Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

The other space shuttles???

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

UnAnswerd

Activity Terminated
Joined
Sep 13, 2004
Posts
607
Discovery was launched yesterday, but what about Atlantis and Endeavor??? Anyone know if these shuttles are actually different from Discovery, or are they a carbon-copy??? Why is it the other shuttles were not launched??? Are these shuttles even in service anymore, or are they pretty much monuments on display???
 
not sure why Discovery was chosen, maybe they are on a rotation? I would imagine that they are near carbon copies of each other.

side note: I believe Discovery was also the first shuttle to fly after the Challenger disaster.
 
Can't we do better than 30 year old technology? Why are we still relying on these dinosaurs for our space program?
 
I don't know the exact date, but they are scheduled for retirement...2010 maybe? If that's true, we'd better start working on a new design and pronto...5 years isn't much time to develop space craft.
 
Atlantis and Endeavour both started out as all glass cockpits, while Discovery was retrofitted. I believe that Discovery was chosen because it was the shuttle most recently overhauled prior to the Columbia disaster. I think that both of the others are in their respective facilities at the KSC and are both in the rotation for launch.
 
Atlantis is the next scheduled to fly, and Endeavour after that. Just where they happened to be in the rotation, and which one they felt they could get flight ready first.

They are, for the most part, carbon copies of each other with some minor differences.

Of all the orbiters built (not incl Enterprise), Columbia was the most different. It had a lot of test equipment that the later shuttles did not have - most was for the first "test" flights of STS1-4, but it was taken offline in 1984 and 1985 and modified with some additional test equipment, which data from actually aided in the investigation into its demise in '03. The test equipment also made Columbia heavier than the other orbiters and thus less capable for some of the heavier lifting missions and ISS missions.

Some minor improvements were made to each successive orbiter, with the older ones being modified at various times.

Endeavour was built mostly from spare parts as the replacement for Challenger.

Atlantis and Endeavour both started out as all glass cockpits, while Discovery was retrofitted.

According to the Nasa web site, no orbiter was delivered with a glass cockpit. Atlantis was the first to receive the retrofit to the all glass display and the system first flew on STS-101 in May 2000. Columbia had been retrofitted before its last flight, and Discovery and Endeavour have been upgraded during the downtime since the Columbia accident.

Endeavour was delivered in 1991 with significantly improved avionics over the other orbiters, but it was not the current glass cockpit set-up.
 
Last edited:
Bluto said:
Can't we do better than 30 year old technology? Why are we still relying on these dinosaurs for our space program?


Well, we haven't sent a man past LEO since the 1970's, and realistically, the shuttle is still a pretty efficient machine for LEO operations. Of course, I'm sure we can do better. Any ideas on what the next reusable spacecraft will be like???
 
I also remember that Discovery originally was not intended to actually fly. It wasn't until after the Challenger accident that they fitted it for flight, since they needed another orbiter. Am I correct in this?

It also looks like the whole program is on hold now that the video of the launch showed more insulation separating from the large orange fuel tank.

Clear skies!
 
Columbia was probably the most different, followed by Challenger. Columbia was the heaviest by a good margin (8400 pounds), which made it inappropriate for ISS missions. Additionally, considerable improvements were made to the Thermal protection system. Columbia didn't have any of the silicon thermal blankets, but used white-covered tiles in medium temperature areas. I think that Challenger had some of the blankets, but not as many as the later orbiters (Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour), all of which had similar thermal protection system installations. Don't know about cockpit configurations. Columbia also had a camera on the top of the vertical stabilizer to take thermal images of reentry heating.

Discovery was always intended to be a flying orbiter. Enterprise was once intended to be converted into a flying orbiter, but it was decided that it was not worth it to convert it to orbital flying status after the glide tests. It never had real engines, a thermal protection system, and lacked many other systems not necessary for testing of the craft during its final descent (the 747 piggyback "drop" tests).

BTW, the next US space vehicle will not be reusable. The CEV is an expendable concept, that is part of NASA's plan to go to the Moon, and eventually Mars. It is based on non-reusable elements, which may not be so bad, as many of the Shuttle's more troublesome features (such as the tile-based and RCC-based thermal protection system, and the expensive and complex main engines) were due to reusability.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top