shj@ultra.com (Steve Jay) (12/21/89)
carl@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu (Captain Carl) writes: > Just exactly how feasable would that be, putting the Shuttle on a Boat > to send across the ocean. Compared to putting it on the back of a 747, you think a boat sounds infeasible!!?? I suspect the first person to suggest that a 747 could carry a shuttle on its back got some mighty strange looks. A boat sounds eminently reasonable. Anyone know the history of how NASA came up with the idea of using the 747? Even as a logical extension of a bomber carrying an experimental plane (B29 & X1, B52 & X15, etc.), it must have sounded pretty outlandish. Steve Jay Ultra Network Technologies Domain: shj@ultra.com 101 Dagget Drive Internet: ultra!shj@ames.arc.nasa.gov San Jose, CA 95134 uucp: ...ames!ultra!shj (408) 922-0100
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec21.050541.293@ultra.com> shj@ultra.com (Steve Jay) writes: >> Just exactly how feasable would that be, putting the Shuttle on a Boat >> to send across the ocean. >Compared to putting it on the back of a 747, you think a boat sounds >infeasible!!?? I suspect the first person to suggest that a 747 could >carry a shuttle on its back got some mighty strange looks. A boat sounds >eminently reasonable. Putting the Shuttle on a boat is a dam-fool idea. By the time you get this big piece of deck cargo where you want it, it will be corroded into worthlessness. One of the Emergency Landing Sites is Hickam AFB, Hawaii. If the Shuttle lands there, the best course is to safe it, put it on a _big_ plinth, and use it as a gate guard. Hawaii to anywhere is beyond the 747/Shuttle range. I was the flying qualities engineer on the 747 refueling study, to see if mid-air refueling was feasible for this very reason. This study was discontinued after structural problems with the extra vertical stabilizers were discovered. Now we just hope that we don't have to use Hickam. Easter Island is not high on the list either. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
rogers@wlf.isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers) (12/22/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Dec21092542@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes: >Putting the Shuttle on a boat is a dam-fool idea. By the time you get >this big piece of deck cargo where you want it, it will be corroded >into worthlessness. I know the Shuttle's big, I've been inside the mockup at Rockwell International in Downey, CA. I expect that the Shuttle's not built to show the same level of environmental tolerance as a Navy fighter. Nonetheless, I don't see why you couldn't build a *big* metal shipping container with positive-pressure dehumidified air that would allow the Shuttle to survive the passage from Hawaii to the mainland. Does anyone on the net know whether NASA has detailed contingency plans for returning the Shuttle from one of the non-CONUS landing sites? Craig Milo Rogers
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michielsen) (12/23/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Dec21092542@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes: > >Hawaii to anywhere is beyond the 747/Shuttle range. > >Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer > NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA > Of course I don't speak for NASA Maybe this belongs sci.cynic but a Mary do you actually expect me to believe that a commercial 747 full a passengers, and cargo. Can go non stop with out refueling against the trade/jet stream winds from hawaii to sidney or tokyo. But a NON-commercial 747 with LARGER fuel capacity, higher GROSS Ramp weight allowances (NONE legally), The is empty except for fuel and the orbiter. Can't go 1/2 the other distance back to the coast ? WITH the jet stream besides ? I find that more than slightly difficult to believe on a practical approach. The orbiter is a aerodynamic device (not a true rock) and is mounted on such and angle to minize drag forces. Besides, The Public Information Office at KSC has info it releases to the general public about the 747 combo. The printed matter is clear what a great thing this is. As a matter of fact, 1 quote joked that it worked so well that nasa was considering selling commercial seats in the 747 to ride back & forth with it on a special basis. Including drinks & meals. Are you suggesting that nasa printed public materials is anything but completely honest & straight forward & truthful ? On a different subject & original Poster.... >built like a really big METAL shipping container..... Do you HONESTLY realize how big the orbiter is ? Picture make it look small, and even the 747 seems to dwarf it in piggy bacl pictures, but. For all practical purposes, the shuttle is the size of a DC-9. MOST US cities outside the top 20, This is the LARGEST plane (or even to large) than Normally (can) Land at your local airport. Go there or nearby and watch a small 737 or md80 or 757 come and go. These guys hold like 100 or less people typically & carry LITTLE cargo. There probably are only 6 or less take offs a day of the larger ddc-9's L1011's that hold like 200. You have to be at a actual major city chicago, NY, boston, DC, ATlanta, Dallas, Toronto to see a 747. It;s a actual MONSTER. I shipping carton of this size, to support the weight of the orbiter would be so heavy the NO CRANE exists that could pick it up. Further it could not fit inside ANY cargo hold door of any existing ship. It would make even a super tanker would be top heavy. However, If you put the orbiter on deck & Built a balloon room around it to seal it. Well that's a different story...... Your just back to waiting how Long ? We can't wait that long. AL
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/04/90)
In article <15043@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >>You *might* be able to do it if you forgot about the 747 and used an >>Antonov Mriya instead. Now *there's* a big aircraft... > >I thought about that too but you'd be better off with the 747. The An-225 >has really crappy range. I was unable to find published numbers but >it was revealed that 5 stops were needed to fly Kiev-Paris for this year's >Air Show. Can you cite a reference for this? Flight International (29 Nov) says Mriya range is 2500km at 250 tons of payload and 4500km at 200T. The former is explicitly internal; the latter is not specified as internal or external. An orbiter only weighs about 65T, although the Soviets normally run that up to 200 or so by including the loading and unloading equipment. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu