Shuttle
21 August 2005, 05:20 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shuttle
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/m...t_gallery.html
Would have loved to have been at the first meetings all those years ago...
- so, if we're building this re-usable space ship, how do we get it back if it has to land at an alternate landing site?
some bloke at the back...
- stick it on a 747
Would have loved to have been at the first meetings all those years ago...
- so, if we're building this re-usable space ship, how do we get it back if it has to land at an alternate landing site?
some bloke at the back...
- stick it on a 747
21 August 2005, 05:23 PM
#2
Can you imagine how much a set of Thule roofbars are for that !
Cost me 140 quid for a VW Sharan.
Have seen the Shuttle on the back of a 747, it came into Manchester once, have got a photo somewhere.
Cost me 140 quid for a VW Sharan.
Have seen the Shuttle on the back of a 747, it came into Manchester once, have got a photo somewhere.
Last edited by J4CKO; 21 August 2005 at 05:29 PM.
Trending Topics
22 August 2005, 07:49 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original scheme was to use a 747 to return it to Canaveral after it landed at Edwards AFB until they decided that it was safe to land it at Patrick AFB which was much cheaper of course.
Les
Les
22 August 2005, 08:38 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
I saw it land at USAF Mildenhall at an airshow when I was a kid. Very impressive, but not as impressive as watching the SR79 Blackbird take off, or a flat out fly-by at 200 ft by some jet fighter or another. The double sonic boom left dozens on the floor, car alarms going off all over the place and babies bawling left right and centre. The announcer said it had taken 5 years to get permission to do it. On the same day an A10 crashed, but we missed that by about 10 minutes.
22 August 2005, 08:54 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did it need 2 refueling stops on route? I know there will be extrra drag etc but what distance was it flying, and come to that whats the distance across the Atlantic? How many stops did it make when it came here?
22 August 2005, 11:07 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Chrisgr31
Why did it need 2 refueling stops on route? I know there will be extrra drag etc but what distance was it flying, and come to that whats the distance across the Atlantic? How many stops did it make when it came here?
I can just imagine the conversation between the geek desk jockey organising a European airshow jolly, and the pilots skilled (crazed?) enough to actually fly it when the subject of in-flight refueling came up
22 August 2005, 11:32 AM
#15
I just did a quick check on Nasa's 747.
It's a bloody old tin can - built in 1970 Almost all commercial airliners round here of that age have long been scrapped, stored or kicked off on to freight duties.
The fact it looks like it still has the original spec engines with little retro fitting may mean that its not as efficient as more modern turbofans, IIRC newer 747s have a longer range for that reason and maybe a few others. Plus the shuttle is no lightweight, and apparently has the flying dynamics of a brick, so that may explain the need for extra fuelstops.
Worst of all - it looks like the cheap skates at Nasa bought the thing 2nd hand off American Airlines
It's a bloody old tin can - built in 1970
Almost all commercial airliners round here of that age have long been scrapped, stored or kicked off on to freight duties.The fact it looks like it still has the original spec engines with little retro fitting may mean that its not as efficient as more modern turbofans, IIRC newer 747s have a longer range for that reason and maybe a few others. Plus the shuttle is no lightweight, and apparently has the flying dynamics of a brick, so that may explain the need for extra fuelstops.
Worst of all - it looks like the cheap skates at Nasa bought the thing 2nd hand off American Airlines
22 August 2005, 01:07 PM
#17
Nowt wrong it being an old can. Just out of the 200odd built, only 40odd are still active. And with a shuttle strapped to its roof, I thought it would be handy if the extra odd 10,000lb thrust per engine and the extra MTOW and fuel capacity of the 400 series may have pushed Nasa to replace it.
But I suppose it does have low flying hours, 2 owners from new and a roof rack
But I suppose it does have low flying hours, 2 owners from new and a roof rack
Last edited by ALi-B; 22 August 2005 at 01:09 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mkhan
Computer & Technology Related
5
04 November 2003 04:27 PM