noe@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr24.010610.4233@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> jfe@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >I have a couple of questions regarding the Endeavor. Endeavour. >1. What does the OV stand for in front of the numbers? I think Endeavor is >OV-105? Orbiter vehicle. >2. Is Endeavor ready for actual launch? If so, when is the scheduled date? The rollout ceremony is scheduled for April 25, 1991 at Rockwell's Palmdale facility. >Can you e-mail me the answers? I don't get around this way often... Mail bounced. -- Roger Noe roger-noe@uiuc.edu Department of Computer Science noe@cs.uiuc.edu University of Illinois 40:06:39 N. 88:13:41 W. Urbana, IL 61801 USA
zaft@ed8sun4.nswses.Navy.MIL (Gordon C Zaft) (04/26/91)
In article <281622DA.6F80@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> noe@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes: >In article <1991Apr24.010610.4233@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> jfe@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >>I have a couple of questions regarding the Endeavor. > >Endeavour. > Is this correct? Endeavour? Why the British spelling? That just doesn't make sense.... -- + Gordon Zaft | zaft@suned1.nswses.navy.mil + + NSWSES, Code 4Y33 | suned1!zaft@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov + + Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5007 | Phone: (805) 982-0684 FAX: 982-8768 + ** ..et resurrexit tertia die secundum scripturas, et ascendit in coelum.. ***
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/26/91)
In article <9407@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> zaft@ed8sun4.nswses.Navy.MIL (Gordon C Zaft) writes: > >Is this correct? Endeavour? Why the British spelling? That just doesn't >make sense.... Like the other shuttles, it was named after an historical (wet-ocean-going) exploratory vessel. The original Endeavour was British. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
eschner@dev8c.mdcbbs.com (04/26/91)
In article <9407@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, zaft@ed8sun4.nswses.Navy.MIL (Gordon C Zaft) writes: >>Endeavour. > Is this correct? Endeavour? Why the British spelling? That just doesn't > make sense.... I heard on the news yesterday that it was named after one of the early ships sailed by ???? from England to the "New World". -- ====================================================================== | Brian D. Eschner | Voice: (714) 952-5844 | | Sr. Software Engineer | Fax: (714) 952-6071 | | McDonnell Douglas M&E | Internet: eschner@dev8c.mdcbbs.com | | 5701 Katella Ave. | UUCP: uunet!dev8c.mdcbbs!eschner | | Cypress, CA 90630 | PSI: PSI%31060099980019::DEV8C::ESCHNER | ======================================================================
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (04/26/91)
In article <9407@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> zaft@ed8sun4.nswses.Navy.MIL (Gordon C Zaft) writes: In article <281622DA.6F80@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> noe@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes: >In article <1991Apr24.010610.4233@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> jfe@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >>I have a couple of questions regarding the Endeavor. > >Endeavour. > Is this correct? Endeavour? Why the British spelling? That just doesn't make sense.... Why doesn't it make sense? It's named after a British ship, after all. Interestingly enough, at the Endeavour rollout yesterday, Brandenstein was presented with a piece of the sternpost of HMS Endeavour, which will fly on the eponymous Shuttle on its first flight in May, 1992. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "Turn to kill, not to engage." CDR Willie Driscoll
schriber@horizon.COM (Mike Schriber) (04/28/91)
Shuttle numbers and such: Enterprise was/is the firts orbiter to fly. Well, actually it was the first to glide. Enterprise was the post-reentry glider for the shuttle program. It wreleased from the NASA 747 Shuttle Transporter (#905) a few times as a proof of concept that the thing would actually fly and land with a good degreeof control and saftey. Enterprise now resides in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum (or rather in a hangar awaiting the opening of a new wing). Enterprise was never intended to be an operational orbiter. -- Mike Schriber | schriber@horizon.com Science Horizons Guest Account | (619)755-6042 voice Sysop: The Dead Zone BBS/PDSE | (619)755-3350 BBS WWIVnet Member System | 1@6952 (WWIVnet Address)
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (04/29/91)
In article <135@toad.horizon.COM> schriber@horizon.COM (Mike Schriber) writes: > Enterprise now resides in the Smithsonian Air and Space > Museum (or rather in a hangar awaiting the opening of a new wing). Enterprise > was never intended to be an operational orbiter. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Enterprise was fully intended to fly in Space. NASA did this to satisfy the zillion trekkies that send in cards and letters. After the glide tests, it was determined that it would be cheaper to refit a test frame for flight instead of Enterprise. That test frame was OV-99, Challenger. BTW, does anyone know if the Smithsonian is actually going ahead with the new Air & Space museum near Dulles Airport? Last I heard, it was not funded by Congress. Then I heard a rumor that some construction work was underway. Anyone know for sure? -john- -- ============================================================================= John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr26.095715.1@dev8c.mdcbbs.com> eschner@dev8c.mdcbbs.com writes: About Endeavor's namesake: >I heard on the news yesterday that it was named after one of the early ships >sailed by ???? from England to the "New World". The captain of the (origional) Endeavor was Cook and his voyages were to the Pacific not the new world. Frank Crary UC Berkeley
lhotka@alumni.colorado.edu (Doug Lhotka) (04/29/91)
In article <792@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >In article <135@toad.horizon.COM> schriber@horizon.COM (Mike Schriber) writes: >> Enterprise now resides in the Smithsonian Air and Space >> Museum (or rather in a hangar awaiting the opening of a new wing). Enterprise >> was never intended to be an operational orbiter. > >Please correct me if I am wrong, but Enterprise was fully intended to fly >in Space. NASA did this to satisfy the zillion trekkies that send in NASA's spokeswoman at the time was Nichele Nichols, who played Uhura on TOS. All of the original actors, as well as Gene Rodenberry were on hand for the original roll-out of the Enterprise. The grass roots campaign to name the shuttle Enterprise resulted in more than 100,000 letters requesting the name (the number may be too large) . >cards and letters. After the glide tests, it was determined that it would >be cheaper to refit a test frame for flight instead of Enterprise. That test >frame was OV-99, Challenger. ^^^^ but columbia was the first shuttle in space > >BTW, does anyone know if the Smithsonian is actually going ahead with the >new Air & Space museum near Dulles Airport? Last I heard, it was not >funded by Congress. Then I heard a rumor that some construction work was >underway. Anyone know for sure? A sight has not been chosen yet. The FAA (and the colorado congressional delegation) wants to put it at the old Stapleton Airport after our new one is completed in 1992. Dulles doesn't have enough room on hand to meet the needs of the project (as anyone who's been caught in the traffic there can attest to), but Stapleton has everything in place...and it'll all be empty when the museum would open. In any case, no construction has started, as no decision has been made. > Later, Doug
schriber@horizon.COM (Mike Schriber) (04/30/91)
NASA did name OV-101 Enterprise in response to thousands of requests and suggestions from the public. From everything I have read, OV-101 was constructed only as a test vehicle and was never intended for spaceflight. If it was at all realistic to retrofit Enterprise for spaceflight, it would have been done. -- Mike Schriber | schriber@horizon.com Science Horizons Guest Account | (619)755-6042 voice Sysop: The Dead Zone BBS/PDSE | (619)755-3350 BBS WWIVnet Member System | 1@6952 (WWIVnet Address)
bunge@wam.umd.edu (Robert David Bunge) (04/30/91)
>A sight has not been chosen yet. The FAA (and the colorado congressional >delegation) wants to put it at the old Stapleton Airport after our new one >is completed in 1992. Dulles doesn't have enough room on hand to meet the >needs of the project (as anyone who's been caught in the traffic there can >attest to), but Stapleton has everything in place...and it'll all be empty >when the museum would open. In any case, no construction has started, as >no decision has been made. >> >Later, > Doug I had the chance to visit the Smithsonian's Paul E. Garber Facility this past weekend. This is were A&S keeps lots of the planes either waiting to be displayed or in storage awaiting restoration. It is also were they restore them. There was hanger after hanger of incrediable stuff. The thought (and cost) of moving all that stuff to Denver sends a shiver down my spine. One of the volunteers from A&S who was there said current cost estimates for moving JUST the Enterprise are running in the $2 million range. Bob Bunge bunge@wam.umd.edu