T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?

Given that NASA has been flying T-38s as Astronaut proficency aircraft since the 1960s, and
although they haven't seen as much stress on the airframe as USAF T-38s, they won't last
forever. Any idea as to how long the T-38 will be in NASA service, and what would be a likely
replacement? Demilitarized F-16Bs or -Ds, perhaps?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Given that NASA has been flying T-38s as Astronaut proficency aircraft since the 1960s, and
although they haven't seen as much stress on the airframe as USAF T-38s, they won't last
forever. Any idea as to how long the T-38 will be in NASA service, and what would be a likely
replacement? Demilitarized F-16Bs or -Ds, perhaps?

I don't know about the end of the service life of the Talon planes, but I would lobby for T-45
Goshawks as a possible replacement, if supersonic performance isn't a real issue.

NASA already operates some earlier-model F/A-18 Hornets in technology testbed roles, so
adding/transferring a few to the Astronaut proficiency role wouldn't be out of the question
either.

Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

Stephen Bierce wrote:

I don't know about the end of the service life of the Talon planes, but I would lobby for T-45
Goshawks as a possible replacement, if supersonic performance isn't a real issue.

NASA already operates some earlier-model F/A-18 Hornets in technology testbed roles, so
adding/transferring a few to the Astronaut proficiency role wouldn't be out of the question
either.



If you were going to remove something unnecessary and superfluous from
the NASA budget, you could start with those planes.
They don't fly like the Shuttle, they've killed a lot of astronauts over
the years, and they won't be even vaguely relevant to our CEV once the
Shuttle is retired.
They're a publicity gimmick and perk for the astronauts, and a expensive
and dangerous one at that.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
If you were going to remove something unnecessary and superfluous from the
NASA budget, you could start with those planes.
They don't fly like the Shuttle, they've killed a lot of astronauts over
the years, and they won't be even vaguely relevant to our CEV once the
Shuttle is retired.
They're a publicity gimmick and perk for the astronauts, and a expensive
and dangerous one at that.

If NASA does move away from glider landings on a runway after the shuttle
program ends, then I'd agree with you. However, keeping its pilots
proficient, even if it's not in a shuttle like vehicle, is a good thing
since until the shuttle program ends, NASA does need proficient pilots.
It's a side effect of the shuttle design.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Pat Flannery wrote:

If you were going to remove something unnecessary and superfluous from
the NASA budget, you could start with those planes.
They don't fly like the Shuttle, they've killed a lot of astronauts over
the years, and they won't be even vaguely relevant to our CEV once the
Shuttle is retired.

Indeed, they handle so much more like a gemini ;-)

My guess is that it's the cost of using pilots in the space program.
If someone wants to revist the idea of using submariners...

Stephen Bierce wrote:


I don't know about the end of the service life of the Talon planes, but I would lobby for T-45
Goshawks as a possible replacement, if supersonic performance isn't a real issue.

NASA already operates some earlier-model F/A-18 Hornets in technology testbed roles, so
adding/transferring a few to the Astronaut proficiency role wouldn't be out of the question
either.

Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

It's my understanding that NASA T-38's are already no longer
supersonic. A few years ago I read in NASA Tech Briefs that one of the
centers designed a new intake for the T-38 that allows a greater margin
of safety for "high, hot and humid" coditions. The downside is that the
inlet is no-longer optimized for supersonic flight. I saw some recent
pics on the web that shows the new design inlet in place on NASA's (
but not USAF's ) T-38's.

Good call on the T-45. I bet the T-45 will be mentioned as replacement
for the both USAF's and NASA's Talons. I think the F-18's operating
costs are probably too high for NASA to keep a bigger fleet than they
already have. I often wondered considering the abundance of
Navy/Marine aviators as early astronauts why the TA-4 wasn't
considered.

Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Stephen Bierce wrote:

I don't know about the end of the service life of the Talon planes,
but I would lobby for T-45
Goshawks as a possible replacement, if supersonic performance isn't a
real issue.

NASA already operates some earlier-model F/A-18 Hornets in technology
testbed roles, so
adding/transferring a few to the Astronaut proficiency role wouldn't
be out of the question
either.


If you were going to remove something unnecessary and superfluous from
the NASA budget, you could start with those planes.
They don't fly like the Shuttle, they've killed a lot of astronauts over
the years, and they won't be even vaguely relevant to our CEV once the
Shuttle is retired.
They're a publicity gimmick and perk for the astronauts, and a expensive
and dangerous one at that.

Y'know, I was wondering, myself, lately -- _were_ they ever any help for
astronauts' flying skills or were they, in fact, "flying Corvettes"?


--

..

"Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!"

--grateful dead.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
"Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org

In article .com,
mike flugennock wrote:
Y'know, I was wondering, myself, lately -- _were_ they ever any help for
astronauts' flying skills or were they, in fact, "flying Corvettes"?

Most any actual flying -- especially in a relatively hot, high-performance
aircraft -- contributes well to maintaining proficiency.

Which is not to say that they weren't also status symbols.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

In article .com,
Gene DiGennaro wrote:
...I often wondered considering the abundance of
Navy/Marine aviators as early astronauts why the TA-4 wasn't considered.

Probably because it wasn't supersonic, at a time when that still had a lot
of technological sex appeal.

Remember also that the Navy pilot fraternity was then split into fighter
pilots and bomber pilots (aka "attack aircraft" pilots, because "bomber"
was a registered trademark of SAC :-)). Those Navy/Marine aviators came
almost entirely from the fighter-pilot side of the house, whereas the A-4
was one of those slow, plodding aircraft that the bomber guys flew.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

mike flugennock wrote:


Y'know, I was wondering, myself, lately -- _were_ they ever any help
for astronauts' flying skills or were they, in fact, "flying Corvettes"?


They'd be helpful as far as general flying skills and for building up a
tolerance for maneuvers and G forces, but they wouldn't handle at all
like a Shuttle.
It would make more sense to ferry the astronauts around in the Shuttle
Training Aircraft, where every landing could serve as a practice Shuttle
landing.

Pat