[AR] Re: manual piloting (was Re: Re: body mass and size ...)
- From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:01:00 +0100
I've successfully hand-flown reasonably physics-realistic simulations of
the Shuttle in the 'orbiter' program with a few instruments. From what I've
seen, provided a vehicle is attitudinally stable, and you have an
artificial horizon, it's hard, but not stupidly hard; you just have to fly
a certain lean over and thrust schedule until you reach orbit.
Flying to orbit is not like trying to hover, an error of a few m/s or even
a few hundred m/s may not stop you reaching A stable orbit, but in hover it
will kill you stone dead.
On 9 October 2013 20:00, Henry Spencer <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2013, Ian Garcia wrote:
> > > They tried it in simulation, discovered that it worked surprisingly
> > > well, and decided it was worth having.
> >
> > Worked surprisingly well? Where is this documented? I always
> > understood that it barely worked and often failed, but I admit I may
> > have understood it wrong.
>
> I've seen mention of it several places; the one specific reference a quick
> look turned up is NASA TN D-5261, "A detailed study of manual backup
> control
> systems for the Saturn V launch vehicle", Hardy et al. (No, alas, I don't
> have a copy, just some notes from reading it.)
>
> It also occurs to me that "surprisingly well" is relative to one's
> expectations, and isn't necessarily incompatible with "barely worked". :-)
>
> As has been noted in some other connections, the sheer *size* of the
> Saturn V worked in favor of such things, by slowing down its responses.
>
> Henry Spencer
>
> henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (
> hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> (
> regexpguy@xxxxxxxxx)
>
>
>
--
-Ian Woollard
Other related posts:
