| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 205.1 | WHOSE ORBITER? | PHENIX::JSTONE | | Fri Aug 15 1986 13:26 | 5 |
| It is my understanding that this orbiter would be completed and
available in 1992 and will be dedicated to DoD and USAF launches.
This date coincides with the reactivation of Vandenberg.
JS
|
| 205.2 | Fly south young bird. | JON::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Aug 15 1986 16:35 | 6 |
| I heard that the new orbiter was to be dedicated to Vandenberg launches.
Why would that be a restriction? I thought that Discovery was the one
that was light enough to fly from Vandenberg. I wonder if someone at NASA
was quoted out of context? It wouldn't be the first time.
George
|
| 205.3 | | VIKING::BANKS | Dawn Banks | Fri Aug 15 1986 16:46 | 6 |
| Who owns the new orbiter seems somewhat moot at this point anyway.
By all indications, the military have commandeered the other shuttles
for a long time to come, with or without the new one.
As a matter of fact, the mere existance of the new one may free
up more flights for civilians on the other three.
|
| 205.4 | | PRAGMA::GRIFFIN | Dave Griffin | Sun Aug 17 1986 18:28 | 8 |
| re: .various
Assuming, of course, that Vandenburg ever opens... Unless, they
plan on closing it for good - that would scrape up some extra $.
[Given enough money, I suppose anything is possible.]
- dave
|
| 205.5 | A way for NASA to save a bundle and speed things up | 15704::DLONG | Shredded disaster is Murphy Slaw. | Mon Mar 23 1987 14:54 | 13 |
| Does anyone *conclusively* know why they don't just refit the space
shuttle Enterprise?
I know the Smitsonian owns her right now, but I'm sure they and
NASA would be able to work something out.
Also, Challenger was refitted from a test vehicle [for the airframe,
etc] to be spaceworthy. Hence the fact that Challenger was OV-099.
I haven't heard any good reason why the Enterprise shouldn't be
refitted and I'm *very* curious.
Oh. Well, beaureaucratic idiocy is *not* a good reason.
|
| 205.6 | | LDP::WEAVER | Laboratory Data Products | Mon Mar 23 1987 19:20 | 6 |
| Re: .5
Have you looked back at previous notes. I think most of the reasons
are fairly well outlined there.
-Dave
|
| 205.7 | I looked and found naught | HULK::DJPL | Ex-Priest; Temple of Syrinx. | Tue Mar 24 1987 18:54 | 21 |
| Well, after check dir/tit and show keyword and following those up,
all I got was one note that said the Enterprise was being used for
electronics testing [which is no longer true since it's sitting
in the middle of Dulles] and a suggestion that NASA reall wants
a new lightweight shuttle and the Enterprise can not be made lighter.
Another note said it would be cheaper to build a new one. I find
that extremely hard to swallow. What I'm looking for are figures
that show how the administration [NASA and US] came to the decision
that a *new* orbiter would be best. If there's some magical reason
[like weight] that the Enterprise can't be modified, I'd love to
hear it. Many of my friends are wondering about this and I'd like
to be the one to come up with the conclusive answer.
Like I said before, Challenger predates Enterprise. This is why
I thought it would be the best solution to the needed orbiter.
BTW, when I have been at the KSC, from time to time there have been
other shuttles [full size mock-ups, wind-testers, etc] being taxied
around. Does anyone know if these were name [like Challenger and
Enterprise] and where they might be?
|
| 205.8 | | PAXVAX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Aug 14 1989 18:03 | 23 |
| According to AWST, there's talk in Congress of building a 5th orbiter. For a
long time, planners in NASA and the USAF have talked about how current launch
systems are 95% -98% effective. By this they mean that they expect to loose 2-5
out of every 100 launch vehicles. The Shuttle currently fits this schedule.
Using these numbers, the artical went on to give the odds of loosing an
orbiter before the space station was completed (I think it was around 50-50).
The argument is that a 5th shuttle should be started or at least the major
components should be built so that if (when) another shuttle is lost, the
down time won't be that long. They didn't feel they could support the space
station with only 3 orbiters.
Another opinion put forward was that making this argument endangered the
entire space station program. Many congressmen may feel that the space
station is not worth while if it requires a 5th orbiter.
George
P.S. to answer an obvious question that comes up from time to time, the
Enterprise will never fly in space. It's heaver than Columbia and
it's usefull load would be far to small to be worth rebuilding it
for space travel. Also, the cost of rebuilding it would equal the
cost of building one from scratch.
|