Space Shuttle Exhibit Collapses After Hurricane Sandy

Space Shuttle Exhibit Collapses After Hurricane Sandy
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-867881?hpt=hp_bn1

Seeing Enterprise exposed to the elements like this makes me more than a
bit mad. I wonder what damage was done when its enclosure collapsed
around and on top of it. :-(

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

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:20:11 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:


Seeing Enterprise exposed to the elements like this makes me more than a
bit mad. I wonder what damage was done when its enclosure collapsed
around and on top of it. :-(

She has sat out in the elements before, including several months at
KSC in the subtropical coastal rain and humidity.

Brian

In article ,
says...

On 12-10-30 11:20, Jeff Findley wrote:

Space Shuttle Exhibit Collapses After Hurricane Sandy
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-867881?hpt=hp_bn1

At least the Intrepid didn't sink or float to the New York Library :-)

If it was just a tent like structure over it, it should be fairly easy
to put the tent up over it. And if there wasn't debris that was thrown
at it by the winds, it should be relatively undamaged.

Relatively is the problem. From the pictures I've seen, she's now
missing the very top of the vertical stabilizer. :-(

And it isn't as if this were a real shuttle, it is just the
Enterprise.

True. She's far more test article than shuttle.

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

On Oct 30, 6:22*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:20:11 -0400, Jeff Findley

wrote:
Seeing Enterprise exposed to the elements like this makes me more than a
bit mad. *I wonder what damage was done when its enclosure collapsed
around and on top of it. *:-(

She has sat out in the elements before, including several months at
KSC in the subtropical coastal rain and humidity.

Brian

It sat outside at Dulles for years including a few winters.

In article acd22f24-ca0e-40cc-9ed4-71a798b98175
@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 30, 6:22*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:20:11 -0400, Jeff Findley

wrote:
Seeing Enterprise exposed to the elements like this makes me more than a
bit mad. *I wonder what damage was done when its enclosure collapsed
around and on top of it. *:-(

She has sat out in the elements before, including several months at
KSC in the subtropical coastal rain and humidity.

It sat outside at Dulles for years including a few winters.

True.

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

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:07:42 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

And it isn't as if this were a real shuttle, it is just the

Enterprise.



True. She's far more test article than shuttle.

Less test article, all real orbiter airframe, which is why she's done as well as she has under the circumstances, and could still be safely flown on the SCA after nearly 30 years since her last flight. Remember that NASA's original plan was to rebuild Enterprise as a fully space flight capable vehicle until it was realized how much the airframes changed and the need to retrofit those changes to Enterprise as well as refit the crew compartment module would have required a lot of money and effort in completely dismantling her, and sending everything back to the individual contractors.
-Mike

Less test article, all real orbiter airframe, which is why she's done as well as she has under the circumstances, and could still be safely flown on the SCA after nearly 30 years since her last flight. Remember that NASA's original plan was to rebuild Enterprise as a fully space flight capable vehicle until it was realized how much the airframes changed and the need to retrofit those changes to Enterprise as well as refit the crew compartment module would have required a lot of money and effort in completely dismantling her, and sending everything back to the individual contractors.
-Mike

Its a major nasa blunder to never make enterprise flyable. It would of
generated lots of nasa support from the star trek fans.....even if it
had cost more money it would of been a great investment

bob haller wrote:

Less test article, all real orbiter airframe, which is why she's done as
well as she has under the circumstances, and could still be safely flown
on the SCA after nearly 30 years since her last flight. Remember that
NASA's original plan was to rebuild Enterprise as a fully space flight
capable vehicle until it was realized how much the airframes changed and
the need to retrofit those changes to Enterprise as well as refit the
crew compartment module would have required a lot of money and effort in
completely dismantling her, and sending everything back to the individual contractors.
-Mike

Its a major nasa blunder to never make enterprise flyable. It would of
generated lots of nasa support from the star trek fans.....even if it
had cost more money it would of been a great investment

And one about you would have said "that's not safe to use. Someone will get
hurt"

In article 7d737931-ee83-4cbe-974a-23d2345c5151
@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says...


Less test article, all real orbiter airframe, which is why she's done as well as she has under the circumstances, and could still be safely flown on the SCA after nearly 30 years since her last flight. Remember that NASA's original plan was to rebuild Enterprise as a fully space flight capable vehicle until it was realized how much the airframes changed and the need to retrofit those changes to Enterprise as well as refit the crew compartment module would have
required a lot of money and effort in completely dismantling her, and sending everything back to the individual contractors.
-Mike

Its a major nasa blunder to never make enterprise flyable. It would of
generated lots of nasa support from the star trek fans.....even if it
had cost more money it would of been a great investment

If memory serves, Enterprise didn't even have a proper pressure vessel
for the crew cabin. Tearing it apart for refitting would have been
quite costly.

It would have cost far more to tear it apart and refit it to be
"spaceworthy" than outfitting the structural test article STA-099 into
OV-99, which was named Challenger.

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

On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:38:20 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
Enterprise didn't even have a proper pressure vessel for the crew cabin. Tearing it apart for refitting would have been quite costly. It would have cost far more to tear it apart and refit it to be "spaceworthy" than outfitting the structural test article STA-099 into OV-99, which was named Challenger.

I've heard people make the crew compartment claim before here, but no one when pressed can give a proper citation. My understanding is that Enterprise's crew compartment was no different from any other orbiter's sans some minor structural differences and not having been fully outfitted for space flight. But the issue was the already obsolete airframe changes that would have made Enterprise as heavy, or heavier than Columbia, and consequently less payload capacity.

But interestingly enough, while reading through the Wikipedia article on Enterprise I found a new addition that leads back to an article on the original planned Shuttle flights and reprints of the NASA schedules, including the ones which would have placed Enterprise's first flight on STS-17 in July of 1981. That mission would have seen deployment of Intelsat V satellite and retrieval of Long Duration Exposure Facility. You can read David S. F. Portree's article he

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ight-manifest/

Quite fascinating the payloadss manifested and gives an idea of how close Enterprise came to flying in space.
-Mike