Xref: utzoo sci.space:11331 sci.space.shuttle:3091
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?
Message-ID: <1989May12.162340.22450@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp> <15988@bellcore.bellcore.com> <1989May9.014323.13717@utzoo.uucp> <30549@sri-unix.SRI.COM>
Date: Fri, 12 May 89 16:23:40 GMT

In article <30549@sri-unix.SRI.COM> larson@unix.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes:
>Does anyone actually know the risk level involved in drop testing the
>shuttle?  How does that compare with the risk of landing with the
>shuttle on the back on the 747?

Considerably higher.  The 747 with a shuttle on its back flies pretty
much like a heavily-loaded 747, which is not a terribly difficult thing
to land, given an adequate runway and good conditions.  A shuttle landing
is much dicier, with a very high descent rate and no chance of going
around for another try.

>(There may be some problems with keeping the shuttle powered up
>for the duration of the trip across the country -- did the drop
>tests use the APUs, or just batteries?)

The APUs are needed for any operation requiring hydraulic power, which
basically means takeoff and landing.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu