Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!ames!skipper!shafer From: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: In-Flight Refueling Message-ID: Date: 19 Apr 91 14:58:25 GMT References: Sender: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards AFB, CA Lines: 25 In-reply-to: oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov's message of 18 Apr 91 14:28:45 GMT In article oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) writes: [In reference to in-flight refueling of the SCA] While in-flight refueling could be tricky, how 'bout a modification to hold more fuel? I remember (long time ago) reading that the shuttle wasn't all that heavy for a 747 to carry. Couldn't one just use some of that extra capacity to just carry more fuel? Our study showed that in-flight refueling probably wasn't going to be all that tricky. The Shuttle weighs about as much as a normal 747-load of passengers, luggage, seats, etc. The actual Shuttle weight depends on its configuration, since a satellite may be in the payload bay, for example. They don't remove satellites here at Edwards. Remember that these are early 747s, like -100s, and don't have near the payload that the later ones do. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot