Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why can't Enterprise fly?
Message-ID: <1988Oct11.162258.25255@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <10564@reed.UUCP> <1587@nunki.usc.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 88 16:22:58 GMT

In article <1587@nunki.usc.edu> birenboi@koh2.usc.edu (Aaron Birenboim) writes:
>I believe that the Enterprize was a TEST ONLY vehicle...

Common misconception.  Enterprise was built to be an operational orbiter.
It was not fully equipped at the time of the landing tests -- no engines
and no tiles, for example -- but the plans definitely called for refitting
it to make it operational.  Unfortunately, it was the first orbiter built,
and there were a lot of second thoughts.  By the time the decision had to
be made, Enterprise looked too far below spec and too far overweight to be
attractive as an orbiter.  So instead, the structural-test prototype was
tested a bit less severely than planned and refitted to become Challenger,
while Enterprise was kept as a test article and museum exhibit.

Columbia has the same problems to a lesser extent; it too is overweight
compared to the later orbiters, and it's currently out of service for a
fairly extensive refit to bring it closer to current specs.  There are
plans to alter it to make it the long-duration orbiter, specializing in 
Spacelab, since the lighter orbiters make better heavy-payload trucks.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu