Terry.S.@mcastl.fidonet.org (Terry S.) (08/10/89)
I read somewhere that the space shuttle to replace Challenger will be called Endeavor. Does anyone know when the construction is to be finished, and will it be be different from the rest of the fleet and have added features and a slightly different design or cargo size? Thank You. -- Terry S. - via UFgate - FidoNet Node 1:107/528 Internet: Terry.S.@mcastl.fidonet.org
ecf_eig@jhunix (Ian Chesterton) (08/12/89)
I understand that the Endeavor (sp?) will cost about $1.2B Whats the reason for not refitting the Enterprise (as Dale Brown portrayed in "Silver Tower")? If this topic has been talked about to death, could someone send me a synopsis? --- Ian --- (ecf_eig@jhunix)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/12/89)
In article <893.24E15AED@mcastl.fidonet.org> Terry.S.@mcastl.fidonet.org (Terry S.) writes: > I read somewhere that the space shuttle to replace Challenger will be > called Endeavor. Endeavour. It's named after one of Captain Cook's ships, and the Royal Navy spells that word with a 'u'. > Does anyone know when the construction is to be finished... 1992, I think. I could be wrong on this, my memory of it is vague. > will it be be different from the rest of the fleet and have added > features and a slightly different design or cargo size? ... It will be built to be essentially identical to Atlantis, although some minor changes planned for the entire fleet may appear in Endeavour first and be retrofitted into the others later. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/12/89)
In article <2277@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> ecf_eig@jhunix (Ian Chesterton) writes: > I understand that the Endeavor (sp?) will cost about $1.2B Whats the > reason for not refitting the Enterprise (as Dale Brown portrayed > in "Silver Tower")? ... Enterprise is overweight and below spec and generally would have to be rebuilt extensively to make it into a flight-ready orbiter. Without major structural replacement -- amounting to building a new orbiter -- it could never achieve the full payload of a late-production orbiter like Atlantis. That's more critical than it used to be, since a more conservative attitude about weight limits now prevails, and a lot of major missions are weight-limited. Building Endeavour makes sense. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Terry.S.@mcastl.fidonet.org (Terry S.) (08/14/89)
Has NASA ever thought of launching TWO shuttles into orbit the same day, or two days apart? It would be interesting to have to of our ships up there getting a look at each other. Also, has NASA or any other space agency released any plans of the craft they intend to use to get to Mars? Would it most likely be like out Shuttles, or more like the bird that landed on the moon? Apollo... -- Terry S. - via UFgate - FidoNet Node 1:107/528 Internet: Terry.S.@mcastl.fidonet.org
john@l5comp.wa.com (John Turner) (08/16/89)
One change planned for the Endeavour is installing a 30-foot braking parachute at the base of the vertical stabilizer, to be deployed the instant the rear landing gear make contact on landing. The article in AW&ST said something about reduced rollout and a gentler landing, less brake wear, etc. This change will eventually be made to all Shuttles. John Turner, john@l5comp.wa.com, way up in Edmonds WA
wastoid@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Feulner ... Matthew Feulner) (08/16/89)
In article <900.24E64901@mcastl.fidonet.org> Terry.S.@mcastl.fidonet.org (Terry S.) writes: > > Has NASA ever thought of launching TWO shuttles into orbit the > same day, or two days apart? It would be interesting to have to > of our ships up there getting a look at each other. What would they do...mate? :-) > Also, has NASA or any other space agency released any plans of the craft > they intend to use to get to Mars? Would it most likely be like > out Shuttles, or more like the bird that landed on the moon? Apollo... ^^^^^^^^ Now where did we put that landing strip on Mars... :-) Sorry, I couldn't stop myself. Matthew Feulner
thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) (08/19/89)
> One change planned for the Endeavour is installing a 30-foot braking parachute > at the base of the vertical stabilizer, to be deployed the instant the rear > landing gear make contact on landing. The article in AW&ST said something How interesting. The USSR space plane was already designed with a drogue chute for use when landing. (Also seen in AW&ST). - tom ============================================================================== Internet: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu | Notice: System or | will be going down mvac23%thomas@udel.edu | at 4:45pm today for uucp: {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas| a disk crash. Location: Newark, DE, USA | ==============================================================================
deej@nvuxr.UUCP (David Lewis) (08/21/89)
In article <1989Aug15.170339.3028@l5comp.wa.com>, john@l5comp.wa.com (John Turner) writes: >One change planned for the Endeavour is installing a 30-foot braking parachute >at the base of the vertical stabilizer, to be deployed the instant the rear >landing gear make contact on landing. The article in AW&ST said something >about reduced rollout and a gentler landing, less brake wear, etc. This >change will eventually be made to all Shuttles. Hmmm. Am I correct in recalling reading somewhere that Buran has a braking parachute? Gee, all these similarities -- I think Rockwell just copied the Soviet shuttle... (JOKE! JOKE!) -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (08/26/89)
In article <17125@ut-emx.UUCP> wastoid@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Feulner ... Matthew Feulner) writes: >In article <900.24E64901@mcastl.fidonet.org> Terry.S.@mcastl.fidonet.org (Terry S.) writes: >> >> Has NASA ever thought of launching TWO shuttles into orbit the >> same day, or two days apart? It would be interesting to have to >> of our ships up there getting a look at each other. > >What would they do...mate? :-) Someone from Australia probably didn't get this (oy mate!) :-) > > >> Also, has NASA or any other space agency released any plans of the craft >> they intend to use to get to Mars? Would it most likely be like >> out Shuttles, or more like the bird that landed on the moon? Apollo... > ^^^^^^^^ >Now where did we put that landing strip on Mars... :-) > Whatever they use has to be able to A> blast back off of Mar's surface and B> carry enough fuel for A> and the return trip. It better be comfortable too because it's going to take about 2 years to get there and then 2 more back again. Where'd that US space plane go? Maybe we could send refueling stations out first for in flight re-fueling. And send supplies in the refueling stations and at Mars, so the Astronauts don't have to carry everything with them. > >Sorry, I couldn't stop myself. > >Matthew Feulner -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (08/26/89)
>> Also, has NASA or any other space agency released any plans of the craft >> they intend to use to get to Mars? Would it most likely be like >> out Shuttles, or more like the bird that landed on the moon? Apollo... > ^^^^^^^^ >Now where did we put that landing strip on Mars... :-) Actually, it isn't a totally stupid question. It would save a lot of fuel to enter low Mars orbit by aerocapture or aerobraking rather than purely by rocket propulsion. Aerocapture would probably require a winged aeroshell, but the winged vehicle would not actually land on Mars. Since Mars' atmosphere is so thin, these aeromaneuvers would come down to 30,000 feet or so. Watch out for mountains. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/27/89)
In article <1989Aug26.160801.22141@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Paul Dietz) writes: >... Since Mars' atmosphere is so thin, these aeromaneuvers would >come down to 30,000 feet or so. Watch out for mountains. Watch out for them, hell -- *film* them and sell the rights to the footage. Passing Olympus Mons at interplanetary speeds only 30,000 feet up ought to be pretty spectacular... -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Alexander Davis) (08/27/89)
In message <1521@corpane.UUCP>, John Sparks writes: >In article <17125@ut-emx.UUCP> wastoid@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Feulner ... Matthew >Feulner) writes: >>In article <900.24E64901@mcastl.fidonet.org> Terry.S.@mcastl.fidonet.org >>(Terry S.) writes: >>> Also, has NASA or any other space agency released any plans of the craft >>> they intend to use to get to Mars? Would it most likely be like >>> out Shuttles, or more like the bird that landed on the moon? Apollo... >> ^^^^^^^^ >Where'd that US space plane go? Maybe we could send refueling stations out >first for in flight re-fueling. And send supplies in the refueling stations and >at Mars, so the Astronauts don't have to carry everything with them. A Spaceplane would be a very good thing to get off Mars surface with, but it would have to be designed to fly in Mars' atmosphere, so it could only be tested during the mission. However, a space plane could be carried by some other, more capable craft, and then the space plane could be used when scooting around to the moons and to Mars itself. Would someone direct me to a good source of information on the spaceplane? What it can do, and when it will be ready to do it? (This being very important). Trees talk happy to me, for I am the Hairy Cherub of Christmass, Santa Claus. But my gifts are a pun you, and are no clause for alarm. Dan.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/27/89)
In article <oYxoOpq00XoCM1gVEq@andrew.cmu.edu> dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Alexander Davis) writes: >A Spaceplane would be a very good thing to get off Mars surface with, >but it >would have to be designed to fly in Mars' atmosphere... Spaceplanes win big only if the atmosphere can be used as fuel or oxidizer. Mars's atmosphere is pretty useless, essentially chemically inert and very thin. I don't think a Marsplane will show much advantage over wingless rockets. >Would someone direct me to a good source of information on the >spaceplane? >What it can do, and when it will be ready to do it? ... The only US spaceplane in serious planning is the X-30, which will carry two pilots, each with a toothbrush as baggage, into orbit (it is hoped) sometime around 1995, with a lot of luck. The White House etc. wants to slip that to 1997 or so. Nobody with sense is betting lots of money on either of those dates. If you want a spaceplane that can carry a useful payload, you're definitely into the 21st century and maybe quite a ways into it. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ssd@sugar.hackercorp.com (Scott Denham) (08/27/89)
In article <1989Aug12.060332.9724@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Enterprise is overweight and below spec and generally would have to be > rebuilt extensively to make it into a flight-ready orbiter. Without I suspect this has been asked here before, but either before my time or I missed it. Where is Enterprise now, and what does it do for a living ??? Scott Denham Houston, TX
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/28/89)
In article <4136@sugar.hackercorp.com> ssd@sugar.hackercorp.com (Scott Denham) writes: >... Where is Enterprise now, and what does it do for a living??? It's in the Smithsonian, specifically the Air and Space Museum. (Actually, it's in storage pending suitable display space.) -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
kennedy@sunshine4.DAB.GE.COM (Woody Kennedy) (08/30/89)
In article <1989Aug27.174248.16278@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <4136@sugar.hackercorp.com> ssd@sugar.hackercorp.com (Scott Denham) writes: >>... Where is Enterprise now, and what does it do for a living??? > >It's in the Smithsonian, specifically the Air and Space Museum. (Actually, >it's in storage pending suitable display space.) Specifically, the last time I went through Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C., Enterprise was in a secluded parking there. It was next to a building which I was told will eventually be an annex to the Air and Space Museum. You can see it as your flight taxies in to the gate (or from the air if you're lucky). -- Woody Kennedy, Software Engineer, Special Effects | Pay no attention to the General Electric Simulation & Control Systems Dept. | man behind the keyboard! kennedy@sunny.ge.com or +-----------------+-------------------------- (backbone)!ge-dab.ge.com!kennedy | Wanna' see something neat? Watch this...