shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (05/15/90)
In article <3286@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
:In article <24785@netnews.upenn.edu> jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Jeff White
:>In article <376.26477BB6@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG> Mark.Perew@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG (Ma
:>>Let us suppose that STS-31 had an SSME failure during ascent and
:>>did a TAL abort to Banjul.
:>>Question: How do we get the Orbiter and HST back stateside?
:>information on the last return from Edwards to Kennedy on top of the 747,
:>w/ the scheduled refueling in Texas, I have to assume that: 1. the 747 wasn't
:>modified to allow for in flight refueling, and 2. it has a range of at least
:>1500 miles
:I watched with great intrest some boeing on Cspan during the shuttle, post
:challenger accident. Boeing claims to have rated the nasa 747 for special
:overload ratings. They promise complete safety to load the shuttle, and full
:tanks, etc. They also pointedly indicated that most of the current performance
:(trouble-- or lack of good performance) is due to nasa's altitude ceiling for
:ferry flights. Rockwell & Nasa basically have a cow when it looks like rain
:or weather & keep it below 10K ft. There are probably some pretty good
:concerns for what may/would/could/should happen but as far as I know, nothing
:has been documented or proven. That isn't to say it could EVER have the
:un-re-fueled range of NY-tokyo, but should be able to make the hops required
:from any site.
The reason that we don't fly the Shuttle (atop the 747 SCA) in bad
weather is the fragility of the tiles. For documentation, get a copy
of the paper that Bob Meyer wrote about tile erosion in rain and study
the pictures. Snow is no problem, though.
Cross winds are also a consideration. There's a big area there.
The SCA/Shuttle can be recovered (in multiple legs) from everywhere
except Hawaii.
I was the flying qualities engineer on the in-flight refuelling
feasibility study a few years ago. We ran into structural problems
(fatigue cracking) that may have been caused or exacerbated by the
flow fields in refuelling and, since there was only one SCA, put the
effort on hold. When we get the new SCA and can document the status
of the verticals, maybe we'll do it again. Having KC-10s instead
of KC-135s riding on the bow wave should work a little better, too.
The joke at that time was that if it landed at Hickam AFB, we'd put
it on a plinth and make it a gate guard.
I went down to the runway for an SCA/Shuttle takeoff once and it
wasn't exactly zooming off into the wild blue yonder. It's pretty
heavy and, being a older 747, a little lacking in thrust compared
to the later models.
--
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 NASAshj@ultra.com (Steve Jay) (06/02/90)
In <SHAFER.90May14220318@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >I went down to the runway for an SCA/Shuttle takeoff once and it >wasn't exactly zooming off into the wild blue yonder. It's pretty >heavy and, being a older 747, a little lacking in thrust compared >to the later models. When I lived in Tucson, the SCA/Shuttle landed at Davis Monthan a couple of times. About a week before the Challenger accident, it came through carrying the shuttle from the previous mission. The University Computer Center (where I worked) is directly under the approach path, less than 5 miles from the runway. Seeing the 747/shuttle first hand, regardless of the number of times you've seen pictures, is a breathtaking site. Anyway, some friends of mine went to the end of the DM runway to watch the takeoff. According to them, "wasn't exactly zooming off into the wild blue yonder" is an understatement. More like, "gosh, is that thing going to get off the ground at all??!!" Steve Jay shj@ultra.com ...ames!ultra!shj Ultra Network Technologies / 101 Dagget Drive / San Jose, CA 95134 / USA (408) 922-0100 x130 "Home of the 1 Gigabit/Second network"
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/02/90)
In article <SHAFER.90May14220318@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >The reason that we don't fly the Shuttle (atop the 747 SCA) in bad >weather is the fragility of the tiles... Interestingly, the Soviets don't seem concerned about *their* tiles. When the Mriya flew Buran to the Paris Air Show, it casually came in for a landing in weather that NASA wouldn't have let the SCA go near. (And speaking of things the SCA wouldn't do, after they landed, they took a short cut taxiing to their parking place: *across the grass* at a gross weight of over a million pounds...) Mind you, apparently their tiles have a shorter life -- ten missions or so -- so it sounds like they've made a different set of tradeoffs. -- As a user I'll take speed over| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology features any day. -A.Tanenbaum| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu (Roger Levasseur) (06/02/90)
In article <1990Jun2.014849.287@ultra.com> shj@ultra.com (Steve Jay) writes: #>In <SHAFER.90May14220318@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: #> #>>I went down to the runway for an SCA/Shuttle takeoff once and it #>>wasn't exactly zooming off into the wild blue yonder. It's pretty #>>heavy and, being a older 747, a little lacking in thrust compared #>>to the later models. #> #>When I lived in Tucson, the SCA/Shuttle landed at Davis Monthan a couple #>of times. About a week before the Challenger accident, it came through #>carrying the shuttle from the previous mission. The University Computer #>Center (where I worked) is directly under the approach path, less than 5 #>miles from the runway. Seeing the 747/shuttle first hand, regardless of #>the number of times you've seen pictures, is a breathtaking site. #> #>Anyway, some friends of mine went to the end of the DM runway to watch #>the takeoff. According to them, "wasn't exactly zooming off into the #>wild blue yonder" is an understatement. More like, "gosh, is that #>thing going to get off the ground at all??!!" #> After the shuttle landed at White Sands in 1982, the SCA reportedly used 12,000 feet of runway before getting airborne. Friends in Alamogordo at the time said it was still flying pretty low when it flew over the city. -roger
andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) (06/04/90)
From article <SHAFER.90May14220318@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>, by shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer): > I went down to the runway for an SCA/Shuttle takeoff once and it > wasn't exactly zooming off into the wild blue yonder. It's pretty > heavy and, being a older 747, a little lacking in thrust compared > to the later models. What's to stop NASA spending a few quid on a set of more powerful engines for the SCA, i.e. as fitted (?) to the later 747's? Is there some sort of compatibility problem? Hmm, there's a useful job for Concorde's engines when it retires :-) :-) -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (06/04/90)
In article <967@swan.ulowell.edu> rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu (Roger Levasseur) writes: >#> >After the shuttle landed at White Sands in 1982, the SCA reportedly >used 12,000 feet of runway before getting airborne. Friends in >Alamogordo at the time said it was still flying pretty low when >it flew over the city. The length of runway used for takeoff depends alot on airport altitude, (how high above sea-level is White Sands?), and "density altitude". The warmer the air, the less dense it is making it harder to get airborn. So given the combination of weight, and density altitude, I'm not surprised it took 12,000 feet. Peter Jarvis.......Physio-Control....Redmond, WA.
pstinson@pbs.uucp (06/04/90)
In article <SHAFER.90May14220318@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>, shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) write > (deleted) > The SCA/Shuttle can be recovered (in multiple legs) from everywhere > except Hawaii. > > I was the flying qualities engineer on the in-flight refuelling > feasibility study a few years ago. We ran into structural problems > (fatigue cracking) that may have been caused or exacerbated by the > flow fields in refuelling and, since there was only one SCA, put the > effort on hold. When we get the new SCA and can document the status > of the verticals, maybe we'll do it again. > (deleted) > I went down to the runway for an SCA/Shuttle takeoff once and it > wasn't exactly zooming off into the wild blue yonder. It's pretty > heavy and, being a older 747, a little lacking in thrust compared > to the later models. > -- When the new SCA is put into action, will this be the second time in the history of shuttle operations that the SCA has been replaced? I believe the current SCA is an old Pan AM 747, but wasn't the original SCA a former American Airlines plane? Whatever happened to it?
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (06/05/90)
In article <8947.266a4850@pbs.uucp> pstinson@pbs.uucp writes: >When the new SCA is put into action, will this be the second time in the >history of shuttle operations that the SCA has been replaced? I believe the >current SCA is an old Pan AM 747, but wasn't the original SCA a former American >Airlines plane? Whatever happened to it? Nothing, except that they painted it white, with a blue cheatline stripe, and everybody seems to think it metamorphasized into a PanAm plane. The current SCA, N905NA, is the first, last, and (currently) only SCA. It is, indeed, a former AA plane. It was originally silver, with an imperfectly buffed-out AA cheatline stripe and other markings. A few years ago, it was painted white, with the JSC blue cheatline stripe. Looks really nice. I see it just about every workday, since it's visible as we drive into the parking lot here at Dryden. -- 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
umapu02@sund.cc.ic.ac.uk (D.A.G. Gillies Supvsr Dr K.J. Bignell) (06/08/90)
In article <2792@syma.sussex.ac.uk> andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes: >From article <SHAFER.90May14220318@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>, by shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer): >> I went down to the runway for an SCA/Shuttle takeoff once and it >> wasn't exactly zooming off into the wild blue yonder. It's pretty >> heavy and, being a older 747, a little lacking in thrust compared >> to the later models. > >What's to stop NASA spending a few quid on a set of more powerful >engines for the SCA, i.e. as fitted (?) to the later 747's? Is there >some sort of compatibility problem? > The thing stopping NASA spending a few quid on a set of more powerful engines is that more powerful engines cost around the ten to thirty MILLION quid mark EACH.With their paltry $15 billion budget (admittedly about 1000 times UK's shameful contribution to esa) underpowered SCA's are probably the least of their worries.Also SNECMA turbojets (as per Concorde) don't fit! (smiley) Wot I want to know is - when's this bloody PEACE DIVIDEND thingy (ie lotsa cash 'cos we love Gorby now) going to start flowing into NASA's budget? Or will they let Congress whittle Freedom down to a thing the size of a dustbin with an astronaut in it every other month? David Gillies (umapu02.cc.ic.ac.uk)