Thanks, Robot Arm. Sapo, it looks like it’s more the 747 diving than the shuttle floating.
No. A successful deployment of the Shuttle from the SCA requires the latter (or rather, both vehicles together) to be in a steep dive. Just releasing the Shuttle from the SCA at normal cruising speeds would just result in a mid-air collision.
And while I hate to cast doubt on the espionage biography, Moonraker, I must point out that while it was accurate in many other respects of British SIS intelligence missions and capabilities, the Moonraker would not have been fueled in flight. (How Drax Industries could produce five shuttles in secret is an even more interesting question.)
Stranger
You think producing five shuttles in secret is more impressive than producing a fucking habitable space station which can remain geostationary relative to the moon, secretly?
Nevermind the fact that the unmanned shuttle crashed into downtown Dallas.
But not a european 747… that’s my point.
“It’s only a model.”
Stranger
Maybe it gripped it by the husk.
Despite occasionally landing in California, Space Shuttles are clearly non-migratory.
But the shuttle that did the 747 launches was not an orbiter. It was built specifically as an aerodynamic test vehicle, and was never fitted out with much of the gear that the working shuttles carry. I don’t know about the subject to say, but it may be that one of the current shuttles wouldn’t be capable of it.
One would presume that, if it was intended to test the aerodynamic capabilities of the working shuttles, it would have been as close to identical to them as possible.
Originally it was the intention to add engines to it and have it as the first space shuttle, turned out to be impracitcal.
I’d give you more details but I’ve just come back to work after a rather boozy lunch and don’t want to give you something inaccurate.
I highly doubt NASA would have bothered with the tests if they weren’t going to add ballast and such to mimic whatever else would have been onboard.
Yeah, turns out that retrofitting Enterprise with changes made to the design after it’s construction were going to be too expensive.
Here is the wikipedia article on the Space Shuttle Enterprise.
Yes, one might presume that. OTOH, one might be wrong. 
I would be concerned about the weight of the operational vehicles, and whether they would be capable of a launch from the back of a 747.
The fact that there are apparently no emergency plans to jettison and land the shuttle safely during transit flight suggests this may be there case. But as someone else noted, perhaps the shortage of suitable runways is the reason.
Anyway, my knowledge limits were reached sometime back in terms of this thread, so I’m unable to provide any further defense of this idea.
Oh, one other item. It had a tail cone rather than engine nozzles. I believe the cone was there because of turbulence concerns. It’s possible that such turbulance would be problematic during the launch.
Wow, I had forgotten about that one. Nice call RA!
And would probably not be rigged to the 747 in a way to let it separate as it was during the test in question.
I would think that transporting the shuttle on the 747 is a relatively low risk operation, so NASA doesn’t plan for the contingency of ditching the shuttle to save the crew. The 747 is a workhorse that has proven it’s mettle in a gajillion hours of flight time. It is one of the finest aircraft ever to fly. The modified 747 that carries the shuttle is probably, outside of the pair that does Air Force One duty, one of the best maintained aircraft on the planet. The capabilities of the aircraft with the shuttle attached are very well understood, and I am sure that the performance envelope of that configuration are not close to every being explored. There have been many flights in that configuration without incident, including more takeoff and landing cycles than you might expect. My understanding is that it takes several hops to get from Edwards back to the Cape, and this has been done many times!
Living in So Cal, it is always a thrill to hear the double boom! It stops you in your tracks and you can only marvel…
video on Wiki page was slow and small. Found better video at youtube. The money shot is at 0:27. The whole rig is already descending at the moment of separation; immediately afterward, they separate very rapidly, but it’s not clear whether this is because
A) the 747 is pushing into a steeper dive, or
B) the orbiter is mounted on the 747 at a high angle of attack (for these glide tests, but not for normal cross-country transport) so that’s producing a wretched excess of lift when the whole assembly is at cruise speed.
The first option seems unlikely, as the 747’s empennage might pitch up dangerously close to the orbiter. My guess is B). Note that normal cruise speed is reported by Wikipedia as 457 MPH, which is considerably faster than the shuttle’s landing speed; positioning the orbiter at a high AOA at these high speeds should generate a LOT of lift.
So, working with a buzz on is ok, but God forbid you post to the dope in that condition! :dubious: Hope you aren’t working at NASA, and responsible for spacecraft hurtling back to Earth at many times the speed of sound! :eek:
The primary purpose of the tailcone is to reduce turbulence on the vertical stabilizer during flight on the SCA, although it will reduce drag as well, as discussed in [post=11050607]this thread[/post].
Enterprise was a protoflight glide test article; that is, it was built up to the anticipated specifications at the time that the schedule called for Approach and Landing Tests but the design evolved significantly. Although not equipped with main engines or a functional RCS (which would be of no use for ALT) it was ballasted to give the appropriate betas and flight dynamics. Although these changed somewhat for the final vehicles (and actually varies considerably between all of the vehicles, particularly the much heavier Columbia) this gave a baseline for an aerodynamic flight model to build the software that controls avionics.
Stranger
What are the panels on the tailplanes or horizontal stabilizers of NASA’s 747, that stuck out perpendicular to them? http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/images/112902/separation.jpg
