Would Endeavour exist if Challenger had not been destroyed?

[SpaceAndrew25]

This week marked the end of the Orbiter Endeavour, which I find to be a spectacular spacecraft. She has served her country brilliantly. Her landing got me thinking about this: Would she have been built if Challenger did not get destroyed in 1986? This is a question that has been on my mind for sometime.

[Phillip Clark]

No.

Endeavour was built as a relacement for Challenger.

[Jeff Bingham]

This week marked the end of the Orbiter Endeavour, which I find to be a spectacular spacecraft. She has served her country brilliantly. Her landing got me thinking about this: Would she have been built if Challenger did not get destroyed in 1986? This is a question that has been on my mind for sometime.

Most likely not. Though there was discussion and some sentiment in Congress even before Challenger's accident for a fifth Orbiter, nothing came from that, other than the knowledge that there were some spare structural elements available that would provide a "head start" on building an additional Orbiter, as I recall. She was, as has been noted, built as a replacement vehicle after the loss of Challenger.

[Phillip Clark]

Originally the orbiter fleet was going to comprise five vehicles.   Then it was decided that Enterprise would not be modified for orbital missions after the drop tests - it was too heavy and the modificaions would have been too expensive.

This left Columbia, Challenger, Discovery and Atlantis as the four-shuttle fleet with a further orbiter being on the "wanted but unfunded" list.   It was only after the loss of Challenger that a further orbiter was authorised, using the spares which were already available as its basis.

Since the spares were already usd up, there was no chance that a repacement for Columbia could have been considered, irrespective of George W Bush's administration's decision to close down shuttle operations.

[mmeijeri]

Since the spares were already usd up, there was no chance that a repacement for Columbia could have been considered, irrespective of George W Bush's administration's decision to close down shuttle operations.

Didn't they again consider upgrading Enterprise?

[Phillip Clark]

Since the spares were already usd up, there was no chance that a repacement for Columbia could have been considered, irrespective of George W Bush's administration's decision to close down shuttle operations.

Didn't they again consider upgrading Enterprise?

Not that I can remember.   As I recall Challenger was originally a test vehicle which was modified to be come a full orbiter because that was a cheaper route than modifying Enterprise.

[psloss]

This left Columbia, Challenger, Discovery and Atlantis as the four-shuttle fleet with a further orbiter being on the "wanted but unfunded" list.   It was only after the loss of Challenger that a further orbiter was authorised, using the spares which were already available as its basis.

Since the spares were already usd up, there was no chance that a repacement for Columbia could have been considered, irrespective of George W Bush's administration's decision to close down shuttle operations.

Even the appropriations to build OV-105 after 51-L did not necessarily sail smoothly through Congress.  (51D posted about this here...Link.)  I don't believe the money to fund the structural spares was necessarily easy to get, either.

FWIW, in that period of time ("Post-Challenger") Rockwell was given a little bit of money to start a second set of structural spares, but that project (money) ended very quickly with little or no hardware to show for it.

[jeff122670]

I say yes, because it was either Challenger or another orbiter that was going to get destroyed.....and very quickly (in the mid-80's).  Given the NASA management thought processes and the way they were doing business, it was just a matter of time before we had an accident.  So, regardless of which orbiter was destroyed in the first accident, I think Endeavour was a fore-gone conclusion.

I have all of the 1st 25 missions on DVD and it is EXTREMELY interesting to watch the world and the media "turn" on the program.  It is almost like it started around STS-9 when they had the nozzle issue.  VERY interesting to watch the flip and to see how their reporting changed.

But you gotta wonder how the program would have been with large budgets and no accidents......i can only think, WOW!

Jeff

(please dont take this post as a flame against ANY NASA Mgmt or anything like that, i just think we were going to have an accident....it was just a matter of when) 

[psloss]

So, regardless of which orbiter was destroyed in the first accident, I think Endeavour was a fore-gone conclusion.

That's a slightly different question.  I can't agree with that certainty, especially in hindsight; even changing the timing could change the outcome.  There are many variables in a decision like that, including the political ones...for example, the Senate changed hands after the 1986 midterms (with both houses controlled by the Democrats).

[Skylon]

FWIW, in that period of time ("Post-Challenger") Rockwell was given a little bit of money to start a second set of structural spares, but that project (money) ended very quickly with little or no hardware to show for it.

I always wondered how feasible it would have been to utilize any structural spares to repair a damaged orbiter. The Rudder/speed break and payload bay doors stand out as easy fixes if you needed to replace them. But anything liable to cause severe damage, would probably result in the orbiter not coming back (unless you have something like the main gear failing at wheel stop, resulting in severe damage to the crew compartment...or something like that, or if by some miracle Columbia managed to limp home with a mangled wing on STS-107).

The spares clearly stand out as a backdoor way to build another vehicle, and after Challenger, when NASA tried to get a second set built, congress saw it for what it was. On the plus side though, assembling spares would have preserved the shuttle work force a bit longer.

[Blackstar]

I have all of the 1st 25 missions on DVD and it is EXTREMELY interesting to watch the world and the media "turn" on the program.  It is almost like it started around STS-9 when they had the nozzle issue.  VERY interesting to watch the flip and to see how their reporting changed.

To get a good sense of this you actually need to go back earlier, and you won't really find it on video.  You'd have to look in print (notice to all the youngsters reading this--"print" was an ancient form of communication consisting of words written on pieces of paper, which was made from trees).

By the late 1970s the shuttle program had earned a bad reputation.  The program slipped by several years (I think first flight was originally scheduled for 1978) due to problems with the engines and the tiles.  Each issue caused about a one-year slip. 

What really hurt the program was a photo that ran in at least two of the three big news weekly magazines, Time and Newsweek, that showed a shuttle on the back of a 747 SCA missing a lot of tiles.  (I have included a photo, but it is not the one that appeared in the magazines and a lot of newspapers.).  I cannot remember if it was shipped that way or if they fell off during flight.  But there were quite a few articles in the press in the late 1970s that implied that shuttle was a massive boondoggle.

Once the shuttle started flying, the reputation of the program changed for awhile.  The press got caught up in the patriotism and boosterism of the event--even jaded reporters who saw a shuttle launch thought it was cool--and so they were enthusiastic, especially since Americans were back flying in space after several years absence.

I actually think that this positive publicity was misplaced, because STS-1 had suffered a number of problems that the media was unaware of, and few members of the press bothered to examine NASA's claims about how often they were going to fly.

Your observation that things changed around STS-9 is interesting.  It would be worth looking at print articles around that time as well.  I think that by that time it had become clear to many people that the shuttle was not going to fly 24 or 50 times a year, as NASA had claimed.  It was a complex machine and had problems. 

But you gotta wonder how the program would have been with large budgets and no accidents......i can only think, WOW!

They had large budgets.  The problem was that the shuttle was a complex, first-generation machine.  It was never going to operate as smoothly as people had originally predicted/expected/hoped/dreamed/fantasized.  NASA was already over-strained when they were flying eight times a year.  They would have needed a major increase in budget and personnel to safely get above that number of flights.  There was no way that they could have doubled or tripled it.

[DaveS]

What really hurt the program was a photo that ran in at least two of the three big news weekly magazines, Time and Newsweek, that showed a shuttle on the back of a 747 SCA missing a lot of tiles.  (I have included a photo, but it is not the one that appeared in the magazines and a lot of newspapers.).  I cannot remember if it was shipped that way or if they fell off during flight.

That's Columbia being ferried to KSC. Due to a tile strength issue discovered late in the assembly process of Columbia, they had to strengthen them by a process called "densification". But they ran out time to that in Rockwell's facility at Palmdale.

So alot of the new densified tiles had not yet been installed when they ferried Columbia from Edwards to KSC. So they had to complete the tile installation process in the OPF which lead to record long first stay in OPF.

[Blackstar]

So alot of the new densified tiles had not yet been installed when they ferried Columbia from Edwards to KSC. So they had to complete the tile installation process in the OPF which lead to record long first stay in OPF.

Thanks for the info.  I imagine that after that incident, NASA regretted shipping the orbiter like that.  It was a major publicity hit for them, because the photo (not the one I included, but a better one that really showed the missing tiles quite well) appeared in articles with titles like "America's flying boondoggle."  If there had been no photo, I doubt that there would have been as many articles.

[JayP]

Thanks for the info.  I imagine that after that incident, NASA regretted shipping the orbiter like that.  It was a major publicity hit for them, because the photo (not the one I included, but a better one that really showed the missing tiles quite well) appeared in articles with titles like "America's flying boondoggle."  If there had been no photo, I doubt that there would have been as many articles.

NASA knew what they were doing. They were already catching flack for schedule delays and overruns. They were faced with the choice of moving back the delivery and publicly missing another date or shipping on time but with the missing tiles. They obviuosly chose the latter.

[edkyle99]

Though there was discussion and some sentiment in Congress even before Challenger's accident for a fifth Orbiter, nothing came from that, other than the knowledge that there were some spare structural elements available that would provide a "head start" on building an additional Orbiter, as I recall. She was, as has been noted, built as a replacement vehicle after the loss of Challenger.

If I remember correctly, there was a bit of a fight to fund the spares that were eventually used to build Endeavour.  This fight occurred sometime during 1983-85, prior to the Challenger disaster.  Atlantis was being finished and Palmdale was going to go dark, so some Congresspeople got money to build the spares.  They included the basic structural elements of the vehicle's body and wings.

 - Ed Kyle     

[Blackstar]

NASA knew what they were doing. They were already catching flack for schedule delays and overruns. They were faced with the choice of moving back the delivery and publicly missing another date or shipping on time but with the missing tiles. They obviuosly chose the latter.

Maybe.  But this provided a visual.  Without it, it was just words.  With the pictures, it had a bigger negative impact.

I found a thread with some pictures:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1545.0

These are close ups.  But at the time there was one really famous photo that hit all the print media.  It was an in-flight picture.

There's also a pretty good thread here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15959.msg367467#msg367467

It's about early shuttle criticism.  I wrote lots of wonderfully insightful things.

[psloss]

These are close ups.  But at the time there was one really famous photo that hit all the print media.  It was an in-flight picture.

Those look familiar (my Dad took them).

Re: widely distributed in-flight picture, it may have been in California, as they had issues with flight and dummy tiles coming off in a test flight prior to starting the "real" ferry.  ChrisG summarized that in the first of the two-parter back in February:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/02/space-shuttle-columbia-a-new-beginning-and-vision/

[nathan.moeller]

I always wondered how feasible it would have been to utilize any structural spares to repair a damaged orbiter. The Rudder/speed break and payload bay doors stand out as easy fixes if you needed to replace them. But anything liable to cause severe damage, would probably result in the orbiter not coming back (unless you have something like the main gear failing at wheel stop, resulting in severe damage to the crew compartment...or something like that, or if by some miracle Columbia managed to limp home with a mangled wing on STS-107).

If I recall, they were thinking more in terms if an orbiter crashed on landing as opposed to damage during launch or in orbit.

[Namechange User]

While alternate realities may be fun for some to speculate on what could have/would have happened, it was the capabilities of the orbiter that allowed Hubble to be fixed.

As for structural spares, yes Endeavour was partially constructed from some.  Just recently, we scrapped some additional spares which were designated to OV-106 or could have been used in the event of damage from landing or whatever reason (within reasonalbe limits). 

On STS-9, the issue was with the APU GG injector stem and issue with corrosion.  They were chromised in a subsequent mod and have performed exceptionally ever since. 

[stefan1138]

While alternate realities may be fun for some to speculate on what could have/would have happened, it was the capabilities of the orbiter that allowed Hubble to be fixed.

As for structural spares, yes Endeavour was partially constructed from some.  Just recently, we scrapped some additional spares which were designated to OV-106 or could have been used in the event of damage from landing or whatever reason (within reasonalbe limits). 

On STS-9, the issue was with the APU GG injector stem and issue with corrosion.  They were chromised in a subsequent mod and have performed exceptionally ever since. 

I am curious to know what kind of spares designated as OV-106 were still in storage and could they not also possibly have been displayed at a museum?