john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (01/29/85)
I saw a small piece on the news this morning about the shuttle Enterprise being moved to the site of the launch pad that the Air Force is building. I was wondering- is it being taken there for publicity or are they actually going to send it up? I had always heard that the Enterprise was never intended to be launched into space. -- John Ruschmeyer ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john Monmouth College ...!princeton!moncol!john W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Kirk: You ought to sell a manual of instructions with these things. Cyrano: If I did, Captain... what would happen to the search for knowledge?
karn@petrus.UUCP (01/30/85)
The Enterprise is used for "fit checks" since it has the same dimensions as a "real" orbiter. There are still no plans to fly it in space, however. Phil
jayl@athena.UUCP (Jay Lessert) (01/30/85)
>I was wondering- is it [the Enterprise] being taken there [Vandenburg] for >publicity or are they actually going to send it up? Neither. Enterprise will be used to check out all the assorted shuttle handling equipment at Vandenburg without tying up one of the operational spacecraft. (Payload installation/removal, external tank mating, transporter, etc., etc.) Apparently much, if not all of this equipment is quite different from that used at KSC. (NIH? Naaaaah, not in the Air Force!) -- Jay Lessert - Tektronix, Logic Design Systems Division uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!teklds!jayl
tomk@ur-laser.uucp (Tom Kessler) (01/31/85)
The Enterprise was indeed never designed to be launched. It is being moved
to Vandenburg to test assembly and launch facilities for a flight
next January by (I believe) the Challenger.
--
--------------------------
Tom Kessler {allegra |seismo }!rochester!ur-laser!tomk
Laboratory for Laser Energetics Phone: (716)- 275 - 3786
250 East River Road 275 - 3194
Rochester, New York 14623goun@cadlac.DEC (Roger H. Goun) (02/02/85)
Not to rehash what is undoubtedly old news, but by naming the approach and
landing test vehicle "Enterprise," NASA really put one over on all those
poor Trekkies.
I've heard that it would cost more to make Enterprise spaceworthy than to
build a new orbiter vehicle from scratch. She was never intended to fly
beyond the atmosphere.
-- Roger Goun
ARPA: goun%cadlac.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra, decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-cadlac!goun
USPS: Digital Equipment Corp., APO-1/B4
100 Minuteman Road; Andover, MA 01810-1098
Tel: (617) 689-1675
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
KETCHUP IS A VEGETABLE
Posted: Fri 1-Feb-1985 13:35 EST
To: RHEA::DECWRL::"net.columbia"henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/06/85)
> I've heard that it would cost more to make Enterprise spaceworthy than to > build a new orbiter vehicle from scratch. She was never intended to fly > beyond the atmosphere. Don't confuse final results with original intent. In the beginning, NASA most definitely intended to refurbish the Enterprise for spaceflight, and said so, loudly. The notion that the Enterprise was never really intended to fly seems to be a popular misconception. Unless somebody within NASA was being much more clever than I think likely, it wasn't meant that way. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
linwood@jett.UUCP (02/07/85)
.
Several years ago, before the Columbia every got off the ground, they
brought the Enterprise here to Huntsville, to assemble it with the
Boster Rockets and the External Tank to see how well they fit. They
erected them in the hugh Static Test Stand at Marshell Space Flight
Center, and shook (vibrated) it to see how well everything could undergo
the stress of the launch. The are taking the Enterprise to Vandenburg
most likely to put it together and test the launch pad. Enterprise
will never fly, but it is the best mockup for those type of tests.
- Linwood Varney (Jett Unix System, Huntsville, AL)
{akgua,ihnp4,cbosgd,nsc}!{jett,jett!{zaiaz,hagar}}!linwood
p.s. Enterprise did fly to test the landings remember?wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) (02/06/86)
Why not name the group net.enterprise then? It was the first shuttle used, albeit not in orbit. Second question: someone recently posted some pertinent questions about the Enterprise. What is it's exact status? Is is a fully operational shuttle or can it be made into a fully operational shuttle? It would seem to be a far cheaper/faster solution rather than having another one built from scratch. Thirdly, why not rename all of the existing shuttles, and name future shuttles and spacecraft after all of the persons who have died in the space program? The original Apollo 3, the Challenger 7 and even the Russian 3/4 who have died in the space exploration programs? We name ships by class, why not extablish astronaut/cosmonaut names as the class for space vehicles? --Bill--
lmc@cisden.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (02/09/86)
> Second question: someone recently posted some pertinent questions about > the Enterprise. What is it's exact status? Is is a fully operational > shuttle or can it be made into a fully operational shuttle? It would seem > to be a far cheaper/faster solution rather than having another one built > from scratch. > Its exact status (at least as of last Dec 17, when I saw it) was that of apron-weight, holding down the turf at Dulles International. I believe that it is being readied for transfer to some part of the Smithsonian, but I could be wrong about that. Wouldn't it look great hanging above the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo in the Air&Space? :-> Lyle McElhaney ...hao!cisden!lmc
hartsoug@oberon.UUCP (Mike Hartsough) (02/14/86)
> > Second question: someone recently posted some pertinent questions about > > the Enterprise. What is it's exact status? > Its exact status (at least as of last Dec 17, when I saw it) was that of > apron-weight, holding down the turf at Dulles International. *I* thought that Vandenburg was using it to perform mock "roll-out" tests, mock launches, etc. Before attempting it with a *real* shuttle. -- Michael J. Hartsough hartsoug@oberon.UUCP It is to the interest of the commonwealth of mankind that there should be someone who is unconquered, someone against whom fortune has no power. ---- Seneca That's why I'm here.