Skip to main content
fixed grammar and added fluff to get to the minimum length requirement
Source Link
bogl
  • 10.8k
  • 3
  • 48
  • 63

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone (e.g. not at all).

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literally. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

Designing the Space Shuttle as a lifting body ( ≠ brick) was actually considered. It appears that a lifting body design was not able to comply with the flight envelope requirements.

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone (e.g. not at all).

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literally. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

Designing the Space Shuttle as a lifting body ( ≠ brick) was actually considered. It appears that a lifting body design was not able to comply with the flight envelope requirements.

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone.

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literally. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

Designing the Space Shuttle as a lifting body ( ≠ brick) was actually considered. It appears that a lifting body design was not able to comply with the flight envelope requirements.

fixed grammar and added fluff to get to the minimum length requirement
Source Link

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone (e.g. not at all).

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literalliterally. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

Designing the Space Shuttle as a lifting body ( ≠ brick) was actually considered. It appears that a lifting body design was not able to comply with the flight envelope requirements.

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone.

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literal. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

Designing the Space Shuttle as a lifting body ( ≠ brick) was actually considered. It appears that a lifting body design was not able to comply with the flight envelope requirements.

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone (e.g. not at all).

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literally. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

Designing the Space Shuttle as a lifting body ( ≠ brick) was actually considered. It appears that a lifting body design was not able to comply with the flight envelope requirements.

added 185 characters in body
Source Link
bogl
  • 10.8k
  • 3
  • 48
  • 63

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone.

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literal. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

Designing the Space Shuttle as a lifting body ( ≠ brick) was actually considered. It appears that a lifting body design was not able to comply with the flight envelope requirements.

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone.

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literal. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

The small wings make it fly like a brick. Without the wings it would fly like a stone.

Seriously, you are taking the expression too literal. The Space Shuttle is landing like a glider plane with a (not so good) glide ratio of about 4.5:1 (see What was the Space Shuttle's glide ratio?). No brick would be able to achieve that.

Designing the Space Shuttle as a lifting body ( ≠ brick) was actually considered. It appears that a lifting body design was not able to comply with the flight envelope requirements.

deleted 3 characters in body
Source Link
bogl
  • 10.8k
  • 3
  • 48
  • 63
Loading
Source Link
bogl
  • 10.8k
  • 3
  • 48
  • 63
Loading