|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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} |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?
"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) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?
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... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?
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. | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?
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. | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(Graphic Pics): Qana HOLOCAUST Massacre-II '30 July 2006' | Warhol | Misc | 62 | August 9th 06 01:46 AM |
Satellite flood mapping service strengthens eastern France civilprotection (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | March 21st 06 12:13 AM |
First long-duration mission for an ESA astronaut onboard the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 24th 06 08:46 AM |
First long-duration mission for an ESA astronaut onboard the ISS(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | February 24th 06 04:34 AM |
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? | Dan Huizenga | Space Shuttle | 11 | November 14th 03 07:33 AM |