🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989May11.202243.1111@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <52000@philabs.Philips.Com> rfc@briar.philips.com.UUCP 
>  (Robert Casey) writes:
>>I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something)
>>and was not flightworthy.  Any truth to this?

>   No damage that I know of.  It's overweight and well below normal orbiter
>   specs, but that's another story.  If you did a thorough refit on it, you
>   could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due
>   to the overweight structure.

I think that Robert Casey is referring to some testing that was done once it
was decided that the Enterprise absolutely, definitely would not be used for 
flight.  To test the ability of GVTs (ground vibration tests, a classical
structural test technique) to find damage in the Orbiters, structural elements
(i.e. wing spars) were cut.  GVTs run before and after the damage was inflicted
were then examined to see if they could be used in place of other methods 
(actual inspection, I think) to assess the structural integrity of the 
Orbiters, particularly for less than total damage to a structural element.  
The structural elements were cut to various depths, although I don't think
any were completely severed.  After all, it's still strong enough to be
ferried.

Thus, the Enterprise is _not_ flightworthy without structural refurbishment.

--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.