digg

Join DiggAbout
All » Science » Space
See the original image at nasa.gov

Riding Piggyback

nasa.gov — NASA operates two commercial Boeing 747 airplanes modified to carry a space shuttle on their backs. Designated officially as Shuttle Carrier Aircraft or SCA, NASA bolstered the commercial 747s with struts, stabilizers and electronic monitors. Pictured is, the space shuttle Atlantis is shown being ferried to NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jggube, on 04/25/2008, -24/+12That's such an amazing image!
    • Akaji, on 04/25/2008, -3/+19Honestly, I don't know that that's any better than saying "first!"...
    • Shawshanksr, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1its a stupid comment even if he wasnt trying to be first
    • expatcatalyst, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2I saw this while going to a school at Vandenberg AFB, CA and it really is amazing!
    • KibibyteBrain, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1With all due respect, this image is actually sort of ridiculous if you think about it. It is some of the best proof of how poorly designed and over-designed the shuttle was for a purpose that to this day seems abstract at best. Everyone thought that if we didn't build a reusable vehicle more like the space ships of Sci Fi after the Apollo program, that would somehow not be a step toward progress. Except we really did not need a reusable craft. NASA tries to justify the shuttle by saying things like the HST were possible because of it. While technically true, there is no reason a modified HST deign could not have been launched on a different vehicle with a different design theory. Reusable spacecraft are a great idea, but not ones that return to planets. Even more serious Sci-Fi authors know this and rarely have spacecraft of such scale re-enter and then recycled for launch.
      • expatcatalyst, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1life is usually stranger than fiction....even science fiction ;-)
  • Snowspot, on 04/25/2008, -24/+5Couldn't they just create a plane to ferry the space shuttle into space? Wouldn't this be easier than launching?
    • PhonicUK, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1No because to have enough fuel to carry the shuttle the rest of the way into orbit would make it too heavy to carry on the back of another plane. This is just for testing landings usually.
      • KibibyteBrain, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6No, is for taking the shuttle back to Kennedy when it needs to land at White Sands due to poor conditions or an emergency.
        • Soulbow2, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4KibibyteBrain is right. Plus, if they tried to launch from a plane, they would burn the tail of the plane to pieces.
    • Daniel591992, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1But... that's no fun!
    • Akaji, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Not really, it would take considerably more fuel to do it that way (since the plane has to carry both itself and the shuttle into space). The only problem this would potentially alleviate is a shortage of fuel on the shuttle itself, which is not a huge issue to my knowledge. As for this picture, the 747 isn't carrying the shuttle into, or even near space - it's ferrying it to the NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida (RTFstory description!).
    • billbugger, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2minus the whole buring the tail off the 747 :-p
      seriously, though.... x project?
    • sumdog, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1The shuttle is VERY old technology. What you talked about has been envisioned, as well as lots of other orbiter ideas. The fact that the ancient shuttle is still retrofitted and piggybacked on the back of a 747.... I doubt we'll see much federal space funding though with all the money George Dumbass has wasted, and the private sector is more involved with domestic and military aircraft.
      • twertyto, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1The maiden flight for the space shuttle was in 1981. I would hardly call that ancient.
        • raytibbitts, on 04/25/2008, -0/+11954 was to 1981 as 1981 is to today. I remember them saying things like "ancient technology" when comparing the space shuttle to previous rocket science, such as what they used to send Neil Armstrong to the moon.
    • CJMac, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2There's a lot more to breaking the atmosphere than flying really high. Launches are really the best way to do this.
    • 9bpm9, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Uhhhh, have you ever heard of gravity?
    • crazycarlmar, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4It didn't work in the Superman universe so why would it work in ours?
    • Nitrodist88, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"Couldn't they just create a plane to ferry the space shuttle into space? Wouldn't this be easier than launching?"

      Well you still have to escape gravity. You'd be using more energy to escape the atmosphere because you're going up at an angle instead of straight up.
    • centran, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Someone did design a shuttle that piggybacked off a plane. It is called SpaceShipOne
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_one
      The concept would not work with the shuttle because of the weight. The type of launch more suited for the piggyback approach is only for getting the crew up to space. The shuttle carries a lot of gear/satellites/test equipment. NASA was considering to do a piggyback approach and send the equipment up in a second rocket. They dropped this for classic module on top of rocket design(similar to Apollo missions).
      The reason the shuttle can be piggy-backed is because all the heavy equipment is removed for the transport.
    • yurishoujo, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1They're working on it. Check out the X Prize and SpaceShipOne. The shuttle is old and inefficient, but it's the best NASA has at the moment for space flight (despite this the shuttle will still be retired in 2010. So maybe they have something else hidden somewhere?)
    • OneLess, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Good luck creating a plane that can achieve orbital velocity. There's more to getting into space than flying high.
  • austenw, on 04/25/2008, -5/+54Doggy style.
  • lotar732, on 04/25/2008, -9/+5Looks like frogs on the discovery channel.
  • Conwaysb0718, on 04/25/2008, -2/+18That shuttle is a chubby chaser! Sure, they'll all laugh cuz she's bigger than you, but at least you're gettin some!
  • josedrivera, on 04/25/2008, -8/+3cool.
  • NihilFist, on 04/25/2008, -13/+10IF I am not mistaken, the Russians did it first, with their Antonov 225 jet (which is also the largest flying airplane ever made). Picture below.

    http://homepage.idx.com.au/markvine/an225/images/a ...
    • Conwaysb0718, on 04/25/2008, -12/+7If I am not mistaken, the wright brothers did it first.... or was that Icarus... either way... wtf does that have to do with the picture.... or were you just trying to demonstrate your prowess at trivial pursuit?
      • Ramble, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7He was pointing out an interesting fact that has relevance to the picture at hand you git.
    • twertyto, on 04/25/2008, -4/+7Did what first? That picture shows a space shuttle which the Russians don't use.
      • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4The Russians had their own space shuttle, called Buran.. It actually looked very similar to the American shuttle. I don't think it ever made it past various prototypes, though.
        • hmunkey, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2By the time the Buran has developed enough the USSR was facing a huge money-crunch because of the arms race and the war in Afghanistan.
        • twertyto, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the info. I didn't know that.
    • SwiftKick34, on 04/25/2008, -1/+18That looks like the Soviet Buran shuttle, which was based on the US space shuttle, so it was likely a concept also borrowed from the Americans. The 747 carry method has been used all the way since Enterprise for testing glide capabilities.
    • prisonbusdad, on 04/25/2008, -0/+12The Russians did not do it first!! NASA was doing this in the late '70s to test the flight characteristics of the orbiter. NASA used a non-space ready orbiter named Enterprise. The Russians copied the general design of the orbiter, but never sent a manned version into space (I seem to think they sent a remote control version though).
    • MacBastard, on 04/25/2008, -0/+14Not even. The 747 in the picture has been used to drop-test and ferry shuttles since 1978. The AN-225 didn't even make it's first flight until 1988.
    • dfsjdkflasjk, on 04/25/2008, -4/+6Who cares who did it first
    • gtapro92, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1shut up commy
    • rspeed, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1You are mistaken.
    • GeorgeSvaneedze, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Oh who cares... of course Americans did it furst... the point is in another... that Russians were smart enough to change that awfull thing toward more high technology rockets unlike Americans who still use that piece of shtty. scrap!
  • PhonicUK, on 04/25/2008, -3/+67And this kids, is how baby airplanes are born...
  • chrissku, on 04/25/2008, -6/+20Mommy

    Is this how helicopters are born?
  • sumdog, on 04/25/2008, -4/+11I don't think I've seen a photo with that protective cone around the engines. Is that new?
    • Satanael, on 04/25/2008, -0/+11Allows the airflow to hit the plane's tail fin and maintain better control + steering ability.
    • hbbodyboarder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3I think that anytime the shuttle is transported like this the protective cone is on.
    • MacBastard, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5They've used that fairing tailcone since the first drop-tests with the Enterprise test article. Although they did without it for a couple of tests, it's always used on the cross-country ferry flights. At cruising speed, a tailcone-less shuttle would create enough turbulence to possibly rip the 747's vertical stabilizer off.
    • talonstriker, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6I was going to say "thats a condom" but I'm not going to...
      (quoting it doesn't count)
    • etnuts, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1its for "protection" .....
      i think
  • nitesoulja, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1couldn't they find a better way...sheesh
  • 007kz, on 04/25/2008, -1/+25When's Superman going to come?
  • seandfeeney, on 04/25/2008, -1/+19Really? I think we all have see this sort of image a thousand times...
    • Quicksdraw, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1You know, It's not an official Digg comment thread until someone comes in and says how "Old" it is.
  • ChiffX, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2Is that shuttle going to take off?
    If so, how do they plan on you know, not blowing up the jet?
    • Satanael, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Just for transporting the shuttle to different locations, not for taking off.
    • Shawshanksr, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2this is quite a pickle to figure out at 30000 feet
    • ecarver530, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3lol are you serious?
  • maxt1, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3...thats what he said
  • tim507, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2Your all wrong, the space shuttle is actually carrying the plane...Its going to give them a nice surprise when they hit the turbo button.
  • jeffinfremont, on 04/25/2008, -5/+53This picture was amazingly cool thirty years ago.
    • Mystlyfe, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1It would have been freaking amazing 30 years ago (1978) considering the Shuttle's maiden voyage was in 1977. Brand spankin' new back then. It's still sweet now though.
  • rsdigi, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2the lack of superman returns jokes proves it WAS a flop! no one saw it!
  • charizard, on 04/25/2008, -10/+1That my friends, is the Enterprise.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterpr ...
    The Space Shuttle Enterprise (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first Space Shuttle built for NASA. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of space operations; its purpose was to perform test flights in the atmosphere.

    Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, which would have made it the second space shuttle to fly after Columbia.[2] However, during the construction of Columbia, details of the final design changed, particularly with regard to the weight of the fuselage and wings. Refitting Enterprise for flight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build Challenger around a body frame (STA-099) that had been created as a test article. Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour was built from structural spares instead.
    • ecarver530, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10It says "Atlantis" on the side of the shuttle.


      Fail.
  • mfc5200, on 04/25/2008, -10/+8Did anyone know the Soviets had a shuttle program? I was surprised to find out about this the other day.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%2 ...

    Here is a photo of it on top of one of their aircrafts.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Bura ...

    Theirs looks a little cooler I think..
    • Hortnon, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2The... Soviets?
    • Shadow90444, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1That's pretty cool. I personally like the design aesthetics too. Too bad Russia ran out of money for their space program (for the most part). NASA could really use the competition. NASA is doing what they are doing on 1/6 of 1% of the total national budget. Come on China and Japan! We need competition! Moon Race FTW!
      • KibibyteBrain, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Just because 1/6th of 1% "looks" like a small percent doesn't mean that 1/6th of 1 percent of the federal budget is a small amount of money. I doubt China and Japan have the will or maybe even the way to meet that level of spending for civilian space exploration. After all, I could claim that a semi truck is like 1/massive number of 1% of the mass of the solar system, but that doesn't mean dropping it on your head won't hurt.
    • Altesse, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2"Did anyone know the Soviets had a shuttle program?"

      Uhhh, yeah, no offense but the whole world knows the Soviets had Buran. Maybe you're young, that's why you don't know about it.
      And about it looking cooler, it IS cooler, much cooler. Buran was lifted by a real rocket (Energia), not a giant fuel tank menacing to ignite at any moment, it could carry heavier cargos than the space shuttle, was rumored to be able to remain in orbit for a month (shuttle can last 2 weeks at best), and for its only flight, was unmanned and fully automated. It landed a mere meters from the programmed landing spot, while there were heavy winds and bad weather that day.

      Okay, maybe it was copied on the shuttle, maybe not. Anyway, it was a terrific piece of technology, russian engineering at its best.
    • etnuts, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2weren't the soviets the first ones to send the first man in space
    • Emmo213, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I don't know why you're being dug down - that's interesting stuff that I didn't know about. Thanks.
  • cjurczak, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1That is acually the background on my dual 19" trinitron monitors right now...I knew that image looked familar...
  • punkcat, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1what's the typical frequent flyer miles you get on the shuttle?
    • theducks, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Funny story.. the astronauts sometimes also fly back with the shuttle. The inside of the plane is almost totally gutted, except for the old first-class section
  • hellbent88, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3I remember this.....from 1995 come on digg
  • INDOAZZ, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1A lot of money in this picture.
  • kalleanka, on 04/25/2008, -3/+8I remember back in 2005 you could actually find interesting stuff here on Digg. Oh well, good old days.
    • Ramble, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1No, I remember in 2005 everything was a dupe. Nothing has changed.
  • Hortnon, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2I was standing along the side of a runway once when this thing (747+shuttle) took off...it's an impressive sight.
  • ThreeDee912, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1I recall from somewhere that the plane uses something like 50 gallons of fuel a second? Is this true?
    • dynamojoe, on 04/25/2008, -3/+0Imagine how much fuel they save when they land it in Florida.
    • theducks, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2This page on PBS - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3 ... - says a normal 747-100 burns about 3638 gl/hr of fuel, Wikipedia says the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) has 1/5th the range of a normal 747-100, so we can assume that the SCA burns about 18190 gl/hr, or about 5gl/second, vs 1gl/second for a regular 747-100.
  • fodbirdy, on 04/25/2008, -9/+4***** comments are *****
  • airwalkery2k, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1Oh, that flew over my house a few years back. It was extremely cool because it was landing at a nearby Air Force base and I was outside just as it happened. It was so close I could read the name of the shuttle. Atlantis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shuttle_Atlanti ...

    That's actually a photo of the piggy back from that exact mission
  • thehurricaneuk, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1images like this make me think we are one step away from cload base from captain scarlett!!!
    http://mateengreenway.com/anderson/S_Cloudquiet.jp ...
    very cool
  • Innominate227, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1Who else had this LEGO set?
  • Denelson83, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Every time NASA has to use an SCA, it costs the agency about a million dollars.
  • optimusprime01, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2More pics of shuttle carrier from NASA.
    http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/STS-Ferry/M ...
    Thanks to
    http://digg.com/users/greenlight2001
    for the link in the above nested comments.
  • l815, on 04/25/2008, -4/+0The shuttle just looks soo cool :) It's black and white elegance
  • Highen, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3Wow I have seen this on Digg like 5 times now.
  • ModernChem, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1Ride the white whale!
  • kjdubuque, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4How and the hell does this ancient crap get on the Digg homepage? This has to be years old.
  • TargetDog, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1Space shuttle on 747 = FAIL. It means they landed someplace they weren't supposed to land.
    • Liembo, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Not always, they're ferried between KSC and the Palmdale,Caliifornia maintenance center periodically.
    • proliance, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4The Shuttle will land at Edward's AFB if weather prevents it from landing at Kennedy. Its not like the Shuttle pilot got lost.
  • trizzlelv, on 04/25/2008, -8/+2Why can't the shuttle fly itself where it needs to go? It is a plane, isn't it?
    • IpwnZnoobs, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1It's not engineered the same
    • Ramble, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Not unless you want to waste the money on preparation and fuel it takes to get one into orbit, because that's the only route it's going.
    • jnava121, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2It's basically a falling brick in the atmosphere, glides back to base upon reentry. I don't think it would take off by itself. Think of it like a glider that is hauling ass lol... reusable space orbiter and not really a plane...
  • CosmicJustice, on 04/25/2008, -5/+11980 called. It wants its picture back.
  • fletchsd, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Before STS-1 the Space Shuttle Enterprise actually separated from the 747 shuttle carrier aircraft (SCA) to demonstrate gliding and landing the aircraft. Imagine being at 30,000 feet and being in either aircraft when it separated. Talk about pucker factor. I have been lucky enough to see the Space Shuttle Discovery in it's hangar in Palmdale while it was undergoing maintenance between missions. It was covered with scaffolding so I did not got a complete view of the spacecraft but it was still awesome. We were supposed to do the tour with some people from school but we got lost on the way there and were resigned to the fact that we probably were going to miss out on a one in a lifetime opportunity to see the shuttle up close. Instead we were able to tour with some NASA bigwigs and walked all around the shuttle and were almost able to suit up and go in it. That is an experience I will never forget.
  • TimeLincoln, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2I see this and am not that surprised. But in the 1800s they would be like OMG THE END OF THE WORLD ITS THE DEVIL BLAH BLAH BLAH!.
  • veruus, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2Wow. I've never in my 30 years seen this in elementary school science books. Good find.
  • vaiwalker, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0im surprised i only see 2 comments related to superman.
  • leakus, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Video of landing and takeoff:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxuefFcowKw
  • gcman94, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0They should wear a rubber.
  • 46and2, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Take it...take it.
  • Hillyard, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I have that lego model sitting on my desk. What is that crazy thing covering the Space Shuttle's rocket boosters?
  • fuzzlog, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Does the 747 have a natural high angle of attack or is it this high because of the weight of the shuttle?
    • ecarver530, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1well it's hard to say in this picture, it might be ascending, but I think it is angled upward due to the added weight. I don't think its attitude is that high normally.
  • priestess355, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1People who don't think this is a cool picture don't have to CLICK on it, they don't have to COMMENT on it. They can pretend it doesn't exist. Some of us, despite having seen it before, still think its a wonderful photograph. Grow up everyone else.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.