Cargo@HI-MULTICS.ARPA ("David S. Cargo") (01/29/86)
Given that the shuttle program will continue, how will the program deal with a decline in their orbiter inventory? I can see three possibilities. (1) NASA will not replace the Columbia, and will simply fly fewer missions with the remaining shuttles. (2) NASA will have Rockwell build another shuttle. This will take some time (and a lot of money), but would restore the 4th shuttle. (Some have said that there are already a substantial number of spare parts, so that everything wouldn't have to be done from scratch.) (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully operational. Nobody has mentioned this one. Is it even possible? I don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter, instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica. Anybody have any ideas?
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/30/86)
> Given that the shuttle program will continue, how will the program deal > with a decline in their orbiter inventory? I can see three > possibilities. > (1) NASA will not replace the Columbia, and will simply fly fewer > missions with the remaining shuttles. I don't think the military (not to mention anyone else) would like this. With major payload competition from France (among others) and the shuttles already booked solid, they can't really afford this option unless the US is willing to give up space dominance. > (2) NASA will have Rockwell build another shuttle. This will take some > time (and a lot of money), but would restore the 4th shuttle. (Some > have said that there are already a substantial number of spare parts, so > that everything wouldn't have to be done from scratch.) the cost figure I've heard is 1.1 billion, and about a year (I think). That is before any re-engineering needed to prevent whatever caused the loss of the Challenger. > (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully > operational. Nobody has mentioned this one. Is it even possible? I > don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter, > instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica. Anybody have any ideas? It is not possible. Enterprise, being first, was more a mockup than a real orbiter and is significantly heavier than the production schedules. They would have to significantly reduce payloads to orbit it, and I'm not really sure if it was ever certified as spaceworthy. There is a couple of possible options that weren't mentioned: (4) Sell the shuttles to Boeing, since they have been trying to buy them for about 5 years, and turn space into a commercial venture. Make all non-military space operations work in the public sector, perhaps with government help to some degree. (5) Take a closer look at what is being sent in the shuttle as payload, and redirect stuff that doesn't need human care to unmanned (Titan or equivalent) rocket launches -- do we really need a crew of seven to ship out sattelites? One problem I've seen at Nasa is that because of budgetary problems they've put all of their eggs in the shuttle basket. Perhaps now is the time to lobbty for a REAL budget and use men where men are neccessary and robots where robots are acceptable. A lot of payload that could have been shipped on Titan boosters was sent in the shuttle to justify the shuttles existence, and it is probably time to rethink that. -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq FidoNet: 125/84 My uncle told me all of this. It must be true, because I know my uncle, and he is as honest as me.
ritter@spp1.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter) (01/31/86)
In article <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Cargo@HI-MULTICS.ARPA ("David S. Cargo") writes: >...I can see three options for NASA... > (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully >operational. Nobody has mentioned this one. Is it even possible? I >don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter, >instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica. Anybody have any ideas? I believe that Rockwell was asked by the DoD in the early '80s about making the Enterprise a fully operational shuttle. At that time they were concerned about not having enough shuttle capacity, relying on NASA, etc. (the DoD is very paranoid). I am not sure, but I believe that the results of the report were positive and the cost would not be too much more than two or three times what Columbia's overhaul cost. Anyone from Rockwell care to confirm or deny? Phil Ritter -- Phillip A. Ritter
don@umd5.UUCP (02/01/86)
>> Given that the shuttle program will continue, how will the program deal >> with a decline in their orbiter inventory? I can see three >> possibilities. >> (1) NASA will not replace the Columbia, and will simply fly fewer >> missions with the remaining shuttles. >> >> (2) NASA will have Rockwell build another shuttle. This will take some >> time (and a lot of money), but would restore the 4th shuttle. (Some >> have said that there are already a substantial number of spare parts, so >> that everything wouldn't have to be done from scratch.) > > the cost figure I've heard is 1.1 billion, and about a year (I think). That > is before any re-engineering needed to prevent whatever caused the loss of > the Challenger. > The DoD has allocated (but not appropriated) about $2 billion in case there is a "catastrophic loss" of one orbiter from Vandenburg AFB. > > (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully > > operational. Nobody has mentioned this one. Is it even possible? I > > don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter, > > instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica. Anybody have any ideas? > > It is not possible. Enterprise, being first, was more a mockup than a real > orbiter and is significantly heavier than the production schedules. They > would have to significantly reduce payloads to orbit it, and I'm not really > sure if it was ever certified as spaceworthy. > The US Space Shuttle Enterprise has already been donated by NASA to the Smithsonian Institute. I've heard the cost of retrofitting the Enterprise would exceed the cost of a brand-new orbiter. -- --==---==---==-- "beware the fruminous Bandersnatch" ARPA: don@umd5.UMD.EDU BITNET: don%umd5@umd2 UUCP: ..!{ seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax }!cvl!umd5!don (NOTE: Please mail to umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don NOT umd5!cvl!umcp-cs!don) umcp-cs ::= mimsy.UMD.EDU | maryland.ARPA | umcp-cs.UUCP
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/02/86)
In article <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Cargo@HI-MULTICS.ARPA ("David S. Cargo") writes: > (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully >operational. Nobody has mentioned this one. Is it even possible? I >don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter, >instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica. Anybody have any ideas? I have it from a reliable source(someone actually involved in shuttle construction/maintenence) that refitting the Enterprise would cost as much or more than building a complete new shuttle. So this is highly unlikely. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
space@ucbvax.UUCP (02/03/86)
Enterprise has already been donated to the Smithsonian and stripped of any usable parts. It's too old to be easily updated to the current design, so it would be easier to build a new one. The assembly line has been kept open because NASA hoped for a 5th operational shuttle. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn
dwhitney@uok.UUCP (02/04/86)
>...I don't know how far Enterprise is from being an operational >.shuttle... Though I have yet to hear this mentioned by any members of NASA or the networks, this idea to me seems far more sensible than spending the money involved in a from-scratch shuttle. If Enterprise weren't reasonably close to an operational shuttle in terms of design alone, it wouldn't have served very well as a prototype (i.e. aerodynamics structure, etc) From what I understand, Enterprise is simply on display on the West Coast. Given the rate at which NASA will fall behind its schedule each month it waits for the investigations and search teams to complete their research and findings into the loss of Challenger, it seems that refitting the Enterprise to be the most expedient. I believe that the main types of refit required would involve tiling of the shuttle exterior, installation of engines, and of course, the necessary computer and on-board control systems it couldn't possibly have by virtue of its "retirement." Of course, if any of the above information is incorrect or incomplete, please correct it, because it has been some time since I heard much about Enterprise. It merely seems that refitting Enterprise could not possibly approach the cost of building a scratch shuttle; even if only the basic framework/structure proved all that could be used, that would seem to be worth looking into. David Whitney] University of Oklahoma Engineering Computer Network uok!dwhitney
spencer@oberon.UUCP (Randy Spencer) (02/04/86)
> >don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter, > >instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica. Anybody have any ideas? > > I have it from a reliable source(someone actually involved in > shuttle construction/maintenence) that refitting the Enterprise would > cost as much or more than building a complete new shuttle. So this is > highly unlikely. I don't really know the facts of any re-fit, however when I was home at christmas I saw the Enterprise. It is sitting at Dullas airport and is there (supposedly) as part of the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum. It is not really on exhibit, but it is *in* the museum, how can they take it back and retrofit it? ============================================================================== Randal Spencer Student DEC Consulting - University of Southern California UUCP: ...sdcrdcf!oberon!spencer Office: (213) 743-5363 Arpa: Spencer@USC-ECL or Spencer@USC-Oberon Bitnet: Spencer@USCVAXQ Home: 937 N. Beverly Glen Bl. Bel Air California 90077 (213) 470-0428 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thoth@tellab3.UUCP (Marcus Hall) (02/06/86)
>> > (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully >> > operational. Nobody has mentioned this one. Is it even possible? I >> > don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter, >> > instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica. Anybody have any ideas? >> >> It is not possible. Enterprise, being first, was more a mockup than a real >> orbiter and is significantly heavier than the production schedules. They >> would have to significantly reduce payloads to orbit it, and I'm not really >> sure if it was ever certified as spaceworthy. >> > >The US Space Shuttle Enterprise has already been donated by NASA to the >Smithsonian Institute. I've heard the cost of retrofitting the Enterprise >would exceed the cost of a brand-new orbiter. Wouldn't the Smithsonian Institute give it back? I remember that the Saturn V lying on its side at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville was considered "on active standby" when I visited there many years ago. At any rate, if Rockwell would have to re-tool from B1 production to make another shuttle, that could drive the cost of a new shuttle higher than the cost of making Enterprise operational. I believe that the Discovery is actually older than Enterprise (I believe that it is frame 098 and Enterprise is 099 [Not in octal, by the way :-)]). If Discovery could be built from an older airframe, perhaps Enterprise could be updated. Since Columbia just recently returned from her retrofit, there may be enough facilities remaining at Rockwell to retrofit Enterprise although not nearly enough to start from scratch again. This is just total speculation on my part. I welcome corrections from those in the know. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking? marcus hall ..!ihnp4!tellab1!tellab2!thoth