Topic: What's next for the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft?
Lunar_module_5 unregistered
posted 06-12-2011 04:03 PM
Does anyone know the future plans of the modified Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA)?
I was wondering if they were going to retire it and use it as a display with Enterprise on top? Anyone know?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-12-2011 04:08 PM
There are no current plans to display the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (there are two) with any of the retired orbiters (Enterprise included).
I haven't heard anything definitive, but there has been talk that one or both SCAs might be modified to continue service to NASA or other organizations. For example, one of the aircraft was used recently to carry Boeing's Phantom Ray.
I think the Shuttle/SCA would make a magnificent museum display. Goodness knows where it could be sited though!
Hart Sastrowardoyo Member
Posts: 3445 From: Toms River, NJ Registered: Aug 2000
posted 06-12-2011 08:16 PM
You would need someplace near a runway that could support a 747 landing, which cuts down on the number of locations.
As an aside, I'm always amused when the county I live in states that the airport - Robert J. Miller airpark, which usually sees Cessnas and Pipers, and the occasional C-54 - is capable of handling a 747 landing.
While technically that is true - the lone runway is paved and is the minimum length for such a landing - what the county fails to mention is that the 747 would have to be empty of passengers and have very little fuel, as well as employ full brakes and thrust reversers, in order for such a landing to be made safely.
ilbasso Member
Posts: 1522 From: Greensboro, NC USA Registered: Feb 2006
posted 06-13-2011 08:29 AM
And could it get back off the ground again?
Hart Sastrowardoyo Member
Posts: 3445 From: Toms River, NJ Registered: Aug 2000
posted 06-13-2011 10:24 AM
The shortest a 747 landed was on a runway 50 feet wide by 5,446 feet long. Don't know how the SCA differs from a 747.
If you're asking about Miller Airpark (MJX), their runway is 5,949 feet long. I'm assuming if one could land a 747 there, one could take off.
But unless something drastic were to happen - or maybe Berkeley Township wants to increase ratables and put in a SCA Museum by MJX - there is no need to land a 747 there. Not with Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst nearby, at which at least C-17s and C-141s routinely fly in and out, perhaps also C-5s.
ea757grrl Member
Posts: 729 From: South Carolina Registered: Jul 2006
posted 06-13-2011 02:52 PM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: I haven't heard anything definitive, but there has been talk that one or both SCAs might be modified to continue service to NASA or other organizations.
This squares with some things I was peripherally involved in a few years ago, that NASA was considering ways to use the SCAs to transport items in support of future programs. I don't foresee (or so I hope, anyway) the SCAs going anywhere for a little while yet.
Rusty B Member
Posts: 239 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Oct 2004
posted 06-14-2011 12:56 AM
A 747 would make a great wide-body Vomit Comet.
One is a 747-100 model, while the other is designated a 747-100SR (short range). The two aircraft are identical in appearance and in their performance as Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3120 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 07-14-2011 05:06 PM
Yesterday I found a great picture in my shuttle files of Columbia being transported to KSC on top of one of the 747s for the completion of the tile-fitting, so it was probably around 1980. (There are a lot of obvious gaps visible). There is no "tail number" on the 747, but I can make out the designation "N905NA" on the fuselage near the tail. On a personal note, the 747 is being escorted by a NASA T-38 bearing the tail number "924." I have a photograph, taken about five years earlier at Patrick Air Force Base, showing me trying (not very successfully) to look cool while leaning against that same T-38.
(On edit) I note that tail-number 924 was piloted by commander Mark Kelly when he flew into KSC in preparation for Endeavour's last mission earlier this year. Good to see "924" is still in active service!
Aztecdoug Member
Posts: 1405 From: Huntington Beach Registered: Feb 2000
posted 07-14-2011 05:31 PM
N905NA has two windows on each side of the upper deck and N911NA has five windows on each side of the upper deck. This photo also shows that at this time the paint scheme on the tails were different too.
dabolton Member
Posts: 419 From: Seneca, IL, US Registered: Jan 2009
posted 08-05-2011 12:34 PM
I just realized that the planes are called SCA (Shuttle Carrier Aircraft) but the space vehicles are considered orbiters. Shouldn't they have been referred to as OCA (Orbiter Carrier Aircraft)?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-07-2011 07:17 PM
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center release
NASA's 747 SCAs — Birds of a Feather Flock Together
For the first time ever, NASA's two highly modified Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft briefly flew in formation over the Edwards Air Force Base test range Aug. 2.
Both aircraft were scheduled to be in the air on the same day, NASA 911 (foreground) on a flight crew proficiency flight, NASA 905 (rear) on a functional check flight following maintenance operations.
Since both aircraft were scheduled to be in the air at the same time, SCA pilot Jeff Moultrie of Johnson Space Center's Aircraft Operations Directorate took the opportunity to have both SCA's fly in formation for about 20 minutes while NASA photographer Carla Thomas captured still and video imagery from a NASA Dryden F/A-18.
In addition to Moultrie, NASA 905's check flight crew included pilot Arthur "Ace" Beall and flight engineer Henry Taylor while NASA 911 was flown by Larry LaRose, Steve Malarchick and Bob Zimmerman from NASA Johnson and Frank Batteas and Bill Brockett from NASA Dryden.
Lunar_module_5 unregistered
posted 08-09-2011 12:26 PM
What a great photo op!! I guess Atlantis and Endeavour are not scheduled to fly out at the same time... that would make a great photo too!
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 2475 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 08-27-2011 06:40 PM
I just finished reading the NASA Office of Inspector General's review of NASA's selection of display locations for the space shuttle orbiters. On pages 22 and 23 it spoke to the fate of the SCA.
NASA and the Orbiter recipients will have to work diligently to avoid delays to the delivery schedule that could cause the Agency to incur additional expense or impact other NASA programs. For example, the Orbiters will be transferred to airports near the selected locations via the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, which NASA spends approximately $490,000 per month to maintain. NASA currently plans to decommission the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft by September 2012 once all Orbiters are delivered and use spare parts from the Aircraft for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) Program.
The report speaks in the singular rather than plural which makes me think that the possibility exists that one SCA may remain intact, but goes on to say:
If a recipient is not prepared to take delivery by this date, the Agency could face additional costs, as well as potential impacts to the SOFIA Program.
Which would indicate that both SCAs would be decommissioned for parts.
Not sure what to make of it but understand that this is a common practice to use older aircraft as spares in support of new programs.
Jay Chladek Member
Posts: 2272 From: Bellevue, NE, USA Registered: Aug 2007
posted 08-27-2011 07:16 PM
Personally, I wish somebody like Evergreen (who I believe is a contractor for SCA maintenance) would just make NASA an offer to do a straight swap of one of the SCAs for a similar time 747 classic (which they likely still have in their fleet) so NASA gets its spare parts and an SCA could then be free to perhaps go to a museum (which would make for a great tax writeoff).
The main thing that might make such a plan possible is wing spar life on many of the 747 classics out there is becoming a concern, so a lot of the planes are ending up in the boneyard and getting stripped of useable parts anyway.
I don't believe NASA has anything on the SCAs that is really special, except for the structural beefups needed to support the shuttle on top (and SOFIA is a 747SP, which is a little different in some regards). So technically, wouldn't another 747 of a similar vintage do the same job as a parts donor?
Of course, the SCAs are kind of low time relative to other 747s, since they only get brought out for ferry flights and when transporting shuttle, they don't fly at altitudes that require pressurization anyway (hence the lower number of cycles on the airframes).
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-27-2011 11:20 PM
quote:Originally posted by GACspaceguy: The report speaks in the singular...
Grammatically, "aircraft" is both singular and plural, so it may be that they are referring to both SCA.
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 2475 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 08-28-2011 07:20 AM
Very true Robert but in the phrase "decommission the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft" it was the author using "the Shuttle" in lieu of a structure such as "both of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft" that lead me to my confusion. I see your point and based on the following sentences it appears both SCA will be used a rolling warehouses.
As far as the differences between the 747SP and the SCA. Those are structural and the items they would salvage would be systems in nature. I know that the tail is larger on the 747SP so the rudder actuators (and possibly rudder)may not be interchangeable but other items such as Gear, ailerons, flaps, associated actuators and accumulators, engines, APU, rods and cockpit controls as well as switches may all be usable (just to name a few things). The other issue is the traceably and certification of removed components. It would be much easier to have the required documentation of an aircraft under NASA control than picking up an outside aircraft (not to mention, service history, hours and landings).
NASA has a couple of known quantities in the SCAs so I certainly could see whay they would want to use those assets.
psloss Member
Posts: 32 From: Registered: Jun 2011
posted 08-28-2011 07:54 AM
quote:Originally posted by GACspaceguy: The report speaks in the singular rather than plural which makes me think that the possibility exists that one SCA may remain intact...
The maintenance details have likely changed a little bit, but the aft ball mounts have been out of NASA 905 for a while -- at least since last Spring; that can still be seen in recent images. I assume 905 could still be brought back to full ferry-ready status (it could last year), but maybe only one is needed for the flights to the museum-adjacent airports and they'll just stick with NASA 911 to save money.
kr4mula Member
Posts: 642 From: Cinci, OH Registered: Mar 2006
posted 08-29-2011 11:26 AM
Here's a thought: assuming both SCAs are decomissioned, doesn't that effectively permanently plant the orbiters at their respective locations (or very nearby)? Admittedly, it's an unlikely scenario, but imagine if in 10 years one of the museums hasn't been taking good care of the orbiter, shuts down, has a fire, or whatever, and NASA decides to relocate the orbiter. I seem to recall language in the agreement stating NASA retained the right to recall the orbiters if necessary. What then?
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 2475 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 08-29-2011 11:58 AM
quote:Originally posted by kr4mula: ...NASA decides to relocate the orbiter. I seem to recall language in the agreement stating NASA retained the right to recall the orbiters if necessary. What then?
You do what you do with any challenging engineering endeavor. You get a bunch of smart people together and figure out a way to move it either intact or in pieces. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3120 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-29-2011 12:12 PM
They were able to move the Egyptian temple of Abu Simbel to a new location by cutting it up into little bits then reassembling it. I suppose they could do the same with a shuttle orbiter and several very sharp buzz-saws.
Relax, I was only kidding. Honestly!
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-29-2011 12:51 PM
quote:Originally posted by kr4mula: I seem to recall language in the agreement stating NASA retained the right to recall the orbiters if necessary.
NASA will only have control of Atlantis. Discovery, Endeavour and Enterprise will have their title transferred and become the fully-owned property of their respective institutions.
kr4mula Member
Posts: 642 From: Cinci, OH Registered: Mar 2006
posted 08-30-2011 11:03 AM
I don't want to get too far off topic, but what was the rationale for that, Robert? None of the other NASA materials or spaceships (even the Saturn Vs) have been handled like that.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-30-2011 01:26 PM
As with the Saturn V rockets, the primary difference is that previous major artifacts have all been transferred to the Smithsonian.
Under the agreement between NASA and the Smithsonian Institution concerning the transfer and management of NASA historical artifacts...
...in the event that NASA determines that an item declared an artifact and transferred to the Smithsonian has renewed technical utility with respect to NASA's programs, the NASA Chair of the Joint Artifacts Committee may request NASM to loan the item back to NASA.
Further, should the Smithsonian ever decide it no longer wants a NASA-sourced artifact, it must offer the space agency first right of refusal to repossess the artifact.
The Smithsonian however, was not in a position (logistically or financially) to do the same for space shuttle artifacts and they do not fall under the same agreement.
Under the GSA-managed space shuttle artifacts disposition process, museums and educational institutions must sign a Letter of Intent that requires they use the artifact(s) "to preserve and promote the history of the NASA and for no other purpose" — but only for a period of five years. After five years, they are free and clear to with the artifact as they see fit, including (to quote NASA's examples) "sell, trade, lease, lend, bail, [and/or] cannibalize."
The orbiters were assigned separately (outside of the GSA-managed program) and do not include the requirement of a "Letter of Intent." The recipients are required to submit their display plans to NASA to ensure they meet the agency's desire for the orbiters to be maintained properly, but the vehicles become the full property of their respective recipients.
posted 06-12-2011 04:03 PM
advertisement