noe@sunc4.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) (04/24/91)
Follow-ups directed to sci.space.shuttle. In article <1648@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) writes: >Huntsville has the Pathfinder on display. My friends at Marshall tell >me that it was an orbiter body built for vibration tests prior to >the drop tests, as such it's an orbiter, but not built to fly. >(Pathfinder's existence might explain why there's a number missing in >the OV series... It's usually the one left out of lists.) Can someone confirm this? Is OV-100 Pathfinder? One of the lists Ron Jarrell refers to would look like the following: OV-099 Challenger OV-101 Enterprise OV-102 Columbia OV-103 Discovery OV-104 Atlantis OV-105 Endeavour I assume they actually started the numbering scheme at 101, with what were to be the operational OV bodies, and then backtracked when Challenger was turned into an operational OV. Does anyone know differently? -- 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
pjs1@waikato.ac.nz (04/25/91)
In article <2814A667.538E@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu>, noe@sunc4.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes: > > Can someone confirm this? Is OV-100 Pathfinder? One of the lists Ron Jarrell > refers to would look like the following: > OV-099 Challenger > OV-101 Enterprise > OV-102 Columbia > OV-103 Discovery > OV-104 Atlantis > OV-105 Endeavour > I assume they actually started the numbering scheme at 101, with what were to > be the operational OV bodies, and then backtracked when Challenger was turned > into an operational OV. Does anyone know differently? > I have always assumed that Challenger was OV-101 and have never heard of the Enterprise. As it never flew would I be correct in thinking that something was wrong with it's body and hence it's inards were used to make the challenger? On a similar subject, we (New Zealand) are about to see THE CHALLENGER (the movie), is it any good and how accurate/factual is it.
dbm@icarus.jsc.nasa.gov (Brad Mears) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.140350.3543@waikato.ac.nz>, pjs1@waikato.ac.nz writes: |> |> I have always assumed that Challenger was OV-101 and have never heard |> of the Enterprise. As it never flew would I be correct in thinking that |> something was wrong with it's body and hence it's inards were used to make the |> challenger? To the best of my knowledge, Enterprise was the first full-scale flight quality orbiter constructed. Among other things, it was used for vibration testing. Since these tests subjected it to serious overloads, it is forever prohibited from flight. It is now property of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. -- Brad Mears dbm@icarus.jsc.nasa.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opinions are expressly forbidden. | "It is better to die on your feet I speak for myself and no other. | than live on your knees" | - Dolores Ibarruri ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dbm@icarus.jsc.nasa.gov (Brad Mears) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.195733.11534@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, dbm@icarus.jsc.nasa.gov (Brad Mears) writes: |> |> To the best of my knowledge, Enterprise was the first full-scale flight |> quality orbiter constructed. Among other things, it was used for vibration |> testing. Since these tests subjected it to serious overloads, it is forever |> prohibited from flight. It is now property of the Smithsonian Air & Space |> Museum. Please allow me to humbly wipe the egg from my face. I am informed by someone that should know, that I was wrong. The corrected history is like this - OV-099 : Challenger OV-100 : Pathfinder OV-101 : Enterprise OV-099 was the first vehicle to ENTER the assembly line. This does not mean it was the first one to get rolled-out. The first one out was Pathfinder. The second was Enterprise, and the third was Challenger. Pathfinder (OV-100) was used for the Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Test (MVGVT). This was the "vibration testing" to which I referred. Enterprise (OV-101) was used for the Approach and Landing Test (ALT). The ALT involved mating Enterprise to the SCA and then releasing it during flight. This allowed NASA to test the landing procedures. The reason Enterprise is barred from flight is NOT that it experienced "overloads". Rather, it was never qualified for space-flight (as opposed to air-flight). Its only purpose in life was ALT. -- Brad Mears dbm@icarus.jsc.nasa.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opinions are expressly forbidden. | "It is better to die on your feet I speak for myself and no other. | than live on your knees" | - Dolores Ibarruri ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (04/26/91)
In <1991Apr25.140350.3543@waikato.ac.nz> pjs1@waikato.ac.nz writes: >In <2814A667.538E@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu>, noe@sunc4.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > Can someone confirm this? Is OV-100 Pathfinder? > > OV-099 Challenger > > OV-101 Enterprise > I have always assumed that Challenger was OV-101 and have never heard > of the Enterprise. As it never flew would I be correct in thinking that > something was wrong with it's body and hence it's inards were used to make > the challenger? Enterprise was supposed to be a flying bird. After the drop tests, it was decided that Enterprise was overwieght and it would take too much work to refit it for flight. Columbia then became the first shuttle to be flight ready since it was next in line. Challenger actually started life as a test frame. It was decided to refit it for flight when they decided not to refit Enterprise. Challenger retained the OV number of the test frame, OV-99. I don't know if Pathfinder was ever officially issued an OV number. All of my books are in storage, so I cannot look it up 8-(. > On a similar subject, we (New Zealand) are about to see THE CHALLENGER > (the movie), is it any good and how accurate/factual is it. It received good new.reviews because of all of the shuttle processing footage. The story was a bit hokey, but everyone seemed to like the scene were the engineers were trying to stop the flight. -john- -- ============================================================================= John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
noe@sunc7.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.140350.3543@waikato.ac.nz> pjs1@waikato.ac.nz writes: > I have always assumed that Challenger was OV-101 and have never heard >of the Enterprise. As it never flew would I be correct in thinking that >something was wrong with it's body and hence it's inards were used to make the >challenger? Never flew? Enterprise was the first orbiter vehicle to fly. It was also the first one to roll out from Rockwell International's Palmdale facility and be delivered to NASA. (This was something like January, 1977.) During the summer of 1977, Enterprise was mated to the fuselage of a modified Boeing 747 and taken on captive flights for testing. On 12 August 1977, Enterprise flew free from an altitude of 22,800 feet and landed on the desert bed at Edwards Air Force Base. It made four more such flights in what were called collectively the approach and landing tests (ALT). According to official NASA statements at the rollout, Enterprise was to become an operational orbiter vehicle after completing these early tests. NASA later discovered that it would be able to refurbish to flight readiness either Enterprise or the orbiter which came to be called Challenger, pri- marily for fiscal reasons. Deciding it would be more advantageous (cheaper, faster, whatever) to make Challenger the operational vehicle, they did so and left Enterprise to be forever earthbound. Unquestionably some of Enterprise's "innards" were used in Challenger - NASA is quite adept at "cannibalizing" their shuttle fleet in a continuing juggling act. I've even heard the joke told that NASA plans to reduce its actual astronaut corps to only 5 or 10 complete astronauts, and move around their internal organs and such from one human body to another. To do this, they need brainless, spineless bodies in which they can place the nervous systems of trained astronauts. Why do you think they've been taking members of the U.S. Senate and Congress up there? (I've heard this joke told because I'm the one who tells it. I first told it in a widely ignored April Fool posting to Usenet some years ago.) -- 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
fdg@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Frank P. DiGiuseppe) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.203708.20989@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, dbm@icarus.jsc.nasa.gov (Brad Mears) writes: > Pathfinder (OV-100) was used for the Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Test (MVGVT). > This was the "vibration testing" to which I referred. So where is Pathfinder now? -- Frank P. DiGiuseppe McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines fdg@mcrcim.mcgill.edu Dept. EE, McGill University, Montreal, PQ H3A 3A7 "Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;" - J.G. Magee Jr.
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) (04/26/91)
fdg@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Frank P. DiGiuseppe) writes: >So where is Pathfinder now? I drive by Pathfinder every day. Its at the Marshal Space Flight Center in Huntsville Al. It on display mounted to a complete launch system of SRB and exturnal tank. Right next to it is the mockup of the Saturn V. -- // Jeff Hyche There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu
jms20@po.CWRU.Edu (John M. Sully) (04/26/91)
In a previous article, fdg@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Frank P. DiGiuseppe) says: > >So where is Pathfinder now? > Pahtfinder now resides at the US Space Camp as part of their Rocket Park. She's been mated to an ET, and 2 older SRBs, and is part of the only full scale Shuttle stack on display (I think...please correct me if this is wrong.) Have a day... John -- | John M. Sully | "Why do I get the idea that | | jms20@po.cwru.edu | someday I'll be describing | | Case Western Reserve University | this to a psychologist?" | | Cleveland, Ohio | --Lisa Simpson |
jms20@po.CWRU.Edu (John M. Sully) (04/26/91)
> >Enterprise was supposed to be a flying bird. After the drop tests, it >was decided that Enterprise was overwieght and it would take too much >work to refit it for flight. Columbia then became the first shuttle to >be flight ready since it was next in line. Challenger actually started >life as a test frame. It was decided to refit it for flight when they >decided not to refit Enterprise. Challenger retained the OV number >of the test frame, OV-99. > This may be unture, but I heard a few years ago that during the last drop test, Enterprise was set down rather hard and developed a bend in the airframe, rendering in unflyable. Have a day... John -- | John M. Sully | "Why do I get the idea that | | jms20@po.cwru.edu | someday I'll be describing | | Case Western Reserve University | this to a psychologist?" | | Cleveland, Ohio | --Lisa Simpson |