4 ms·
If rougher == more acceleration, it could be just due to the rocket (stage 2 & Crew Dragon) being lighter at the end of the burn due to all the fuel expended, r
by m4rtink 6y ago
If rougher == more acceleration, it could be just due to the rocket (stage 2 & Crew Dragon) being lighter at the end of the burn due to all the fuel expended, resulting in rising acceleration at the end.
Shuttle possibly being much to heavy for that & the final orbit insertion burns being done by the OMS, which was quite low acceleration given the mass of the shuttle.
- godelski 6y agoThey specifically mentioned less acceleration in upper stage than compared to the shuttle so we can conclude that "rougher != more acceleration" because g's == acceleration.
- Cogito 6y agoSmall correction, at least in the article they talked about the relative thrust of the upper stage engines, but don't discuss the acceleration profile of the two (noting that the shuttle is heavier so even with bigger engines not necessarily quicker to accelerate). Perhaps the best resource I know to compare the accelerations is flightclub.io, I ran two simulations for STS-129 [0] and DM-2 [1] so you can compare their profiles. These are in no way authoritative, but it does seem like Crew Dragon would have higher acceleration (as high as 3.7G) compared to shuttle (remaining under 3G the whole time). Note also that in the article says that Hurley described the ride on the Merlin Vacuum upper stage engine as "kind of like driving fast on a gravel road" which suggests that the proximity of the engines and vibrations may have been more important than raw acceleration. [0] https://flightclub.io/result/2d?id=bb67b508-71e1-4e4d-8cfc-ac43a68adf5c https://flightclub.io/result/2d?id=bb67b508-71e1-4e4d-8cfc-a... [1] https://flightclub.io/result/2d?id=4bd73964-9a16-4918-867c-c6cfa78b3f4e https://flightclub.io/result/2d?id=4bd73964-9a16-4918-867c-c...