| |
Main
Date: 03 Jun 2007 08:58:43
From: Rich
Subject: Should have left the pockmarks in?
|
Wouldn't the hailstone pockmarks have helped the flight? Don't
golfballs fly much further because of them? :)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/06/01/space.shuttle.ap/index.html
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Jun 2007 11:56:11
From:
Subject: Re: Should have left the pockmarks in?
|
On Jun 3, 9:06 pm, <Hysterical left wingers must dies > wrote:
> > The only feeble things around here are Rich A's trolls and your Rich A
> > killfile entry. :--)
>
> Oh you CLUELESS clods.
>
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0215.shtml
Did you just look for a page someplace that had pictures of golf ball
and airplanes? if you read the article, you would have seen that the
dimples don't apply to most airplanes and definitely not the shuttle.
Quoting YOUR reference.
"The reason we do not see dimples on other shapes, like wings, is that
these particular forms of boundary layer trips only work well on a
blunt body like a sphere or a cylinder. The most dominant form of drag
on these kinds of shapes is caused by pressure, as we have seen
throughout this discussion. More streamlined shapes like the airfoils
used on wings are dominated by a different kind of drag called skin
friction drag. These streamlined bodies, like that pictured above,
have a teardrop shape that creates a much more gradual adverse
pressure gradient. This less severe gradient promotes attached flow
much further along the body that eliminates flow separation, or at
least delays it until very near the trailing edge. The resulting wake
is therefore very small and generates very little pressure drag."
The dimples only work well on blunt bodies like golf balls not wings.
Again from YOUR referene:
"However, there do exist other types of devices commonly used on wings
that create a similar effect to the dimples used on golf balls. Though
these wing devices also create turbulence in order to delay flow
separation, the purpose is not to decrease drag but to increase lift.
One of the most popular of these devices is the vortex generator."
The vortex generators do not apply to the shuttle! I am trying to
INCREASE DRAG to slow the shuttle down. The vortex generators do not
increase drag they decrease the drag. Although the shuttles wings
provide some lift. Hypersonic vehicles, like the shuttle, during re-
entry generate lift only from the underside of the fuselage. The
underside, which is highly inclined to the flow at a high angle of
attack, causes in conjunction with the underside shock-surface,
compressive lift in reaction to the inclined vehicle wedging the
airflow downwards.
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 19:06:20
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Should have left the pockmarks in?
|
On Jun 3, 3:05 pm, "Ed Holden" <ed.hol...@home.net > wrote:
> "Davoud" <s...@sky.net> wrote:
> > Disclaimer: I am not a rocket scientist, nor an orbital dynamicist, nor
> > an aerodynamicist, nor a golfer. I have never seen a shuttle up close,
> > only as a speck of light moving across the sky. My understanding of
> > these matters is feeble.
>
> The only feeble things around here are Rich A's trolls and your Rich A
> killfile entry. :--)
Oh you CLUELESS clods.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0215.shtml
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 16:55:33
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Should have left the pockmarks in?
|
Rich wrote:
> Wouldn't the hailstone pockmarks have helped the flight? Don't
> golfballs fly much further because of them? :)
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/06/01/space.shuttle.ap/index.html
Disclaimer: I am not a rocket scientist, nor an orbital dynamicist, nor
an aerodynamicist, nor a golfer. I have never seen a shuttle up close,
only as a speck of light moving across the sky. My understanding of
these matters is feeble.
Firstly, it is my understanding that the shuttle is launched according
to a rather rigid plan that includes the number of orbits expected, the
desired altitude, and other parameters that are beyond my poor
understanding. I do not believe that the shuttle is launched in order
to determine how high or how fast or how far it can fly.
Secondly, it is my understanding that the shuttle differs from a golf
ball in morphology (though I am not a morphologist,) purpose, and
propulsion system. There may be other differences of which I am
unaware.
Someone, anyone, correct my tenuous understanding of these matters.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 19:05:58
From: Ed Holden
Subject: Re: Should have left the pockmarks in?
|
"Davoud" <star@sky.net > wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not a rocket scientist, nor an orbital dynamicist, nor
> an aerodynamicist, nor a golfer. I have never seen a shuttle up close,
> only as a speck of light moving across the sky. My understanding of
> these matters is feeble.
The only feeble things around here are Rich A's trolls and your Rich A
killfile entry. :--)
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 19:00:39
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: Should have left the pockmarks in?
|
"Davoud" <star@sky.net > wrote in message
news:030620071255271949%star@sky.net...
> Rich wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't the hailstone pockmarks have helped the flight?
>> Don't
>> golfballs fly much further because of them? :)
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/06/01/space.shuttle.ap/index.html
<snip -- qualitative comparative analysis of dinged space
shuttle vs
golf ball aerodynamics >
> Someone, anyone, correct my tenuous understanding of these
> matters.
Oh, darn. Here, I read through all this hoping you'd give
the equation. :-(((
--
Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 09:48:38
From:
Subject: Re: Should have left the pockmarks in?
|
On Jun 3, 10:58 am, hysterical left wingers must dies wrote:
> Wouldn't the hailstone pockmarks have helped the flight? Don't
> golfballs fly much further because of them? :)
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/06/01/space.shuttle.ap/index.html
The shuttle is a sphere like a golf ball? All this time I though it
was shaped like an airplane with lift surfaces and a rudder!
|
|
