Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!psuvax1!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!jms20
From: jms20@po.CWRU.Edu (John M. Sully)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Enterprise
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.153355.19729@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 91 15:33:55 GMT
References: <779@newave.UUCP> <1991Apr20.161545.14633@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <1198@sppy00.UUCP> <1648@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> <2814A667.
Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Reply-To: jms20@po.CWRU.Edu (John M. Sully)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns5.ins.cwru.edu



>
>Enterprise was supposed to be a flying bird.  After the drop tests, it 
>was decided that Enterprise was overwieght and it would take too much
>work to refit it for flight.  Columbia then became the first shuttle to
>be flight ready since it was next in line.  Challenger actually started
>life as a test frame.  It was decided to refit it for flight when they
>decided not to refit Enterprise.  Challenger retained the OV number
>of the test frame, OV-99.
>

This may be unture, but I heard a few years ago that during the last 
drop test, Enterprise was set down rather hard and developed a bend
in the airframe, rendering in unflyable.

Have a day...

John

-- 
| John M. Sully                    | "Why do I get the idea that |
| jms20@po.cwru.edu                |  someday I'll be describing |
| Case Western Reserve University  |  this to a psychologist?"   |
| Cleveland, Ohio                  |             --Lisa Simpson  |