Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!hpda!dmsd!polyslo!trwrba!trwrb!trwspp!spp1!ritter
From: ritter@spp1.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
Message-ID: <266@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Jan-86 13:02:56 EST
Article-I.D.: spp1.266
Posted: Fri Jan 31 13:02:56 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 20:23:08 EST
References: <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Reply-To: ritter@spp1.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter)
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 19

In article <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Cargo@HI-MULTICS.ARPA ("David S. Cargo") writes:
>...I can see three options for NASA...
> (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
>operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?  I
>don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
>instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?

I believe that Rockwell was asked by the DoD in the early '80s about making
the Enterprise a fully operational shuttle.  At that time they were concerned
about not having enough shuttle capacity, relying on NASA, etc. (the DoD is
very paranoid).  I am not sure, but I believe that the results of the report
were positive and the cost would not be too much more than two or three times
what Columbia's overhaul cost.

Anyone from Rockwell care to confirm or deny?

Phil Ritter
-- 
Phillip A. Ritter