2

This answer here mentions the STS-94's ability to gimbal up to 20 degrees in all directions, that got me thinking, what exactly is the maximum ever feasibly implemented? I've seen a lot of information on different forums mentioning numbers below 20 degrees. I was hoping for something like this comparison of all engines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines

But with the gimbal range for all engines also included, or at the very minimum a guess at the highest gimbal range ever used in a production rocket.

Magic Octopus Urn
  • 9,387
  • 3
  • 31
  • 82
  • 1
    Of possible interest: non-gimbaling TVC: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/25442/what-was-the-purpose-of-the-small-red-tank-attached-to-the-titan-centaur-launche/25448#25448 – Organic Marble Oct 17 '18 at 20:40
  • @OrganicMarble was that a solid booster though? If so that's neat, I didn't know of any gimballed (for lack of a better term) solid boosters, especially not the TVC style of attitude control! Can that be used to exceed the range that traditional gimballing can accomplish? – Magic Octopus Urn Oct 17 '18 at 20:53
  • 2
    20 degrees is certainly the highest range of gimbaling I know of, but it’s not a figure that’s frequently provided alongside other engine specs. – Russell Borogove Oct 17 '18 at 21:10
  • @MagicOctopusUrn yes it was a solid, but no I don't think the range was all that large. And I agree that AFAIK shuttle had the highest gimbal range. – Organic Marble Oct 17 '18 at 21:12
  • 1
    @RussellBorogove so basically the one I listed was the highest? I thought 20 degrees sounded very high in comparison to the average 6 degrees or 11 degrees I found quoted on most craft. – Magic Octopus Urn Oct 17 '18 at 21:13
  • @RussellBorogove I'll go ahead and close it if you want, or you can post an answer and get points if you like. Up to you. – Magic Octopus Urn Oct 17 '18 at 21:14
  • 3
    Incidentally, STS-94 (or STS-xx in general) is a mission identifier, referring to a single flight, not the name of the launcher. The design of the complete stack is “STS” or informally “space shuttle”; the spaceplane without boosters and external tank is “STS orbiter” or “space shuttle orbiter”. The individual orbiter airframes can be identified by name or as OV-10x numbers. – Russell Borogove Oct 17 '18 at 21:14
  • 1
    I can’t rule out that larger gimbal ranges have been used on something like guided missiles (though those generally use fins for maneuvering), and while my knowledge of launchers is broad, it’s not encyclopedic, so I am reluctant to answer. – Russell Borogove Oct 17 '18 at 21:17
  • @RussellBorogove awesome :). Thanks for the diction lesson-- I'm very unfamiliar with how things are labelled in the SpaceExploration world. Thank you for also correcting me on that, really helpful. I'm guessing this was the columbia then, STS-94 was the 94th flight in the shuttle missions? Great to know, I'll be more careful to label the question with the craft instead of the mission label next time I ask. – Magic Octopus Urn Oct 17 '18 at 21:18
  • The numbering is complicated: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions – Russell Borogove Oct 17 '18 at 22:09
  • 1
    As it happens, STS-94 was the 84th flight of the program, and the 23rd flight of OV-102, Columbia. – Organic Marble Oct 17 '18 at 22:19

1 Answers1

3

This is not an exhaustive list, feel free to add to it.

RS-25 - (SLS, Shuttle)

±12.5°

Merlin - Falcon 9

5-10°?

Shuttle SRBs

8°

RS-68 - SLS, Delta IV

6°

F1 - Saturn V

5.15°

HM7-B - Ariane 5 upper stage

3°

NERVA - concept

3°

Long March

yes

Soyuz

0° (although the RD-00110R Vernier thrusters have 45°)

Nathan Tuggy
  • 4,566
  • 5
  • 34
  • 44
Coomie
  • 2,897
  • 4
  • 24
  • 36