POSTMASTER@hiper.uucp (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (10/23/90)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 sci-space-shuttle... User unknown ----- Unsent message follows ----- To: sci-space-shuttle@hiper.uucp Path: pyrltd!ukc!mcsun!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu!v071pzp4 From: v071pzp4@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: orbiters Message-Id: <42125@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Date: 23 Oct 90 03:38:09 GMT References: <3833@awdprime.UUCP> <5758@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <1058@dg.dg.com> <359@rhum.tcom.stc.co.uk> <494@newave.UUCP> <100@abode.UUCP> Sender: news@acsu.Buffalo.EDU Reply-To: v071pzp4@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: University at Buffalo Lines: 21 Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4.3 In article <100@abode.UUCP>, eric@abode.UUCP (Eric C. Bennett) writes... >Well, the Enterprise was never intended to be launced into space. It didn't >even have real engines in it. Not quite true - Enterprise (OV-100) was originally to be converted for space duty after drop testing. Challenger (STA-99) was to replace Enterprise as the droptester. NASA realized later that Challenger, if refit, would be a lot lighter than Enterprise, meaning it could carry a heavier payload. Since NASA couldn't afford both, they went with Challenger. That explains why Challenger's serial number is Structual Test Article-99 while the others are Oribtal Vehicles-10x. >If you can read this you aren't looking through the hubble space telescope! Groan. Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU