jrb9465%ritcv@cs.rit.edu (02/10/89)
I believe that the new shuttle may be the main shuttle to be launched from Vandenberg. I can't remember where I read it (AV Week ?) that the new shuttle will be significantly lighter than the old ones, especially Columbia. The weight savings is necessary for the Polar launches that are to be done from there. Vandenberg is scheduled to be reopened sometime in 1992. Any idea what the new shuttle (OV - 106?) will be called ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "If you smile at me I will understand. | John R. Broderick 'Cause that's something everybody | everywhere does in the same language." | rochester!ritcv!jrb9465 | jrb9465@ritcv@rochester S. Stills, D. Crosby, P. Kantner | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/12/89)
In article <919@cs.rit.edu> jrb9465%ucss@cs.rit.edu (John R. Broderick) writes: >I believe that the new shuttle may be the main shuttle to be >launched from Vandenberg. I can't remember where I read it >(AV Week ?) that the new shuttle will be significantly lighter >than the old ones, especially Columbia. The weight savings is >necessary for the Polar launches that are to be done from there. >Vandenberg is scheduled to be reopened sometime in 1992. Can you cite references for this? I'm unaware of any plan to reopen Vandenberg, and am aware of a number of indications that it will never be reopened. The new orbiter is being built to essentially the same standard as Atlantis, which will indeed make it lighter than Columbia (and perhaps a bit lighter than Discovery). >Any idea what the new shuttle (OV - 106?) will be called ? It's OV-105, I think; the name has not yet been chosen. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (02/13/89)
In article <1989Feb11.234744.20258@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >It's OV-105, I think; the name has not yet been chosen. Henry, it is OV-106. Six Shuttles were built. This includes "Pathfinder" and "Enterprise". Pathfinder was used for tooling fits, Enterprise for gliding tests. Pathfinder is permanently displayed horizontally at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. Anyway, OV-99 was the first number leaving....(oops, I just realized that 105 is the next available number). I was thinking one of the numbers was skipped. I guess not. Oh well....... Peter Jarvis..........Physio_Control
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/15/89)
In article <2481@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) writes: >Henry, it is OV-106. Six Shuttles were built. This includes "Pathfinder" >and "Enterprise". Pathfinder was used for tooling fits, Enterprise for >gliding tests. Pathfinder is permanently displayed horizontally at the >Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. If I'm not mistaken, Pathfinder was a mockup only and did not have an orbiter number. The four original orbiters, Enterprise, Columbia, Discovery, and Atlantis, were 101 through 104. When it became clear that Enterprise was not in spaceworthy condition, one of the test structures, OV-099, was refitted as an orbiter and became Challenger. So the next number is indeed 105. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
grig8348@fredonia.UUCP (LoyEllen Griggs) (02/16/89)
In article <1989Feb11.234744.20258@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: ;In article <919@cs.rit.edu> jrb9465%ucss@cs.rit.edu (John R. Broderick) writes: . . . ; ;>Any idea what the new shuttle (OV - 106?) will be called ? ; ;It's OV-105, I think; the name has not yet been chosen. My younger brother (age 12) is on his school's committee to present their name for the new shuttle. Apparently it's a big PR setup with grade school kids to name the shuttle. I have no idea, though, how they're going to pick the winning name. -- Science may never '. .` LoyEllen come up with a better - SUNY @Fredonia Office Communications System fredonia!grig8348@cs.buffalo.edu than the coffee break. {decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!fredonia!grig8348
pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) (02/16/89)
>Henry, it is OV-106. Six Shuttles were built. This includes "Pathfinder" >and "Enterprise". Pathfinder was used for tooling fits, Enterprise for >gliding tests. Pathfinder is permanently displayed horizontally at the >Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. ]If I'm not mistaken, Pathfinder was a mockup only and did not have an ]orbiter number. The four original orbiters, Enterprise, Columbia, ]Discovery, and Atlantis, were 101 through 104. When it became clear that ]Enterprise was not in spaceworthy condition, one of the test structures, ]OV-099, was refitted as an orbiter and became Challenger. So the next ]number is indeed 105. I was under the impression that Enterprise was a mockup as well, a nice piece of propaganda to satisfy the huge mail-in to name a shuttle "Enterprise". Either my memory fails me, or it was Columbia that sis the actual glide tests, from on top of the 747.....
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/18/89)
In article <QXycoxy00VQD1FwUYy@andrew.cmu.edu> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: >I was under the impression that Enterprise was a mockup as well, >a nice piece of propaganda to satisfy the huge mail-in to name a >shuttle "Enterprise". Either my memory fails me, or it was Columbia that >sis the actual glide tests, from on top of the 747..... I fear your memory fails you: Enterprise flew the glide tests, and it was definitely meant to be a spaceworthy orbiter at the time it was built. There has been some speculation about ulterior motives behind its retirement, although I'm skeptical about this. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (02/18/89)
In article <QXycoxy00VQD1FwUYy@andrew.cmu.edu> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: >I was under the impression that Enterprise was a mockup as well, >a nice piece of propaganda to satisfy the huge mail-in to name a >shuttle "Enterprise". Either my memory fails me, or it was Columbia that >sis the actual glide tests, from on top of the 747..... Enterprise did the glide tests. Originally, it was to be called Constitution. The Trekkies mounted their letter campaign to Pres. Ford to demand the Constitution => Enterprise name change, at a time when it had already been announced that the vehicle would never be launched into space. I could hardly believe that they would mess up like that, but they did, and they were disappointed. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898
kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) (02/18/89)
In article <1989Feb17.164009.3238@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <QXycoxy00VQD1FwUYy@andrew.cmu.edu> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: > >I was under the impression that Enterprise was a mockup as well, > >a nice piece of propaganda to satisfy the huge mail-in to name a > >shuttle "Enterprise". > > I fear your memory fails you: Enterprise flew the glide tests, and it was > definitely meant to be a spaceworthy orbiter at the time it was built. My memories indicate that Enterprise was a prototype vehicle for the purpose of glide testing, and possibly integration testing (although I have been known to have periodic bit errors in memory :-) :-) ). Seems to me that Challenger (OV-99) was originally constructed as an airframe test article, and later finished as a flight-worthy vehicle. It also seems to me that Enterprise was never intended for spaceflight. Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah standard disclaimer implied
stu@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Stuart Harvey on ndcheg) (02/18/89)
In article <1989Feb17.164009.3238@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <QXycoxy00VQD1FwUYy@andrew.cmu.edu> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: > >I was under the impression that Enterprise was a mockup as well, > >a nice piece of propaganda to satisfy the huge mail-in to name a > >shuttle "Enterprise". Either my memory fails me, or it was Columbia that > >sis the actual glide tests, from on top of the 747..... > > I fear your memory fails you: Enterprise flew the glide tests, and it was > definitely meant to be a spaceworthy orbiter at the time it was built. > There has been some speculation about ulterior motives behind its retirement, > although I'm skeptical about this. I fear memory fails you both. I am rather familiar with the shuttle program through my father who is a resident NASA engineer at the RI Downey, CA plant. The "approach and landing vehical" was the Enterprise. It was named such because of a huge write in campaign from Trekkies who wanted the first shuttle to be named after the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek fame. The Enterprise however, was never intended as an orbital vehical. It had a heavier structure that any of the other shuttles and was built simply as a test vehical. It is ironic, and has been from the start, that the shuttle that the Star Trek fans pushed so hard to be name "Enterprise" is and will forever be earthbound. A side note about 099, the reason this vehical has the designation 099 instead of 105 is that NASA in an effort to appear frugal to Congress preferred to number the vehical using the designation of the airframe used in the vibration test. The original numbering sequence for airframe test structures starts in the low to mid 090's. The original plan was for test structures to be numbered below 100, the approach and landing vehical to be given the number 100, and all space worthy craft to be numbered sequentially from 101. NASA has kept with this except for the slight of hand with 099 which is +90% new components on a recycled airframe. Stuart Harvey Stu@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu
tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) (02/19/89)
In article <QXycoxy00VQD1FwUYy@andrew.cmu.edu> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: >I was under the impression that Enterprise was a mockup as well, >a nice piece of propaganda to satisfy the huge mail-in to name a >shuttle "Enterprise". Either my memory fails me, or it was Columbia that >sis the actual glide tests, from on top of the 747..... Do, Enterprise was the one dropped from the 747. As I recall, it is now at Dulles International Airport, being prepared as an exhibit for the Smithsoian Air&Space Museaum. Murph -- Thomas C. Murphy Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab Internet: tmurphy@zaphod.wpi.edu tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu BITNET: TMURPHY@WPI CompuServe: 73766,130
leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) (02/21/89)
In article <47@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: :In article <1989Feb17.164009.3238@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: :> In article <QXycoxy00VQD1FwUYy@andrew.cmu.edu> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: :> >I was under the impression that Enterprise was a mockup as well, :> >a nice piece of propaganda to satisfy the huge mail-in to name a :> >shuttle "Enterprise". :> :> I fear your memory fails you: Enterprise flew the glide tests, and it was :> definitely meant to be a spaceworthy orbiter at the time it was built. : :My memories indicate that Enterprise was a prototype vehicle for the purpose :of glide testing, and possibly integration testing (although I have been :known to have periodic bit errors in memory :-) :-) ). Seems to me that :Challenger (OV-99) was originally constructed as an airframe test article, :and later finished as a flight-worthy vehicle. It also seems to me that :Enterprise was never intended for spaceflight. : :Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University : That is what I remember as well Lee
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/21/89)
In article <47@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: >My memories indicate that Enterprise was a prototype vehicle for the purpose >of glide testing, and possibly integration testing... seems to me that >Enterprise was never intended for spaceflight. I was around and paying attention at the time, and the official word from NASA, in the beginning, was most definitely that Enterprise was meant to be refurbished into a spaceworthy orbiter. They may perhaps not have meant this, but they definitely were saying it. The change in plans for Challenger, nee test article OV-099, was definitely a *change* in plans, as they noticeably reduced the test stresses in order to be sure that the airframe would still be fit for flight. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (02/21/89)
In article <QXycoxy00VQD1FwUYy@andrew.cmu.edu> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: > >I was under the impression that Enterprise was a mockup as well, >a nice piece of propaganda to satisfy the huge mail-in to name a >shuttle "Enterprise". Either my memory fails me, or it was Columbia that >sis the actual glide tests, from on top of the 747..... "Enterprise" was not a mockup. It was the Shuttle used for the glide tests from the 747. Columbia was the first Shuttle built to launch into Space, followed by Challenger, Discovery and Atlantis. Peter Jarvis........
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu (George W. Herbert) (02/22/89)
the enterprise was the shuttle that did at least most of the drop tests. They later shook tested it, rendering it unflyable. Cloumbia may have (may not, it's been a while) done some drom-testing. george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu