I was just watching the space shuttle landing in Washington atop the transport plane. Is there anyone riding in the space shuttle when it is transported like that to monitor it or fly it in case it would break lose from the plane?
I don’t believe so.
The space shuttle could neither be flown nor controlled were it to break loose at that altitude - it is more of a glider than an airplane. Also, it is being transported unfueled and with an aerodynamic cone covering it’s engine… it just cannot be flown. If it detaches, it is lost. For that matter, the transporter 747 might also be lost, depending on the way it comes loose.
Get *Moonraker *next time you’re updating your Netflix queue.
Well, the Enterprise (the one coming to New York) never flew in space, but it was used for aerodynamic testing, and indeed did detach from the 747 to perform glide tests.
Given that it’s been inactive for the last thirty years, I doubt it’d be airworthy any more, so there probably won’t be anyone aboard.
And, just for fun, here’s a close-up shot of one of the attachment points on the 747.
In view of the scarcity of places suitable for landing the Shuttle, even if it were flyable it would not be a good plan to have someone aboard during transport - if it separates, it and all aboard are probably a write-off.
They dismantled much of the dangerous innards out of the Shuttle getting it ready for its life in the museum (rocket fuel tanks, etc.). I’m guessing batteries or whatever the Shuttle used for internal power were among the items removed so even if the the Shuttle had to land on its own during this trip, there would have been no way to operate it.
Rather different altitude, I believe.
Wikipedia says the landing tests were around 20,000 feet. Regular aerial transport of the shuttle is lower than that, and according to an article I just read and now cannot find, its parade tour around D.C. was at 1,500 feet.
–Cliffy
The Enterprise was also a controlled release, with (I assume, with my very limited knowledge of experimental flight permissions from the FAA) additional safety features tacked on that were not part of the later shuttles, for the express reason of controlling the aircraft while in flight. I know that test flights (“first flight”) of new aircraft have all kinds of additional and redundant controls “just in case” though I admit that those requirements might be newer than the shuttle program.
Losing the Discovery on this flight would be due to some sort of failure of the attachment points and/or some extreme altitude/attitude/flight upset - I would think the forces involved would damage both aircraft catastrophically (ripping the attachment post off of the 747 for example), but then again I tend to imagine the worst case scenario when I think of these things.
I like how it says black side down, just in case someone tried to attach the shuttle upside-down!
That is a joke photograph, right? Or did NASA really need to to post a notice that the shuttle be put on the 747 black side down :eek: ?
Real photo - NASA joke.
Yeah, while I am no expert, it seems to me that if the shuttle were to have an unplanned separation from the plane, the chances that it would be left in a recoverable state seem pretty slim. To reduce the overall chances of losing the shuttle, it would probably be more effective to spend any additional resources on reducing the chances of it detaching in the first place.
I think the simplest thing would be to have Lois Lane riding in the transport plane.
I could see them putting someone on board in order to control the flight to the extent possible and take any action they could in order to mitigate the landing damage (i.e. aim for a highway, that sort of thing.)
But I thnk the safety systems are all around keeping the two vehicles attached to each other.
I doubt it could make a Good Landing (i.e., one the pilot could walk away from) if it detached at that low an altitude. The Shuttle is the only glider I’ve ever heard of with a glide ratio less than 1. On re-entry, it comes in more-or-less straight down to build up the huge speed it needs to pull out of the dive at the last minute and come in close to horizontally. Without that huge speed, it won’t have enough lift, and will not stay in the air in precisely the same way that a brick doesn’t.
Yet they glide tested it off a 747 before @ less-than-extreme heights.
How would someone inside control it? Even when the shuttles were flight-worthy, the hydraulics that move the control surfaces would not be operating during transport. It’s not like you can just grab the stick and John Wayne that sucker to the ground.
Not sure about your numbers, there. I had just happened to read this post in another thread, and it cites a 22-degree approach angle; pretty damn steep, but greater than 1-to-1.
Also, the shuttle comes in so fast that it doesn’t need to dive to gain any speed back. It only drops below mach 1 (again referring to that post) about four minutes before touchdown. Landing is at a slope of 1.5 degrees and 215 miles per hour.
I’m sure the landing profile was designed to conserve the energy it would need to flare and land safely (as you would with any glider), and that such things were worked out well in advance.
It’s not quite that bad. Here’s Wiki on the subject:
The orbiter’s maximum glide ratio/lift-to-drag ratio varies considerably with speed, ranging from 1:1 at hypersonic speeds, 2:1 at supersonic speeds and reaching 4.5:1 at subsonic speeds during approach and landing.
It would be suicidal - and probably not good for the health of any motorists present - to try to land the orbiter on any normal highway