Author Topic: Orbiter retirement (Read 347575 times)

K466 · « **Reply #1200 on:** 04/18/2011 05:31 pm »

Quote from: SpaceAndrew25 on 04/16/2011 05:04 am

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/13/2011 03:43 pm
Reasonably epic, as much as I worry about the way she's proped up like that (what do I know).
I personally worry about it too. I hope they display the orbiters safely.

Yeah, I'm not sure I like that method of display either.

Will any of the orbiters be displayed with payload bay doors closed? Even better, would any of the bay doors be periodically opened and closed?

brettreds2k · « **Reply #1201 on:** 04/18/2011 05:35 pm »

Discovery will have her doors closed, she will be displayed exactly how Enterprise is there now. I think Endeavour will be the same way. Atlantis will have doors open.

Once displayed like how Enterprise is, I do not think the doors can be opened

mjp25 · « **Reply #1202 on:** 04/18/2011 06:28 pm »

I know the PLB doors need the strong backs in 1g to be open, but it would be cool if one could be displayed so that a walkway could be hung into the payload bay. People would be kept from touching anything, but walking into that expanse would be quite an experience I think. If a plexiglass screen was put against the forward bulkhead and some power could be provided for flight deck lights, people could look in there as well. Just a quick thought. There may be something prohibitive about it. Having the stairway up and down would take away from the outside look of the orbiter.

JayP · « **Reply #1203 on:** 04/18/2011 07:36 pm »

Quote from: K466 on 04/18/2011 05:31 pm

Will any of the orbiters be displayed with payload bay doors closed? Even better, would any of the bay doors be periodically opened and closed?

KSC and Intrepid are the only ones proposing to display with the doors open (although I wonder if that will change now that they got Enterprise - there isn't much to see in her payload bay) The doors won't be moved after they are put on display. Doing so would require powering the PDUs for the doors and rigging up a couterweight system to support their weight while moving.

Orbiter · « **Reply #1204 on:** 04/18/2011 07:41 pm »

Enterprise has a PLBD that can open up? Didn't know that.

Orbiter

JayP · « **Reply #1205 on:** 04/18/2011 07:49 pm »

Quote from: Orbiter on 04/18/2011 07:41 pm

Enterprise has a PLBD that can open up? Didn't know that.

Orbiter

Yes. Remember, she was originally supposed to become the second operational orbiter. Other than the structure of the vertical stabiliser and the various system that were left out, she is structurally very similar to Columbia. Durring the ALT tests, a ballast weight bridge was installed in her payload bay so they could fine tune the CG.

Skylon · « **Reply #1206 on:** 04/18/2011 09:03 pm »

Spaceflightnow posted some decent pictures of Enterprise, when it went through the "flow" at Vandenberg AFB.

Scroll down on this page to find them: http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d352/omcf/

Looks like to give the Vandenberg team some experience, a dummy KU band antenna and RMS were aboard, but you can see how unfinished Enterprise's payload bay was. The aft of the crew cabin didn't even have windows.

brettreds2k · « **Reply #1207 on:** 04/19/2011 12:13 pm »

Great link. There also were some pictures posted on here a while back showing Enterprise in a open hangar with the payload bay doors open I thought to

Rifleman · « **Reply #1208 on:** 04/19/2011 02:00 pm »

Great find with the "flow" pictures of enterprise. Has anyone ever seen a picture of enterprises middeck? I have seen a flight deck picture, but never a middeck pic. I would love to know just how complete her mid deck was.

JayP · « **Reply #1209 on:** 04/19/2011 03:40 pm »

I've seen photos in books that show it was really spartan. Just AV bays 1, 2 and 3. No airlock, WCS, galley, lockers etc.

brettreds2k · « **Reply #1210 on:** 04/19/2011 03:48 pm »

Id imagine her mid deck was pretty bare

Prober · « **Reply #1211 on:** 04/19/2011 10:03 pm »

Will the enterprise be enclosed at the NY site? I'm thinking about the exposure to the salts and elements if just installed just on the deck.

robertross · « **Reply #1212 on:** 04/19/2011 10:16 pm »

Quote from: Prober on 04/19/2011 10:03 pm

Will the enterprise be enclosed at the NY site? I'm thinking about the exposure to the salts and elements if just installed just on the deck.

Yes, on the wharf

Jorge · « **Reply #1213 on:** 04/20/2011 02:36 am »

Quote from: Prober on 04/19/2011 10:03 pm

Will the enterprise be enclosed at the NY site? I'm thinking about the exposure to the salts and elements if just installed just on the deck.

All of the orbiters will be enclosed. That is a requirement before they ship.

Mark Dave · « **Reply #1214 on:** 04/21/2011 12:22 am »

What will become of the two SCA 747 aircraft that would carry the shuttle orbiters from state to state? Will they be sold back to Boeing or NASA convert them again for another use?

Jim · « **Reply #1215 on:** 04/21/2011 12:36 am »

SOFIA spares

woods170 · « **Reply #1216 on:** 04/21/2011 08:51 am »

Yeah, that makes sense. Use the SCA as donors for SOFIA. They are all older models of the 747.

MarsMethanogen · « **Reply #1217 on:** 04/21/2011 04:20 pm »

Quote from: JayP on 04/18/2011 07:49 pm

Quote from: Orbiter on 04/18/2011 07:41 pm

Orbiter

Yes. Remember, she was originally supposed to become the second operational orbiter. Other than the structure of the vertical stabiliser and the various system that were left out, she is structurally very similar to Columbia. Durring the ALT tests, a ballast weight bridge was installed in her payload bay so they could fine tune the CG.

Really? Obviously, Challenger was, but I wasn't aware that Enterprise was. Is that referenced somewhere, perhaps in Jenkins' book? I've read that book, but perhaps I've forgotten. It just seems that from all the bits and pieces I've read more recently on this site, I've had the complete opposite assumption; that it never was.

Skylab · « **Reply #1218 on:** 04/21/2011 04:43 pm »

Quote from: MarsMethanogen on 04/21/2011 04:20 pm

Really? Obviously, Challenger was, but I wasn't aware that Enterprise was. Is that referenced somewhere, perhaps in Jenkins' book? I've read that book, but perhaps I've forgotten. It just seems that from all the bits and pieces I've read more recently on this site, I've had the complete opposite assumption; that it never was.

Jenkins is mentioned as a source for that statement in the Wikipedia article, but I don't have the book here to check.

Jim · « **Reply #1219 on:** 04/21/2011 04:54 pm »

The tail numbers of the vehicles is another prove. OV-0XX were test vehicles and originally never meant to fly. OV-1XX were flight vehicles. OV-101 was to be refurbished into a space vehicle but it was found that it would be cheaper to use OV-099 STA.