birenboi@koh2.usc.edu (Aaron Birenboim) (10/09/88)
In article <10564@reed.UUCP> reeder@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: >What are the technical problems with Enterprise that led to it not being >launched? (I'd appreciate an answer in at least moderate detail.) I believe that the Enterprize was a TEST ONLY vehicle. It had NO engines. Not to mention that the tiles were re-designed after Enterprize. I think it is on display somewhere now. Is this Right? Aaron "The Lumberjack" Birenboim|"In the begining, the Universe was created... | This made a lot of people angry, and was GO TROJANS!! | widely reguarded as a bad move." birenboi@castor.usc.edu | -Douglass Adams _The Guide_
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/11/88)
In article <1587@nunki.usc.edu> birenboi@koh2.usc.edu (Aaron Birenboim) writes: >I believe that the Enterprize was a TEST ONLY vehicle... Common misconception. Enterprise was built to be an operational orbiter. It was not fully equipped at the time of the landing tests -- no engines and no tiles, for example -- but the plans definitely called for refitting it to make it operational. Unfortunately, it was the first orbiter built, and there were a lot of second thoughts. By the time the decision had to be made, Enterprise looked too far below spec and too far overweight to be attractive as an orbiter. So instead, the structural-test prototype was tested a bit less severely than planned and refitted to become Challenger, while Enterprise was kept as a test article and museum exhibit. Columbia has the same problems to a lesser extent; it too is overweight compared to the later orbiters, and it's currently out of service for a fairly extensive refit to bring it closer to current specs. There are plans to alter it to make it the long-duration orbiter, specializing in Spacelab, since the lighter orbiters make better heavy-payload trucks. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu