Comments: 12
Sev808 [2013-05-01 05:04:20 +0000 UTC]
Nice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
GiantGeekyRobot [2013-05-01 02:02:57 +0000 UTC]
I was lucky enough to see Enterprise at Wright-Patt when I was a kid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
XGBlue [2013-04-30 23:57:07 +0000 UTC]
Indeed
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DallellesLaul [2013-04-30 23:49:25 +0000 UTC]
Is it just me or does the back look a bit strange? Of course this is Enterprise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Photography-Forever In reply to DallellesLaul [2013-05-01 23:38:47 +0000 UTC]
They have the transport housing on the back. This makes it much more aerodynamic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DallellesLaul In reply to Photography-Forever [2013-05-01 23:40:11 +0000 UTC]
Ah... thanks For the education... I'll have to see if my video of moving the Enterprise out of DC shows that. I don't think I got that much detail though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DallellesLaul In reply to Photography-Forever [2013-05-02 01:13:00 +0000 UTC]
Just makes sense I suppose. Providing a cover like that saves enough on fuel to justify putting this on and removing. I guess it depends on how far your are going. Frankly I think it's amazing those planes can carry that much weight. I guess the weight is the whole problem they are worried about regarding fuel consumption.
In any event I think cover actually makes the shuttle quite attractive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Photography-Forever In reply to DallellesLaul [2013-05-04 22:19:49 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, I think that it just looks a lot less ungainly.
If you think about it, the boosters would probably provide a lot of drag. Along with the fact that the shuttle has a flat back, it would probably have massive amounts of drag.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
XGBlue [2013-04-19 04:14:22 +0000 UTC]
Alright boys, strap it to the catapult...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Photography-Forever In reply to XGBlue [2013-04-30 23:44:54 +0000 UTC]
I think that a landing would be more ridiculous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0