Imagine Being the Engineer to First Propose This Idea
 

Sure, We Can Just Piggyback It . . .

Discovery Gives D.C. A Thrill

http://5601-newswatch.voxcdn.com/fil...dc-600x422.jpg

What can't be put in the air with a big Boeing?

I'd be curious to know if it was an original idea or if they took inspiration from the German "Mistal" planes of WWII.

- Peter.

I don't know. Define the problem as needing to be able to move Shuttles around. Seems like a logical solution to me. Could have built a huge dirigible, I suppose.

Nice photo series. It's The American Way!

In the slide show, in addition to the awe in the faces of the people on the ground, can you also detect an ample helping of pride?

LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin?

Previous and latter examples show it works.
 

Bell X1 and the B-29

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...otherplane.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_flight_1.jpg

As impressive as the flight over DC was today. It was nothing new for the SCA-747. Check out this video

The SCA-747 was used to launch the Enerprise for its landing tests. The only time the Enterprise flew. After that the SCA-747 was used to ferry Space Shuttles from landing sites back to the Shuttle Landing Facility at the Kennedy Space Center.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%28rear%29.jpg

Nothing wrong with "ample helping of pride". I sure would have loved to watch, with cameras mounted.
Notice how this concourse mission has 'Wernher v. Braun' written all over?

They've been piggybacking aircraft for a long time for one reason or another.

This is my favorite shot of Discovery's last voyage, though, take at Joint Base Andrews:

It's better than towing it. That would be a sight to see.:D

Dunno. I believe it was also in James Bond Moonraker.

Point? :confused: Is that something that they should be ashamed of or what? :confused:

It was meant in a positive way.

Its quite sad that we only built cool stuff in the past. We should have a new super cool space age craft to replace these.

Piggy backing is logical, the lift from the shuttle's wings make it essentially weightless at speed.

That was hilarious. In the movie the fired up the orbiter's thrust engines and toasted the piggyback jet. I watch that and wonder, where is the orbiter getting fuel from?

Yes, at a significantly increased speed.

It'd be easier if we had a realistic budget... :rolleyes:

This is NOT photo shopped :D
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/682...ntingpoint.jpg

It's unusual to see them mating this late in the year.

its hard to believe the plane can carry all that extra weight. The shuttle is not lighter than a full load of passengers and suitcases is it?

How much of a factor of safety do you really need?:D
Anything better than 1.00001 is good. ( unless I am either a) on board, or b0 directly under the intended flight path.

That was unrealistic. Piggybacking a fully-fueled shuttle, so that the scenario in the movie would be akin to a "shuttle-jacking"...

Are those European passengers or American passengers and are they carrying any coconuts?

Yes. That's part of what the "decline of the west" thread was about.

- Peter.

It didn't have the booster rockets or the big fuel tank. Babes too

Aside from moving the shuttle around, it was also used to flight test it out Edwards before it ever flew into space.

Shuttle Enterprise, free flight Test, ABC News, Aug 12, 1977 - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aCOyOvOw5c&feature=player_embedded

Those were the days.

I think the useful load is something like 400,000 pounds.


747-200

Gross Wt (pounds): 785000
Average Empty Wt (pounds): 363068


Shuttle Gross liftoff weight: 240,000 lb (109,000 kg) Empty weight: 172,000 lb (78,000 kg)
Maximum payload: 55,250 lb (25,060 kg)

Probably didn't have engines on it, I didn't notice.