-
SCA Q&A Thread
by
brettreds2k
on 13 Apr, 2012 12:55
-
So I was looking on the NASA Gallery last night of the pictures of the SCA at Kennedy this week, and was looking at the markings reflecting the shuttles it has carried and then it shows the number of Ferry Flight it flew each orbiter on, But the numbers on some seem much higher than Id expect.
OV-101 it shows 57 Ferry Flights and 5 Free Flights. When did it carry Enterprise 57 times???
OV-102 it shows 60 Ferry Flights for Cloumbia... That seemed high to me also, I mean 60 times the SCA ferried her??
OV-103 it shows 20 Ferry Flights
OV-104 it shows 35 Ferry Flights
OV-105 it shows 12 Ferry Flights
To me some of those numbers seem alot higher, especially Enterprise, Columbia and Challenger. Are those actual times it was ferried?
-
#1
by
wolfpack
on 13 Apr, 2012 16:34
-
So I was looking on the NASA Gallery last night of the pictures of the SCA at Kennedy this week, and was looking at the markings reflecting the shuttles it has carried and then it shows the number of Ferry Flight it flew each orbiter on, But the numbers on some seem much higher than Id expect.
OV-101 it shows 57 Ferry Flights and 5 Free Flights. When did it carry Enterprise 57 times???
OV-102 it shows 60 Ferry Flights for Cloumbia... That seemed high to me also, I mean 60 times the SCA ferried her??
OV-103 it shows 20 Ferry Flights
OV-104 it shows 35 Ferry Flights
OV-105 it shows 12 Ferry Flights
To me some of those numbers seem alot higher, especially Enterprise, Columbia and Challenger. Are those actual times it was ferried?
SCA makes lots of stops, both for gas and for weather. Each hop counts as a flight.
-
#2
by
brettreds2k
on 13 Apr, 2012 16:46
-
Ohhhhhh well that makes it add up then. so of they stop at 3-4 bases along the way to refuel, they count that as a flight. I was going to say I cant see how Enterprise was piggybacked 50+ times and Columbia 60 times. That makes perfect sense then. Thank you.
-
#3
by
Jim
on 13 Apr, 2012 18:17
-
So I was looking on the NASA Gallery last night of the pictures of the SCA at Kennedy this week, and was looking at the markings reflecting the shuttles it has carried and then it shows the number of Ferry Flight it flew each orbiter on, But the numbers on some seem much higher than Id expect.
OV-101 it shows 57 Ferry Flights and 5 Free Flights. When did it carry Enterprise 57 times???
OV-102 it shows 60 Ferry Flights for Cloumbia... That seemed high to me also, I mean 60 times the SCA ferried her??
OV-103 it shows 20 Ferry Flights
OV-104 it shows 35 Ferry Flights
OV-105 it shows 12 Ferry Flights
To me some of those numbers seem alot higher, especially Enterprise, Columbia and Challenger. Are those actual times it was ferried?
SCA makes lots of stops, both for gas and for weather. Each hop counts as a flight.
I believe that is not correct. OV-105 made 7 landings at EAFB. And if you include delivery that makes 8 ferrying opportunities. Knowing that every return to KSC includes at least one stop, 8 does not go into 12.
-
#4
by
brettreds2k
on 13 Apr, 2012 18:27
-
If thats not the case I wonder how they came with the numbers on the side of the SCA, because like I said, Enterprise did not make 57 Piggy Back rides, and Columbia did not make 60 trips on the SCA, etc. So I wonder how they come with those numbers then.
-
#5
by
psloss
on 13 Apr, 2012 18:41
-
Mr. Pearlman showed me a data sheet that looked more authoritative -- if that hasn't gone up on CollectSpace.com, it will eventually.
The numbers on 905 only reflect the hops it flew. 911 flew many other legs.
-
#6
by
DaveS
on 13 Apr, 2012 18:46
-
-
#7
by
brettreds2k
on 13 Apr, 2012 19:19
-
Those posts on the Collect Space link make it more confusing but helps. Thanks!! LOL
-
#8
by
wolfpack
on 13 Apr, 2012 19:47
-
I believe that is not correct. OV-105 made 7 landings at EAFB. And if you include delivery that makes 8 ferrying opportunities. Knowing that every return to KSC includes at least one stop, 8 does not go into 12.
OMDP?
-
#9
by
spacecane
on 17 Apr, 2012 14:01
-
How do they transport the tailcone engine cover when not attached to an orbiter? During normal ops the orbiter would arrive with it at KSC. Then it would need one if it landed somewhere else to ferry back to KSC.
-
#10
by
DMeader
on 17 Apr, 2012 19:07
-
How do they transport the tailcone engine cover when not attached to an orbiter? During normal ops the orbiter would arrive with it at KSC. Then it would need one if it landed somewhere else to ferry back to KSC.
It comes apart. I've seen a picture of it (that I can't find on short notice) knocked down.
-
#11
by
wolfpack
on 17 Apr, 2012 23:37
-
How do they transport the tailcone engine cover when not attached to an orbiter? During normal ops the orbiter would arrive with it at KSC. Then it would need one if it landed somewhere else to ferry back to KSC.
Trucks would be my guess.
It's sort of a "clamshell" design. Two halves, upper and lower. Could fit on a flatbed.
-
#12
by
AnalogMan
on 17 Apr, 2012 23:46
-
How do they transport the tailcone engine cover when not attached to an orbiter? During normal ops the orbiter would arrive with it at KSC. Then it would need one if it landed somewhere else to ferry back to KSC.
Trucks would be my guess.
It's sort of a "clamshell" design. Two halves, upper and lower. Could fit on a flatbed.
Truck is correct. See these posts from the Shuttle Q&A Part 5 thread:
...
Not to nit pick, but I asked an Orbiter Handling engineer in the next cube, and the tailcones are broken down into about 6 pieces and crated. They are then shipped by truck back to Dryden.
And the following post:
...
The SCAs don't have a cargo door like a 747-F would so there is no way to get the sections inside them. They are usually shipped across country by truck, but if there were to be a TAL abort, they would be carried on a C-17 or C-5 to the landing site.
-
#13
by
Sesquipedalian
on 18 Apr, 2012 04:55
-
If this is a SCA thread, then I'd like to ask another question, which a friend posed to me today:
Considering that the shuttle is able to separate from the 747 and glide to a landing (c.f. the ALT flights with Enterprise), how feasible would it have been to do the same with Discovery? That is to say, since Dulles is one of the ECAL abort sites, could they have put two guys in Discovery, then glided her in for a landing at IAD? This way, Discovery would have arrived at Dulles wheels-on-the-ground, as opposed to requiring a crane lift.
-
#14
by
mtakala24
on 18 Apr, 2012 08:36
-
If this is a SCA thread, then I'd like to ask another question, which a friend posed to me today:
Considering that the shuttle is able to separate from the 747 and glide to a landing (c.f. the ALT flights with Enterprise), how feasible would it have been to do the same with Discovery?
You'd have to undo a year worth's of decomissioning work - draining APU and hydraulic systems of their toxic fuels, and also fuel cells etc.... That is just not feasible at all, as the main point of whole trip is to safely store the orbiter in the museum, without fear of water rusting away any systems, any toxic fluids/gases leaking from anywhere... etc.
-
#15
by
psloss
on 18 Apr, 2012 11:07
-
Considering that the shuttle is able to separate from the 747 and glide to a landing (c.f. the ALT flights with Enterprise), how feasible would it have been to do the same with Discovery?
Feasibility isn't one of the showstoppers. Among the things that would be issues are benefit and cost and would those be worth the risks. Not only would the vehicle have to be configured for approach and land, but also the landing site -- visual and instrument navigation aids would have to be set up and tested.
And then as mtakala24 posted, the vehicle would have to be decommissioned again...cheapest way to do that would be...to go back to KSC again.
Probably the cheapest way to repeat that visual would be to do it at KSC. (Not now, though, as the workforce was disbanded.)
-
#16
by
mtakala24
on 18 Apr, 2012 11:19
-
I will have to add all those explosives to the mix; they have been removed too. Explosives (Nasa Standard Initiators) were used in main landing gear deployment backups, drag chute, cabin door jettison system, overhead window jettisoning and rescue slide from the cabin, to name a few.
To repeat what was done with Enterprise, also the quick release for the STS payload on the SCA would have to be reinstated. Was it done with explosive bolts? and which of the above explosive systems were installed on Enterprise during ALT tests? No chute at least, but what about the others?
-
#17
by
spacecane
on 18 Apr, 2012 12:53
-
Speaking of the SCA and Enterprise, how did they accomplish the release maneuver without Enterprise hitting the SCA? Even though it doesn't look like it, did the 747 nose dive away? How did it do that while not speeding up too fast (since it has engines and Enterprise didn't) so that the tail didn't strike Enterprise?
-
#18
by
Jim
on 18 Apr, 2012 13:35
-
Speaking of the SCA and Enterprise, how did they accomplish the release maneuver without Enterprise hitting the SCA? Even though it doesn't look like it, did the 747 nose dive away? How did it do that while not speeding up too fast (since it has engines and Enterprise didn't) so that the tail didn't strike Enterprise?
The SCA went into a shallow dive at idle thrust where the orbiter was actually providing lift. At release, the SCA went down and left and the orbiter climbed and went right.
-
#19
by
Jim
on 18 Apr, 2012 13:36
-
I will have to add all those explosives to the mix; they have been removed too. Explosives (Nasa Standard Initiators) were used in main landing gear deployment backups, drag chute, cabin door jettison system, overhead window jettisoning and rescue slide from the cabin, to name a few.
To repeat what was done with Enterprise, also the quick release for the STS payload on the SCA would have to be reinstated. Was it done with explosive bolts? and which of the above explosive systems were installed on Enterprise during ALT tests? No chute at least, but what about the others?
yes and it also had ejection seats