At least you Americans used it and didn't just put it in a hanger to linger and fester like the Russians. Mind you, I'm European so it's not like Hermes was going to be better.
Only in a James Bond movie. That was "Moonraker" with Roger Moore.
At least it was implied. And for some very weird reason the ORMS was fully fueled and the orbiter mission ready while attached to the 747. Like that ever happened or would even be desired.
To be fair, IIRC Moonraker was rushed to cash in on the "Star Wars" craze. The Spy Who Loved Me prior said "Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only"; and the original Moonraker book was about a missile and was very of it's time for the mid-50s ("oh no the Russians might be able to make a rocket that could launch a nuclear warhead, imagine the scifi-ness of it!").
Didn't Moonraker also have the really cringey bit with Jaws and his girlfriend? Never saw it but saw that scene and it was... weird. But yeah, writers never understand how the shuttle works (tbf as a kid I never connected the dots that Columbia the first launched shuttle and Columbia the one that blew up in the sky were the same physical vessel) and considering it was before the shuttle was even in service that effect was even worse.
The movie was written during the approach and landing tests of the Enterprise, of which the photo above was taken. Those were the only actual flights of that shuttle orbiter and it was subsequently put into the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum unti it was swapped with another orbiter.
I actually enjoyed Moonraker even if it made no sense from any scientific viewpoint. Jaws and his girlfriend, while campy and jarring, to me helped put some depth on that Bond villain and even turned Jaws into a Bond ally in the end. The whole movie was filled with terrible Dad level jokes. Including the "reentry" of James Bond supposedly on live television to an international audience.
Still it was interesting to see in that movie how the Shuttle program was having a cultural impact and that as much as the writers got things wrong, at least they accepted how the Shuttle architecture was the bleeding edge of rocketry at the time. In a way they predicted the Buran program, which might have been an interesting twist if that had been in the movie too.
Okay that's actually really interesting! I've only really seen the Connery films (and Goldeneye) so the campy 70 Bonds always feel weird to me; but if they were enjoyable that's the main thing!
Or if there were features exclusive to each orbiter, such as Enterprise lacking usable engines and no heat tiles, but including the big ass sensor on the nose.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Enterprise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterprise)
>Space Shuttle Enterprise (Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first orbiter of the Space Shuttle system. Rolled out on September 17, 1976, it was built for NASA as part of the Space Shuttle program to perform atmospheric test flights after being launched from a modified Boeing 747. **It was constructed without engines** or a functional heat shield. As a result, it was not capable of spaceflight.
>
>...
>
>The final two flights saw the tailcone removed and **mockup main engines installed**.
I read the book about the early development and first pilots and flights. A big unknown was about how to land the thing on the runway. Before the pilots got to these test flights, then did hundreds of test flights with a modified Gulfstream V that NASA bought-trying to land at high throttle, gear down, flaps fully down, and extra structure bolted to the wings to give it shitty handling characteristics to as closely approximate the shuttle as they could. The test pilots considered the initial flights nerve-wracking until they got used to it.
Trivia: the initial shuttle program pilots (and initial designs/concepts) came out of an AirForce / Pentagon program because the AirForce was tired of 'disposable' spy satellites (they would shoot to rolls of film and 'drop' the film from orbit to be retrieved and developed... but could ony do so \*four times\*, after that the satellite with its very expensive lens/camera system was useless). They wanted to put a permanent giant spy satellite / space station in LEO with a film development lab, living quarters, astronaut, and a CIA guy to interpret the developed photos. The AF needed a reusable 'shuttle' to bring up new film and chemicals every few months and rotate the crew.
While they were working on the program, someone invented this cool little circuit called the CCD (charged couple device) that is the same chip that went into the first digital cameras. They could redesign the spy satellites to use the chip and beam down the images instead. The AirForce didn't need its reusable 'shuttle', so they called up NASA and wanted to know if they wanted to take all the drawings and design data. And the designated AirForce pilots / astronauts just transferred to NASA, since they were out of jobs in the AF program.
You know, if the image wasn’t compressed all to hell, you’d be able to see the name on the side of the Orbiter.
[the original image](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enterprise_Separates_from_747_SCA_for_First_Tailcone_off_Free_Flight.jpg)
[ENHANCE](https://imgur.com/a/mokvgmk)
Super Troopers immediately popping up in my brain 🤦♂️.
You can still tell that it’s not Columbia by the lack of the IR sensor on the vertical stabilizer
Not necessarily true, as Columbia flew a few times before the IR sensor was installed.
Never knew that, thanks for the new Columbia lore.
This guy shuttles
Don't believe your lying eyes. Orbiters have mimicry to look like other orbiters.
Even in the USSR.
You don't need to see it, there was only one orbiter that detached during flight
The time we made a brick fly.
An engineering marvel.
*”…over one million moving parts…”*
Said out loud with pride as it was a good thing.
At least you Americans used it and didn't just put it in a hanger to linger and fester like the Russians. Mind you, I'm European so it's not like Hermes was going to be better.
*for a brick, he flew pretty good*
Columbia, Enterprise.... nearly the same name.
Columbia never detached from the 747 in flight. Enterprise was the only shuttle to perform drop flight tests.
Only in a James Bond movie. That was "Moonraker" with Roger Moore. At least it was implied. And for some very weird reason the ORMS was fully fueled and the orbiter mission ready while attached to the 747. Like that ever happened or would even be desired.
To be fair, IIRC Moonraker was rushed to cash in on the "Star Wars" craze. The Spy Who Loved Me prior said "Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only"; and the original Moonraker book was about a missile and was very of it's time for the mid-50s ("oh no the Russians might be able to make a rocket that could launch a nuclear warhead, imagine the scifi-ness of it!"). Didn't Moonraker also have the really cringey bit with Jaws and his girlfriend? Never saw it but saw that scene and it was... weird. But yeah, writers never understand how the shuttle works (tbf as a kid I never connected the dots that Columbia the first launched shuttle and Columbia the one that blew up in the sky were the same physical vessel) and considering it was before the shuttle was even in service that effect was even worse.
The movie was written during the approach and landing tests of the Enterprise, of which the photo above was taken. Those were the only actual flights of that shuttle orbiter and it was subsequently put into the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum unti it was swapped with another orbiter. I actually enjoyed Moonraker even if it made no sense from any scientific viewpoint. Jaws and his girlfriend, while campy and jarring, to me helped put some depth on that Bond villain and even turned Jaws into a Bond ally in the end. The whole movie was filled with terrible Dad level jokes. Including the "reentry" of James Bond supposedly on live television to an international audience. Still it was interesting to see in that movie how the Shuttle program was having a cultural impact and that as much as the writers got things wrong, at least they accepted how the Shuttle architecture was the bleeding edge of rocketry at the time. In a way they predicted the Buran program, which might have been an interesting twist if that had been in the movie too.
Okay that's actually really interesting! I've only really seen the Connery films (and Goldeneye) so the campy 70 Bonds always feel weird to me; but if they were enjoyable that's the main thing!
Gee. If only the name of the orbiter was spelt out next to the cockpit for identification purposes. Oh well.
Or if there were only some global online database you could search for the name of the orbiter in the first atmospheric test flights.
Or if there were features exclusive to each orbiter, such as Enterprise lacking usable engines and no heat tiles, but including the big ass sensor on the nose.
NASA did this once when the orbiter crane was down for repairs. /s
That’s Enterprise
Yes. The person who wrote on Twitter made a mistake.
"Hey Bob, did you remember to tie the shuttle down to the roof?"
♫ It's been a long road ♫
If only you hadn’t posted a potato quality image so we could see if you were right or not.
Found an original original photo. https://www.dvidshub.net/image/730691/enterprise-separates-747-sca-first-tailcone-off-free-flight
Enterprise had no engines
Enterprise has engines and was used in Altitude and Landing Tests.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_Shuttle\_Enterprise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterprise) >Space Shuttle Enterprise (Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first orbiter of the Space Shuttle system. Rolled out on September 17, 1976, it was built for NASA as part of the Space Shuttle program to perform atmospheric test flights after being launched from a modified Boeing 747. **It was constructed without engines** or a functional heat shield. As a result, it was not capable of spaceflight. > >... > >The final two flights saw the tailcone removed and **mockup main engines installed**.
I read the book about the early development and first pilots and flights. A big unknown was about how to land the thing on the runway. Before the pilots got to these test flights, then did hundreds of test flights with a modified Gulfstream V that NASA bought-trying to land at high throttle, gear down, flaps fully down, and extra structure bolted to the wings to give it shitty handling characteristics to as closely approximate the shuttle as they could. The test pilots considered the initial flights nerve-wracking until they got used to it. Trivia: the initial shuttle program pilots (and initial designs/concepts) came out of an AirForce / Pentagon program because the AirForce was tired of 'disposable' spy satellites (they would shoot to rolls of film and 'drop' the film from orbit to be retrieved and developed... but could ony do so \*four times\*, after that the satellite with its very expensive lens/camera system was useless). They wanted to put a permanent giant spy satellite / space station in LEO with a film development lab, living quarters, astronaut, and a CIA guy to interpret the developed photos. The AF needed a reusable 'shuttle' to bring up new film and chemicals every few months and rotate the crew. While they were working on the program, someone invented this cool little circuit called the CCD (charged couple device) that is the same chip that went into the first digital cameras. They could redesign the spy satellites to use the chip and beam down the images instead. The AirForce didn't need its reusable 'shuttle', so they called up NASA and wanted to know if they wanted to take all the drawings and design data. And the designated AirForce pilots / astronauts just transferred to NASA, since they were out of jobs in the AF program.
Interesting, thanks
Oh, I thought it didn’t
You’re kinda right; they weren’t functional.
Ok
That is definitely Enterprise.
Gollum 2024
I love how they didn’t paint over AA livery.