Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!skipper!shafer From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Boat vs. 747 (was Re^2: Hawaii as a launching site) Message-ID: Date: 21 Dec 89 17:25:42 GMT References: <3831@orion.cf.uci.edu> <9222@elsie.UUCP> <771@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu> <1989Dec21.050541.293@ultra.com> Sender: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. Lines: 30 In-reply-to: shj@ultra.com's message of 21 Dec 89 05:05:41 GMT In article <1989Dec21.050541.293@ultra.com> shj@ultra.com (Steve Jay) writes: >> Just exactly how feasable would that be, putting the Shuttle on a Boat >> to send across the ocean. >Compared to putting it on the back of a 747, you think a boat sounds >infeasible!!?? I suspect the first person to suggest that a 747 could >carry a shuttle on its back got some mighty strange looks. A boat sounds >eminently reasonable. Putting the Shuttle on a boat is a dam-fool idea. By the time you get this big piece of deck cargo where you want it, it will be corroded into worthlessness. One of the Emergency Landing Sites is Hickam AFB, Hawaii. If the Shuttle lands there, the best course is to safe it, put it on a _big_ plinth, and use it as a gate guard. Hawaii to anywhere is beyond the 747/Shuttle range. I was the flying qualities engineer on the 747 refueling study, to see if mid-air refueling was feasible for this very reason. This study was discontinued after structural problems with the extra vertical stabilizers were discovered. Now we just hope that we don't have to use Hickam. Easter Island is not high on the list either. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA