Xref: utzoo sci.space:11227 sci.space.shuttle:3048 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl From: cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST Summary: Enterprise Drop Tests 386=barf? Oh, grow up! Message-ID: <6958@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: 8 May 89 15:26:33 GMT References: <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp> Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle Organization: Triangle R&D Corp,RTP,NC Lines: 26 Henry made two interesting observations in his capsulation of the 3/27 AvLeak that merit further discussion. First off, the suggestion to use Enterprise for further braking and crosswind tests is invalid - if my understanding of the differences between the designs is correct. The Enterprise was a design that was improved upon in the competing configuration that became the Columbia/Challenger/Discovery/Atlantis series. There are too many structural (and I believe aerodynamic) differences between the two - enough to make the conversion of Enterprise to a functional shuttle. For these reasons, it is my guess that the craft would not fly exactly the same nor have the same hard braking response in drop tests. Otherwise, it is an intriguing thought... If they were hard up enough to do drop tests, why not drop one of the flying shuttles? (Other than that it would delay the turnaround to flight readyness at KSC) Second... Now, I agree that a 68030 in orbit is nicer than an 80386, but really, Henry - isn't a '386 better than the 8088 that was in the old GRIDs they *were* using? ;-) -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *