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. ( Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Dave Rose 1
It’s a rectangle for Christ sakes...
Dave Fisher -2
i am embarrassed to share the same name with you.
Looks like Noah's ark...
Dave Fisher -4
D Rotten -3
And yet, nobody asks WHY it is that NASA is even in the Antarctic!!
Bruce Atkinson 0
OR,flying a DC-8?
Jesse Carroll 3
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
hal pushpak -9
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..
Shenghao Han 22
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....
Erik Bruner 2
Thank you, saved me the trouble of typing that out.
hal pushpak 1
Good to know. Thanks.
bbabis 15
Flying in that area of the world, I want as many engines as possible.
James Simms 1
The more engines you have, the merrier
Jacob Buchanan -7
Can anyone reply to me just exactly why this is a "good" comment?
ToddBaldwin3 2
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.
Jacob Buchanan -4
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..
bigkahuna400 2
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?
Dave Fisher -1
You have their proof? What again got the glaciers?
Em Fairley 0
Pot calling the kettle! Idiot!

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.