posted
The order to NASA was to have two operational space-worthy shuttles. The first was to have been named Constitution but was renamed Enterprise after a letter campaign by Trek fans made President Ford have NASA rename the shuttle. During construction of Columbia, it was decided not to refit Enterprise to space-worthiness. Because of that, they converted STA-099 to space-worthiness and named it Challenger (along with a re-registration) to fulfill the two shuttle requirement.
As for Buran, it was completed and flown by remote in 1986 I believe. It was never flown again because the Soviets found it to be too costly to continue with the project. Ptichka was never completed. Construction never started on shuttle 3. As for Endeavour, it was assembled from replacement parts (yes, you read correctly) and a complete crew cabin from the 1970s (the replacement parts originate from the 1980s). It was completed and launched in 1991 or 1992.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
So why was Enterprise not used as a space-worthy shuttle - they wanted to keep a memento? A way to have a third shuttle? Was the original condition of Challenger akin to what Enterprise was? Enterprise was all along going to be an actual space-flight shuttle? There must have been a reason not to put Enterprise into space?
Are the NASA Space Shuttles - essentially "Enterprise Class"?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I think the "Enterprise" was always the "parts shuttle" that was never fully completed but used to service the others. All the shuttles were made to have swappable modules to some degree.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
And in addition, for all you ever wanted to know about spacecraft the world over, one of my favorite sites: Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hell of a lot of linked Trek refrences at Wikipedia.....
None of them seem to involve me directly though. Jerks.
Ever google yourself for images? Lots of scary scary people have my name it seems.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Remember a while back - someone here was trying to get a Trek wikipedia thing started - that's the first time I had heard of wikipedia... It was self-editable - you know what I mean. Is that what the Trek links... link to? Did that ever get off the ground?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Hell of a lot of linked Trek refrences at Wikipedia....."
Yeah, too many. WP should be restricted to content about the real world, not fictional ones. That's what projects like Memory Alpha are for. I mean, you don't consult a general knowledge printed encyclopedia if you want to know the ins and outs of a Galaxy class starship either.
(Not since 1999 have I consulted a general knowledge printed encyclopedia.)
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
So does the normal Wikipedia link to Memory Alpha or they are just based on the same 'idea'/'code'/'computer language'/'computer idea thingy whatchamajiga'?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
We use MediaWiki, which is the same code as Wikipedia uses. MA is hosted by one of Wikipedia's many developers, allowing us to keep the code up-to-date with regards to Wikipedia.
So we are not part of Wikipedia, but just use the same code. Although the majority of Star Trek-related stuff on Wikipedia now has a link to the related Memory Alpha page
Topic Closed
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic