Next airplane I want to buy

I would have submitted my bid, but I was concerned about the planes STOL characteristics and the cost of fuel per hour, so I decided heck with it, I'll keep my little Warrior.

John
 
Government agencies are required to offer the artifacts to the Smithsonian first before they give stuff to others. When I toured Udvar-Hazy a couple of weeks ago, they stated that they expected to get Discovery.... which will replace Enterprise in the Space wing. (I'm actually more excited that they're building an aircraft renovation wing, complete with viewing platform).

Even though Udvar-Hazy and the Smithsonian in general would be more fun if you could go in and through aircraft, it's still interesting to look at the specimen on display.
 
wsuffa said:
Even though Udvar-Hazy and the Smithsonian in general would be more fun if you could go in and through aircraft, it's still interesting to look at the specimen on display.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Space & Rocket Center / Marshal Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama *used* to let you walk through intricate mock-ups of different space equipment. I remember in 2nd grade (1988-ish) walking through a mock-up of the Space Station module that was used by astronauts in training and design. We didn't get to go ALL the way into it obviously, but I remember walking up the stairway and being able to walk through the doorway and into the module a few feet at least.

I was hooked from that point forward. All the other kids wanted to go get the 'space ice cream' and I just wanted to watch the 'mission control' demonstrations and stare at the rocket engines on display.

I guess now all the kids growing up will just watch videos of how things are done in Russia. :(
 
CJones said:
I guess now all the kids growing up will just watch videos of how things are done in Russia. :(
Click to expand...

It's not all bad. If we would have used half of the common sense as the Soviets/Russians, we wouldn't be in the same position as we are. Today, they launch people on the same basic booster they launched Sputnik on in 1957. They didn't see the need to move on to bigger boosters to get people in to low orbit. Sure, they tried some things, but realized they weren't going to work financially, and scrapped them, and went back to the R-7. Had we done that with a Gemini/Apollo type booster, we would be much better off today.
 
at least i already have the sure to be required glider rating
 
tonycondon said:
at least i already have the sure to be required glider rating
Click to expand...

Good luck being able to afford the towplane, though! :eek:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Shuttle0930.jpg
    Shuttle0930.jpg
    74.8 KB · Views: 199
flyingcheesehead said:
Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...

So what. They have a functional system, and we won't in 6 months. Had we not poured tens of billions of dollars into the space shuttle, we likely could have gone to Mars by now. But, somebody decided that the Shuttle was the way we needed to go. We couldn't go back and built a Saturn I if we wanted to right now, much less a Saturn V. All's I'm saying is lets build a system that is scalable. Something we can start with and as time progresses, we can refine it. No need to keep pouring money into R&D when you can just alter what you've got.

Perhaps NASA should take some lessons from the RSA on how to run on a scant budget. They do quite well on one.
 
The 747 with Shuttle attached is severely performance limited. Low altitude short hops are the norm, meaning its ability to avoid weather was low, and the fuel burn was horrendous. I'd imagine that the Soviets wanted longer legs and the ability to fly higher to avoid weather.

SCAs have at most 1,000 NM legs, 15,000 max ceiling. If I remember correctly, the SCA stops at least 4 times from Edwards to Kennedy.

--Carlos V.
 
Maybe for use as a glider, it could be launched with a very large balloon... that'd be a little cheaper than the piggyback arrangement.
But if you're going to buy an Orbiter for personal use, I guess money isn;t much of a problem. :D
Imagine slipping that thing in to land at a gliderport somewhere... "sorry about the turf, guys... can somebody help me fold up this drag chute?" :rofl:
 
Hmm.

Seems to be an incomplete piece of machinery. First, I would want it to be equipped with the proper fuel tanks. It would need to come with all the engines required for take-off. And I would insist on a civilian airworthiness certificate.

With all the above, I might consider it, but only if I could find an A&P who could do the annual.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
We couldn't go back and built a Saturn I if we wanted to right now, much less a Saturn V.
Click to expand...

That, unfortunately, is probably the sad truth, and anyone who remembers how has probably long since retired. Are any kids studying aeronautical engineering these days?

Can you picture a Saturn V, equipped with an Apollo capsule, lunar lander, and moon rover, with state-of-the-art computers instead of the original pocket-calculator-equivalent? How about one with everything upgraded to the current technology?

I vote for a permanent moon base from which we can go out to the planets and stars.

Columbus would approve. Not sure about Queen Isabella.
 
Last edited:
Mason said:
That, unfortunately, is probably the sad truth, and anyone who remembers how has probably long since retired. Are any kids studying aeronautical engineering these days?

Can you picture a Saturn V, equipped with an Apollo capsule, lunar lander, and moon rover, with state-of-the-art computers instead of the original pocket-calculator-equivalent? How about one with everything upgraded to the current technology?
Click to expand...

I'd like to say I can, but I don't see it as being practical. When we go back to the moon, it's going to be easier to launch the people on one rocket (ala Ares I, Falcon 9, etc) and then launch the lunar equipment/TLI stage on another. There really is no need to spend the money to man-rate an enormous booster, when you can do it cheaper, better and quicker by launching 2 rockets.
 
wsuffa said:
Government agencies are required to offer the artifacts to the Smithsonian first before they give stuff to others.
Click to expand...
Actually, even before that they are required to determine if another agency has an operational use for 'stuff' first.

Ahem :D
 
Mason said:
Can you picture a Saturn V, equipped with an Apollo capsule, lunar lander, and moon rover, with state-of-the-art computers instead of the original pocket-calculator-equivalent? How about one with everything upgraded to the current technology?
Click to expand...

Hey! Don't insult my pocket calculator like that! :D My nearly 30 year old HP-41CV has far more calculating horsepower than the computers on an Apollo capsule. :D

Quite an achievement and one we are having trouble duplicating today. Sad to think that the last time we put men on the moon I was in college, and the next time we do it I'll be retired. Something wrong with this picture.
 
Ghery said:
Hey! Don't insult my pocket calculator like that! :D My nearly 30 year old HP-41CV has far more calculating horsepower than the computers on an Apollo capsule. :D

Quite an achievement and one we are having trouble duplicating today. Sad to think that the last time we put men on the moon I was in college, and the next time we do it I'll be retired. Something wrong with this picture.
Click to expand...

I was at Ton Son Nhut in 1969 at the time of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon. I am still in awe of the accomplishment.

We watched the landing on AFTV in stunning black-and-white, bottle of Ba Moui Ba in hand....

beer.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top