OV-99

[Jackie]

I knew that Enterprise is the first-built shuttle,
but why its fleet no. is OV-101?
and Challenger is OV-99?

[Tom]

Because Challenger was not originally intended to be a
flight article. They discovered early on the it would take
more money to bring Enterprise up to Orbiter status than
the OV 99 frame so they took OV 99 and named it Challenger.
OV 99 was originally just a test article.

[Henry Spencer]

In article <35E01C93...@hotmail.com>, Jackie <fw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I knew that Enterprise is the first-built shuttle,
>but why its fleet no. is OV-101?
>and Challenger is OV-99?

Because Challenger started out as a structural test article, and only
later was the decision made to rebuild it into a full orbiter.
--
Being the last man on the Moon is a | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)

[Roger Mitchell]

Jackie wrote:
>
> I knew that Enterprise is the first-built shuttle,
> but why its fleet no. is OV-101?
> and Challenger is OV-99?

Enterprise was the first flight test article. Challenger started
out life as STA-099, or Structrual Test Article 099. After the
flight tests (approach and landing tests, or ALT), modifications
were identified that went into OV-102, Columbia. After that, it
was determined that the modifications would cost too much money to
implement on OV-101, Enterprise, so it was decided to upgrade the
STA to an OV. There are, BTW, OV-098 and OV-097.

MPTA-098 ("OV-098") was the Main Propulsion Test Article.
-097 is, if memory serves, the SAIL lab avionics system at JSC.

Also, technically, the Structural Spares that replaced the ones used to
build OV-105 Endeavour, are classified as OV-106.

I'd cite both Dan Jenkins book and the NSTS Reference, but I'm
too tired tonight to look them up.

Roger

[Brian S. Thorn]

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:00:55 -0500, Roger Mitchell <rmit...@ghg.net> wrote:

>MPTA-098 ("OV-098") was the Main Propulsion Test Article.
>-097 is, if memory serves, the SAIL lab avionics system at JSC.

MPTA was never classified as an OV, and it later became
the backbone of the Shuttle-C mockup. SAIL got an unofficial
tail number well after the fact.

>Also, technically, the Structural Spares that replaced the ones used to
>build OV-105 Endeavour, are classified as OV-106.

>I'd cite both Dan Jenkins book and the NSTS Reference, but I'm
>too tired tonight to look them up.

If I correctly recall previous discussions on this subject, the
replacement structural spares were never built.

Brian

[Tomcat]

> Also, technically, the Structural Spares that replaced the ones used to
> build OV-105 Endeavour, are classified as OV-106.

Do you know what parts were built (crew compartment, wings, aft
fuselage.....) for the new spares?

[Mike Dicenso]

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Brian S. Thorn wrote:

> If I correctly recall previous discussions on this subject, the
> replacement structural spares were never built.

That depends on how you look at it. I know work was started with an
authority to proceed on October 18, 1989 for work on the replacement
structural spares. On October 29, 1989, processing, and fabrication work
for the structral spare vertical stabilizer was begun. By November 19th of
the same year work on the aft fuselage for the spares was started, and by
the 22nd of that very month the planning, and processing work for the
replacement wings was started at Grumman, Bethpage, NY. By January of
1990, work had begun on the spare mid-fuselage at Gen. Dynamics in San
Diego, CA. Planning and fabrication work apparently also began immediately
thereafter on all other OV airframe components. So the replacement
structural spares were being built, but at what point in their
construction were they terminated, if at all?
-Mike

[Jonathan N. Deitch]

In article <D3B4F9F3F698C7C7.F45AF315...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Roger Mitchell <rmit...@ghg.net> writes:

> Also, technically, the Structural Spares that replaced the ones used to
> build OV-105 Endeavour, are classified as OV-106.

Err ... they *built* another set of spares ? I thought that got cancelled !

- Jonathan

--
li...@bellsouth.spamsucks.net | Go Braves !!! | "I Hate it when I can't trust
http://personal.atl. | Play Pinball !! | my own technology!" - LaForge
bellsouth.net/~jdeitch |------------------------------------------------
----------------------------/ "Thrills! Chills! Magic! Prizes!" - Hurricane

Roddenberry, Asimov, Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc, Friz Freleng ... Sigh ...

[Greg Moore (Strider)]

Jonathan N. Deitch wrote:
>
> In article <D3B4F9F3F698C7C7.F45AF315...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> Roger Mitchell <rmit...@ghg.net> writes:
>
> > Also, technically, the Structural Spares that replaced the ones used to
> > build OV-105 Endeavour, are classified as OV-106.
>
> Err ... they *built* another set of spares ? I thought that got cancelled !

They did. I exchanged some email with Dennis Jenkins on this. An
unfortunate change of events I believe.

>
> - Jonathan
>
> --
> li...@bellsouth.spamsucks.net | Go Braves !!! | "I Hate it when I can't trust
> http://personal.atl. | Play Pinball !! | my own technology!" - LaForge
> bellsouth.net/~jdeitch |------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------/ "Thrills! Chills! Magic! Prizes!" - Hurricane
>
> Roddenberry, Asimov, Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc, Friz Freleng ... Sigh ...

--
Greg D. Moore President moo...@greenms.com
Green Mountain Software http://www.greenms.com/
518-283-4083 MCSE

[Henry Spencer]

In article <AAB8607A4621968C.2E80696F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,

Brian S. Thorn <bth...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>Also, technically, the Structural Spares that replaced the ones used to

>>build OV-105 Endeavour, are classified as OV-106...

>
>If I correctly recall previous discussions on this subject, the
>replacement structural spares were never built.

Basically correct. They were started, but not finished; the contract was
cancelled before construction got very far.

[amr...@gmail.com]

OFFICIAL ANSWER

Number, Name: Wikipedia Page Link
- Space Shuttle Type
- First flight position
- Location before Space Shuttle Program ended
- Current location (as of 2013)



OV-99, Challenger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger
- Regular Space Shuttle
- Third to fly
- Broke up during launch in 1986
- NASA's hearts and minds

OV-100, Explorer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Explorer
- Space Shuttle EXACT replica (made by NASA)
- Never Flew
- Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida, USA
- Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, USA

OV-101, Enterprise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterprise
- Space Shuttle Prototype (Test Vehicle)
- First to fly
- Udvar-Hazy Center, Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Chantilly, Virginia, USA (near Washington DC)
- Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, New York, New York, USA

OV-102, Columbia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia
- Regular Space Shuttle
- Second to fly
- Broke up during re-entry in 2003
- NASA's hearts and minds

OV-103, Discovery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Discovery
- Regular Space Shuttle
- Fourth to fly
- Active use
- Udvar-Hazy Center, Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Chantilly, Virginia, USA (near Washington DC)

OV-104, Atlantis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Atlantis
- Regular Space Shuttle
- Fifth to fly
- Active use
- Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida, USA

OV-105, Endeavour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Endeavour
- Regular Space Shuttle
- Sixth to fly
- Active use
- California Science Center, Los Angeles, California, USA

ALL* OF THIS INFORMATION I GATHERED AT NASA KENNEDY SPACE CENTER WHEN I VISITED ON THE THIRD OF JANUARY, 2013, SO IT IS 100% CORRECT.

*Not including the information given on the Wikipedia pages which may have some flaws.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <072c9543-5ad7-4c93...@googlegroups.com>,
amr...@gmail.com says...

>
>
> OV-100, Explorer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Explorer
> - Space Shuttle EXACT replica (made by NASA)
> - Never Flew
> - Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida, USA
> - Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, USA

This is not an "exact replica". It's a full size model (mock-up) with
precious few actual shuttle parts.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

[andre]

amr...@gmail.com formuleerde de vraag :

Missing:

OV-098 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Pathfinder

[JF Mezei]

On 13-02-06 09:23, Andre wrote:

> Missing:
>
> OV-098 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Pathfinder

Also missing was the Titanium shuttle used by Bruce Willis and friends
to save the earth from an asteroid. (two were made, but only one
returned from the mission).

I believe it is stored in Hollywood (likely as a 3D CAD object on a
disk drive :-)


:-)

[JF Mezei]

> On 13-02-06 09:23, Andre wrote:
>
>> Missing:
>>

Oh, and lets not forget the number of shuttles built by Hugo Drax which
actually launched before the first NASA shuttle launch. At least one
(with James Bond and Holly Goodhead in it) returned to earth.

:-)

As a note: it was expected that the movie would premiere on same date as
first shuttle launch and the main premiere held in Houston, but due to
delays in the real shuttle Columbia, the Moonraker shuttles permiered
before the NASA one and done in London instead of Houston.

Moonraker shuttles were based on non-final designs of the NASA shuttles.
They were releived to find that the final NASA design didn't deviate too
much from the Moonraker ones.


And one of the models used for filming of Moonraker is in Planet
Hoolywood in Las Vegas. :-)

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

wrote in message
news:072c9543-5ad7-4c93...@googlegroups.com...

>
>
>OV-100, Explorer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Explorer
>- Space Shuttle EXACT replica (made by NASA)
>- Never Flew
>- Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida, USA
>- Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, USA
>

Am I the only one bugged by this number?

Since 1xx basically meant "Version 1"
and the yXX meant the vehicle in the version, OV-100 basically means it was
the 0th vehicle in the version 1 of the shuttle.

I suppose in a sense since it's a complete fake that makes sense, but...

And since STA-099 became OV-099 I suppose my objections are just pedantic.


>

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

[Jeff Findley]

In article <eIudncYp1b4MUY_M...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...

>
> wrote in message
> news:072c9543-5ad7-4c93...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >OV-100, Explorer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Explorer
> >- Space Shuttle EXACT replica (made by NASA)
> >- Never Flew
> >- Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida, USA
> >- Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, USA
> >
>
> Am I the only one bugged by this number?
>
> Since 1xx basically meant "Version 1"
> and the yXX meant the vehicle in the version, OV-100 basically means it was
> the 0th vehicle in the version 1 of the shuttle.
>
> I suppose in a sense since it's a complete fake that makes sense, but...
>
> And since STA-099 became OV-099 I suppose my objections are just pedantic.

STA-099 became OV-099 when it was converted from a test article into a
flight worthy OV. I don't know why a freaking model would be assigned
an "OV" number.

So, yes, it bugs me.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.2b7c9dea7...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
>In article <eIudncYp1b4MUY_M...@earthlink.com>,
>moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>>
>> wrote in message
>> news:072c9543-5ad7-4c93...@googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >OV-100, Explorer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Explorer
>> >- Space Shuttle EXACT replica (made by NASA)
>> >- Never Flew
>> >- Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida, USA
>> >- Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, USA
>> >
>>
>> Am I the only one bugged by this number?
>>
>> Since 1xx basically meant "Version 1"
>> and the yXX meant the vehicle in the version, OV-100 basically means it
>> was
>> the 0th vehicle in the version 1 of the shuttle.
>>
>> I suppose in a sense since it's a complete fake that makes sense, but...
>>
>> And since STA-099 became OV-099 I suppose my objections are just
>> pedantic.
>
>STA-099 became OV-099 when it was converted from a test article into a
>flight worthy OV. I don't know why a freaking model would be assigned
>an "OV" number.

Agreed. I have no problem with the change from STA->OV. Just more that the
0 is a bit misleading in a sense. :-)

>
>So, yes, it bugs me.

Good, glad I'm not the only one.


>
>Jeff

[bob haller]

On Feb 6, 5:56 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> "Jeff Findley"  wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2b7c9dea7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >In article <eIudncYp1b4MUY_MnZ2dnUVZ_rGdn...@earthlink.com>,
> >moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...

NASA really lost a lot of PR, it should of made Enterprise space
worthy even if it cost more

[JF Mezei]

On 13-02-22 20:20, bob haller wrote:

> NASA really lost a lot of PR, it should of made Enterprise space
> worthy even if it cost more

If Enterprise had an accident and was destroyed, would they rename
another shuttle "Enterprise-A" ?

:-)

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

>"bob haller" wrote in message
>news:d9c6536f-efe1-49a6...@g16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

>
>NASA really lost a lot of PR, it should of made Enterprise space
>worthy even if it cost more
>

Again, with what money? That's the real big problem.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers. (on the other hand, I believe people often
forget, "No Buck Rogers, no bucks."

[bob haller]

On Feb 23, 10:43 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

I dont believe the cost difference was much........

Heck I would of donated at that time nto make enterprise space
worthy......

It would of helped if enterprise had been designed from the beginning
to be easy to upgrade...

[Jeff Findley]

In article <d9c6536f-efe1-49a6-ac37-1d8864a814f2
@g16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> NASA really lost a lot of PR, it should of made Enterprise space
> worthy even if it cost more

STA-99 was a far better starting point in terms of cost, schedule, and
payload to orbit. Refitting Enterprise just to satisfy a bunch of Star
Trek fans would have been detrimental to the program.

Besides, no one else cared much about the names of the shuttles.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <7af8b73a-85bd-49f6-b89a-
1bbc88...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> On Feb 23, 10:43ï¿œam, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
> <moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> > >"bob haller" ï¿œwrote in message

> > >news:d9c6536f-efe1-49a6...@g16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >NASA really lost a lot of PR, it should of made Enterprise space
> > >worthy even if it cost more
> >

> > Again, with what money? ï¿œThat's the real big problem.
> >
> > No bucks, no Buck Rogers. ￜ(on the other hand, I believe people often

> > forget, "No Buck Rogers, no bucks."
>

> I dont believe the cost difference was much........

You don't believe in reality much either.

> Heck I would of donated at that time nto make enterprise space
> worthy......

Sorry, but your $0.02 wouldn't have helped much.

> It would of helped if enterprise had been designed from the beginning
> to be easy to upgrade...

It was designed to be relatively easy to upgrade. But things change.
The orbiter structural design changed enough that STA-99 was far easier
and cheaper to refit.

[Brian Thorn]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:12:18 -0500, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:


>The orbiter structural design changed enough that STA-99 was far easier
>and cheaper to refit.

Despite the frequent assertion that STA-099 was cheaper to refit, it
was actually a wash on the cost and time. We hear that Enterprise
would have needed a new vertical stabilizer and thrust structure, for
example, but those were needed for OV-099, too. The clincher was that
STA-099 weighed less than OV-101 and would buy more bang for the buck.
With no funding for OV-103 or OV-104 yet and the prospect of only
having two Orbiters for an indefinite period of time, NASA hedged its
bets and chose the most capable airframe.

Brian

[Jeff Findley]

In article <tdgoi8p38p5t3p2o7...@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

I'd have thought that disassembly of Enterprise would have entered into
the equation in terms of cost and schedule. STA-99 didn't have that
issue.

[Brian Thorn]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:30:09 -0500, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:


>> Despite the frequent assertion that STA-099 was cheaper to refit, it
>> was actually a wash on the cost and time. We hear that Enterprise
>> would have needed a new vertical stabilizer and thrust structure, for
>> example, but those were needed for OV-099, too. The clincher was that
>> STA-099 weighed less than OV-101 and would buy more bang for the buck.
>> With no funding for OV-103 or OV-104 yet and the prospect of only
>> having two Orbiters for an indefinite period of time, NASA hedged its
>> bets and chose the most capable airframe.
>
>I'd have thought that disassembly of Enterprise would have entered into
>the equation in terms of cost and schedule. STA-99 didn't have that
>issue.

That was offset by other issues, including taking everything out of
Enterprise that could be used and re-installing it in the STA.

Brian

[bob haller]

On Feb 26, 10:59 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:30:09 -0500, Jeff Findley
>

In any case NASA missed a big boost in popularity and political
support by not making enterprise space worthy...

Yet nasa went on to hire nichelle nichols for a spokes person,
which ruined her star trek presentations:(

She became way to preachy about it:(

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message

news:174ea12e-aeb0-46a7...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>In any case NASA missed a big boost in popularity and political
>support by not making enterprise space worthy...
>

And by your logic, NASA would have lost even more popularity when Enterprise
was destroyed STS-51-L.

>Yet nasa went on to hire nichelle nichols for a spokes person,
>which ruined her star trek presentations:(
>
>She became way to preachy about it:(
>
>

[bob haller]

On Feb 28, 5:58 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa, demanding replacement
with a safer design. That would of been a excellent time to move to a
LFBB and a shuttle C...

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

>"bob haller" wrote in message

>news:4a66851c-1d01-43d7...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

I just have one question Bob.


What color is the sky in your world?

[bob haller]

On Mar 1, 6:38 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

blue when its not snowing......

weather lately has been sucky

[Jeff Findley]

In article <51841fdd-1b18-44b2-ad80-
bcbd6f...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

This whole thread is becoming nothing but Bob's baseless speculations
based on nothing but his own deluded fantasies. As if the name of a
vehicle truly makes any difference in public interest in what NASA is
doing.

The fact is that the shuttle program was dull, dull, dull to most
Americans. Yes they knew it was flying missions, but it appeared
routine since all they ever did was go round and round the earth in LEO.
ISS is much the same. Sure people know there are astronauts on ISS, but
most have no clue what they're even doing there.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-02-28 23:12, bob haller wrote:

> no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa, demanding replacement
> with a safer design.

They would have demanded NASA build NCC-1701 :-)

I have a CD with the blueprints for NCC-1701-D at home. I could lend it
to NASA if it needs it :-)

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-01 08:29, Jeff Findley wrote:

> The fact is that the shuttle program was dull, dull, dull to most
> Americans. Yes they knew it was flying missions, but it appeared
> routine since all they ever did was go round and round the earth in LEO.
> ISS is much the same. Sure people know there are astronauts on ISS, but
> most have no clue what they're even doing there.

Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield is on the ISS now and getting a lot of
media attention in Canada. He (or a proxy surrogate NASA PR person) is
active on Twitter, has done many interviews etc and this is covered by
the press here.

He/NASA seem to be doing a fine job of getting the canadian media to
cover his stay at the ISS.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

>"JF Mezei" wrote in message
>news:5130d207$0$7139$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...

Sure. BTW, as soon as we have working fusion reactors and warp drives,
we'll be good to go.

[Brian Thorn]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:12:44 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa

We did anyway, Bob. I suspect you're too young to actually remember.
I'm not.

"The cast and crew of Star Trek
dedicate this film to the men and women
of the Spaceship Challenger
whose courageous spirit will endure
into the 23rd Century and beyond"

- Dedication at beginning of "Star Trek IV" (1986)

[bob haller]

On Mar 1, 6:55 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:12:44 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
> >no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa
>
> We did anyway, Bob. I suspect you're too young to actually remember.
> I'm not.
>
> "The cast and crew of Star Trek
> dedicate this film to the men and women
> of the Spaceship Challenger
> whose courageous spirit will endure
> into the 23rd Century and beyond"
>
>  - Dedication at beginning of "Star Trek IV" (1986)

I am 56 and old enough to remember.

A dedication is one thing, a grass roots effort to support nasa and
enterprise are two different things

[Jeff Findley]

In article <01a9e762-8e9e-4235-a3a7-dc2a8d5ba165
@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

The name of the shuttle lost does not change the names of the dead
astronauts.

There was no *need* for a grass roots effort to support NASA and the
shuttle program. The nation was united in mourning for the astronauts
(not the lost shuttle). NASA, and the politicians who controlled the
funding, were very clear that the accident would be investigated, the
problems fixed, and the program would continue. The public was
satisfied with this course of action. Again, on grass roots effort was
needed for any sort of "change" beyond what was coming.

The SRB's were redesigned (making another Challenger like disaster very
unlikely) and upgrades to *several* other shuttle systems were made in
order to increase reliability and safety. Pressure suits were added for
launch and entry. Parachutes and the escape pole were added to handle
cases where the shuttle could fly, but could not reach a runway (water
ditching was suicide).

And finally, Challenger would be replaced by a new orbiter assembled
from the structural spares that the program had acquired.

What more could anyone reasonably expect? Replacing the SRB's with
liquids would have taken on the order of 10 years and would not have
solved the problems with foam and ice hitting the TPS (so a Columbia
like accident was still just a matter of time before it happened).
Columbia was unfortunate, but not obviously avoidable, except in
hindsight.

[bob haller]

On Mar 2, 11:41 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <01a9e762-8e9e-4235-a3a7-dc2a8d5ba165

> @f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...

Launch boost escape was considered but not implemented:(

No manned launcher should of ever been designed without that necessary
feature.

Truly how much would it of mattered if LFBB would of taken 10 years to
implement? Could of been done in half that if enough resources had
been invested in it! Look how long the program ran after
challenger .... LFBB would of saved money during processing and been a
natural to support a shuttle C cargo variant.

The star trek people would of rallied around nasa to get the extra
money to make enterprise space worthy.

But no nasa left enterprise too never fly in space......

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message

news:68bc950c-8673-4e53...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>The star trek people would of rallied around nasa to get the extra
>money to make enterprise space worthy.
>
>But no nasa left enterprise too never fly in space......
>
>

You know, there was nothing stopping the Trek fans to rally around
Enterprise as it was.

The fact is, fans just aren't that big of supporters. Sorry.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message

news:7af8b73a-85bd-49f6...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>
>It would of helped if enterprise had been designed from the beginning
>to be easy to upgrade...
>

Which would have driven up the cost even more, which means it was even less
likely to happen.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <68bc950c-8673-4e53-a1a7-
7eed96...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> On Mar 2, 11:41ï¿œam, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> > In article <01a9e762-8e9e-4235-a3a7-dc2a8d5ba165
> > @f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 6:55ï¿œpm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:12:44 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa
> >
> > > > We did anyway, Bob. I suspect you're too young to actually remember.
> > > > I'm not.
> >
> > > > "The cast and crew of Star Trek
> > > > dedicate this film to the men and women
> > > > of the Spaceship Challenger
> > > > whose courageous spirit will endure
> > > > into the 23rd Century and beyond"
> >

> > > > ￜ- Dedication at beginning of "Star Trek IV" (1986)

> >
> > > I am 56 and old enough to remember.
> >
> > > A dedication is one thing, a grass roots effort to support nasa and
> > > enterprise are two different things
> >
> > The name of the shuttle lost does not change the names of the dead
> > astronauts.
> >
> > There was no *need* for a grass roots effort to support NASA and the

> > shuttle program. ï¿œThe nation was united in mourning for the astronauts
> > (not the lost shuttle). ï¿œNASA, and the politicians who controlled the

> > funding, were very clear that the accident would be investigated, the

> > problems fixed, and the program would continue. ï¿œThe public was
> > satisfied with this course of action. ï¿œAgain, on grass roots effort was

> > needed for any sort of "change" beyond what was coming.
> >
> > The SRB's were redesigned (making another Challenger like disaster very
> > unlikely) and upgrades to *several* other shuttle systems were made in

> > order to increase reliability and safety. ï¿œPressure suits were added for
> > launch and entry. ï¿œParachutes and the escape pole were added to handle

> > cases where the shuttle could fly, but could not reach a runway (water
> > ditching was suicide).
> >
> > And finally, Challenger would be replaced by a new orbiter assembled
> > from the structural spares that the program had acquired.
> >

> > What more could anyone reasonably expect? ï¿œReplacing the SRB's with

> > liquids would have taken on the order of 10 years and would not have
> > solved the problems with foam and ice hitting the TPS (so a Columbia
> > like accident was still just a matter of time before it happened).
> > Columbia was unfortunate, but not obviously avoidable, except in
> > hindsight.
> >
> > Jeff
> > --
> > "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
> > magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
> > than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
> > and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
>
> Launch boost escape was considered but not implemented:(

Wasn't possible to do on the shuttle without a huge redesign effort and
sacrifice of *a lot* of payload. NASA didn't have the money for this,
even if it were possible to do, which I doubt by looking at the size of
the launch escape booster on top of Orion.

> No manned launcher should of ever been designed without that necessary
> feature.

Why, to satisfy your warped desire for "safety"? Grow a pair and let
the "big boys and girls" fly. They know the risks. They aren't as
clueless as you.

> Truly how much would it of mattered if LFBB would of taken 10 years to
> implement? Could of been done in half that if enough resources had
> been invested in it! Look how long the program ran after
> challenger .... LFBB would of saved money during processing and been a
> natural to support a shuttle C cargo variant.

To what end? It wouldn't have stopped the Columbia disaster. Again,
grow a pair and let the astronauts choose to fly. There is no shortage
of volunteers ready to go. NASA turns away hundreds (possibly
thousands) of people every time they open up applications for a new
astronaut class.

> The star trek people would of rallied around nasa to get the extra
> money to make enterprise space worthy.

Bull. The "Star Trek people" moved on to X-files, believing that the US
government stole the ability to go faster than light from aliens who
crashed their UFOs in the US desert.

> But no nasa left enterprise too never fly in space......

Yawn.

[Brian Thorn]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:41:49 -0500, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:


>And finally, Challenger would be replaced by a new orbiter assembled
>from the structural spares that the program had acquired.
>
>What more could anyone reasonably expect?

We could expect a Shuttle replacement on the horizon. And that's
exactly what President Reagan said he would do. He announced the
Orient Express one week after Challenger.

I have no idea what Bob is going on about this time.

Birn

[Brian Thorn]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:44:16 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>I am 56 and old enough to remember.
>
>A dedication is one thing, a grass roots effort to support nasa and
>enterprise are two different things

Bob, there was no reason for a grass roots movement. You're
complaining that we would have gotten a Shuttle replacement or a
Shuttle Mk.II or something, if only Challenger had been named
Enterprise?

But what you're forgetting is that the country did begin the effort to
replace the Shuttle. President Reagan was scheduled to make his annual
State of the Union Address the day Challenger was lost. Instead, it
was given a week later, and in it President Reagan announced the
Orient Express, which would later be called the X-30 National
Aerospace Plane.

What more do you want? We got a continuation of the Shuttle program
(many called for its cancelation), we got a direct replacement for
Challenger, and we got a start on a fresh Shuttle successor.

You think losing Enterprise would have caused Trekkies to rally around
NASA, but most of us did anyway, even though at the time NASA Bashing
seemed to be a national pasttime. The "Need Another Seven Astronauts"
and "Never A Straight Answer" slams were widespread, and very hard to
shout-down. I was there, on the BBSs of the day. Where were YOU?

Brian

[Brian Thorn]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:30:20 -0500, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:


>> The star trek people would of rallied around nasa to get the extra
>> money to make enterprise space worthy.
>
>Bull. The "Star Trek people" moved on to X-files, believing that the US
>government stole the ability to go faster than light from aliens who
>crashed their UFOs in the US desert.

Well, no. I don't think so. I've never considered X-Filers and
Trekkies to be the same subset of society. X-Filers come out of the
UFO / Conspiracy sect, which I don't think has ever really been
popular among Trekkies, who by and large are more science-minded.

Brian

[bob haller]

On Mar 4, 10:29 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:30:20 -0500, Jeff Findley
>

I was involved in start trek fan clubs etc at the time. We mourned the
fact enterprise would never fly in space.....

Nasa didnt want to be connected to star trek for some reason but
sometime later nasa hired nichelle nichols as a nasa spokeperson. It
turned her into a nasa preacher. and no fun at conventions:(

I hope a coming vehicle is named enterprise.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <osoaj81i09s1ndj3p...@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

>
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:41:49 -0500, Jeff Findley
> <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
>
>
> >And finally, Challenger would be replaced by a new orbiter assembled
> >from the structural spares that the program had acquired.
> >
> >What more could anyone reasonably expect?
>
> We could expect a Shuttle replacement on the horizon. And that's
> exactly what President Reagan said he would do. He announced the
> Orient Express one week after Challenger.

Ah yes, the hypersonic air breather dream. Any year now. We're getting
close. We promise that NASP will be able to perform efficient
hypersonic cruise *and* provide extremely high levels of thrust for an
orbital launch vehicle!

Whenever anyone makes an obviously absurd claim like this, I'm reminded
of this Saturday Night Live skit, specifically, this quote:

"Hey, hey, hey! Calm down you two. New Shimmer is a floor wax and a
dessert topping! Here, I'll spray some on your mop, and some on your
butterscotch pudding..."

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax/n8625/

> I have no idea what Bob is going on about this time.

Does anyone ever?

[JF Mezei]

On 13-03-04 22:42, bob haller wrote:

> I was involved in start trek fan clubs etc at the time. We mourned the
> fact enterprise would never fly in space.....

Excuse me, but there is plenty of documented evodence that the
Enterprise will fly in space. In fact, there is to be at least 7
enterprises that fly in space.

NX-01,
1701
1701-A
1701-B
1701-C
1701-D
1701-E

I've seen the documentaries on TV and at movie theatres. And I have a CD
with the schematics and description of how the warp drive works for 1701-D.

In fact it can be argued that having an "Enterprise" mockup in a space
museum for a very long time is much better than having burned up pieces
of it burried so that nobody can do forensics on it later on.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message

news:02341f1b-a76b-4e00...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Mar 4, 10:29 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:30:20 -0500, Jeff Findley
>>
>> <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
>> >> The star trek people would of rallied around nasa to get the extra
>> >> money to make enterprise space worthy.
>>
>> >Bull. The "Star Trek people" moved on to X-files, believing that the US
>> >government stole the ability to go faster than light from aliens who
>> >crashed their UFOs in the US desert.
>>
>> Well, no. I don't think so. I've never considered X-Filers and
>> Trekkies to be the same subset of society. X-Filers come out of the
>> UFO / Conspiracy sect, which I don't think has ever really been
>> popular among Trekkies, who by and large are more science-minded.
>>
>> Brian
>
>I was involved in start trek fan clubs etc at the time. We mourned the
>fact enterprise would never fly in space.....
>

But what did you do about it other than sit in your parents' basement and
whine about how someone should do something?

>Nasa didnt want to be connected to star trek for some reason but
>sometime later nasa hired nichelle nichols as a nasa spokeperson. It
>turned her into a nasa preacher. and no fun at conventions:(

So, she gets hired in 1977, before the decision was made, is no longer "fun
at conventions" and that's a problem/

Seriously, there's NO pleasing you.

>
>I hope a coming vehicle is named enterprise.
>

You're in luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise

[Brian Thorn]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:42:52 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>I was involved in start trek fan clubs etc at the time. We mourned the
>fact enterprise would never fly in space.....
>
>Nasa didnt want to be connected to star trek for some reason

Well, they didn't want OV-101 named Enterprise, that much is certain.
They had planned to have her named Constitution for the 200th
Anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. But once the decision was
decreed by President Ford, they seemed to embrace Star Trek. Note
NASA's participation in 1979's "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"
(providing the Voyager mockup and imagery of Jupiter for the
Enterprise's flyby.)

> but
>sometime later nasa hired nichelle nichols as a nasa spokeperson.

"Sometime later" than what? Nichols was among the Star Trek cast to
attend the unveiling of Enterprise in 1976 (although William Shatner
was conspicuously absent), It was then that she became involved in
recruiting women into the NASA astronaut corps. She has often said she
felt responsible for Judith Resnik (who died on Challenger) becoming
an astronaut.

Brian

[bob haller]

On Mar 5, 6:31 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:42:52 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hall...@aol.com>

nichols was not hired by nasa as a spokesperson to many years later....

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

>"bob haller" wrote in message

>news:cc18325c-3206-44d8...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

>> "Sometime later" than what? Nichols was among the Star Trek cast to
>> attend the unveiling of Enterprise in 1976 (although William Shatner
>> was conspicuously absent), It was then that she became involved in
>> recruiting women into the NASA astronaut corps. She has often said she
>> felt responsible for Judith Resnik (who died on Challenger) becoming
>> an astronaut.
>>
>> Brian
>
>nichols was not hired by nasa as a spokesperson to many years later....
>

You may want to tell NASA they have their information wrong then since you
seem to know better.

Seriously Bob, DO YOUR RESEARCH.

[bob haller]

On Mar 7, 7:44 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

From my memory nichols involvement in NASA came later....

[Brian Thorn]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:58:21 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>From my memory nichols involvement in NASA came later....

Your memory is faulty. Nichols became involved with NASA in 1976. It
is well documented that she was a member of the committee tasked with
diversifying the astronaut corps. She helped select female astronauts
Sally Ride and Judy Resnik, and black astronauts Guion Bluford and Ron
McNair, who were all named to the astronaut corps in January 1978.
Resnik and McNair died on STS-51L Challenger.

Brian

[Brian Thorn]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:58:21 -0800 (PST), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>From my memory nichols involvement in NASA came later....

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2004-00017.html

NASA's bio of Nichols and description of her work for them is dated
March, 1977.

Brian

[Jeff Findley]

In article <c0ee5ee1-0072-4d7d-90b3-1c0e1229181b@
5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>
> On Mar 7, 7:44ï¿œam, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
> <moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> > >"bob haller" ï¿œwrote in message

> > >news:cc18325c-3206-44d8...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> > >> "Sometime later" than what? Nichols was among the Star Trek cast to
> > >> attend the unveiling of Enterprise in 1976 (although William Shatner
> > >> was conspicuously absent), It was then that she became involved in
> > >> recruiting women into the NASA astronaut corps. She has often said she
> > >> felt responsible for Judith Resnik (who died on Challenger) becoming
> > >> an astronaut.
> >
> > >> Brian
> >
> > >nichols was not hired by nasa as a spokesperson to many years later....
> >
> > You may want to tell NASA they have their information wrong then since you
> > seem to know better.
> >
> > Seriously Bob, DO YOUR RESEARCH.
>

> From my memory nichols involvement in NASA came later....

And we all know how good your memory is. Please provide a cite, or
we're going to assume your memory is simply wrong.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <7r8ij893htqj201i1...@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

Thanks for the cite. This is something that Bob rarely does, especially
when he's wrong.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"bob haller" wrote in message

news:c0ee5ee1-0072-4d7d...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...

Bob, do yourself a favor.

A) Learn how to use Google and Wikipedia.
B) Save money and start building a decent library. Doesn't have to be new
books, buy them used. But focus on some decent good history books of the
space program. Then read them.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <K-mdnXOqeK4NlKfM...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...

This. Besides used bookstores like 1/2 Price Books, look for local
library book sales. Not only do they sell old library books that are no
longer needed, but all of the books donated to the library are sold too.
It's one of the ways a library can raise funds without asking for more
taxes.

One of the best "friends of the library" sales around here runs for a
weekend every year. To get rid of all of the remaining books, when they
open the doors on Sunday morning, you can buy paper grocery bags for $5
each and fill it with as many books, videos, cds, and etc. as you can.
The years I've been there on Sunday morning, I've gotten quite a few
aerospace related books, including an old Jane's All the World's
Aircraft, which would normally sell for quite a bit of money, even if it
is older.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

>"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
>news:MPG.2ba404efa...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
>In article <K-mdnXOqeK4NlKfM...@earthlink.com>,
>moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>>

>> A) Learn how to use Google and Wikipedia.
>> B) Save money and start building a decent library. Doesn't have to be
>> new
>> books, buy them used. But focus on some decent good history books of the
>> space program. Then read them.
>
>This. Besides used bookstores like 1/2 Price Books, look for local
>library book sales. Not only do they sell old library books that are no
>longer needed, but all of the books donated to the library are sold too.
>It's one of the ways a library can raise funds without asking for more
>taxes.
>
>One of the best "friends of the library" sales around here runs for a
>weekend every year. To get rid of all of the remaining books, when they
>open the doors on Sunday morning, you can buy paper grocery bags for $5
>each and fill it with as many books, videos, cds, and etc. as you can.
>The years I've been there on Sunday morning, I've gotten quite a few
>aerospace related books, including an old Jane's All the World's
>Aircraft, which would normally sell for quite a bit of money, even if it
>is older.
>
>Jeff

Yeah, the library in the hometown I grew up in does this (I think a local
used book-reseller donates his excess also).

I'm rarely there, but did pick up a great Apollo 11 "press-kit" memorabilia
box and other items.

So there you have it Bob, some cheap ways to get some books.

And of course stuff like the CAIB is ONLINE, so it's essentially free to
you.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <D9ednTDfHacEo6bM...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...

>
> And of course stuff like the CAIB is ONLINE, so it's
> essentially free to you.

There is a seemingly endless amount of NASA PDF's online at the NASA
Technical Reports Server (NTRS), obviously free for downloading. This
is the sort of info that you'd have to spend a lot of time searching for
in a good engineering library. The NRTS search engine isn't the
greatest, but it gets the job done.

NTRS
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

As an example, here is "Lunar Impact, a History of Project Ranger"
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780007206_
1978007206.pdf

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

news:MPG.2ba7b432a...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
>In article <D9ednTDfHacEo6bM...@earthlink.com>,
>moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
>>
>> And of course stuff like the CAIB is ONLINE, so it's
>> essentially free to you.
>
>There is a seemingly endless amount of NASA PDF's online at the NASA
>Technical Reports Server (NTRS), obviously free for downloading. This
>is the sort of info that you'd have to spend a lot of time searching for
>in a good engineering library. The NRTS search engine isn't the
>greatest, but it gets the job done.
>

Great, more stuff to read.

You do realize I have to sleep sometimes!

:-)

>NTRS
>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp
>
>As an example, here is "Lunar Impact, a History of Project Ranger"
>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780007206_
>1978007206.pdf
>
>Jeff

--