Back to Squawk list
  • 21

NASA DC-8 Flying Laboratory Spots Unusual Square Iceberg

Operation IceBridge, NASA’s longest-running aerial survey of polar ice, flew over the northern Antarctic Peninsula. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

It’s a rectangle for Christ sakes...
i am embarrassed to share the same name with you.
Looks like Noah's ark...
D Rotten -3
And yet, nobody asks WHY it is that NASA is even in the Antarctic!!
OR,flying a DC-8?
Doing what NASA does!
geeeeeezzzzz this site going to hell...#WALKAWAY dude!

[This comment was deleted.]

D Rotten 0
Poor lil Troll! Sounds like you need to get a life! Feel the need to reply to people's comments with your nothing-ness, do ya? Poor thing! Mommy/Daddy didn't give you enough attention?? LOL
Ironic that they'd be using an old, polluting four-engined airliner at (inefficient) low altitudes for polar surveys. Must be a legacy flying lab. Nonetheless, it might be interesting to see the (corroborating?) data they gathered over the years..
Just in case you didn’t know, the NASA DC-8 is a series 70 DC-8. The “polluting” JT3D was replaced with CFM56B, which are the same engines used on A340 and 737NG. So, there is no cleaner flying 4 engine medium-long range alternative exist, and given DC-8 is smaller than A340, 747 and A380, I think you will agree it will burn less fuel than those.
The DC8 often fly 6-8 hours over arctic seas and Antarctica with no alternative airports nor rescue stations nearby, personally I won’t even risk to fly that long on a twin. Remember when doing Atlantic crossing there are several diversion airports available, when flying over Antarctica... good luck with finding the nearest research station....
Thank you, saved me the trouble of typing that out.
Good to know. Thanks.
bbabis 15
Flying in that area of the world, I want as many engines as possible.
The more engines you have, the merrier
Can anyone reply to me just exactly why this is a "good" comment?
I would say this is a good comment for several reasons. First, the writer simply presented facts, not guesses, suppositions, or assumptions. The facts explained why this aircraft is a good choice. Another reason, and almost more importantly, the writer did so without using invective, personal attacks, or even suggesting that someone might be wrong. It was polite and informative.
Can't even edit a post, but it seems like a bunch of shills hover over these buttons more-so than what happens on your average reddit string..
These are extremely well maintained as well.
RECOR10 -3
No matter what. These folks can prove that humans are or are not causing anything other than the depth of the latrine....who again melted the glaciers over the great plains?
You have their proof? What again got the glaciers?
Pot calling the kettle! Idiot!


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..