🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15988@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@grits.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes:
>In article <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

[Henry suggests that Enterprise be used for more tests]

>
>The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is
>used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC.  Currently, there is
>only one such specially modified 747 in existence.  It is therefore
>one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system.

    And there are four (oops, no, three) launch capable Orbiters.  And only
    one place to launch them from.  With any activity there is risk and
    expense.  Rather than test a $2.2G orbiter durring rentry, lets risk a
    museum piece and the 747.  For what another orbiter costs, you could
    almost buy Boeing (well not quite).

>Without it, shuttles don't get ferried and the system stops.

    Boeing, who is under market pressure to be quick and efficient, can
    probably turn out another modified 747 way before the board of inquery
    for any accident meets, much less decides anything.  I know that they
    have long lead times, but if they have space in their delivery
    schedules they could bump one up the pipeline.  

>I hope NASA uses it only for missions that it alone can carry out.

    Like dropping the Enterprise in flight tests.

>Since there is at least a possibility of doing crosswind landings
>and/or hard surface braking tests each time the orbiters land, without
>risking the 747, it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until
>a second ferry vehicle is available.

    So this gives us say 4-6 tests per year?  How often did Enterprise fly?
    Once a week?  Once a month?

    Let's do the thing that the Russians do so well - use what we have.
    Enterprise is PAID FOR.  Let it go back to work.

    Neil Kirby
    ...cbsck!nak