about...
-
#4
by
DaveS
on 24 Jun, 2007 18:11
-
-
#5
by
ShuttleDiscovery
on 24 Jun, 2007 18:14
-
Is that MP3 of Atlantis' gear or another orbiter?
-
#6
by
DaveS
on 24 Jun, 2007 18:20
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/6/2007 8:14 PM
Is that MP3 of Atlantis' gear or another orbiter?
I believe it's Atlantis.
-
#7
by
STS Tony
on 24 Jun, 2007 19:10
-
I suppose this isn't a biggy, so long as they lock into place.
-
#8
by
USFJoseph
on 24 Jun, 2007 21:15
-
Which raises the question -- what if they don't lock into place? What is the plan? Glide as long as possible and make a belly landing? I suppose that's about all they can do with the decision basically being to glide or to put her down quickly...
-
#9
by
steve_slitheen
on 24 Jun, 2007 22:11
-
USFJoseph - 24/6/2007 10:15 PM
Which raises the question -- what if they don't lock into place? What is the plan? Glide as long as possible and make a belly landing? I suppose that's about all they can do with the decision basically being to glide or to put her down quickly...
It's not really like they have any option at this point - real split second timing between realising the gear's not locked and doing something about it. They can't abandon the landing attempt, but might just be able to react to minimise the damage. I guess it would really be Game Over for that particular orbiter.
-
#10
by
iphitus
on 24 Jun, 2007 22:26
-
Isnt there some sort of explosive charge or bolts to force the door open in case of a door issue? That provides redundancy for one possible problem, but I suppose there's not much you can do if the gear itself flat out fails.
-
#11
by
JonSBerndt
on 24 Jun, 2007 23:01
-
I wonder if it would be prudent in this case to deploy the shoot immediately at first contact? That would serve the purpose of helping to keep the orbiter aligned straight w.r.t. the runway, and also to *perhaps* assist in slowing slapdown.
Jon
-
#12
by
USFJoseph
on 24 Jun, 2007 23:49
-
I also imagine the procedure (I assume there is one) depends on the location. Say it's KSC they can glide farther (maybe) and belly land in the swamp vs the concrete as opposed to say Edwards?
-
#13
by
yinzer
on 25 Jun, 2007 00:08
-
I don't think that the orbiter will survive a belly landing. The trailing edge hits the ground first and slams the nose down hard enough to break things.
-
#14
by
Namechange User
on 25 Jun, 2007 00:43
-
The orbiter would not survive a belly landing. Glide slope and landing speeds are much steeper and higher, respectively. than a regular aircraft.
The gear have "thrusters" on them as well. This is what they are called but do not think of them as the rocket-type thrusters. They provide an extra push to extend the gear if necessary.
As for deploying the chute pre-touchdown, that would be a bad idea. The was concerns this was going to happen on STS-95 during approach the scenerios were not good as I recall. This was the flight where the door fell off at launch.
-
#15
by
DaveS
on 25 Jun, 2007 00:47
-
OV-106 - 25/6/2007 2:43 AM
This was the flight where the door fell off at launch.
And hit SSME#1.
-
#16
by
shuttlefan
on 25 Jun, 2007 01:22
-
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/6/2007 1:09 PM
Ok the right one was a little slower, but as long as they're down and locked by the time they hit the runway then there isn't really much to be concerned about...
But we have to wonder if the hardware is trying to tell them something. Remember what Ron Dittamore (Space Shuttle Program Manage at the time of STS-107), said about always listening to the hardware?
-
#17
by
Namechange User
on 25 Jun, 2007 01:56
-
shuttlefan - 24/6/2007 8:22 PM
ShuttleDiscovery - 24/6/2007 1:09 PM
Ok the right one was a little slower, but as long as they're down and locked by the time they hit the runway then there isn't really much to be concerned about...
But we have to wonder if the hardware is trying to tell them something. Remember what Ron Dittamore (Space Shuttle Program Manage at the time of STS-107), said about always listening to the hardware?
Well why he may have said it publically, that was not something where we all said, "yeah, you're right. Why didn't we think of that." There are a multitude of inspections, OMRS File 9 requirements for mechanisms, hyd, etc. Plus the gear gets cycled multiple times during a flow. The vehicle just landed on Friday and since there were no major issues most of the engineering teams, except those in Ground Ops at EAFB, have had the weekend off.
Lets not go looking for an issue either. If there's something we'll find it and fix it.
-
#18
by
rdale
on 25 Jun, 2007 01:57
-
What would the "hardware" be "saying" in this instance?
-
#19
by
psloss
on 25 Jun, 2007 10:23
-
To some extent, I think this is a case of more eyeballs getting a closer look at landing gear deploy. If Atlantis had landed at night and/or at KSC, I'm not sure this would have been particularly noticeable from the NASA TV broadcast. It's been a long time since an Edwards daytime landing -- the previous landing (STS-114) was in darkness. Before that, the previous landings (both daytime) at Edwards were STS-111 in June, 2002, and STS-100 in May, 2001.
then there isn't really much to be concerned about...