i recently watched a space shuttle landing. trailing behind it was one of those drag racing parachutes, presumably to slow it down, but obviously not. it’s not likely that if the brakes fail that parachute would do much. so what’s the straight dope?
Actually, I didn’t even think they had brakes. At least not ones of sufficient power to be used on landing (I suppose even wimpy little brakes would be useful in taxiing or whatever).
I think one of the main ways a jet plane slows down on landing is by reversing its jet engines. Since the orbiter is hardly a run-of-the-mill jet plane, I figure there’s a good chance it doesn’t have thrust reversers for some arcane aerodynamic reason. I mean, surely it can’t be easy to engineer a process to shoot thrust and flame out of the air intakes, on top of engineer a whole spaceship? Anyway, the B-52 never had thrust reversers, and its brakes need to be replaced a lot, so they use a lot of drag chutes (especially on relatively short runways?)
One thing the Shuttle doesn’t have is jet engines, so there’s no thrust to reverse. Once the Shuttle hits the atmosphere, it glides the rest of the way to a landing. Under the circumstances, drag chutes aren’t just a nice thing, they’re a necessity.
When I was a younger Cynic, stationed at Edwards AFB, I enjoyed stepping out of the hangar, and watching the shuttle land from only a few hundred feet away.
I don’t know what the runway is like where the shuttle lands now, but you can bet your sweet bippy that at Edwards, it was a LONG runway. Really long. I wonder whether with that angle of descent, could it simply roll to a stop without much trouble?
However, I recall hearing over the radio one time that they were not letting the crew disembark due to the fact that the brakes overheated. There’s a LOT of inertia to overcome there, that thing weighs a few pounds. The drag chute certainly can’t hurt, and might help in preventing the brakes from being overworked.
I wish I could provide you with better info, but I am too lazy to look anything up.
Well, my face is red. Maybe I’m just thinking of the aerospace plane concept, which had rockets and (three types of) jets. Did any incarnation (real or projected) of the Space Shuttle ever have jets? Like, the Enterprise? Or did I just have a really technical dream once?
No shuttle ever had jet engines. Enterprise never had any engines at all. The chute works in combination with the brakes, which get so hot they occasionally (or at least once) have caught fire and blown out tires and melted themselves.
The Shuttle!!!
-
It has no jet engines. (Engines may have been a conceptual dream way back when, but I’m pretty sure they were gone long before any hardware was built.) After the thruster burns for reentry, it lands purely on gravity feed. It uses aerodynamic drag to slow down, including some sloping S curves in the path. And it falls like a brick. There is one shot at landing, no ability to wave off and try again. They had better get it right the first time.
-
Of course it has brakes. How else is it going to stop? It’s not like it has a tail arrestor like a carrier. Can you imagine that? Talk about brutal. Yes, many jet planes reverse their engine thrust to help stop. Even commercial airliners. Typically it is operating baffles that point the regular thrust forwards rather than reversing the spin of the engine and pointing the thrust out the intake.
So yes, the shuttle has brakes. And even with the brakes, it takes a long way to stop. That thing is heavy. -
The shuttle did not always have the chute. The drag chute was added to shorten the stopping distance so it could land at KSC, rather than requiring to land at Edwards and then requiring the ferry flight to KSC. Money saving venture.
-
The chute deploys on landing, then is ejected prior to complete stop. This is so it is left behind, and doesn’t float forward and rub on the tiles.
The Orbiter was originally designed with emergency rockets designed to keep it aloft long enough for a second chance at a safe landing. That rather sensible option (KSC is, after all, located in a swamp and the runway is comparatively narrow and tree-lined) was scrapped because it was too expensive and would reduce the payload weight.
The Orbiter’s unpowered flight, lack of landing abort rockets, brick-like glide ratio and overall dearth of crew safety features, when combined with the KSC runway’s notorious cross-winds, makes the Shuttle one of the most inherently dangerous aircraft (when its acting as an aircraft) in use today. Fortunately, it is also manned and maintained by some of the most talented and dedicated people in the world. You can bet that, given the chance, I’d take a ride on that sucker in a New York minute.
I forgot to mention that the Shuttle also uses a large airbrake. You can see it extending from both sides of the rudder when it touches down.
The Soviets built a copy of the Space Shuttle that had jet engines. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen footage of it in flight, but I don’t know if it was ever launched on a rocket. If it was launched, I don’t think it had a crew.
*Mr. Cynical, I used to send the rawinsonde data to JSC from Ridley Mission Control. After the last WX transmission, I’d head over to the FAA hill to watch it land. The “M & M” hangars always blocked my view of the stopping point. I still have the incredibly cheesy jacket we got for being on the “Shuttle Team”, plus the neat patch. 
Actually it was one of the prototypes that had jet engines, not the final spaceworthy vehicle. The prototype was able to take off from a regular runway, and was used for testing the aerodynamic characteristics of the shuttle. One shuttle (the Buran) was completed, and the one unmanned launch was successful, but due to budget cuts there were no more flights. There is a very detailed article about Buran on Mark Wade’s Encyclopedia Astronautica page.