AERODYNAMIC DESIGN OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ORBITER

by
W. E. Bornemann
T.E. Surber
Manager, Space Shuttle Aerodynamics
Supervisor, Orbiter Aerodyanmics
Rockwell International Corporation and Rockwell International Corporation
Space Systems Group
Space Systems Group
12214 Lakewood Boulevard
12214 Lakewood Boulevard
Downey, CA 90241
Downey, CA 90241

The Space Shuttle Vehicle i s being developed by the NASA to provide capability for lower cost space
operations i n the 1980's and beyond. This paper describes Shuttle Orbiter aerodynamic design conducted by
Rockwell International under contract to NASA. Aerodynamic criteria key to establishing the external
configuration are discussed together with evolution of the design including effects of wing-body blending
on high angle of attack aerodynamics.
An overview of the wind tunnel program i s given and aerodynamic characteristics of the final configuration are described. Aerodynamic parameters critical to definition of Orbiter entry control and
performance are identified. During entry, the Orbiter f l i e s over an angle of attack range from 50 to zero
degrees. Trim capability and stability and control characteristics are discussed a t critical regions in
the entry trajectory. Methods are described to define reaction control rocket effectiveness and aerodynamic interactions during the initial portion of entry. A t hypersonic speeds, wind tunnel results of
viscous interaction effects a t high angles of attack are discussed. In the supersonic region where transition from high to low angle of attack occurs, critical stability and control parameters and wind tunnel
results are described. A t subsonic speeds, comparisons are shown between predicted aerodynamic characteristics and data from the approach and landing flight t e s t program.

NOMENCLATURE

Acronyms
AEDC
ALT
ARC
ATP
CDR
EAFB
ET
ETR
FCF
FMO F
JSC
KSC
LaRC
OMS
OV
PDR
PRR
RCS
SRB
SSME
TAEM
WR

Arnold Engineering Development Center

Approach and Landing Test
NASA Ames Research Center
Authority to Proceed
Critical Design Review
Edwards Air Force Base
External Tank
Eastern Test Range
First Captive Flight
First Manned Orbital Flight
NASA Johnson Space Center
NASA Kennedy Space Center
NASA Langl ey Research Center (a1so LRC)
Orbital Maneuvering System
Orbital Vehicle
Prel iminary Design Review
Program Requirements Review
Reaction Control System
Sol id Rocket Booster
Space Shuttle Main Engine
Terminal Area Energy Management
Western Test Range

Symbols (continued)
Yawing moment coefficient per degree
rudder deflection
Factor of proportionality in 1inear
viscosity-temperature relation, equation
Center of gravity
Altitude
Lift-to-drag ratio
Mach number
Mean aerodynamic chord, a1 so c
RCS jet'mass flow ratio, equation (4)

--

mm

q
RE

S
Se
VD

VA

Symbols
Span
Axial force coefficient
Drag force coefficient
Lift coefficient
Rolling moment coefficient
Rolling moment coefficient due to sidesl ip
(per degree)
Rolling moment coefficient per degree
aileron deflection
Roll ing moment coefficient per degree
rudder deflection
Pitching moment coefficient
Normal force coefficient
Yawing moment coefficient
Yawing moment coefficient due to sidesl ip
Yawing moment coefficient per degree
aileron deflection

2
Dynamic pressure = 1/2pV
Reynolds number, also Re
Reference area
Standard error of estimate
Design touchdown speed
Viscous parameter, equation (2)
Viscous interaction parameter, equation (1 )
Angle of attack
Angle of sidesl ip (positive nose-up)
aileron deflection (positive for positive
roll ing moment)
Body flap deflection (positive for nosedown pitching moment)
Elevator deflection (positive for nosel e f t yawing moment)
Standard deviation
RCS j e t momentum ratio, equation (3)
Sweep angle
Taper ratio
Mass,density of a i r

Subscripts
LB
03

Body 1ength
Frees tream

INTRODUCTION
The Space Shuttle Vehicle i s being developed by the NASA to provide capability for lower cost space
operations in the 1980's and beyond. The flight vehicle consists of a reusable orbiter, an expendable
external propellant tank, and two reusable solid rocket boosters. Space Shuttle will be capable of
launching a variety of payloads into earth-orbit from either the Eastern Test Range (ETR) a t Kennedy Space
Center or the Western Test Range (WTR) a t Vandenberg Air Force Base. Maximum payload capabilities will be
29,480 kg for an easterly launch from ETR and 14,515 kg for launch into polar orbit from WTR.
The orbiter development contract, under the direction of NASA's Johnson Space Center, was awarded to
Rockwell International in August 1972. Under this contract, two orbiter vehicles are being built-0V101
was delivered to the flight t e s t center in February 1977, and approach and landing flight testing completed
i n October 1977. OV102, the f i r s t orbital flight vehicle, i s in assembly and i s scheduled for roll-out
in l a t e 1978. Orbital flight testing will begin in 1979.
Aerodynamic considerations have played a significant role in the vehicle design process. The Shuttle
must fly satisfactorily with predicted aerodynamic characteristics; i t i s not feasible to approach f l ight
testing by incremental expansion of the altitude and velocity envelope. Consequently, the NASA and
Rockwell have given careful attention to the development of an extensive data base derived largely from
wind tunnel t e s t s , with detailed attention being given to defining uncertainties through statistical
analysis of wind tunnel data and by comparisons of wind tunnel predictions with flight data from previous
programs. In addition, the flight control system i s being designed to minimize i t s sensitivity to
uncertainties i n aerodynamic parameters.
The objectives of this paper are to: (1) briefly describe the Shuttle mission in order to identify
key aerodynamic design criteria ; (2) summarize aerodynamic development of the orbiter; (3) describe the
key aerodynamic parameters and their relationship to design and performance of the entry flight system;
and (4) sumnarize recent flight results which verify the aerodynamic estimates for the approach and
landing phase of the Shuttle mission.

VEHICLEIMISSION DESCRIPTION
The Shuttle Vehicle consists of four major elements: the orbiter; main engines (SSME); external
tank (ET); and two solid rocket boosters (SRB). Overall vehicle configuration i s illustrated in Figure 1.
The external tank contains the liquid oxygenlliquid hydrogen propellants used by the main engi?es during
ascent. Liquid oxygen i s located in the forward tank to maintain an acceptable center of gravlty for the
combined vehicle. Nozzles on each booster are gimballed to augment control during ascent.
The orbiter, Figure 2, i s a double-delta wing configuration comparable in size to a modern transport
aircraft. Normally , the orbiter carries a crew of four-commander, pi l o t , mission special i s t , and payload
specialist-with provision for as many as seven persons. The orbiter can remain in orbit nominally for
seven days (up to 30 with special payloads), return to earth with personnel and payload, land like an
airplane, and be refurbished for a subsequent flight in 14 days. Three main rocket engines mounted in the
a f t section of the orbiter provide propulsive thrust during ascent. These two million Newton thrust
1iquid oxygen11 iquid hydrogen engines are gimbal led in pitch and yaw to provide thrust vector control.
Smaller orbital maneuvering system (OMS) rocket engines are also located in the a f t section to provide final
impulse for orbit insertion, orbital maneuvers, and deorbit. Reaction control rockets (RCS) are located
in both the forward and a f t section of the orbiter to provide attitude control and three-axis translation
during orbit insertion and on-orbit operations. The a f t reaction control rockets are used in combination
with aerodynamic surfaces for control during entry. Aerodynamic surface controls include s p l i t elevons
along the wing trailing edge; a s p l i t rudder in the vertical fin which can also be flared open to serve
as a speed brake during descent; and a hinged body flap located a t the lower a f t end of the fuselage to
augment control during descent and landing approach. The body flap also shields the exposed main engine
nozzles from aerodynamic heating during entry.
The entire external surface of the orbiter, except the windows, i s protected by reusable insulation
to maintain acceptable structural temperatures under entry heating environment. Figure 3 i l l ustrates the
application areas for the materials used in the thermal protection subsystem. Application i s as follows:
1. Coated Nomex f e l t i s used in areas where temperatures are less than 67ZK for entry and 716OK for
ascent; i .e., upper cargo bay door, mid- and aft-fuselage sides, upper wing, and OMS pod.
2.

Low-temperature reusable surface insulation i s used in those areas where temperatures are below
922OK and above 67ZK under design heating conditions.

3.

High-temperature reusable surface insulation i s used in those areas exposed to temperatures

below 1533OK and above 922OK under design heating conditions.

4.

Reinforced carbon-carbon i s used on areas such as wing leading edge and nose cap where predicted
temperatures exceed 1533K under design heating conditions.

5. Thermal window panes are used in the crew compartment and high temperature metal i s used for
forward reaction control system fairings and elevon upper surface rub seal panels.

6.

Thermal barriers are instal led around operable penetrations (main egress hatch, landing gear doors,
etc.) to protect against aerothermal heating.

The thermal protection system i s a passive system. I t has been designed for ease of maintenance and
for flexibility of ground and flight operations while satisfying i t s prPmary function of maintaining
acceptable airframe outer skin temperatures.

Mission Profile
Mission performance capability is sumnarized i n Table 1. A typical mission p r o f i l e is shown i n
Figure 4. The Shuttle is launched w i t h t h e main engines and solid rocket boosters burning in parallel.
maximum dynamic pressure of 31,100 ~ / m ' is experienced approximately 62 seconds a f t e r launch a t 11,280
meters a l t i t u d e . Booster separation occurs a t 122 seconds a t an a l t i t u d e of 43,280 meters, 46.3 kilometers downrange from t h e launch s i t e . The solid rocket boosters descend on parachutes, a r e recovered
a f t e r water impact, and a r e refurbished f o r subsequent reuse.

After booster separation, t h e o r b i t e r continues t o ascend w i t h main engine cut-off and external tank
separation occurring 479 seconds a f t e r 1ift-off when t h e o r b i t e r has reached an a l t i t u d e of 115,700 meters.
The orbital maneuvering system engines, which provide the additional velocity needed f o r orbital insertion
are cut-off approximately 600 seconds a f t e r launch.
After completion of the orbital operations phase, deorbit i s accomplished by retro-fire of the
orbital maneuvering engines, and t h e o r b i t e r descends to the atmospheric entry interface (nominally, an
a l t i t u d e of 121,920 meters). A typical entry trajectory is shown i n Figure 5. The i n i t i a l entry phase
extends to a dynamic pressure level of 957.6 N/m2 (approximately 76,200 meters a l t i t u d e ) during which
a t t i t u d e control from two a f t pods i s blended w i t h aerodynamic surface controls, the l a t t e r gaining i n
effectiveness a s dynamic pressure increases. Entry, from a dynamic pressure level of 957.6 N/m2 to a
Mach number of l e s s than f i v e , i s accomplished a t a high angle of attack ( i n i t i a l l y 38 degrees) during
which the blanketing e f f e c t of the wing essentially precludes any rudder control
Coordinated l a t e r a l directional control i s provided by combined yaw reaction control j e t s and aileron control. The terminal
phase occurs a s angle of attack i s reduced below 18 degrees. As the o r b i t e r descends t o a l t i t u d e s where
winds can r e s u l t in r e l a t i v e l y large errors in i n e r t i a l l y derived a i r data, probes a r e extended (M=3.5)
to provide a i r data r e l a t i v e t o the vehicle. During a typical normal entry, range control is achieved by
bank angle while angle of attack follows a predetermined schedule t o achieve ( a t approximately M = 1.5) an
angle somewhat smaller than t h a t corresponding to maximum LID. A downrange capability of up t o 7,960 kilometers w i t h a cross range capability of 1,815 kilometers may be realized. Subsonic f l i g h t i s achieved a t
an a l t i t u d e of approximately 12,190 meters. Range control during the gliding descent i s obtained by angle
of attack modulation with velocity control maintained by the speed brake. The approach and landing interface occurs a t 3,048 meters above ground level and a preflare i s i n i t i a t e d a t an appropriate a l t i t u d e ,
followed by a deceleration f l o a t and touchdown. The i n i t i a l approach t a r g e t and f l a r e a l t i t u d e will be
scheduled t o provide a minimum of 25 seconds between f l a r e i n i t i a t e and touchdown. Touchdown occurs a t an
angle of attack of about 15 degrees. The nominal touchdown velocity i s 88 meters/sec, and maximum landing
speed w i t h a 14,515-kilogram payload is about 106 meters/sec including dispersions f o r hot-day e f f e c t s and
tailwinds.

Orbiter Aerodynamic Criteria

Aerodynamic c r i t e r i a , Reference 1 , f o r the o r b i t e r vehicle require the configuration to perform as
both a spacecraft and an a i r c r a f t . Because of t h i s , t h e external features must be carefully configured to
provide the protection and v e r s a t i l i t y required f o r orbital and atmospheric f l i g h t , and the aerodynamic
performance and control necessary f o r unpowered descent and landing. The aerodynamic lines must ensure
performance t h a t i s acceptable over the hypersonic to subsonic speed range, and provide the required cross
range capabil i t y and touchdown velocity Aerodynamic requirements, Table 2, were developed from analysis
of the entry phase of the mission. Landing requirements a r e shown i n Figure 6. S t a t i c s t a b i l i t y was not
required since the design c r i t e r i a allowed reliance on the f l i g h t control system t o meet flying q u a l i t i e s
c r i t e r i a . Early simulations identified a f l i g h t control requirement f o r s t a t i c longitudinal s t a b i l i t y t o
be no more than two percent body length (5.45 percent mean aerodynamic chord) unstable so the pitching
moment curve established the a f t center of gravity l i m i t a t 67.5 percent of body length. Payload c r i t e r i a
established a center of gravity range of 2.5 percent, thus establishing the forward l i m i t .

The selected configuration, Figure 2 , evolved from a s e r i e s of program and technical refinements
directed to achieve the vehicle yielding the best combination of performance and cost. This evolution i s
discussed further i n a l a t e r section. The double-delta planform combined with a moderately low fineness
r a t i o (approximately f i v e ) body minimizes interference heating - e f f e c t s , provides the required cross range
requirements, and possesses an acceptable trim and s t a b i l i t y range, Figure 7, over the f l i g h t Mach number
range.
The o r b i t e r wing was sized t o provide a 88 meters/second touchdown speed (VD) a t a 15-degree angle
of attack ( t a i l scrape a t t i t u d e f o r main gear s t r u t compressed, t i r e f l a t ) with body f l a p retracted and
the center of gravity a t the forward limit. The leading edge sweep (45 degrees) and aspect r a t i o (2.265)
were selected on the .basis of aerothermodynarnic trade studies t o provide the design touchdown speed f o r
a center of gravity a t the forward l i m i t with minimum wing s i z e and t o optimize the wing leading edge
thermal protection system f o r a reuse cycle of 100 f l i g h t s prior to major rework.
The fuselage was designed t o accomnodate a variety of payloads and house the crew and maneuvering
control systems. Nose camber, cross section, and upward sloping forebody J d e s were selected t o improve
hypersonic pitch trim and directional s t a b i l i t y and i n conjunction w i t h wind-body blending, t o reduce
entry heating on the body sides. Propulsion units f o r entry a t t i t u d e control and orbital maneuvering
have been incorporated in pods located in the a f t body fairings. The body f l a p i s used t o protect the
Shuttle main engine during entry and t o provide trim capability t o relieve elevon loads.
The vertical t a i l has been sized to provide a low-speed Cng of 0.0013 a t an angle of attack of
13 degrees about a center of gravity located a t the a f t limit. I t has a reference area of 38.,39 m2
including the rudderispeed brake. The rudder is s p l i t along the o r b i t e r buttock plane t o provide

directional s t a b i l i t y augmentation i n the hypersonic/supersonic f l i g h t regimes and to apply drag modulation f o r the subsonic f l i g h t phases, approach and landing. The section profile i s a five-degree, halfangle, 60-40 double-wedge a i r f o i l .
Aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic c r i t e r i a , Reference 2, regarding surface discontinuities, thermal
protection system t i l e steps and gaps, and waviness a r e shown in Figure 8. These c r i t e r i a are based on
aerodynamic efficiency requirements of 1i f t i n g surfaces and the prevention of premature transition from
laminar to turbulent boundary layers in the high heating portion of entry. Aerodynamic efficiency i s
affected t o a much greater extent by surface conditions of the forward rather than a f t regions of components. Hence, tolerance c r i t e r i a are generally more r e s t r i c t i v e f o r forward regions of the vehicle
surfaces and somewhat relaxed a t a f t portions.

DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
Development Schedule
Major program milestones a r e i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 9, s t a r t i n g with authority t o proceed (ATP) i n
1972 and culminating w i t h i n i t i a l operational capability in 1980. The o r b i t e r concept a t ATP was a
blended delta wing vehicle based on precontract studies and configured t o meet i n i t i a l Shuttle Program
requirements. As a r e s u l t of a continuing assessment of system requirements and technical refinements,
early in the contract the o r b i t e r concept was modified t o reduce weight and decrease program and operating
costs (Reference 3). As discussed in more detail l a t e r , refinements in the aerodynamic configuration led
to a double-delta planform incorporating a more e f f i c i e n t l i f t i n g surface than the blended delta. The
System Requirements Review i n August 1973 finalized technical requirements f o r the Space Shuttle systems
( i . e . , the t o t a l vehicle, i t s elements, and t h e i r ground systems) and approved the design approach of the
vehicle and associated support equipment. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) of the f i r s t o r b i t e r (Orbiter
101) vehicle and subsystems f o r the approach and landing f l i g h t t e s t program was completed in February
1974, followed by the Preliminary Design Review of the second o r b i t e r (102) in March 1975. Orbiter 101
roll-out from f i n a l assembly i n Palmdale, California, took place i n September 1976. The vehicle was mated
t o the Boeing 747 c a r r i e r a i r c r a f t a t the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and the
f i r s t captive f l i g h t was com leted in February 1977. The f i r s t airlaunch of Orbiter 101 f o r the approach
and landing f l i g h t t e s t (ALT~took place on August 12, 1977, and the final f l i g h t was completed on
October 26, 1977. Delivery of OVlOl to the Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, f o r ground vibration
testing took place i n March 1978. Fabrication and assembly of Orbiter 102, the f i r s t orbital vehicle,
began in 1975. Rollout i s scheduled f o r l a t e 1978, followed by delivery to Kennedy Space Center, Florida,
and f i r s t manned orbital f l i g h t i n 1979. The f i r s t six orbital f l i g h t s of the Shuttle are development
t e s t f l i g h t s , and the seventh f l i g h t i n 1980 i s considered the i n i t i a l operational capability f l i g h t .

Aerodynamic Design Approach

I t i s conventional i n an a i r c r a f t program t o approach f l i g h t demonstration by incremental expansion of
the f l i g h t envelope. This i s not feasible with the Shuttle vehicle. Once Shuttle i s launched, i t is
comnitted t o f l i g h t over the complete mission profile from ascent t o o r b i t e r insertion, deorbit, entry, and
landing. Flight characteristics must be based on aerodynamic data derived from ground testing and analysis.
Careful attention has been given t o the interactions between f l i g h t control systems design and aerodynamic
characteristics, and allowance has been made f o r uncertainties in basic aero data in f l i g h t control design.
Predicted aerodynamic characteristics have been derived from extensive wind tunnel t e s t s which have
included a systematic investigation of data uncertainties, nonlinear e f f e c t s , and e f f e c t s of wind tunnel
instal 1ation, blockage, and shock wave ref1 ections The Langl ey Research Center conducted detailed wind
tunnel investigations of control surface characteristics and nonlinear aerodynamic e f f e c t s , (I .e., Reference 4) t o support development of the data base.

Wind Tunnel Program

Key t o Space Shuttle development has been the acquisition of wind tunnel t e s t data t o support design
and evaluation by providing a continuously maturing data base reflecting configuration and subsystem
updates. By f i r s t orbital f l i g h t in 1979, approximately 40,100 t o t a l wind tunnel t e s t hours will have been
conducted f o r aerodynamics, heat transfer, and structural dynamics, consisting of approximately 20,200 f o r
the o r b i t e r vehicle, 16,100 f o r the mated launch configuration, and 3,800 for the c a r r i e r a i r c r a f t program,
Table 3. A t o t a l of 94 models have been built-38 aerodyamic, 36 heat transfer, and 20 structural dynamic,
Table 4. All wind tunnel testing i s coordinated with and approved by NASA management a t JSC.
In order t o accurately simulate f l i g h t conditions in a wind tunnel, Reynolds number and Mach number
must be matched. Problems in flow simulation (Reference 5, NASA CP-2009) occur when the geometric scaling
of viscous flow i s important, o r when coupling between the viscous surface'.flow and the external flow f i e l d
i s strong. In the f i r s t case, the boundary layer can be considered separately from the inviscid flow f i e l d ,
and viscous e f f e c t s can be scaled. This holds f o r Mach numbers up t o about 10. I t i s well known, f o r
example, t h a t skin f r i c t i o n varies w i t h Reynolds number in a predictable manner and can be scaled to f l i g h t
conditions from suitable wind tunnel results.
For Mach numbers greater than about 10, a pressure interaction r e s u l t s from the outward streamline
deflection induced by a thick boundary layer, and the viscous-inviscid interaction can no longer be
neglected. For t h i s case, there a r e two classical simulation parameters comnonly considered:

(1)

ym, the

viscous interaction parameter introduced by Hayes and Probstein (Reference 6)

(2)

TL, t h e

viscous parameter introduced by Whitfield and Griffith (Reference 7)

where M i s the freestream Mach number, C; i s the factor of proportionality i n the l i n e a r

viscosi?y-temperature relation (Reference 8 ) , and Rb.. i s the freestream Reynolds number
based on x. The parameter Ym i s the relevant parametgr f o r the "pressure" in both the
strong and weak interaction cases; whereas V' i s the relevant parameter in terms of
correlates
"pressure coefficient" ( i . e . , xm/qm). For s h t t l e , i t has been observed t h a t
total aerodynamic coefficients b e t t e r than Xm, and consequently,
has been used as the
hypersonic simulation parameter.

vL

vL

Figure 10 shows a comparison between f l i g h t Re and

and the simulation capability of typical wind
tunnels used to develop the Orbiter aerodynamic data base. I t i s seen t h a t the tunnel capabilities
closely match f l ight simulation requirements

Orbiter aerodynamic t e s t hours are summarized in Figure 11 which i l l u s t r a t e s the phasing and relationship to program milestones, and the distribution by speed range. Approximately 38 percent of t h e hours
were utilized in subsonic t e s t , 44 percent in the transonitlsupersonic range, and 18 percent in t h e hypersonic testing. Four t e s t phases will be completed by f i r s t orbital f l i g h t . The f i r s t was a configuration
definition phase to develop wing a i r f o i l section and planform geometry in support of design trades to
reduce o r b i t e r weight which led to selection of the double-delta arrangement. This phase was completed
by System Requirements Review in August 1973. The second phase extending essentially to OV102 Prel imi nary
Design Review i n March 1975 was dedicated t o refinement of the o r b i t e r vehicle and development of the
ferry f l i g h t configuration. A t a i l cone configuration was developed t o improve ferry performance and provide longer duration o r b i t e r f l i g h t s during the approach and landing t e s t program. Orbiter t e s t s were
conducted to determine basic s t a b i l i t y and control capability over the complete entry speed range. Control
surface effectiveness and hinge moments were measured to support preliminary design and sizing of actuators.
I n i t i a l RCS interaction t e s t s were conducted t o support entry control analysis. Tests were also performed
to measure Reynolds number and viscous interaction e f f e c t s and to identify wind tunnel s t i n g t a r e corrections to t e s t data. In addition, the Langley Research Center conducted testing t o measure o r b i t e r damping
derivatives.
The t h i r d phase of the t e s t program was implemented following OV102 Preliminary Design Review in
March 1975 t o provide more detailed OV102 design data and to verify the aerodynamic characteristics of
OV101 prior t o f i r s t captive f l i g h t in February 1977. The Langley Research Center program t o investigate
nonlinear aerodynamic and control surface interaction characteristics was continued during t h i s phase. In
addition, extensive testing was conducted t o develop the o r b i t e r a i r data system and provide sensor c a l i brations f o r both OVlOl and 102. OVlOl verification testing was also completed during t h i s period u t i l i z ing a 0.36-scale model i n the Ames Research Center 40x80-ft (12.2x24.4 m) wind tunnel. This model was an
accurate replica of the actual OVlOl f l i g h t vehicle and incorporated simulated thermal protection system
t i l e s , outer moldline protuberances, and main engine and reaction control system exhaust nozzles.
The final phase, i n i t i a t e d in early 1978, i s s t i l l i n progress and i s directed toward verification
of OV102 characteristics prior t o f i r s t orbital f l i g h t . Two models a r e employed (0.05 and 0.02 s c a l e ) t o
cover the speed range from Mach 16 t o 0.2. Figure 12, i l l u s t r a t e s the d e t a i l s of protuberances, cavities,
and thermal s e a l s simulated on the m d e l s .

Aerodynamic Uncertainties
Allowance has been made f o r uncertainties in basic aerodynamic data used i n design of the Shuttle
Vehicle, subsystems, and early mission profiles, Reference 9. Two categories of uncertainties have been
defined: 1 ) Tolerances, which account f o r wind tunnel data accuracy and manufacturing tolerances; and
2) Variations, which account f o r unknowns i n extrapolation of model data t o free-flight. "Tolerances" a r e
used i n subsystem design, and were derived from a s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of wind tunnel data in which t e s t s
were conducted using the same models in several different wind tunnels and using different scale models in
the same wind tunnel. "Variations" are used in establishing f l i g h t t e s t ppans and constraints, and were
determined from comparisons between predicted aerodynamics and f l ight t e s t r e s u l t s from 1i f t i n g entry
vehicles and selected high-speed a i r c r a f t . The f l i g h t data will allow reductions of the variations and
removal of corresponding f l i g h t placards t o achieve operational capability.

A mu1 t i p l e regression analysis computer program, Reference 10, was used t o determine the "to1erances"
on the derivatives CL, CD, Cm versus a; Cn, Ca versus 8,
and 6,. Utilization of the program involved
inputting available s e t s of wind tunnel data f o r a specified coefficient versus a , B, 6a o r 6, a t given
conditions of Mach number, control surface s e t t i n g , e t c . , with a proposed fowh of curve-fit; e.g., CL = KO
+ Kcc + K2a2 K5a5. The regression program s t a t i s t i c a l l y determines which terms of the proposed

...

curve-fit equation are significant and eliminates those which are not significant by performing a
least-square curve-fit of the t e s t data. Subsequent to selecting a "best" curve-fit, the deviation of
each t e s t point from the curve i s computed and the Standard Error of estimate, Se, (which i s a measure of
the standard deviation, a ) i s multiplied by three to estimate the three-sigma (30) tolerance of the aerodynamic coefficient, C, being analyzed. The three-sigma tolerance i s an increment or band about a nominal
value of the aerodynamic coefficient, C, for any given Mach number, body flap deflection, etc., where the
probability that a measured coefficient a t the specified condition l i e s within C +3u i s 99.73 percent. An
example of the procedure for determining the tolerance on l i f t coefficient i s shown in Figure 13. The
regression program yields a polynominal expression for 1i f t coefficient in terms of angle of attack:

The standard error of estimate becomes Se = 0.0146 and the corresponding three-sigma tolerance on l i f t
coefficient a t Mach 5.0 becomes 0.0438.
"Variations" were developed for three speed regimes from comparisons of f l i g h t and predicted values
based on wind tunnel t e s t data for representative vehicles, constructing the bounds of the data poilits and
applying the larger bound as a plus or minus value. An example of the procedure used to develop variation
uncertainties i s displayed in Figure 14. The figure presents a comparison between predictions based on
wind tunnel results and f l i g h t measured values of normal force for selected aircraft and space vehicles.
The data bands were selected on the basis of engineering ~udgmentand weighting "Shuttle-1 i ke" configurations more heavily than the 1ifting bodies. The speed regime groups were M ( 0.8, 0.8 5 M ( 1.2 and
M 2 1.2. The ratio of variation to tolerance a t Mach 10.0 was assumed t o apply throughout the viscous
interaction speed region.
Later in t h i s report where Orbiter flight data from the approach and landing t e s t program are discussed, comparisons are shown between estimated tolerances and variations for several aerodynamic parameters. The measured flight t e s t data points are seen t o be distributed about the nominal value and t o
fall within the predicted tolerance band, and well within the estimated variations. I t i s anticipated
that further correlation with f l i g h t data will permit reduction of the variations and removal of corresponding f l i g h t placards t o achieve full operational capability.

CONFIGURATION EVOLUTION
Stability, control, and performance requirements for aerodynamic configuration design of the orbiter
vehicle are, for the most part, established by the entry and recovery phases of flight. Consequently, i t
i s these phases of flight which were key in determining aerodynamic requirements for the orbiter external
arrangement. On the other hand, design airload conditions are primarily determined from the ascent phase.
Design issues key to achieving the proper aerodynamic balance to provide s t a b i l i t y , control, and
center of gravity range capability across the entrylrecovery flight regime are wing design, wing-body
integration, and integration of aerodynamic and f l i g h t control requirements. Wing design was key because
of i t s influence on vehicle weight, thermal environment, aerodynamic s t a b i l i t y , buffet characteristics,
and gliding and landing performance capability. Ning-body integration was important in obtaining a
balanced aerodynamic configuration capable of trim and control over the entire speed range, and in minimizing thermal envi ronment due to interference flow effects. Fuselage dimensions were 1argely fixed by
payload size and packaging efficiency while aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic considerations establ ished
forebody shape and local contours. Integration of aerodynamic control requirements was of major importance
in meeting flying qua1 i t y goals in a l l flight regimes, and minimizing vehicle weight as affected by control
surf ace arrangement, size, and actuator requirements

Prior to Shuttle Program go-ahead in August 1972, Rockwell International participated in extensive
NASA-funded Shuttle System studies during which numerous trades (Reference 1 ) were conducted to determine
Shuttle operational cost effectiveness, desired configuration and geometry, major subsystem definition,
and identification of major design drivers for the orbiter configuration. Design requirements found to
be key configuration drivers are landing speed; payload size, weight, and center of gravity envelope; entry
cross range and aerodynamic heating; stability and control requirements; and flyin qualities. From these
studies emerged a basepoint configuration a t Shuttle Program authority to proceed TATP). Following ATP,
further trade studies were conducted a t NASAIJSC and Rockwell to refine the basepoint design. Essentially
four aerodynamic basepoints were evaluated in arriving a t the final selected design, as summarized in
Figure 15.

ATP Configuration
For the ATP orbiter aerodynamic configuration, Rockwell selected a blended delta wing-body design t o
meet NASA mission requirements. Selection of the external arrangement was based on results of previous
investigations a t the NASA centers, and Rockwell design studies, supported by 4300 hours of wind tunnel
testing. The orbiter aerodynamic shape incorporated a 50-degree swept delta wing planfom sized t o provide
77.2 mlsec design touchdown speed with 18,100 kilograms return payload. Hypersonic LID was 1.3 a t
34-degree angle of attack, and maximum subsonic LID was 5.7. Elevons were sized t o provide trim a t hypersonic speeds over an angle of attack range from 20 to 50 degrees with an operational center of gravity
range of three percent body length. The cargo bay provided a 4.57 meter diameter by 18.2 meter long
volume for a wide variety of payloads. Cargo deploymentlretrieval manipulators were stowed in a dorsal
fairing along the top of the payload bay doors. Provision was made for installing four airbreathing
engines in the a f t portion of the payload bay for early development flights. Three main propulsion system
rocket engines were located a t the base of the a f t fuselage, and on-orbit propulsion engines were installed

in two removable pod modules alongside the a f t fuselage.

the a f t pods and in the forward fuselage compartment.

PRR

Reaction control rocket engines were located in

- PDR Configuration

Upon initiation of Shuttle go-ahead, the development aerodynamic wind tunnel program was implemented,
and further trade studies were conducted a t NASA/JSC and Rockwell to refine the ATP basepoint. The ATP and
PRR orbiters (Figure 15) were both blended delta wing configurations which were externally similar. The
most obvious changes were: (1) a redesigned forebody t o accomodate internal packaging revisions; (2) the
movement of the OMSIRCS pod from the side of the a f t fuselage to the shoulder location; and (3) deletion
of airbreathing propulsion for landing a s s i s t following orbital flights.
A series of wind tunnel t e s t s conducted over the Mach number range from 0.26 to 7.4, indicated
revised wing twist, camber, and fuselage blending would improve low-speed 1i f t capability Results showed
that reducing the wing-body f i l l e t radius and changing from a faired t o a straight f i l l e t (wing-glove)
increased the trim C significantly. In addition, significant system requirement changes were made by
NASA to reduce vehicke weight and cost. Orbiter down payload weight was reduced from 18,100 to 11,300
kilograms, and the vehicle resized from a design dry weight of 77,100 kilograms to 68,000 kilograms. The
minimum subsonic s t a b i l i t y requirements were reduced from three percent to 0.5 percent body length s t a t i c
margin a t the forward center of gravity. For the PDR configuration, Reference 3, direction was received
from NASA to modify the wing planform to a double-delta design, and the wing was resized to meet the
reduced dry weight and payload requirements. A 45/79 degree wing planform with reduced glove leading edge
radius was incorporated for improved subsonic performance, Figures 16 and 17. Improved low-speed performance and the reduced s t a t i c margin requirement permitted a reduction in wing size from 299 to 250 square
meters and resulted in rebalancing the orbiter vehicle to meet s t a b i l i t y and control requirements.

CDR Configuration

Wind tunnel investigations of the PDR configuration revealed a need for further configuration
refinement. Aerodynamic tests showed a difficulty in providing trim capability a t the forward center of
gravity in the supersonic f l i g h t regime. Aeroheating tests indicated the blunt fuselage nose resulted in
early transitional flow and high temperatures along the lower body surface. Also, wing incidence, camber,
and thickness distributions designed for maximum subsonic performance 1ed to local fairings on the 1ower
wing and fuselage surfaces which caused high local heating.
Changes incorporated in the fuselage nose section are illustrated in Figure 18. The blunt nose shape
was modified t o a cross section which was basically parabolic in plan and side-view. Winglfuselage
fairings along the bottom of the orbiter were modified to provide a thermodynamically aceptable smooth
lower surface with minimum reverse curvature, Figure 19. Leading edge sweep of the glove was slightly
changed (from 78 to 81 degrees) as a result of refairing into the modified fuselage nose.
To achieve the best combination of performance and cost, further configuration refinements were made.
The down payload requirement was increased to 14,500 kilograms and the design center of gravity range
established a t 2.5 percent body length. The OMS pod forebody fairing which extended onto the cargo bay
door was shortened to reduce weight and simplify the door-to-fuselage seal design. In addition, the
manipulator a m dorsal fairing along the top of the payload bay doors was deleted, and the manipulator was
stowed inside the payload bay, Figure 20. Aerodynamic c r i t e r i a for the final configuration are listed
previously in Table 2.

ORBITER AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Aerodynamics characteristics of the final orbiter vehicle, Reference 2, are sunmarized in this section.
These characteristics were derived from wind tunnel t e s t results adjusted to account for scale effects or
differences between model configurations and the final orbiter vehicle. Aeroelastic corrections have
been estimated by standard methods. Wind tunnel skin friction drag and reaction control rocket plume
interaction data have been corrected t o free-flight conditions using Reynolds number scaling for skin
friction, and jet-to-freestream-momentum ratio for plume effects.
Criteria for aerodynamic design of the Orbiter have been determined from analyses of the entry flight
phase, considering requirements for vehicle trim, control , performance, and aerodynamic heating. A typical
entry profile i s illustrated in Figure 21. Trajectory guidance i s accomplished by flying an angle of
attack/veloci ty profile preselected t o meet thermal design c r i t e r i a , and using roll comnands for range
control. Flight control i s accomplished in two modes termined spacecraft and aircraft. The spacecraft
mode applies from iinitial through mid-entry phases where the Orbiter i s a t high angle of attack making the
vertical fin and rudder ineffective. The aircraft mode includes mid-entry through approach and 1anding.
Switching from spacecraft to a i r c r a f t modes i s performed as a function of angle of attack and velocity.
Transition begins a t approximately Mach 5 and i s completed a t about Mach 1.5. In the spacecraft mode,
control in a l l three axes i s i n i t i a l l y provided by the a f t reaction control system jets mounted a t the
base of the Orbiter on either side of the vertical t a i l . As control authority of the aerodynamic surfaces
becomes sufficient, the jets are deactivated. Utilization of the control surfaces and jets during entry i s
illustrated in Figure 22. A t a dynamic pressure of 95.8 N/m2, the elevons are used to supplement the jets
in pitch and r o l l . The roll jets are turned off a t a dynamic pressure of 478.8 N/m2 a t which point the
yaw jets are used to i n i t i a t e roll maneuvers (as well as yaw control) with the ailerons providing turn
coordination until switchover t o the aircraft mode. A t a dynamic pressure of 957.6 N/m2, the pitch jets
are turned off and the elevons provide pitch control. Transition t o the aircraft mode i s initiated a t
approximately Mach 5 when the rudder i s activated. The yaw jets are turned off a t about Mach 1, and the

rudder provides control until landing. The speed brake i s programed t o a s s i s t pitch trim and augment
l a t e r a l s t a b i l i t y during t r a n s i t i o n from spacecraft t o a i r c r a f t control. During approach and landing, the
speed brake s e t t i n g i s modulated f o r speed control. Additional pitch trim i s provided by the body f l a p
which i s programed as a function of velocity.
Significance of the aerodynamic parameters r e s t s i n t h e i r e f f e c t s on vehicle performance, control,
and airloads. Those parameters most sensitive t o meeting entry mission requirements a r e l i s t e d i n Table 5.
L i f t , drag, and pitching moment a r e the primary aerodynamic parameters governing the entry trajectory,
range capability, and thermal system design requirements in terms of heat r a t e and load. Heating r a t e
influences maximum surface temperature and a f f e c t s material reuse capability. Heat load establishes
material thickness to maintain structural temperatures and, therefore, a f f e c t s thermal protection system
weight. Pitching moment determines the elevon s e t t i n g required f o r trim. Design areas sensitive t o trim
s e t t i n g are elevon heating during i n i t i a l entry, and control surface actuator s t a l l limits a t transonic
speeds. In addition, there i s an interaction between elevon s e t t i n g and lateral-directional control
capability because of the change i n r o l l and yaw effectiveness of the ailerons with elevon position.
Lateral-directional trim and control capability i s governed by the aileron and rudder control derivatives.
Above Mach 5 the aileron i s used f o r both r o l l and yaw trim before the rudder become effective. Between
Mach 5.0 and 1.5, the rudder provides both yaw and r o l l trim w i t h the aileron providing t u r n coordination.
Below Mach 1.5, r o l l trim is provided by t h e rudder. The derivatives Cng. Cag9 Cn6a, C R ~ , , CnSr, Cggr are
key t o establishing control capability, reaction control system propellant usage, and the-switch-over- point
from spacecraft t o a i r c r a f t control modes.

High Altitude Aerodynamics

The entry interface, defined as the upper l i m i t of the sensible atmosphere, begins a t approximately
120,000 meters a l t i t u d e . In t h i s high a l t i t u d e region, say 70,000 t o 120,000 meters, rarefied gas flows
a r e encountered by the o r b i t e r as i t enters the atmosphere. Aerodynamic design issues i n t h i s region
involve determining the effectiveness of the control j e t s and t h e i r influence on t h e Orbiter flow f i e l d ,
i n addition t o defining viscous interaction e f f e c t s associated with low Reynolds number/high Mach number
f 1ows

I n i t i a l entry aerodynamic characteristics, Figure 23, a r e highly influenced by interactions between

the reaction control system j e t plumes and the local flow f i e l d over the Orbiter. The t o t a l j e t e f f e c t s
a r e comprised of three factors:
r J e t thrust
r Surface impingement
r Flow f i e l d interaction

Impingement and interaction e f f e c t s a r e inter-related and have been obtained from wind tunnel testing.
Coupling i s present between the plume e f f e c t s and aero surfaces, and between the j e t s themselves.
A s e r i e s of model nozzles with d i f f e r e n t expansion r a t i o s were employed during the wind tunnel t e s t
program. General Dynamics/Convair, under contract t o the NASA (NAS9-14095), Reference 11, developed a
method whereby the experimentally measured induced plume e f f e c t (surface impingement plus flow f i e l d
interaction) could be separated into two component parts and the impingement term extrapolated to f l i g h t
conditions. To obtain a correct modeling of the reaction control system plume e f f e c t s i n the wind tunnel,
i t was necessary t o observe certain scaling c r i t e r i a . The primary factors for consideration, aside from
dimensional scaling, a r e plume shape and jet-to-freestream momentum r a t i o , @j/@m. In some instances,
namely, yaw t h r u s t e r f i r i n g s , mass flow r a t e r a t i o , i j / l i m , scaling was found t o be a s l i g h t l y b e t t e r
modeling parameter than momentum r a t i o . The scaling parameters a r e defined as:

and

m. @.vm
-s= @a 1
(sin
Vj
n
where
m = J e t mass flow r a t e
j

im
= Freestream mass flow r a t e
v

E x i t velocity

- meters/sec

-qm = Dynamic pressure - FE/m2

9. = Nozzle half-angle a t e x i t

13.)"~ = 1.300 x
J

(>)

qm

n = Number of thrusters
Sref = Reference area (24.9 m2)
In scaling from wind tunnel to flight, certain adjustments to the data base are required to account for
real exhaust plume effects since cold a i r was used as the jet media in the tunnel. Model plume impingement effects were theoretically extracted from the measured tunnel data and the remaining j e t plume interaction effects correlated against +&
/j,
or hj/im. Prototype impingement effects were then theoretically
generated. Examples of the data correlation for pitching moment are presented in Figure 24.
The application of the reaction control system data to a typical entry flight condition of &, =
478.8 N/m2 a t an altitude of 79,250 meters are presented in Figure 25 for three a f t l e f t downfiring
reaction control system thrusters. I t i s to be noted that adverse effects to control authority result from
the impingement and flow interaction terms for roll and pitch; whereas, in yaw these terms tend to increase
the jet moment.
Viscous interaction effects gre scaled from wind tunnel t e s t data to flight conditions by means of
the hypersonic viscous parameter VA discussed earlier:

where
Mm = Freestream Mach number
%"LB

CL

= Freestream Reynolds number (based on body length, LB)

=

Proportionality factor for the linear viscosity-temperature relationship (Reference 8)

with Monahan's empirical relationship given by

where

T 1 = Reference temperature, degrees Kelvin

Tao = Freestream s t a t i c temperature, degrees Kelvin
Tw = Wall temperature, degrees Kelvin
y = Specific heat ratio

K = Empirical constant = 0.5 for a i r

j = Empirical constant = 1.0 for a i r

NOTE:

A constant wall temperature of 1367OK and specific heat ratio of 1.15 have been assumed for the

flight conditions analyzed.

The primary viscous interaction effects are in shear forces w i t h essentially no effect on normal
force. Variation of V; along the nominal entry trajectory i s illustrated in Figure 26. High values of
correspond to low values of Reynolds number which i s associated with the thickening of the hypersonic
laminar boundary layer causing increased shear on the lower supface of the Orbiter. Evidence of this i s
seen as an increase in axial force coefficient with increasing VA with no change in normal force, Figure 27. Pitching moment a t zero degree control deflection, Figure 28, becomes slightly more negative with
increasing VA due to increased shear forces on the lower surface of the Orbiter. A t negative (trailing
edge-up) control deflections, the movement of the control surface has-little effect on the boundary layer
on the lower surface of the Orbiter, and consequently, the effect of VA on ,pitching moment i s similar to
the zero degree deflection case. For positive (trailing edge-down) deflections, however, the pitching
moment effectiveness of the control surface decreases with increasing VA. A t high VA (corresponding to low
Reynolds number) a thickening of the boundary layer results with a separation point which moves forward
with increasing control deflection. This causes a net forward movement of the center of pressure, resultFigure 28.
ing in reduced pitching moment effectiveness with increasing

v;

v;,

Effects of FA on aerodynamic performance characteristics are indicated in Figures 29 and 30 for a

nominal entry trajectory. The decrease in lift-to-drag ratio caused by the increase in axial force i s
accounted for in design of the entry trajectory. Reduced elevon effectiveness increases the control surface deflection required to trim, Figure 30.

Longitudinal Characteristics
Longitudinal s t a b i l i t y and control characteristics for hypersonic to low speed Mach numbers are
illustrated in Figures 31 and 32. These data have been determined as a result of extensive wind tunnel
tests (representative data are shown on the curves) w i t h hypersonic theory being used to bridge the gap
between high supersonic data and the hypersonic wind tunnel data. Low-speed longitudinal characteristics
shown in Figure 32 demonstrate stall-free characteristics over the operating angle of attack range. The
predicted characteristics are compared with t e s t data obtained with a 0.36-scale model in the Ames Research
Center 40x80-ft (12.19x24.38 m) wind tunnel. The changes in s t a b i l i t y evidenced in Figure 32 by the large
changes in pitching moment a t high angles of attack are due t o leeside separation on the orbiter wing
induced by vortices from the wing/fuselage junction.
The leeside flow separation influences the supersonic stabil i ty characteristics a1 so. Referring t o
Figure 31, i t can be seen that for M = 10 and 5, the variation of pitching moment with normal force
coefficient for zero and positive elevon deflection follows the classical Newtonian "sine squared" relationship. This relationship between pitching moment and normal force coefficient does not follow the "sinesquare" variation for negative elevon deflections. The change in characteristics i s due to the change in
flow pattern on the leeside of the Orbiter wing as influenced by negative elevon deflections.
The surface flow patterns on the leeside of the Orbiter wing consist of three distinct flows. A t low
angles of attack, the flow which i s i n i t i a l l y perpendicular to the leading edge i s turned parallel to the
freestream by the presence of the fuselage (Figure 33A). When the angle of attack i s great enough to cause
the wing leadin edge shock to detach, the trailing edge shock will become strong enough t o separate the
boundary layer ?Figure 338). This separation i s the result of subsonic flow a f t of the detached shock
expanding around the leading edge and reattaching a t supersonic speeds. The flow must s t i l l be turned
into the freestream direction as before. The turning i s accomplished by a strong shock that causes the
boundary layer t o separate. The wake begins t o affect the flow pattern a t higher angles of attack causing
a secondary type of separation (Figure 33C). Leeside flow boundaries for M = 6.0 are shown in Figure 34.
The relationship between spanwise location of the shock induced separation bs, and Mach number was obtained
from a correlation of delta wing data.

-b

The shock detach boundary was obtained from oil flow photographs.

The effect of leeside separation on wing pitching moment i s shown in Figure 35. The subsonic leading
edge suction that occurs when the bow shock detaches results in a more stable pitching moment slope. The
change to a more stable slope i s the result of leading edge suction when the wing bow wave detaches and a
reduction of l i f t over the wing area a f t of separation line (Figure 35). The center of pressure i s more
a f t for the l i f t gain (due to leading edge suction) than for the l i f t loss due t o shock-induced pressure
a f t of the separation line. The wing pitching moment becomes more stable, thus accounting for the
increased s t a b i l i t y shown in Figure 31 for +lo-degrees elevon deflection.
Elevon effectiveness i s also influenced by leeside separation. Loss in elevon effectiveness a t high
negative ( t r a i l i n g edge up) deflection can be attributed t o the effect of back-pressure on the leeside
flow field. Flap type controls will often cause boundary layer separation, especially in hypersonic lowdensity flows. Such back-pressure effects are of practical concern since i t i s desirable to control the
Orbiter with leeward control deflection (trailing edge up) in order t o minimize control surface heating.
Figure 36 shows elevon effectiveness data obtained from the AEDC Tunnel A a t M = 5 for an elevon deflection -35 degrees. The measured elevon effectiveness i s seen t o be less than shown by shock expansion
theory. This i s probably due to shock-induced separation. The separation extent increases with angle of
attack. After the angle of attack for shock detachment i s reached, the back-pressure effect from the
elevon will affect the wing flow. A t high angles of attack, the positive l i f t produced by the wing
vortices outweighs the negative l i f t generated by the elevon-induced flow separation over the inner wing
surface. The result i s a loss of elevon effectiveness below the shock expansion value. Adjusting the
theory for leeside separation results in reasonable agreement between theory and experiment.
Static trim capability for the elevon and body flap positioned for trim to the forward and a f t center
of gravity positions i s displayed in Figure 37. The control schedules presented on the figure are for
determining maximum obtainable center of gravity trim limits. A reserve for maneuvering, trimming spanwise center of gravity offset, manufacturing misal ignments , and aerodynamic uncertainties has been added
to the limits of the elevon effectiveness data to establish the limits shown on the figure. The a f t center
of gravity 1imits are based on a positive elevon deflection of 15 degrees for Mach numbers less than or
equal to ten. A positive elevon deflection of ten degrees was used for Mach numbers greater than ten due
to thermal protection system design limits during maximum heating conditions. Forward center of gravity
trim limits are based on an incremental pitching moment coefficient reserve of 0.015 for Mach numbers less
than o r equal t o ten and 0.02 for Mach numbers greater than ten. Figure 37 indicates a slightly reduced
forward center of gravity trim margin a t Mach 5.0 in the angle of attack range rrom 20 to 45 degrees. This
i s attributed to the loss in elevon effectiveness due t o leeside separation. Center of gravity trim limits
for the entry angle of attack schedule have been shown earlier in Figure 7. Both Figures 7 and 37 indicate
that a wide trim margin exists across the Mach number range.
Elevon control power in conjunction with the body flap and speed brake provide trim capbility between
the design center of gravity limits. The elevon schedule, shown in Figure 38, illustrates the nominal and
the most positive and negative settings for trim a t forward and a f t center of gravity positions. The
extreme settings account for control margin and uncertainties in aerodynamic characteristics. The speed
brake i s i n i t i a l l y opened during entry a t Mach 10, and i s programed as a function of velocity to

approximately Mach 1. Opening the speed brake a t Mach 10 assists in longitudinal trim during the transition from high to low angle of attack. Below Mach 1 , the speed brake setting i s modulated to provide
speed control during approach and landing. The body flap i s used as a trim device to keep the elevons
operating in an effective range, and, during the high heating portion of entry, to keep the elevons from
overheating. Body flap deflection varies during entry. For entry a t the forward center of gravity, the
initial body flap position i s normally full-up. For the a f t center of gravity case, the initial position
i s approximately 16 degrees down.

Lateral-Directional Characteristics
Lateral-directional stability and control characteristics along the nominal entry trajectory are
illustrated in Figures 39, 40, and 41. As shown in Figure 39, the Orbiter exhibits positive dihedral
effect (negative Cgg) across the complete Mach range during both the spacecraft and aircraft control modes.
During the spacecraft mode, and during transition to the aircraft mode, the directional stability derivative Cn8 i s negative. Cns becomes positive indicating s t a t i c stability in yaw a t approximately Mach 1.7, '
and retains positive values throughout the aircraft mode (Mach numbers below approximately 1.5). Aileron
and rudder control effectiveness characteristics are illustrated in Figures 40 and 41. Because the ailerons
provide control authority across the complete Mach range, and the rudder i s essentially ineffective above
Mach 8, the ailerons are used in conjunction with the yaw jets to provide for roll control in the spacecraft control mode.
Early analytical studies predicted an elevon deflection interaction effect on the lateral-directional
characteristics. Studies showed that the relatively large sized elevon in the presence of the deep, flatsided fuselage could induce a change in the pressure distribution in the a f t region of the fuselage. The
resulting change in pressure distribution resulted in an incremental change in side force, yaw, and rolling moment when the vehicle was yawed. The effect of elevon interaction i s illustrated for the yawing and
rolling moment derivatives in Figures 42 and 43. The control derivatives Cgda and Cn6 a are also affected
by elevon position. The influence of elevon position on the control derivatites i s shiwn in Figures 44
and 45. The sensitivity of the derivatives to elevon position influences vehicle control boundaries.
The nature of the control derivatives define the Mach regions where aileron and/or rudder i s used for
lateral trim. Aileron-alone i s used for YCG trim above Mach number 4.5 and rudder-alone i s used for YCG
trim below Mach number 3.5. A combination of aileron and rudder control i s used for trim in the Mach
number region between 4.5 and 3.5. The yaw reaction control system (RCS) jets are used to augment the
aerodynamic controls where required.
The interrelation between the control derivatives and the method used to trim YCG offset during the
spacecraft mode i s best illustrated by examining the relations for aileron and rudder required to trim.
Using aileron-alone:

and for rudder-alone:

The critical boundary exists when the denominator goes to zero; i .e., the condition where aileron or
rudder cannot produce a trim condition.
For aileron-alone, the boundary i s defined by

Using rudder-alone :

Aileron and rudder cross coupling ratios are

nominal aerodynamics. For the spacecraft control
violated for Mach numbers greater than about 1.9.
over the region from Mach 8 to approximately 1 . I ,

shown in Figure 46 for the nominal entry trajectory and

mode, the boundary for YCG trim by aileron control i s not
Trim of a YCG offset by rudder-alone can be accomplished
resulting in an overlap from Mach 8 to 1.9 for nominal

aerodynamics. To allow f o r trajectory dispersions and uncertainties in aerodynamics, transition t o the

a i r c r a f t control mode; i .e., conventional aileron/rudder control, i s i n i t i a t e d a t approximately Mach 5 and
is complete by Mach 1.5.
Low-speed directional s t a b i l i t y characteristics exhibit a strong Reynolds number/angle of attack
effect, Figure 47. The figure i l l u s t r a t e s the importance of full-scale Reynolds number testing on high
angle of attack aerodynamics. Test data obtained from models tested a t low Reynolds numbers (5 5 x lo6
based on mean aerodynamic chord) show essentially no change of directional s t a b i l i t y with angle of attack.
The early work of Polhamus (Reference 12) and Jorgensen and Brownson (Reference 13) indicated that Reynolds
number and body corner radius could have a significant effect on the h i g h angle of attack characteristics
of the Orbiter. These predictions were borne out when the Orbiter model was tested a t near full-scale
Reynolds number in the Ames Research Center 40x80-foot (12.2x24.4 m) wind tunnel Referring t o Figure 47,
i t can be seen t h a t the high Reynolds number t e s t data shows a decrease in directional s t a b i l i t y with
angle of attack which i s in contrast to the low Reynolds number data which shows essentially no change in
s t a b i l i t y w i t h angle of attack. A t Mach numbers above 0.7, data representative of f l i g h t Reynolds numbers
can be obtained in wind tunnel t e s t s a t low Reynolds numbers provided proper attention is paid to close
matching of body corner rounding on the wind tunnel models and f l i g h t vehicles (Reference 13).

The early work of E.C. Polhamus (Reference 12) was used t o predict the variation of directional stab i l i t y with angle of attack. Based on Polhamus' work, i t was determined that the low-speed/high angle of
attack directional s t a b i l i t y determined by wind tunnel t e s t s would be erroneous unless the Reynolds number
were sufficiently high t o permit proper simulation of the cross flow on the forward fuselage. I t was
predicted t h a t a close similarity i n both magnitude and change with Reynolds number, existed between the
cross flow drag coefficient for the Orbiter fuselage a t high angles of attack (greater than 15 degrees)
and a two-dimensional square cylinder a t 90 degrees angle of attack. From t h i s similarity, i t was concluded t h a t most of the low-speed Orbiter t e s t data would be within the c r i t i c a l Reynolds number range,
the range in which cross flow drag coefficient decreases from h i g h to low values as the Reynolds number
increases from subcritical t o c r i t i c a l . Polhamus presented data from t e s t s made on noncircular cylinders
w i t h the a i r flow directed normal t o the cylinder axis. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 48 for a square-shaped
cylinder w i t h rounded corners, the a i r flow will separate on the leeside a t subcritical Reynolds number
b u t will remain attached a t supercritical Reynolds number, when the flow i s directed a t an angle not
aligned with one of the major cross sectional axes. For the subcritical Reynolds number case, the r e s u l t ant body axis side force, Cy, i s positive while for the supercritical Reynolds number case, the side force
i s negative. Since the center of gravity i s behind the nose, positive side force translates to positive
yawing moment and negative side force translates t o negative yawing moment. Consequently, the effect of
going from subcritical t o supercritical Reynolds number is t o reduce the directional s t a b i l i t y of the
vehicle.
Presented i n Figure 49 i s the measured directional s t a b i l i t y variation w i t h cross flow Reynolds
number from several wind tunnel t e s t s a t approximately 20 degrees angle of attack. As can be seen, there
appears t o be a trend for the Orbiter directional s t a b i l i t y t o decrease as the cross flow Reynolds number
i s increased. The reason for the reduction of directional s t a b i l i t y with increased cross flow Reynolds
number is the elimination of the flow separation a t the nose w i t h increased cross flow Reynolds number.
A t angles of attack of 15 degrees and below (Figure 47), there appears t o be no change of directional stab i l i t y f o r the different t e s t s .

FLIGHT TEST RESULTS

The Approach and Landing Test (ALT) Program, Table 6, was conducted during the l a s t half of 1977
part of the Shuttle Development Program. The Orbiter Enterprise (OV101) was launched from the Boeing
Shuttle Carrier Aircraft over Edwards Air Force Base, California, and glided t o either a landing on
Rodgers Dry Lake, or on the l a s t f l i g h t , a landing on the Edwards Air Force Base runway. The program
consisted of eight captive f l i g h t s followed by three o r b i t e r freeflights w i t h the tailcone installed,
finally two freefl ights in which the tailcone was removed, testing the orbital return configuration.

as
747
conand

The captive f l i g h t s verified the airworthiness of the mated configuration, accomplished Orbiter systems checkout and developed the separation procedures, and verified aerodynamic forces a t separation. The
separation of the Orbiter from the 747 was achieved through the aerodynamic forces on the vehicles, so one
of the important objectives of the Captive Flight Program was t o verify the predicted separation forces,
and adjust the Orbiter elevon settings f o r separation, i f required. Special load c e l l s were installed on
the Orbiter/747 s t r u t s in order to measure the separation forces t o the required accuracy.
The orbiter l i f t and pitching moments in the presence of the 747 were the key parameters for safe
separation. Figure 50 shows these coefficients as determined during the captive f l i g h t s using load cell
measurements, compared to estimates based on wind tunnel t e s t s . The f l i g h t measured coefficients were we1 1
w i t h i n the uncertainties in the prediction. Since dynamic analyses had shown acceptable separations i f
the key aero coefficients were within the uncertainty band, the f l i g h t measurements confirmed that separation would be acceptable, and the program proceeded t o an Orbiter freeflight. The f i r s t separation
occurred on August 12, 1977, and was as predicted.
The f i r s t three Orbiter freeflights were conducted with a tailcone installed to f a i r the Orbiter's
blunt base. The tailcone provided increased glide range by increasing the Orbiter L/D from a maximum of
4.5 t o 7.5. I t also allowed increased launch altitude, from 6400 m t o 7620 m. The tailcone also was
intended t o reduce buffet levels a t the 747 empennage, since there was some concern t h a t w i t h the Orbiter
tailcone-off, the Orbiter wake may induce excessive buffeting and reduce the 747 fatigue 1 i f e . (Flight
measurements of fluctuating structural loads in the 747 t a i l l a t e r re1 ieved t h i s concern.)

After t h r e e tailcone-on f r e e f l i g h t s , t h e t a i l c o n e was removed and the t e s t program completed w i t h t h e

o r b i t a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n simulated. Two O r b i t e r f r e e f l i g h t s were accomplished w i t h the t a i l c o n e removed.
These f l i g h t s obtained t h e data used t o v e r i f y t h e subsonic aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the O r b i t e r i n
i t s o r b i t a l r e t u r n c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Separation o f t h e orbiter1747 d u r i n g t h e f i r s t t a i l c o n e - o f f f r e e f l i g h t
i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 50. I n Figure 51, t h e o r b i t e r i s shown j u s t p r i o r t o touchdown on the runway
a t Edwards A i r Force Base during t h e f i n a l f r e e f l i g h t on October 26, 1977.
The s i g n i f i c a n t O r b i t e r aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are compared w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s based on wind tunnel
t e s t s , Figures 52 through 56. Key instrumentation used t o d e r i v e these data were an "Aerodynamic C o e f f i c i e n t I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Package" provided by t h e NASAIDryden F l i g h t Research Center, c o n s i s t i n g o f t h r e e
accelerometers and t h r e e r a t e gyros, and a f l i g h t t e s t noseboom which provided angles o f a t t a c k and sides l i p , and p i t o t and s t a t i c pressures. A data e x t r a c t i o n pro ram was developed by t h e NASA t o determine
t h e f l i g h t - d e r i v e d aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Reference 147. The f i g u r e s show t h a t t h e f l i g h t measurements were i n good agreement w i t h wind tunnel p r e d i c t i o n s , w i t h t h e l o n e exception o f l a n d i n g gear drag
which was overpredicted by approximately 27 percent. Examination o f t h e wind tunnel data revealed t h a t
the estimated Reynolds number c o r r e c t i o n t o gear drag was inadequate. Thus, the aerodynamics o b j e c t i v e
o f t h e Approach and Landing Test Program; t o v e r i f y t h e low-speed aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , was
achieved and provided increased confidence f o r t h e n e x t phase o f t h e S h u t t l e Program, the O r b i t a l F l i g h t
Test.

CONCLUSIONS
Aerodynamic development o f t h e Space S h u t t l e o r b i t e r has been described. Extensive wind tunnel
t e s t i n g has provided a h i g h confidence 1eve1 i n the estimated aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Results from
the approach and l a n d i n g f l i g h t t e s t program v e r i f y p r e d i c t e d aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e subsonic
speed regime. Accounting f o r u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n aerodynamic data w i l l a1 low incremental extension o f f l i g h t
envelopes t o achieve p r e d i c t e d operational c a p a b i l i t y .

REFERENCES
1.

Surber, T.E. and Olsen, D.C., "Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Aerodynamic Development," Journal o f Spacecraft
and Rockets, Vo1 15, No. 1, January-February 1978, pp 40-47

2.

Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Space D i v i s i o n , "Aerodynamic Design Data Book, Volume 1 , O r b i t e r Vehiicle,"

November 1977, Report No. SD 72-SH-0060-1K

3.

Smith, E.P., Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Space D i v i s i o n , "Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r and Subsystems ,I1 June 1973,
Report No. SD 72-SH-0144

4.

Gamble, Joe D., Chrysler Corporation Space D i v i s i o n , "High Supersonic S t a b i l i t y and Control Characteri s t i c s o f a 0.015-Scale (Remotely C o n t r o l l e d Elevon) Model 49-0 o f the Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Tested
i n t h e NASAILaRC &Foot UPWT (LA63B)," May 1976, Report No. DMS DR-2279, NASA CR-144.606

NASA LaRC, "High Reynolds Number Research," October 1976, Report No. NASA CP-2009, pp 2-17
Hayes, Wallace D., and Probstein, Ronald F.,
Press, 1959, pp 333-345

"Hypersonic Flow Theory,"

New York and London, Academic

W h i t f i e l d , Jack D., and G r i f f i t h , B.J.. , "Hypersonic Viscous Drag E f f e c t s on B l u n t Slender Cones,"

AIAA Journal, Vo1 2, No. 10, October 1964, pp 1714-1722

Bertram, M i t c h e l l H., NASA, "Hypersonic Laminar Viscous I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t s on t h e Aerodynamics o f

Two-Dimensional Wedge and T r i a n g u l a r Planform Wings," August 1966, Report No. NASA TN D-3523
Rockwell I n t e r n a t i o n a l Space D i v i s i o n , "Aerodynamic Design Substantiation Report, Volume 1, O r b i t e r
Vehicle," February 1978, Report No. SD 74-SH-0206-1 K
Stein, Robert E., Jr., Lockheed E l e c t r o n i c s Inc., "Project 331 3, Mu1t i p l e Regression Analysis Program
f o r t h e Aerodynamic C o e f f i c i e n t Analysis System (NASA Contract NA9-122000)," January 1973
Rausch, J. R., General Dynamics Convair D i v i s i o n , "Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Rear Mounted Reaction Control
System J e t I n t e r a c t i o n Study," May 1977, Report No. CASD-NSC-77-003
Pol hamus, E. C. , "Effect o f Flow Incidence and Reynolds Number on Low Speed Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of Several Noncircular Cylinders w i t h A p p l i c a t i o n t o D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y and Spinning," NASA
Technical Report R-29, 1959
8

Jorgenson, Leland H. and Brownson, Jack J., " E f f e c t o f Reynolds Number and Body Corner Radius on
Aerodynamic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r Space Shuttle-Type Vehicle a t Subsonic Mach Numbers," NASA TN D-6615,
January 1972
14.

Romere, P.O., E i c h b l a t t , D.L., underwood, J.M., and Howes, D.B., "The Space S h u t t l e O r b i t e r Approach
and Landing Tests-A C o r r e l a t i o n o f F l i g h t and Predicted Performance Data," AIAA Paper 78-793, AIAA
Tenth Aerodynamic Testing Conference, San Diego, CAY A p r i l 19-21, 1978

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The aerodynamic design a c t i v i t i e s described in t h i s report are being accomplished by the Space Division,
Rockwell International, under NASA contract NAS9-14000. Overall technical management of o r b i t e r development i s accomplished by the Space Shuttle Program Office a t the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). Aerodynamic development i s directed by JSC through the Space Shuttle Flight Performance Technical Management
area, Mr. Bass Redd, Technical Manager, supported by Mr. James C. Young, Aerodynamic Subsystem Manager.
In addition t o JSC, the other NASA Centers (Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall
Space Flight Center) have provided extensive support t o the Shuttle development i n accomplishment of the
Wind Tunnel Program and i n analysis of t e s t results. In addition, the Langley Research Center has provided
additional program support through t h e i r independent investigations of nonl inear aerodynamics.

A t Rockwell, significant contributions t o t h i s paper have been made by Messrs. D.C.

H.S. Dresser, W.R. Russell and L.M. Gaines.

Table 4 SPACE SHUTTLE WIND TUNNEL MODEL SUMMARY

AUGUST 1972 TO FIRST ORBITAL FLIGHT

Table 1 BASELINE REFERENCE MISSIONS

MISSION
1

LAUNCH
SITE

OBJECTIVE

K C PAYLOAD DELIVERY

INCL.
(DEG)
28.5

ORBIT
ALTfTUDE VJRATIO!
(10 n)
(DAYS)
277.8

PAYLOAD
(lo3 ~ g )
ASCENT
DESCENT

29.48

Olsen,

NUMBER OF MODELS
ORBITER
VEHICLE

MATED
LAUNCH
VEHICLE

CARRIER
AIRCRAFT

TOTAL

AERODYNAMICS

11

23

38

AERODYNAMIC HEATING

22

14

36

STRUCNRAL DYNAMICS

12

0
2

TOTAL

45

43

94

14.51

SPACELAB

20

Tabl e 2 AERODYNAMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Tabl e 5 SIGN1FICANT AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS
HYPERSONIC
TRPJ6ONIC

25 DEG TO 5 0 DEG

AEROOYWIC
PARAMETERS

0 DEG TO 1 5 DEG
-5 DEG TO 2 0 DEG

SUBSONIC
CENTER OF GRAVITY RANGE
MINIMUM T W E L

2% BODY LENGTH

DESIGN RANGE

0.65 LB

0.675 LB

LANDING PERFORMRNCE
PAYLOAD
LANDING WEIGHT (MITH PAYLOAD)
MINIMUM DESIGN TOUCHDOWI~SPEED, VD
LONGITUDINAL STABILITY
MINIMUM HYPERSONIC STATIC MARGIN

YHY PAPAMETERS
ARE SIGNIFICANT

IF!:
I..

/ 1

TO

EUCH 5 TO 6

cn6'

, C , Cng
6

.
,

.
.

SUPEWTRANSONIC NdUI
2.5 TO 1.0

LIFTIDRAG EaDULATION
NOT LESS THAN 4.4

PEAK SUBSONIC VALUE (GEAR-UP. 655 = 8 5 DEG

NOT LESS THAN 2.5

Table 3 SPACE SHUTTLE WIND TUNNEL TEST HOURS SUMMARY

AUGUST 1972 TO FIRST ORBITAL FLIGHT

I
I

ORBITER
VEHICLE

AERODYNAMICS
AERODYNAMIC
HEATING
STRUCTURAL
OYNAMICS

I1 11 1(
14,700

8.100

4,500

6,400

lsooO
1'600

TOTAL

EXTERNAL

LAUNCH
VEHICLE

120,200

116,100

CARRIER
AIRCRAFT

TOTAL
HOURS

DESIGN HINGE W E N T CONOITIONS

DEFINES CONTROL SURFACE STALL
CONDITIONS

AILERON USED FOR BOTH ROLL a

YAY TRIM A W E NdCH S BEFORE
RUDDER BEUmE EFFECTIVE
YAY JET FUEL USAGE ( W E TO CG
OFFSET)
TO 5.
W
E
R S USED FOR.W
YAW
6 ROLL TRIM. AILERON 03ORDINdTES TURN
YAU JET NEEDED UNTIL RUDDER
I S EFFECTIVE
DEFINES SYITCH-OVER POINT

NO. OF
FLIGHTS
L4RRlER
ALONE

TRANSONIC MIND TUNNEL

DATA ACCURACIES

m t i T w L SURFACE INTERACTIOH

.
.
..

CONTROL SURFACE INTERACTIONS

RUDDER EFFECTIVEHESS AT
HIGH a, HACH
AEROEWTIC EFFECTS
TRANSONIC WIND TUNNEL
DATA ACWRAClES

MODIFIED 747

MODIFIED 747 WITH ORBITER

ATTACH STRUCTS 6 TIP FIMS

CAPTIVE
FLIGHT

OBJECTIVE

CONFIGUPATION

747 6 ORBITER, TAILWNE-ON,

ORBITER UNHANNEO L
UNPOUEREO

FUNCTIONAL CHECK, FLUTTER, L STALL

CHECKS
FLUTTER CLEAPANCE, PERFORMANCE, b STABILITY 1 CONTROL VERIFICATlON
FLUTTER CLEQANCE, PERFOWCE, 6 STABILITY
L m N m o L VERIFICATION
ORBITER FUNCTIONAL CHECK, SEPAlTlON
LORDS, L PROCEDURES VERIFICATION

TAlLCOhE-ON
TAILCONE-OFF

400

SOLID ROCKET BWSTER (SRB)

3.70 DlA

Table 6 APPROACH & LANDING TEST PROGRAM SUMMARY

3,400

13,800

REAL GAS EFFECTS NOT

. BENEEN EUCH 1.5

HIGH SUPERC
5
H

-2% LB (-5.45% MAC)

PEAK SUBSONIC VALUE (GEAR-UP. 655 = 0 )

AERO CONCERN I N
DEFINITION OF PAPAMETERS

LID

POSITIVE

MINIMUM SUBSONIC STATIC MARGIN (RFT CENTER

OF GRAVITY)

FLIGHT
REGllE

140,1001

CAPTIVE
IllERT

FERRY WIIFIGURATION. TAILCONE-OH

CRM FAHILIARIIATION, S Y S T W CHECK.

STABILITY 6 CONTROL. L PERFORMNEE
VERIFICATION
VERIFICATION OF ORBITER APPROACH L LANOING CAPABILITY
FERRY QU~LIFICATIONL PERFORMPNCE VERIFICATION

'
(laz)

bSPECT RATIO
SHEEP (DEG)
LEADING EDGE
GLOVE
n.A.c. (.I
DlHEMAL (DEG)

g
&
249.909
2.265
45
81
12.060
3.5

vmr.sms.
28.192
1.615
45
3.043

CONTROL SURFACE AREA 6 IUXINJU DEFLECTION

ARM (m')
DEFLECTION (DEG)
ELEWN (WE SIOE)
19.509
-35 TO +20
RUWER
10.233
r22.8
SPEED BRAE
10.233
0 TO 87.2
12.541
-11.7
r22.5
BODY F U P

SRB THRUST
ATTACH

ORBITER
I \

TANKIORBITER
AFT ATTACH

F i g . 1 SPACE SHUTTLE VEHICLE

Fig. 2 ORBITER VEHICLE

Fig. 3

THERMAL PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM

Fig. 4

SHUTTLE MISSION PROFILE

W E L I N E UHOIHG YEIGm
I14.Sl5 Kg PAYLMOJ

.-.AI

WlIWJI IAYOIHG
(No PAYLOAD)
G ; i EPzH&4 * i ,

34

WIT M Y AT SEA LEVEL

14,515 Kg PAYLOAD
5.1 d S E C TAlLYlNO
ORBITER YET GRWVEO

SPEED

5.4 W E C TAILWINO]

MIY K
U
W
ih OISPLRSIONI

(W YINOI

60

TIME FRon EMTRY (SECONDS)

70

80

90

ORBITER ENTRY TRAJECTORY

Fig. 6

110

LIMITS

0.57

FWD CONTROL LIMIT

0.58

0.61

CENTER
OF
GRAVITY
LOCATION

0.63
0.65
0.67

MACH NUMBER

Fig. 7

ORBITER T R I M L I M I T S

70

80
90
100
110
T W U M VELOCITY (WSEC TRUE GROUND SPEED1

LANDING REQUIREMENTS

C
rO
N
D
T
IO
IN
S
A
)
I
CONTROL

DISPERSION

,i,,
1W

ORBITER LANDING YEIGHl (1WO Kg)

Fig. 5

120

Up r Surlare: 0.1397f 0.0508

~ Edge
G Radius:
~ ~ 0.1524

(MaiiaumJ

Lower W l n g l E x c e p l E l e v o n l
Lowor Fuseloge Y/LS 0.3

ALL D I M E N S I O N S IN C E N T I M E T E R S

F i g . 8 ORBITER MOLD LINE/STEP CRITERIA

SIM FACILITY

WOfL
SCALE

SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTREVIEW
TRRJECTORY

ORBITAL FLlGHT POR

OR0 101 ASSEMOLY 6 ROLL-OUT

'

=
m

I
I

L---

FIRST CAPTIVE FLiGHT

APPROACH

AEOC A

los;

WDEL

AEDC B

L LANOIllG TLST

ORB 102 ASSEMBLI

ARC 9x7
AEOC A

L ROLL-OUT

FIRST MANNED ORBITAL

10'

0.05
0.02

MOEL
SUUI

FACILITY

FLIGHT

0.5

1.5

I M NWER

F i g . 9 SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM MILESTONES

F i g . 11 ORBITER AERODYNAMIC WIND

TUNNEL PROGRAM

2.5

10

I C H RUlER

20

WH NUMBER

F i g . 1 0 ORBITER FLIGHT REYNOLDS NUMBER SIMULATION

F i g . 1 2 OV102 MODEL FIDELITY

I 1.....1a - w

F i g . 13

1 6.0

L I F T COEFFICIENT TOLERANCES

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.9

0.8

C N w t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c i

F i g . 14 NORMAL FORCE COEFFICIENT COMPARISON

OF WIND TUNNEL TO FLIGHT DATA

F i g . 15 ORBITER EVOLUTION SUMMARY

,_(

MRGIN~ND
0.5% L STATIC
CG

I
0.3W

BLENDED DELTA

WUBLE DELTA

'

Ylblt

0.425 y /

.REDUCE GLOVE LEADINGEDGE

RADIUS TO 15.24 sn HORlUL
TO GLOVE LEADING EDGE
I

FS 8 0 0

FS IWO

.HOVE GLOVE-TO-WIN6 INIERSECTION

TO 0.425 SEMI-SPAN Y l T H S W L
FAIRING AT InTERSECTlMl
. N I S I 6 UUIBER FM( IWROVEO
BASIC LOID

F i g . 16 BLENDEDIDOUBLE-DELTA WING
MODI FICATION

"NO

CG

F i g . 17 BLENDEOIDOUBLE-DELTA WING MODI FICATION

EFFECT ON LONGITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS

PDR VEHICLE

CUR VEHICLE

PDR VEHICLE

CDR VEHlCLT

.Awlom
FArnNG USUlS

w LVWC U M
6 INCUAYO

M L L N O Y UDlUI 6 FAIUD
NOY naon~s
~UNSI~WN
6 #DUCTS SWFAQ liM?

I W 1 NOSE USUlED N
1AIIY WINKHA
ADILOW
a IIKX wnuw

IWAUILDS

F i g . 19 LOWER WINGIBODY FAIRING

F i g . 18 REDUCED NOSE RADIUS. AND

REFAIRED NOSE SECTION

PDR VEHICLE

ANGLE OF ATTACK

i W ?OW1

CDR VEHICLE

--

REUTlYE VELOCITY. 10W WSEC

Fig. 20

UPPER BODY LINES

F i g . 21

TYPICAL ORBITER ENTRY PROFILE

NOZZLE

SYM NUMBER

TEST
NLDBER
FACILITY
OA-82.M-22 LaRC CFHT
OA-82,w2
OA-82.MAZ2
MA-22
MA-22
AEDC B
OA-169
OA-169

0.04

F i g . 2 2 RCS AND CONTROL SURFACE

UTILIZATION DURING ENTRY

ii
I-

E=0.02

POINTS = 150
STO. OEY. = 0.002368

0.02

RCS EFFECTIVENESS COMPONENTS

NO7ZLE
SYM NUEBER

JET THRUST
PLUME IMPINGEMENT
FLOW FIELD INTERACTIONS

0.04
0.06
0.08
mmENTUM RATIO $j/C
TEST
NUlgER
OA-82.MA-22

--

0
F

REACTION CONTROL JET INTERACTIONS

0.12

FACILITY
LaRC CFHT

MA-22

OA-169
OA-169
OA-169

Fig. 23

0.10

Fig. 24

0.02

0.04

MASS FLOY RATIO

hj/mm

AEDC B

0.06

REACTION CONTROL JET CORRELATION

a =

CONTROL
AXIS
ROLL
PITCH
YAW

20'

6 = O0

3-JET
WMENT (N-rn)

9,

6E = 68F = OD
IMPINGEMENT
MOMENT (N-m)

INTERACTION
MOMENT (N-m)

NET
MOMENT (N-m)

-27,040
t43,775
-4,860

-8:030
t8.690
-7,860

t36.590
-126,600
-38,300

= 47.9 N/m2

t1.520
-74,135
-51,020

E-B
Y
0:

t;

0.010

SYH

FACILITY

'A
=

..
S

VACUUN THRUST FOR

ONE JET (N)

--

MSFC 14"TWT
ARC 3.5'HWT

"2

>

N j = 3570
Aj = -756
Y j = 1298

1 AEDC - FWT
0.W1
4

F i g . 25

NT P.

or-n

F i g . 27

10

12

14

16 18 20
HRCH NUWER

22

24

28

26

F i g . 26 VARIATION OF VISCOUS PARAMETER

ALONG NOMINAL ENTRY TRAJECTORY

REACTION CONTROL JET MOMENTS

SnW.

FKlLIN

rnrvlvs

EFFECTS OF VISCOUS INTERACTION ON

NORMAL AND AXIAL FORCE

TPS DESIGN TRAJECTORY 14414.1

WITHOUT VISCWS INTERACTION
AND LOW DENSITY CONSIDERATIONS

\------------

ACTION
REGIME

0
0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

VISCWS P M T E R vL

F i g . 28

EFFECTS OF VISCOUS INTERACTION

PITCHING MOMENT

100

ALTITUDE

200

10' METERS

F i g . 29 VISCOUS INTERACTION EFFECT ON

L I FT-TO-DRAG RATIO

30

Fig. 32 LOW-SPEED LONGITUDINAL

Fig. 3 0 VISCOUS INTERACTION EFFECT ON

CHARACTERISTICS

CG TRIM CAPABILITY

SYN FACILITY

PITCHING WMENT C
%.65~,

Fig. 31

ARC 11x11

PITCHING MOMENT C
%.65~,

LONGITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY

SHOCK INWCED

ATTACHED FLW
H

- ANGLE

Fig. 33 LEESIDE FLOW PATTERNS

SHOCK INWCED
SEPARATION

LEADING EDGE
SEPARATION

6.0

OF ATTACK (DEG)

Fig. 3 4 LEESIDE FLOW BOUNDARIES

'I

.
b

'

SHOCK DRAUIED
MUI 8.0

gK5%TAUIED

\LolO\,

S W IUM FACILITY

AEDC A
6, * -35lUCH 5.0
C.P. L W I N G E m

M H T c w m

F i g . 35

LEESI'DE FLOW SEPARATION EFFECT

ON PITCH STABILITY

F i g . 36

20

24

12

16

ANGLE OF

ATTACK (DE6)

28

32

HYPERSONIC CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS

FORWARD CG

per deg

"L

0.5d
I

0.40

0.d.

I
0.72

Odl

I
016

CENTER OF GRAVITY. XCG/LB

F i g . 37 TRIM CAPABILITY

Cl,

-0.001

per dcg

1
0.2

F i g . 38

0.W2-

ELEVON DEFLECTION SCHEDULE

0.4

0.6 0.8 1.0

2
MACH NUMBER

I
6

,
,
8 1 0

20

F i g . 39 LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL STABILITY DERIVATIVES

LW)IIIl!N o SUIEWLE
F O M M D CENTER OF GWLVlTY
6.
0 OEG

NOMINAL SOIEWLE
6 - O O E G

F i g . 4 0 AILERON EFFECTIVENESS

F i g . 41

RUDDER EFFECTIVENESS

E
l
SYM

TEST NO.

t' /-"'

ACn6 0
(PER MG)

(PER OEG)
.A:C:

-0.002

030

-20

Fig. 42

-0.001

-0. 002

-40

-10
6
,
- OEG

t10

- M = 3.0

t20

-,
-

15'

AERO MIA
BOOK
I
.I

-30

-20

-10
6,

t'

-,
0
OEG

+lo

+20

EFFECT OF ELEVON DEFLECTION ON CIRECTIONAL STABILITY

M * 0.6

SVM TEST NO.

o * !iO

3.0

AC
(PER OEG)

-30

-20

-10
-.6

Fig. 43

EFFECT OF ELEVON DEFLECTION ON ROLL DUE TO SIDESLIP

0.004

0.003

SYM
+

M = 0.6
a = 5O

0.005-

t10

OEG

1 TEST NO.
1

OA-145

C
(PER DEG)

0s'
-30

'

'

'

'

-20

6,

Fig. 44

'

-10

t10

DEG

MG

6,-

EFFECT OF ELEVON DEFLECTION ON AILERON ROLL DERIVATIVE

N.OO
M = 3.0

Cn6a

cn;yll

(PER DEG)

(PERDEG)'

-0.001

-30

Fig. 45

-20

-10
6,- OEG

'

+lo

-0.001
-30

-20

-10
6,

-- OEG

EFFECT OF ELEVON DEFLECTION ON AILERON YAW DERIVATIVE

Fig. 46

CROSS COUPLING RATIOS

t10

'I
,

MI2 NWER

0.5.

9580 Nlm'

FREE FLIGHT 4

FREE RIGHT 5

C3

4-

3C: 3 '
F

RIGHT I U S W N T

0 RIM4

-1

2-

RIM 5
UNCERTAW
I

- - - TOLERANCE

:'

VARIATION

0.7

0.8

Fig. 52 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS. PREDICTED

DATA FOR ORBITER MATED TO 747 CARRIER

0.1

0.2

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
T R I M D LIFT COEFFICIENT CL
TRIH

Fig. 53 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT

VS. PREDICTED L/D

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

&
W

DYHAnIC PRESSURE

9580 N h '

/--

FREE FLIMT 4

FREE RIGHT 5

----_

PREDICTED

,-

----

FREE FLIGHT 5

---

-/-

-.-

VARIATION

0.1

0.2

0.3

TOLERANCE
VARIATION
I

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

I
0.8

TRImD LIFT COEPFICIEM CL

TRIM
0

10

12

Fig. 55 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS. PREDICTED

TRIMMED ELEVON DEFLECTION

14

ANGLE OF ATTACK (KG)

Fig. 54 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS.

PREDICTED LIFT COEFFICIENT

FREE RIWT 4

.A&

A M E FL1m 5

noB

ACD

0.0215

EXTENDING

-1

-2

I
4

10

TIE (SEWNOS)

Fig. 56 COMPARISON OF FLIGHT VS.

PREDICTED DRAG

12

1
14