Alternate Space History: C-5 Shuttle carrier

Apparently the C-5 was considered for the Shuttle Carrier aircraft, with either a piggyback system, or a strange double fuselage, with the shuttle suspended from a straight wing in the middle.

Twin Fuselage
upload_2017-11-13_10-32-26.png

Piggyback:
upload_2017-11-13_10-35-34.png


How might this effect space development? The shuttle will still be a sorta bad spacecraft, but might this effect other things? The c-5 would have to be owned by the airforce, so it might cause more integration between the two...
 
Last edited:
So far i can recall there issues with Lockheed C-5 Shuttle Transporter
One the high cost of converting the C-5 into Twin fuselage, what included long series of testing the new aircraft, that interfere with Shuttle drop test schedule.
NASA concerns that orbiter could hit T-empennage of C-5 what could let to crash of plane (the Boeing 747 used had it empennage modified with additional surface for that emergency)
but biggest reason NASA no took the C-5 was the Issue with the high-winged layout and took Boeing 747 's low-wing design
next to that the first C-5 show fatigue cracks in the wings of several aircraft reducing the cargo

It's sad that C-5 Galaxy had those technical problems and Cost overruns. Would habe be nice Cargo/passenger plane L500.
 

Archibald

Banned
The twin-Galaxy would be an awesome aircraft competing with the An-225 Mriya. An ordinary C-5 would be a far worse bargain for NASA than a 747. The C-5 is horribly expensive, unreliable and by the way, it's Lockheed. 747s are cheap and plentiful.
 
drone1_website.0.jpg


The new Spacelaunch aircraft, financed by Paul Allen, and designed and built by Burt Rutan, is an awesome aircraft, and purpose-built. The Galaxy was the first aircraft with an over billion dollar cost over-run, so I don't think Spacelaunch can compete with that for awesome.
 
the one question I have about the Spacelaunch is why doesn't the rear stabilizer run all the way across like the P-38 did?
 
How might this effect space development? The shuttle will still be a sorta bad spacecraft, but might this effect other things? The c-5 would have to be owned by the airforce, so it might cause more integration between the two...
The only effect I can imagine is the higher cost and lower reliability of the C5 make the Shuttle even less viable.
 
the one question I have about the Spacelaunch is why doesn't the rear stabilizer run all the way across like the P-38 did?

I would suggest that turbulence from the payload-wing interface area might interfere with a full-width stab, and potential aerodynamic and structural problems are obviated by having no stab in that area, so it don't need fixing. That area was one of the P-38's first major problems, solved by the wing fillet.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
How might this effect space development? The shuttle will still be a sorta bad spacecraft, but might this effect other things?

NASA finds out its cheaper to convert a commercial airliner, and the idea dies on the drawing board, like it did OTL?

I prefer the Conroy Virtus!

Conroy-Virtus.jpg
 
The 747 was chosen because, in wind tunnel tests, it was found to naturally tilt nose-down when releasing an Orbiter from its back. Conversely, the C-5 was shown to tilt nose-up, i.e. it would plow straight into the Orbiter.

I’m sure that with enough reengineering of the tail, that could be corrected, but it would really only delay the ALT a bit and drive up costs. Alternatively, you get Fred Haise (and others) killed in a mid-air collision of Enterprise and the SCA.
 
Top