henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/09/89)
In article <15988@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@grits.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes: >The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is >used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC. Currently, there is >only one such specially modified 747 in existence. It is therefore >one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system. >... it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until >a second ferry vehicle is available. One will be as soon as NASA gets around to it. The aircraft has already been bought and is in storage (!) awaiting the modifications. Getting it going wouldn't be a problem if there was a specific reason. Dusting off Enterprise and making it flight-ready, with up-to-date landing gear and brakes, would probably take longer. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mae@vygr.Sun.COM (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO}) (05/10/89)
Er...Pardon the dumb question, but what is the use of the crosswind tests? # mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04 "I'd rather sniff French shit for 5 years then eat Chinese shit the rest of my life" -Ho Chi Minh-
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/10/89)
In article <103946@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> mae@sun.UUCP (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO}) writes: >Er...Pardon the dumb question, but what is the use of the >crosswind tests? Establishing how well the shuttle lands in crosswinds. This is of some importance for using the runway at KSC, since it frequently has crosswinds. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
larson@unix.SRI.COM (Alan Larson) (05/12/89)
Does anyone actually know the risk level involved in drop testing the shuttle? How does that compare with the risk of landing with the shuttle on the back on the 747? Why not just dump the thing off the 747 in the vicinity of KSC on the return trip, allowing a drop test, a shuttle landing at KSC, and delivery, all in one trip. (There may be some problems with keeping the shuttle powered up for the duration of the trip across the country -- did the drop tests use the APUs, or just batteries?) Alan
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/12/89)
In article <30549@sri-unix.SRI.COM> larson@unix.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes: >Does anyone actually know the risk level involved in drop testing the >shuttle? How does that compare with the risk of landing with the >shuttle on the back on the 747? Considerably higher. The 747 with a shuttle on its back flies pretty much like a heavily-loaded 747, which is not a terribly difficult thing to land, given an adequate runway and good conditions. A shuttle landing is much dicier, with a very high descent rate and no chance of going around for another try. >(There may be some problems with keeping the shuttle powered up >for the duration of the trip across the country -- did the drop >tests use the APUs, or just batteries?) The APUs are needed for any operation requiring hydraulic power, which basically means takeoff and landing. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) (05/13/89)
In article <1989May9.014323.13717@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >One will be as soon as NASA gets around to it. The aircraft has already >been bought and is in storage (!) awaiting the modifications. Getting it >going wouldn't be a problem if there was a specific reason. Dusting >off Enterprise and making it flight-ready, with up-to-date landing gear >and brakes, would probably take longer. Why should NASA take the time and expense to drop the Enterprise when it can do the tests with an actule mission thats already paid for? -- Wayne Johnson (Voice) 612-638-7665 NCR Comten, Inc. (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or Roseville MN 55113 johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/13/89)
In article <1287@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes: >Why should NASA take the time and expense to drop the Enterprise when it can >do the tests with an actule mission thats already paid for? More tests sooner, plus the ability to run tests in varying conditions without increasing the risk of losing a nearly-irreplaceable real orbiter. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu