# Could the Shuttle be transported overseas? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 10, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405 "2005-08-10T04:45:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![VunderBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/839c29/32.png) [@VunderBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VunderBob)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/21 "2005-08-11T19:02:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The shuttle’s wingspan is 78 feet, a C-5’s cargo area is 19 feet wide. Are you suggesting cutting the wings off? The shuttle is intended to be _reusable_. Partially dismantled; not cut up. ---
**Author:** ![VunderBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/839c29/32.png) [@VunderBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VunderBob)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/22 "2005-08-11T19:10:07Z")
And just to make myself clear, I’m talking about the Easter Island scenario, not the already established European trips. ---
**Author:** ![KP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a9adbd/32.png) [@KP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KP)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/23 "2005-08-11T19:30:07Z")
> [@VunderBob](#): > > It would be a lot easier and probably cheaper to remove the control surfaces and engines, and fly it home in a couple of those huge Air Force cargo planes (C-117? the one that make the C-5 look like a Cessna…) AFAIK, no aircraft in existence can make a C-5 Galaxy look like a Cessna. The C-117 “Super Dakota” was an enhanced version of the DC-3 prop plane that could, if disassembled, fit in the Shuttle’s cargo bay. (I happen to like the DC-3, which is still in service around the world, but many have become -er- _1930s style death traps_) Maybe you were thinking of the [C-17 Globemaster III](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=C-17+Globemaster+III&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) but that’s a larger replacement for the C-131, and at 75% of the aircraft length, isn’t even close.to the C-5. In fact, one of its design objectives was to free up the C-5 by taking over some smaller loads The Russian Antonov AN-124 (NATO: CONDOR) is a “larger aircraft” than the C-5. The two are fairly comparable in size, in terms of, e.g., Length x Wingspan (the C-5 is 247.1’ x 222.9’ and the AN-124 is 240’ 5" x 226’ 3") but the AN-124 has a slightly larger fusilage, and can carry about 10% more loaded weight (incl. fuel). There is one single “stretched” AN-124 in use, the AN-225 (NATO: COSSACK), with more engines and better wings – and a second one, designed, appropriately enough to carry the Soviet Buran Space Shuttle and Energiya boosters, is slated for completion in 2005. (Yes, I know the “soviets” are gone now, but the Buran will always be “Soviet” to this old Cold Warrior.) I think [this picture](http://www.answers.com/AN-225) showing the AN-225 carrying the [Buran](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Shuttle+Buran&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) shows that main fuselage of neither the Buran nor US space shuttle Shuttle could fit inside the AN-225 ([the two are quite comparable in size](http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/A_Comparison/Visual_Comparison_/visual_comparison.htm)) AFAIK, the AN-225 is the largest airplane in the world. ---
**Author:** ![KP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a9adbd/32.png) [@KP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KP)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/24 "2005-08-11T19:37:13Z")
[Here’s](http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/gifs/buran_an225.jpg) a better (larger) photo of the AN-225 + Buran [Source: NASA] ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/25 "2005-08-11T19:49:44Z")
**KP** beat me to my post. But to be a stickler, the C-17 is a replacement for the C-1 **4** 1. I’m sure it was just a typo, but there’s one poster here who might want to have that cleared up. ---
**Author:** ![VunderBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/839c29/32.png) [@VunderBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VunderBob)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/26 "2005-08-11T20:03:23Z")
That’s why I posted C-117\*\*?\*\*, because I was unsure of the number. I did intend for C-17, because I thought it was bigger than a C-5. And I knew about the Antonovs being bigger, but I didn’t want to confuse myself and everyone else even more… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![VunderBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/839c29/32.png) [@VunderBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VunderBob)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/27 "2005-08-11T20:07:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The shuttle’s wingspan is 78 feet, a C-5’s cargo area is 19 feet wide. Are you suggesting cutting the wings off? The shuttle is intended to be _reusable_. Another point that hasn’t been addressed, but in an emergency landing scenario, the shuttle most likely would be irreparably damaged, even if the occupants all walked away. ---
**Author:** ![pilot141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e0b2c6/32.png) [@pilot141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pilot141)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/28 "2005-08-11T20:17:19Z")
> [@Robot Arm](#): > > **KP** beat me to my post. > > But to be a stickler, the C-17 is a replacement for the C-1 **4** 1. I’m sure it was just a typo, but there’s one poster here who might want to have that cleared up. Thank you very much! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![douglips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@douglips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/douglips)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405/29 "2005-08-11T23:21:53Z")
> [@KP](#): > > AFAIK, no aircraft in existence can make a C-5 Galaxy look like a Cessna. The C-117 “Super Dakota” was an enhanced version of the DC-3 prop plane that could, if disassembled, fit in the Shuttle’s cargo bay. (I happen to like the DC-3, which is still in service around the world, but many have become -er- 1930s style death traps) Maybe you were thinking of the C-17 Globemaster III but that’s a larger replacement for the **C-131** , and at 75% of the aircraft length, isn’t even close.to the C-5. Thus was born douglips’ Law: > [@](#): > > Any post criticizing incorrect military aircraft designations will itself contain incorrect military aircraft designations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-shuttle-be-transported-overseas/316405.md?page=1)