How to attach the Space Shuttle to a Boeing 747.

CrzRsn

So long, and thanks for all the fish
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
17,444
Location
Motor City, Michigan
Car(s)
13 Ford Mustang GT, 17 Ford Fiesta ST
there's gotta be a more efficient way to do that.
 
there's gotta be a more efficient way to do that.

I guarantee you could simply use a crane, but instead they built some giant specialised one-function rig. :lol:
 
I dunno, everything I've ever seen lifted by a crane swung around like crazy. Plus that rig was designed and built in the 70s. You do realize the shuttle weighs roughly as much as the 747 right? I've not seen many aircraft factory facilities with cranes lifting complete planes. It's all mothballed soon anyway. :-(
 
Last edited:
I want a piece of shuttle when they get decommissioned.

Shuttle_mounting_point.JPG
 
I dunno, everything I've ever seen lifted by a crane swung around like crazy. Plus that rig was designed and built in the 70s. You do realize the shuttle weighs roughly as much as the 747 right? I've not seen many aircraft factory facilities with cranes lifting complete planes. It's all mothballed soon anyway. :-(

I suppose you're right. I don't think I quite get the enormity of it. he only time I've seen it in real life, it looked about the size of a crumb (flying over my school).

I remember when I was young and I would see 747s in books and think that they were big, but not that big. Then one day I went to the airport and got to see the Lufthansa and BA 747s parked right up against the window of the terminal and I was absolutely blown away.
 
Last edited:
To be fair to NASA, they have to be super duper precise with where they drop the shuttle down, they can't have the shuttle moving at all or you'll end up with a broken shuttle and 747. The massive crawlers that haul the shuttle with external tanks is even awesomer though.
 
To be fair to NASA, they have to be super duper precise with where they drop the shuttle down, they can't have the shuttle moving at all or you'll end up with a broken shuttle and 747. The massive crawlers that haul the shuttle with external tanks is even awesomer though.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G45QJo2_S-I[/YOUTUBE]

First 2 minutes...'nuff said.
 
They CAN do it without a mate/de-mate device for example, Enterprise's delivery to Dulles and the contingency plan for picking up shuttles from arbitrary facilities - Endeavour is equipped to land at arbitrary ILS-CAT III airfields, and all shuttles are theoretically capable of landing at arbitrary 3000ft runways. Most of the PLANNED abort sites don't have mate/de-mate devices, either. It's dangerous to both the orbiter and the SCA-747, and the cost of those two items add up to a whole hell of a lot more than several dozen of the mate/de-mate devices.
 
They CAN do it without a mate/de-mate device for example, Enterprise's delivery to Dulles and the contingency plan for picking up shuttles from arbitrary facilities - Endeavour is equipped to land at arbitrary ILS-CAT III airfields, and all shuttles are theoretically capable of landing at arbitrary 3000ft runways. Most of the PLANNED abort sites don't have mate/de-mate devices, either. It's dangerous to both the orbiter and the SCA-747, and the cost of those two items add up to a whole hell of a lot more than several dozen of the mate/de-mate devices.

You sound like you know space stuff and therefor you know better than to bring Enterprise into the equation. It was a completely different model really, barely comparable and completely different situation. As for contingency landings, I have no idea what they do there. There's never actually been one.

I suppose you're right. I don't think I quite get the enormity of it. he only time I've seen it in real life, it looked about the size of a crumb (flying over my school).

I remember when I was young and I would see 747s in books and think that they were big, but not that big. Then one day I went to the airport and got to see the Lufthansa and BA 747s parked right up against the window of the terminal and I was absolutely blown away.

Let me just remind you that the cargo bay alone is the size of a school bus! The shuttle is clearly physically smaller than the 747 as you can see, but it's considerably heavier.
 
Last edited:
That's got to be the most over-engineered application of rule#34 ever.
 
Um... they cover the engines for test glides and I'm pretty sure it's unfueled :lol:
And I think it takes longer than 10 seconds to start a Space Shuttle. :p
 
On a related note: my city is trying to acquire one of the retired Space Shuttles, which would be awesome.
 
Top