You may precise the space shuttle enterprise's size to help comparison with other dropped payload.

@ManuH I think that you can do yourself. If you can think of something bigger that qualifies as an answer, let us know.

So did it free fall to the ground after it was dropped?

Did it free fall or glide?

@RyanMortensen Which kind of object would free fall in the atmosphere? ;)

It glided at a high rate (low L/D ratio).

It glided at a high rate (low L/D ratio). The operative phrase, back in the day, was "like a cast iron Frisbee."

Even bricks glide. They just do so rather poorly. What the space shuttle did after it was dropped is not relevant to the fact that it was dropped. :)

Do we have a consensus on if gliding does or does not equal flying? To @JuanJimenez's point, every object will interact with the air while falling, generating some amount of drag or "lift", so is the Shuttle special for falling less quickly?

The question was what was the largest object dropped from an airplane. After I posted this answer the OP modified the question to add a meaningless requirement that the object should not be "flying." Everything flies when dropped from a high point to the ground. Some fly well, some fly poorly. But if the OP thinks Stack Exchange is about making questions moving targets, I see no point in continuing to address his "question." That's just silly.

@JuanJimenez - Honestly, I think this still counts. It wasn't powered flight, and as others have pointed out, counting gliding as "flying" rules out pretty much any object with an orientation that could provide some lift.

@JuanJimenez to be fair, the OP was asked by a few people (me included) to clarify. It doesnt invalidate your answer - they just might not accept it as one. Many would (me included).

@T.E.D. No, it rules out any object, period. Aerodynamics 101.

Addressing the comment about Buzz (perhaps meant with tongue firmly in cheek), I believe Buzz's glide ratio was shown to be considerably better than the shuttle. The shuttle is pretty much the definition of "falling with style". So the shuttle should fit with the current form of the question.

@JuanJimenez - Point being, I think its always quite reasonable to assume, where at all possible, that a question shouldn't be interpreted to have ridiculous restrictions that reduce it to a trivial or otherwise off-topic question, unless there is no other reasonable interpretation. Call it a "presumption of topicality". By that principle, clearly "anything that glides, even if its unpowered" couldn't have been intended (or we'd have to close the question as trivial).

@JuanJimenez The distinction between gliding and falling is that a gliding object must be generating lift. A bomb or a brick merely generates drag. nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/…

I'm not sure you can count that as "dropped" since it was on top of the aircraft and departed upward before gliding away. Also, technically the Shuttle did have a parachute that it used for landing.

@PaulJohnson Even a brick will generate lift as it drops to the ground. It doesn't generate enough of it vs gravity and drag to go anywhere but down.

@Skyler That is incorrect. The shuttle was dropped and the 747 dove down to get out of the way. The parachute is only used after the shuttle gets to the ground.

@T.E.D. Point being, you haven't looked at the edit history of the question and when the silly requirement of "not flying" was added.

@JuanJimenez it departed upward in the reference frame of the 747.

@skyler No, it did not. youtube.com/watch?v=cOmemZl4k1U

@PaulJohnson Even a glider made out of concrete will glide. The calculate glide ratio was 4:1, as shown in a Mythbuster's episode. This debate is a royal waste of time, if you think aerodynamics only applies to something that is designed to fly then there's no point in debating this.

@JuanJimenez Yes, a glider made of concrete would generate lift. A bomb does not generate lift, just drag. Drag is defined as a force opposite to the direction of motion through the air. To glide you need to be generating a force that is not in the same direction as the airflow. A bomb or a brick won't do this (unless the brick is held in a constant orientation to the airflow).

@JuanJimenez I don't want to pick a side on what the definition of "dropped" is, but to Skyler's point, your video does show it departing upward with the 747 as the frame of reference (i.e. it goes upward with respect to the 747, not the ground, irrespective of whether or not the 747 dived). Skyler is arguing that "dropped" means that when the 2 objects detach, what's being dropped should move downward with respect to what dropped it.

@JoL The video shows a stable horizon and clouds. It does not go upwards with respect to anything. Dropping does not require the dropped object to move downward, but it does imply separation of the two objects. If the object doing the dropping falls faster than the object dropped, the object was still dropped.

@PaulJohnson This study of the "EVALUATION OF AERODYNAMIC DERIVATIVES OF Mk82 BOMB FROM WIND TUNNEL TESTING AND SEMIEMPIRICAL METHODS" is just one of the many examples that says otherwise. And this article takes care of the notion that a brick cannot generate lift. newscientist.com/article/…

@JuanJimenez When talking about the 747 as frame of reference, the stable horizon and clouds do not matter. You're thinking of Earth being the frame of reference. The shuttle does go upward with respect to the 747. Pick a second. Is the shuttle above the 747? Record the distance between the 2. Let a second pass. Is the shuttle still above the 747? Is the distance between the 2 further than the previously recorded distance? If the answer to all 3 questions is "yes", then it means that it's moving upwards with respect to the 747. That's all I'm arguing. I agree with your definition of dropped.

And by the way, the reason the shuttle test video does not show the shuttle climbing is that it would be completely opposite to the purpose of the test, to examine the characteristics of flight of the shuttle after it has entered the atmosphere and is approaching to land. At no time during that portion of the flight would the pilot try to make the shuttle climb. At most, adjustments to the descending glide path would be made. It would also be dangerous. since the shuttle's stall speed was estimated at 220 mph. The 747 was not flying much faster than that at release.

And finally, you will notice from the videos of the release tests that the shuttle was released after the 747 pilot put the entire contraption into a dive. As far as I am concern, that closes the subject.

The Enterprise wasn't dropped, and violates all the rules (that were probably added after you wrote your answer).

If I drop my car keys, we would say they fell, not flew or glided to the floor because car keys aren't designed to glide or fly. Why interpret this differently in the first place? All objects create air resistance; knowing that, are we coming to a community consensus that nothing can possibly fall to the surface of the Earth by definition because we have an atmosphere? If so, that would be the thing I find ridiculous, not my question.

@JuanJimenez I've looked for a definition of "fall" that requires no interaction with a fluid as part of the definition. I think we all understand all solid objects will interact with the air. With that in mind, not all things in this life are black and white and from time to time will require some intuition when communicating with other people. I think you're going out of your way to make this argument, and I don't understand your motives for doing so because what I actually don't understand is how it adds any value here.

But didn't answer the question regarding impacting the earth from freefall...the answer is therefore invalid