sandersn@nietzsche.rdrc.rpi.edu (Donald Sanderson) (04/18/91)
Have there been any consideration of making modifications to the 747 ferry aircraft to allow for in-flight refueling ? If this is possible it could cut at least a day of turnaround time. Or is it the case that the configuration of 747 + Shuttle is too awkward to allow for this maneuver ? |Donald Sanderson sandersn@rdrc.rpi.edu | |RPI Computer Science Department (518) 276-4838 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| |In the Final Analysis Each Student is Responsible for his/her Own Education|
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/18/91)
In article <m2lg#-d@rpi.edu> sandersn@nietzsche.rdrc.rpi.edu.UUCP (Donald Sanderson) writes: >Have there been any consideration of making modifications to the 747 >ferry aircraft to allow for in-flight refueling ? ... I believe the capability is (or was, at one point) planned, but more with an eye on retrieving an orbiter after an emergency landing far from home. Flight refueling is a sufficiently touchy process that one would prefer not to rely on it, not with a billion-dollar shuttle orbiter aboard, just to save a little time. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) (04/18/91)
In article <m2lg#-d@rpi.edu> sandersn@nietzsche.rdrc.rpi.edu (Donald Sanderson) writes: Have there been any consideration of making modifications to the 747 ferry aircraft to allow for in-flight refueling ? If this is possible it could cut at least a day of turnaround time. Or is it the case that the configuration of 747 + Shuttle is too awkward to allow for this maneuver ? |Donald Sanderson sandersn@rdrc.rpi.edu | |RPI Computer Science Department (518) 276-4838 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| |In the Final Analysis Each Student is Responsible for his/her Own Education| While in-flight refueling could be tricky, how 'bout a modification to hold more fuel? I remember (long time ago) reading that the shuttle wasn't all that heavy for a 747 to carry. Couldn't one just use some of that extra capacity to just carry more fuel? -- | Bruce O'Neel | internet : oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov| | Code 664/STX | span : lheavx::oneel | | NASA/GSFC Bld 28/W281 |compuserve: 72737,1315 | | Greenbelt MD 20771 | AT&Tnet : (301)-286-4585 | Thats me in the corner, thats me in the spotlight, losin' my religion -- rem
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (04/18/91)
In article <m2lg#-d@rpi.edu> sandersn@nietzsche.rdrc.rpi.edu (Donald Sanderson) writes:
Have there been any consideration of making modifications to the 747
ferry aircraft to allow for in-flight refueling ? If this is
possible it could cut at least a day of turnaround time.
Or is it the case that the configuration of 747 + Shuttle is too
awkward to allow for this maneuver ?
Not only was this considered, there was an actual flight test program
to explore the possibility. I was the flying qualities engineer on
the program.
The pilots talked to the 747 pilots (I forget the military
designation, E-4 maybe, but it has refuelling) in the Air Force, flew
their trainer, and rode along a couple times. We used both the KC-135
and the KC-10 and discovered that the SCA bow wave made it a little
difficult with the KC-135 (it tends to push the 135 away) but the
heavier KC-10 works fairly well. We were about to mount Enterprise on
the SCA when they discovered cracks in the verticals on the SCA.
Although these weren't new cracks, there was a suspicion that they'd
grown, being buffeted in the wake turbulence of the tankers. Since we
were single-string on SCAs, that was the end of the program.
The primary purpose, incidentally, wasn't to save time, it was to
retrieve the Shuttle from such alternate landing sites as Hickam AFB
in Hawaii. The SCA doesn't have the range, carrying the Shuttle, to
make it back from there.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotjabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) (04/19/91)
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >In article <m2lg#-d@rpi.edu> sandersn@nietzsche.rdrc.rpi.edu (Donald Sanderson) writes: > Have there been any consideration of making modifications to the 747 > ferry aircraft to allow for in-flight refueling ? If this is [...] >The pilots talked to the 747 pilots (I forget the military >designation, E-4 maybe, but it has refuelling) in the Air Force, flew The E-4 National Emergency Airborne Command Post is a converted 747. [...] >The primary purpose, incidentally, wasn't to save time, it was to >retrieve the Shuttle from such alternate landing sites as Hickam AFB >in Hawaii. The SCA doesn't have the range, carrying the Shuttle, to >make it back from there. So what are the current plans for returning a Shuttle if it lands overseas? -------- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "I'm with you, LEM, though it's a shame that it had to be you. The mother ship is just a blip from your train made for two. I'm with you, boys, so please employ just a little extra care. It's on my mind, I'm left behind when I should have been there." --Jethro Tull, "For Michael Collins, Jeffrey, and Me"
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (04/19/91)
In article <ONEEL.91Apr18102845@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) writes:
[In reference to in-flight refueling of the SCA]
While in-flight refueling could be tricky, how 'bout a modification to
hold more fuel? I remember (long time ago) reading that the shuttle
wasn't all that heavy for a 747 to carry. Couldn't one just use some
of that extra capacity to just carry more fuel?
Our study showed that in-flight refueling probably wasn't going to be
all that tricky.
The Shuttle weighs about as much as a normal 747-load of passengers,
luggage, seats, etc. The actual Shuttle weight depends on its
configuration, since a satellite may be in the payload bay, for
example. They don't remove satellites here at Edwards.
Remember that these are early 747s, like -100s, and don't have near
the payload that the later ones do.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (04/20/91)
In article <SHAFER.91Apr19075825@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >Remember that these are early 747s, like -100s, and don't have near >the payload that the later ones do. The frame is a 747-100, but aren't the engines souped-up versions? -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman) (04/23/91)
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: # In article <ONEEL.91Apr18102845@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) writes: # [In reference to in-flight refueling of the SCA] # While in-flight refueling could be tricky, how 'bout a modification to # hold more fuel? I remember (long time ago) reading that the shuttle # wasn't all that heavy for a 747 to carry. Couldn't one just use some # of that extra capacity to just carry more fuel? # The Shuttle weighs about as much as a normal 747-load of passengers, # luggage, seats, etc. The actual Shuttle weight depends on its # configuration, since a satellite may be in the payload bay, for # example. They don't remove satellites here at Edwards. Also remember that, while the weight may be about the same or even much less than a normal 747 passenger, freight, and fuel load, that 747 is contending with one _hell_ of a lot more drag than a normal 747... Face it, folks, much as I love the Shuttle, it's about as aerodynamic as a well-rounded brick. -Brent -- Brent Chapman Telebit Corporation Sun Network Specialist 1315 Chesapeake Terrace brent@telebit.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Phone: 408/745-3264
petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) (04/29/91)
In article <ONEEL.91Apr18102845@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov> oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) writes: > >While in-flight refueling could be tricky, how 'bout a modification to >hold more fuel? I remember (long time ago) reading that the shuttle >wasn't all that heavy for a 747 to carry. Couldn't one just use some >of that extra capacity to just carry more fuel? > Not true. The Shuttle combined weight and drag put the 747 near the edge of its envelope. I believe they carry only partial tanks also which require it to make 1 or 2 re-fueling stops on the way back to KSC. Peter Jarvis.........