Flames From Shuttle Normal?

after the shuttle landed there was a flame spouting were the back wing or vertical stabilizer is connected to the body. is this normal? i dont know since ive never really watched the landings but it just looked a little strange to me.

i just looked at a bunch of pictures of shuttle landings and didnt see any flames.
heres a link to the picture of endeaver that landed aout an hour and a half ago.
shuttle

After it landed NASA TV explained that it was a venting of the hydraulic systems and happened on every flight. It's just not noticed because the vast majority of flight landings happen during the daytime.

I will not even pretend to understand why the hydraulic systems would need to send flames arcing into the air for 20 minutes after the landing.

That was seriously weird.

I also watched three lights in the form of a triangle (atleast thats what it looked like to me) over the shuttle when they were in regular camera mode. I tried to get a screen capture but couldn't.

It was still a cool landing.

I had forgot it was going to land and then it rocked my house, I love hearing it come home. I don't ever remember flames coming out of the rear like that and Hydraulic fluid has a high flash point. They shouldn't have to burn it off anyway as it would just need an overflow can if it over aerated so I don't really buy that just yet. Excess oxygen fumes more like it or maybe it is methane from the porta poddy

That's what I don't understand though. I looked at over 50 pictures of day and night landings and I still didn't see this any other time.

Hydraulic fluid would need to be pumped to do that as if they had to much in the system or the fluid did not get cooled properly as it is oily to get it to come out and burn like that. I know I deal with it all the time and I often use it as a penetrate when I'm heating two corroded pieces of aluminum to get them apart with a torch because of its high flash point. If you set it on fire it can be blown out pretty easily, I personally hate using the stuff and it would make a mess all over the back of the shuttle if thats what it is leaving a real charcoal black sut on the tail.

This is completely normal. The APU vents on either side of the tail fin always do this on every landing regardless of day or night landing. The APU's power the hydraulic system that allows the aero-surfaces to articulate. This was explained on NASA-TV. The flames are hydrazine venting and burning off.

Speak'

Yea, I just thought even if that were true. It almost never happens according to the pics and videos ive seen

well can you show me pictures or video besides last nights landing were this also happens necause like i said, i havnt seen this on any other pictures or video ive seen. i dont know if i buy tht story just yet.

Sure, but a simple Goggle or a visit to NASA would inform just as well. How about STS-9, Columbia? The APU's were lit up pretty well on landing - the same as any and every other safe STS landing. Here's a link to a vid over at johnwyoung.org, just for you: Video Link.

Speak'

Actually you were almost right with it being the APUs....its actually steam from the waterbottles of the APUs

"The water spray boiler system consists of three identical independent water spray boilers, one for a corresponding auxiliary power unit and hydraulic system. The boilers are located in the aft fuselage of the orbiter. Each water spray boiler cools the corresponding power unit lube oil system and hydraulic system by spraying water onto their lines; the water then boils off, cooling the lube oil and hydraulic fluid. The water (steam) that boils off in each water spray boiler exits through its own steam duct, located to the right of the vertical stabilizer."

taken from Clicky

The APU's vent from both sides of the tail fin. Steam is vented only from the right side.

Speak'

so basicly its supposed to be steamand last night it was fire. wat causes the fire instead of steam this time?


and that video in your link was the landing from last night. i kno that one had the flames but i wanna see some others that do as well because i've never seen that before.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Bean328]

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Bean328]

reply to post by Bean328


No it wasn't from STS-123. You are incorrect' that was from STS-9, Columbia in 1983 and the link is from exactly where I said it was. Check the link yourself.

The flame is from hydrazine. Why not just visit NASA and see how APU's and the associated hydraulic and cooling systems work for yourself? I think you may just be behaving contrary and just being difficult because you can and want others to do research for you.

The APU flame is normal on every shuttle landing. Is that beyond reason? I'm really sorry I tried to help you specifically, but would do the same again to insure fact within the ATS community.

Speak'

Edited to add daytime landing video with an infrared view of APU venting from STS-122 Atlantis on February 20 2008, please observe from one minute ten seconds.


Speak'

[edit on 27-3-2008 by SpeakEasyOne]

What does not doin my own research have to do with anything? Obviously I did if I went to NASA website and google and didn't find any video or pictures that show the flames. That video link landing was the landing from the other night. It was exactly the same when I checked. A link name doesn't mean that's wat it is.

It's perfectly normal. It happens every landing, but they don't know what the cause is. Since it doesn't hurt anything they're not worried about it. It seems to be a breakdown of several different gases that hit the atmosphere at over 100F.

As the crew worked through safing and power-down procedures on the runway, flames of exhaust could be seen shooting up from each side of the orbiter's tail. Initially startling viewers in person and television, the exhaust came from vents at the base of the tail for the auxiliary power units.

The APU's burn noxious hydrazine to provide power to the landing gear, speed brake and elevons, as well as repositioning the main engine nozzles after landing. The exhaust is vented by the tail and during daylight is barely noticeable. Even at night, the exhaust isn't very bright, but conditions this time accentuated the brightness of the flame and startled many observers.

A similar event occurred after STS-9 when the APU venting was more prominent than after the 8 previous flights. On that flight, however, there actually was a small fire that broke out in one of the APU's.

www.spacearium.com...



[edit on 3/30/2008 by Zaphod58]

Yeah I see steam in the other videos not flames. Was it a problem? Maybe not or maybe it was. NASA would cover up something like this because they don't need anymore bad press as it is a colossal waste of money and we don't have enough to go blow it on stupid missions to see if weed grows in space or build a useless space station when we already had one and let it burn up. The space program is great but when we are paying tons of money for it with no benefits going to the everyday people who pay for it at all then you kind of get sick of seeing all that money wasted. Burt Rutan just did more for space flight in a few years than NASA has done in 30.

You don't normally see the flames, but they're there on every landing. There was something about this particular landing that made them brighter than normal, but they ARE a normal part of the landing.

Originally posted by Bean328
That video link landing was the landing from the other night. It was exactly the same when I checked. A link name doesn't mean that's wat it is.

Thank you for calling me a liar Bean328. Please listen to Zaphod58 if you feel I am here to dis-inform you. If you feel I am a liar please inform the site staff. It is a violation of the ATS community Terms And Conditions to willfully mis-inform. I could choose to provide extensive detailed technical data however your behavior towards those who would help deny ignorance in good faith leaves one to wonder what goals might be achieved that would "help" you specifically to understand "normal".

Speak'

Ive never seen the flames before but im sure those of you in the know are right, still doesnt stop it from scaring the crap out of those who saw it first hand.




Spectacular at night, more so than the daytime landings, what an awesome sight it must be when your actually there.