Space Shuttle Carrier Aircraft Projects

Had a shuttle orbiter sported a steel frame, might Roc and SuperHeavy be able to support them?
 
Archibald said:
Main advantage of these "monstrosities" compared to the 747-SCA that got the job in the end: no need for the "mate/demate device". The big crane used to haul the orbiter on the back of the 747. In stark contrast: just tow the Shuttle Orbiter under the central wing, haul it, hang it to the central wing, fly away. Same for the ALT flight tests: easier and safer to drop Stratolaunch style than flying above the 747 tail...
Click to expand...
How would the orbiter be raise to be hung from the wing?
The issue is the attach points. The SCA attach points mimicked the ET attach points. The orbiter is designed to take launch and aero loads from these points. There are 4 points to lift the orbiter for mating to the ET (and SCA) but these do not have quick releases nor can they take loads more than the weight of the orbiter
 
publiusr said:
Had a shuttle orbiter sported a steel frame, might Roc and SuperHeavy be able to support them?
Click to expand...
no. The shuttle orbiter is incompatible with the superheavy in any configuration.
Orbiter with steel frame couldn't support itself (too heavy for its own wings)
 
Byeman said:
How would the orbiter be raise to be hung from the wing?
Click to expand...
In the case of the Conroy.... thing... it seems that the Orbiter would be supported from underneath by an improbable-looking set of struts. Not saying it's a good solution, but it does at least answer that question.
 
This was in 1972 73 so Orbiter was still in design phase.
There are 4 points to lift the orbiter for mating to the ET (and SCA) but these do not have quick releases nor can they take loads more than the weight of the orbiter
Click to expand...
With the orbiter in the design phase the four points you mention might be adapted. Of course this would impact the orbiter design, construction and costs in many negative ways... the proverbial slippery slope.
Almost importantly the twin aircraft would be eye-watering expensive to built when NASA budget hit rock bottom in FY74.

Boeing and Lockheed were in poor shape circa 1973. C-5 had tons of glitches with the company part corrupt, part bankrupt. The 747 was much less technically troubled than the C-5 but almost bankrupted Boeing too.
Imagine one of these troubled companies building a Roc beast of aircraft under a cost plus contract for a cash strapped NASA. What could possibly go wrong ?
In the end NASA certainly made the right choice: second-hand 747s.
 
Last edited:
From Aviation magazine 15-12-1989,

did we send this stuff before ?
 

Attachments

  • 8.png
    8.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 53

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom