OV-99

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.

In article ,
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

formuleerde de vraag :
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.

Missing:

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

wrote in message
...


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

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...


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.

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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...


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

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

On Feb 6, 5:56*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Jeff Findley" *wrote in message

...







In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...

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

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

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

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

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."




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

On Feb 23, 10:43*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message
....

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."



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

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...

In article d9c6536f-efe1-49a6-ac37-1d8864a814f2
@g16g2000vbf.googlegroups.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
--
"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