bluejay@raven1.DEC (04/18/84)
On getting the shuttle back to the cape -
How about putting a fuel tank in the cargo bay? Then you could blast
your way back to the Cape (of course, the wear & tear on the main
engines may make this impractical). And I wouldn't want to be behind
it in my Piper waiting for takeoff ("Caution wake turbulence" indeed :-) )
Winging my way across the net from ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!raven1!Bluejayfisher@dvinci.DEC (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, 231-4108) (04/19/84)
Raven1!bluejay> Why not put a tank in the cargo bay? (Caution wake turbulence)
How would you like to be screaming along at mach n in the atmosphere (continuous
max-q) with a zillion kg of LH2 and LO2 in the bay behind you, and using
engines designed to run for only 5 or 10 minutes at a time?
Speaking of wake turbulence, does anyone know what the air traffic control
designation for the 747/shuttle is? NASA m HEAVY? Also, how does ATC handle
shuttle landings? Is they (for example) close Orlando Airport at the critical
time? Is the shuttle ever below the commercial airline ceiling when it is
not in restricted airspace anyway?
Burns
UUCP: ... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
ARPA: decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}ralph@inuxc.UUCP (Ralph Keyser) (04/19/84)
Well, this is an interesting concept, but I don't think it will fly (pun intended, of course). The shuttle is a veritable flying brick, and you can't carry enough fuel onboard to make it fly from point A to point B like a conventional airplane. Ralph Keyser AT&T - CP inuxc!ralph