Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Where Do They Keep The Space Shuttles...  
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3284 posts, RR: 44
Posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8332 times:

when not in use? By my count, there would be at least 2 that are being stored at any given time (I don't know what happened to Space Shuttle Enterprise), assuming one is in orbit, so most of the time 3 in storage. Where do they keep them? Is it at the KSC?

Also, how do they go about reparing the SRB's, and getting them ready to re-use?

Thanks for the info!

Cheers and Hook'em Horns,
Cameron

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8327 times:

In Florida at the OPF-Kennedy Space Center

[Edited 2007-01-27 20:16:14]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8299 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Thread starter):
when not in use? By my count, there would be at least 2 that are being stored at any given time (I don't know what happened to Space Shuttle Enterprise), assuming one is in orbit, so most of the time 3 in storage. Where do they keep them? Is it at the KSC?

OV-101 Enterprise: National Air & Space Museum Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles Int'l Airport, Washington, D.C.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2417940280013600304KPbCTx

OV-102 Columbia: Wreckage stored in Vehicle Assembly Building, Kennedy Space Center

OV-099 Challenger: Wreckage stored in former Minuteman missile silos, Launch Complex 31, Cape Canaveral

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es.../SPACEFLIGHT/challenger/SP26G4.jpg

OV-103 Discovery: Orbiter Processing Facility Bay 3

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2504242040013600304jbUWKh

OV-104 Atlantis: Orbiter Processing Facility Bay 1
OV-105 Endeavour: Orbiter Processing Facility Bay 2

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2473823950013600304VWCxxK

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Thread starter):
Also, how do they go about reparing the SRB's, and getting them ready to re-use?

The SRBs are recovered by two ships (Liberty Star and Freedom Star), towed back to the Cape through Port Canaveral, are disassembled, and then the individual segments are sent by rail back to the manufacturer (ATK, formerly Thiokol) in Utah for refurbishment, reloading with propellant.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8294 times:

The OPF's are like hangars near the VAB, the shuttle is stored on it's gear and work can be done to them (re-tiling, cockpit mods, etc)

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8138 times:

Thorny, thank you very much for your interesting message. Quite informative. Reading it drew me to a question as to the Shuttles' numerical designations.

Specifically, could you please advise as to why there was never an OV-100?

Thank you in advance.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8121 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
Thorny, thank you very much for your interesting message. Quite informative. Reading it drew me to a question as to the Shuttles' numerical designations.

Specifically, could you please advise as to why there was never an OV-100?

Thank you in advance.

Answer to that question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_Vehicle_Designation


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8104 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
Specifically, could you please advise as to why there was never an OV-100?

The OV-1xx series were the first production run, so designated at a time when NASA hoped to eventually improve and replace the Enterprise-class with updated vehicles as time marched on. A second production run would have been OV-2xx. (OV-2xx was seriously proposed by Rockwell/Boeing after both Shuttle accidents in 1986 and 2003.)

There was no OV-100 because that would have been Series 1, Number Zero.

The sub-100s (MPTA-098 and STA-099) is more confusing. They were pre-production vehicles not built for flight, so they didn't get a 1xx tail number. Why these weren't called 0V-001 and OV-002 (or TV-001 or something), I don't know.

Apollo was generally the same. The initial series of Apollo Command Modules were the Block I spacecraft, designated CM-001, etc. The Apollo 1 accident occured in CM-012. The Block II spacecraft were designated CM-1xx. (Apollo 7 flew the first Block II, CM-101.)

By the way, the OV (Orbiter Vehicle) plan dates from when NASA planned to have a big 747-sized flyback booster for the Shuttles. The boosters would have been BV-1xx.

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 5):
Answer to that question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter...ation

Except that Pathfinder was never designated 098 while NASA owned it, as 098 was already in use by the Main Propulsion Test Article. It is misleading for Wiki to call Pathfinder OV-098... that should only be a footnote to the article, not included in the official ranks.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8100 times:

I see. As usual, your comments, Thorny, are most illuminating. Thank you for your quick response!

One could only imagine what a Series 2 Shuttle would have been like.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8095 times:

I do have a follow-up question, if I may: Why, in light of your explanation, was Challenger given the designation, "OV-099"? Thank you in advance.

User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
I do have a follow-up question, if I may: Why, in light of your explanation, was Challenger given the designation, "OV-099"? Thank you in advance.

The original plan was to have Enterprise (OV-101) be an actual spaceflight vehicle. However it was discovered that some extensive changes would need to be made for it be to flightworthy.

It was cheaper to make the changes to the static test article (STA-099) so Enterprise was grounded, the designation of STA-099 was changed to OV-099, and "Challenger" was born.

I believe the nature of the change was a structural beefup of the wing.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8036 times:

Thank you for that information, as always. It's consistent with my understanding that the Enterprise was originally intended to be spaceworthy, and the origin of Challenger does sound familiar, now that you mention it.

Thanks again.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7997 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
I do have a follow-up question, if I may: Why, in light of your explanation, was Challenger given the designation, "OV-099"? Thank you in advance.

OV-099 Challenger was originally built as the Structural Test Article, STA-099. The original plan was to upgrade Enterprise after the Approach and Landing Tests. But Enterprise and Columbia had been overbuilt and were heavier than planned. At this time, only Enterprise and Columbia were funded to be spaceflight vehicles (Discovery and Atlantis weren't funded until 1979.) So NASA needed to get all it could out of the two Shuttles it had funding for. Rockwell looked into the possibility of upgrading STA-099 instead of Enterprise. The result was that it would cost about the same and take about the same amount of time, but STA-099 would be about 4,000 lbs. lighter than Enterprise, which directly translates into 4,000 lbs. more payload. NASA decided to upgrade STA-099 into a full-fledged Shuttle, and redesignated it OV-099 Challenger.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 9):
believe the nature of the change was a structural beefup of the wing.

It was actually the other way around: Enterprise and Columbia were overbuillt and overweight. STA-099 was heavier than the later Shuttles, too, but not by nearly as much as Enterprise and Columbia. Discovery and Atlantis were actually underbuilt, and Endeavour gained back some of that weight (stronger wings) in the lessons learned from Discovery and Atlantis.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7991 times:

These insights are fascinating.

Thorny, you should really write a book -- nay, an encyclopedia! -- incorporating your knowledge of aerospace matters. I wish I had just a fraction of what you know about this entire field.

This presumes, of course, that you haven't already written one!  Smile


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7990 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Thorny (Reply 11):
It was actually the other way around: Enterprise and Columbia were overbuillt and overweight.

True. Also I understand Enterprise would have needed a redesigned thrust structure which the STA already had.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1300 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7787 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Thread starter):
when not in use? By my count, there would be at least 2 that are being stored at any given time (I don't know what happened to Space Shuttle Enterprise), assuming one is in orbit, so most of the time 3 in storage. Where do they keep them? Is it at the KSC?

"Discovery" has had exclusive use of OPF # 3 at KSC for a while now. Here is what it looks like inside an OPF. "Atlantis" and "Endeavour" are in near identical structures across the road from OPF # 3. These pics are from the database. Hope it helps.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Suresh A. Atapattu
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Suresh A. Atapattu




World Wide Aerospace Photography
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Where Do They Keep The Space Shuttles...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Isabelle - Where Are They Sending The Aircraft? posted Tue Sep 16 2003 17:24:16 by Stormin
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Would You Go In The Space Shuttle? posted Wed Jul 5 2006 06:51:17 by Evan767
US-3A COD's Where Are They Now? posted Sat Jun 3 2006 22:03:24 by TedTAce
Nasa Chief: ISS And Space Shuttles Were Mistakes posted Wed Sep 28 2005 18:49:19 by TheSonntag
I Used To Think The Space Shuttle Was Huge! posted Sat Aug 20 2005 15:53:06 by ACAfan
Should The Space Shuttle Program End Soon? posted Wed Aug 10 2005 05:33:41 by LTBEWR
How Do They Paint These Aircraft? posted Mon Jun 20 2005 16:43:54 by J.mo
Pictures Of The Space Shuttle Reentry? posted Thu Jun 9 2005 11:16:13 by Keta
Canadian AF CC-137s - Where Are They Now? posted Sun Apr 3 2005 04:18:03 by Fanofjets

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format