Discovery: Deservicing and Retirement Updates

[MarsMethanogen]

A while back, I thought I read somewhere that there were plans afoot to demolish the OPFs with the demise of the shuttle program (obviously after all orbiters have been T&R'd/deserviced and moved to their yet-to-be-determined display locations).  But in today's article on Discovery, it was mentioned that one of the OPFs might be used for the USAF's X-37B.  Does this imply that the OPFs are actually separate structures and it's not an all or nothing demolition, but rather one, two or all could be selectively demolished, or has what I understood was the planned demolition put on hold?

[Namechange User]

That was the plan when FY2011 was first announced.  It was a real push to destroy all remnants of what existed within the Shuttle Program minus some of the obvious ones like the VAB and LCC (instead these were proposed to get the "21st century launch complex" facelift). 

Since then, somehow it has become a bit more tempered and gained some common sense to see if anyone else would be interested in leasing some of these facilities (but still not all as I understand it). 

[MarsMethanogen]

Thanks for the update.  So they could conceivably demolish one or two, leaving the remainder of what I understand are three OPFs?  In other words, are they separate buildings (obviously located close to each other and to the VAB)?

[Namechange User]

OPF 1 and 2 are more or less joined.  OPF 3 is more of a stand-alone but shares part of the overall building with the SSME processing area. 

[astrobrian]

I was under the impression OPF-3 has already been handed over to the X-37 program.

[Namechange User]

I don't know if it has "officially" been handed over to anyone or not. 

[Jim]

Who says it is for X-37?

[Namechange User]

Who says it is for X-37?

It's a rumor.  Obviously not confirmed. 

[Jim]

Who says it is for X-37?

It's a rumor.  Obviously not confirmed. 

I believe the rumor was for Boeing.  It could be for CST-100

[Chris Bergin]

Who says it is for X-37?

Oh Jim. And I thought you read my articles As stated, that is the current rumor (multiple mentions). Nothing about CST-100, but I'll keep an eye on it.

[steve_slitheen]

When the FRCS and OMS pods are removed for safing, will they simply be made safe (tanks emptied etc) or will they be stripped out before being remounted on the orbiter?

[Namechange User]

When the FRCS and OMS pods are removed for safing, will they simply be made safe (tanks emptied etc) or will they be stripped out before being remounted on the orbiter?

Essentially stripped. 

[Skylon]

I was under the impression OPF-3 has already been handed over to the X-37 program.

That's somewhat ironic if OPF-3's fate is servicing a USAF winged spacecraft. As I understand it, OPF-3 was furnished using equipment slated for servicing an orbiter at SLC-6 out at Vandenberg.

[chksix]

If they decide on displaying her in a "dynamic" pose I'd vote for hanging her inverted (at a slight angle) from the ET attach points with open PBD's, some payloads in the bay and a simulated EVA by a suspended EMU to show scale. The SRM and OBSS could be outstretched showing how it scanned the chin area for example.

The gangways could pass close to the vehicle but not allow touching.

Showing her in a OPF style of display would be less impressive IMO.

[MarsMethanogen]

If they decide on displaying her in a "dynamic" pose I'd vote for hanging her inverted (at a slight angle) from the ET attach points with open PBD's, some payloads in the bay and a simulated EVA by a suspended EMU to show scale. The SRM and OBSS could be outstretched showing how it scanned the chin area for example.

The gangways could pass close to the vehicle but not allow touching.

Showing her in a OPF style of display would be less impressive IMO.

I may be totally out to lunch here, but I don't think that's practicable from an engineering standpoint.  In a 1G environment, if the PBD's are open, aren't the strongbacks required?  And since the OBSS and SRMS are not meant to be operated (or out of their mounting positions) in a 1G environment, wouldn't some additional bracing be required to have them extended in a mock operational position?  And I would think that this would visibly detract from the effort to depict them in an "operational" position.