NASA's 747 and chainsaws

Ken Ibold

Ken Ibold

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
5,889
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Display Name
Ken Ibold
Home Airfield
CRG
So I'm in Houston for the Commercial Spaceflight Federation conference, and we've had some great dog and pony shows from the Johnson Space Center, Neutral Bouoyancy Lab and others. Anyway, found out yesterday they are in the process of cutting NASA's 747 Shuttle ferry plane into pieces so they can transport it for museum display. While I like the idea of preserving historical aircraft, there is just something sad about this, even though I'm sure Boeing will do a good job putting it back together ...
 
Where's it going, and why can it be flown there?
 
Somewhere in Houston. Originally, both transporters were to be parted out for parts to keep SOFIA flying, but they decided that the older one (N905NA) wasn't going to be useful for that.
 
SOFIA just flew last week, and it's getting ready for another flight series with the first light imager.

One of the shuttle carriers is parked in Palmdale, being gutted to support SOFIA with otherwise really hard to find spare parts. The outside of the aircraft looks completely intact.

I hate to see a historical aircraft cut up for transport, but it's even worse to leave it on an isolated run-up pad in the weather where no one can take a close look at it. NASA has a lllooooonnnnngggg history of the latter. Everyone who has seen the Kuiper Airborne Observatory in the last 18 years has been really disappointed about its condition. There is no way that bird is ever flying again, and NASA has been dreaming about making a museum around it since its last flight in 1995, and letting it rot in the meantime. And the Mother Ship (B-52) is rotting right outside the Edwards north gate.

These aircraft have the same airworthiness requirements our spam cans do. They haven't been flown in multiple years, so they need annuals to fly. They also burn fuel at the rate of several dollars per second. I'll suggest it's a lot cheaper to truck a few big parts around.

And I really doubt it's done with chainsaws.
 
Last edited:
Ken Ibold said:
So I'm in Houston for the Commercial Spaceflight Federation conference, and we've had some great dog and pony shows from the Johnson Space Center, Neutral Bouoyancy Lab and others. Anyway, found out yesterday they are in the process of cutting NASA's 747 Shuttle ferry plane into pieces so they can transport it for museum display. While I like the idea of preserving historical aircraft, there is just something sad about this, even though I'm sure Boeing will do a good job putting it back together ...
Click to expand...

I wondered why it was at EFD when I was there last spring.
 
MAKG1 said:
These aircraft have the same airworthiness requirements our spam cans do. They haven't been flown in multiple years, so they need annuals to fly. They also burn fuel at the rate of several dollars per second. I'll suggest it's a lot cheaper to truck a few big parts around.
Click to expand...


You need to read 91.409 (e) thru (f) for large aircraft >12,500 pounds...
 
MAKG1 said:
Everyone who has seen the Kuiper Airborne Observatory in the last 18 years has been really disappointed about its condition. There is no way that bird is ever flying again, and NASA has been dreaming about making a museum around it since its last flight in 1995, and letting it rot in the meantime. And the Mother Ship (B-52) is rotting right outside the Edwards north gate.
Click to expand...

I don't know why they leave the KAO outside since there is room in Hangars 2/3 for it and many of the other historic Ames aircraft are inside.
 
Note the FARs also only apply to CIVIL aircraft. This 747 is a "PUBLIC" aircraft.
The branches of the government (as well as the military) follow the FARs only voluntarily by their respective department policy. This came to a head awhile ago when the FAA had a few crashes that would have been averted if they followed their own rules.
 
flyingron said:
Note the FARs also only apply to CIVIL aircraft. This 747 is a "PUBLIC" aircraft.
The branches of the government (as well as the military) follow the FARs only voluntarily by their respective department policy. This came to a head awhile ago when the FAA had a few crashes that would have been averted if they followed their own rules.
Click to expand...


Agreed.....

It is the old... "do as I say, not as I do" concept...:mad2::mad2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top