Move Space Shuttle Discovery to Texas

[catdlr]

poles along the route and are coiled up. Numerous trees were cut down, and new trees were replanted after the move. Special measures were taken to reinforce bridges where necessary, and traffic was halted while the

I'm sure that the people who live in the area of Northern Virginia where the trees will have to be cut down and the roads will possibly be damaged will have warm fuzzy feelings about all this. It's one thing to face that disruption when your community is benefiting. It's different when you face the disruption and damage so that somebody else can take something away from you.

Ummm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center.

But the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft are decommissioned.  The hypothesis is that it would take more to reconstitute an SCA and crew than it would to move the Orbiter over land and sea.

And as Blackstar mentioned, the wings were cut off for the move and then reattached, and there has never been another 747 that had its wings cut off, reattached, and flown again.

And yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor I was describing.  And after 10 years, those new seedlings that were replanted for the old large trees that were cut still are on their original wooden sticks, and the street looks so bare and sunny instead of the shade before.

[laszlo]

It's not happening anyway. The logistics are so complex that long before anyone is ready to move the shuttle, the coming midterm revolt, the collapse of the MAGA coalition over the Epstein conspiracies, the lack of government employees to actually implement the move, the collapse of tax revenues to fund government projects or one Big Mac's worth of presidential saturated fat too many will have stopped this heist.

[Blackstar]

Ummm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center.

You can read a few earlier posts in this thread.

[Blackstar]

And yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor

Endeavour. One of the few times we yanks use that "u" that the Brits are so fond of.

[Blackstar]

the wings were cut off for the move and then reattached, and there has never been another 747 that had its wings cut off, reattached, and flown again.

Something that just occurred to me is that both SCAs were 747-100 series aircraft. I doubt that there are any 100 series still flying. There are probably very few 200 series still flying. That means that if you wanted to use a 747, you'd have to use a later model, like a 300, 400, or -8 series.

But here's the issue--they all have a longer upper deck extension than the 100 series. Maybe there is a freighter version that has the same length upper deck. But I wonder if they decided to buy and use a 747, they'd have to conduct wind tunnel tests to determine how it would fly in that configuration. Also, you'd have to do flight tests with the aircraft, and train pilots for that single flight. It's a lot of work.

[catdlr]

And yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor

Endeavour. One of the few times we yanks use that "u" that the Brits are so fond of.

Sorry about that, Blackstar, I'm better than that.

[JAFO]

And yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor

Endeavour. One of the few times we yanks use that "u" that the Brits are so fond of.

My British ex would be mentally slapping me.

Ummm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center.

You can read a few earlier posts in this thread.

Ah, I see now, post #29 where you theorized about moving Discovery from Udvar-Hazy to the water so she could be transported by barge ala Enterprise to the Intrepid since both whales are grounded.

*hatinhand, head lowered*  Apologies to have doubted you, sir.

[catdlr]

And yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor

Ummm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center.

Ah, I see now, post #29 where you theorized about moving Discovery from Udvar-Hazy to the water so she could be transported by barge ala Enterprise to the Intrepid since both whales are grounded.

*hatinhand, head lowered*  Apologies to have doubted you, sir.

Which leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.

[laszlo]

Which leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.

The photos on the museum website show a tail cone attached attached to Enterprise in its current display state.

[catdlr]

Which leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.

The photos on the museum website show a tail cone attached attached to Enterprise in its current display state.

That means we will have to disconnect it, send it to Udvar-Hazy, and then reconnect it to Discovery for the move, and then return it to the Enterprise. That incurs an extra cost.

[Lee Jay]

Which leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.

The photos on the museum website show a tail cone attached attached to Enterprise in its current display state.

It wasn't like that when I was there.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62807.msg2699148#msg2699148

[DaveS]

Which leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.

The photos on the museum website show a tail cone attached attached to Enterprise in its current display state.

It wasn't like that when I was there.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62807.msg2699148#msg2699148

That's Discovery, not Enterprise. Enterprise is the one with the tail cone.

[Lee Jay]

Which leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.

The photos on the museum website show a tail cone attached attached to Enterprise in its current display state.

It wasn't like that when I was there.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62807.msg2699148#msg2699148

That's Discovery, not Enterprise. Enterprise is the one with the tail cone.

Oh, gosh, I entirely missed that that comment was about Enterprise!  My error.

[Blackstar]

the wings were cut off for the move and then reattached, and there has never been another 747 that had its wings cut off, reattached, and flown again.

Something that just occurred to me is that both SCAs were 747-100 series aircraft. I doubt that there are any 100 series still flying. There are probably very few 200 series still flying. That means that if you wanted to use a 747, you'd have to use a later model, like a 300, 400, or -8 series.

But here's the issue--they all have a longer upper deck extension than the 100 series. Maybe there is a freighter version that has the same length upper deck. But I wonder if they decided to buy and use a 747, they'd have to conduct wind tunnel tests to determine how it would fly in that configuration. Also, you'd have to do flight tests with the aircraft, and train pilots for that single flight. It's a lot of work.

Here's the example of what I mean. The SCAs were 100-series. If you wanted to use a new 747 for this role, almost certainly it would be a -400 or a -8 version. The -8 is longer. The -400 had the same length, but you would want one without the extended upper deck, and maybe there were some freighter versions like that. The goal would be to try and avoid having to do more wind tunnel tests, but you'd still have to re-certify a specific aircraft for this specific task. I just don't see that happening with an aircraft.

So that almost certainly means that you have to do it by ground and then barge. There would have to be an extensive survey of the path to water, and then infrastructure changes to get it onto the water.

[Coastal Ron]

...
So that almost certainly means that you have to do it by ground and then barge. There would have to be an extensive survey of the path to water, and then infrastructure changes to get it onto the water.

Which means that municipalities could just deny the permits for the move, and effectively block the transfer.

But this would have to be a Federal Government effort, since I don't see the Smithsonian wanting to do this (unless under duress from President Trump), and it could get hung up in the courts for years.

I don't like Senator Cruz, for many reasons, and this just makes the list longer... 

[catdlr]

To bring some levity to the discussion, since we have more theories than solid facts, here's a clip from the movie Core. It’s not how we actually transported the Space Shuttle to Los Angeles, and I wish they had used the I-405 for this scene, like in a fan-made film from 2000 called "405: The Movie."

[Sam Ho]

Thanks to the Byrd rules on what can go into reconciliation bills, the OBBB does not actually say that Discovery has to be moved:

SEC. 40004. SPACE LAUNCH AND REENTRY LICENSING AND PERMITTING USER
FEES.

            ``(F) $85,000,000 shall be obligated to carry out
        subsection (b), of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be
        obligated for the transportation of the space vehicle described
        in that subsection, with the remainder transferred not later
        than the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment
        of this section to the entity designated under that subsection,
        for the purpose of construction of a facility to house the
        space vehicle referred to in that subsection.

``(b) Space Vehicle Transfer.--
        ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
    enactment of this section, the Administrator shall identify a space
    vehicle described in paragraph (2) to be--
            ``(A) transferred to a field center of the Administration
        that is involved in the administration of the Commercial Crew
        Program (as described in section 302 of the National
        Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization
        Act of 2017 (51 U.S.C. 50111 note; Public Law 115-10)); and
            ``(B) placed on public exhibition at an entity within the
        Metropolitan Statistical Area where such center is located.
        ``(2) Space vehicle described.--A space vehicle described in
    this paragraph is a vessel that--
            ``(A) has flown into space;
            ``(B) has carried astronauts; and
            ``(C) is selected with the concurrence of an entity
        designated by the Administrator.
        ``(3) Transfer.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
    enactment of this section, the space vehicle identified under
    paragraph (1) shall be transferred to an entity designated by the
    Administrator.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

The Administrator could probably designate Gemini V or Apollo 17, which are both currently at Space Center Houston, and technically meet the requirements.  An even more outlandish solution would be to buy a flown Soyuz from Roscosmos.  That would, of course, not be what Sens. Cruz and Cornyn had in mind.

[catdlr]

Thanks to the Byrd rules on what can go into reconciliation bills, the OBBB does not actually say that Discovery has to be moved:

SEC. 40004. SPACE LAUNCH AND REENTRY LICENSING AND PERMITTING USER
FEES.

            ``(F) $85,000,000 shall be obligated to carry out
        subsection (b), of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be
        obligated for the transportation of the space vehicle described
        in that subsection, with the remainder transferred not later
        than the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment
        of this section to the entity designated under that subsection,
        for the purpose of construction of a facility to house the
        space vehicle referred to in that subsection.

``(b) Space Vehicle Transfer.--
        ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
    enactment of this section, the Administrator shall identify a space
    vehicle described in paragraph (2) to be--
            ``(A) transferred to a field center of the Administration
        that is involved in the administration of the Commercial Crew
        Program (as described in section 302 of the National
        Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization
        Act of 2017 (51 U.S.C. 50111 note; Public Law 115-10)); and
            ``(B) placed on public exhibition at an entity within the
        Metropolitan Statistical Area where such center is located.
        ``(2) Space vehicle described.--A space vehicle described in
    this paragraph is a vessel that--
            ``(A) has flown into space;
            ``(B) has carried astronauts; and
            ``(C) is selected with the concurrence of an entity
        designated by the Administrator.
        ``(3) Transfer.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
    enactment of this section, the space vehicle identified under
    paragraph (1) shall be transferred to an entity designated by the
    Administrator.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

The Administrator could probably designate Gemini V or Apollo 17, which are both currently at Space Center Houston, and technically meet the requirements.  An even more outlandish solution would be to buy a flown Soyuz from Roscosmos.  That would, of course, not be what Sens. Cruz and Cornyn had in mind.

Thanks, Sam, but that was known to us from the beginning based on Collect Space article

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62807.msg2698332#msg2698332

Don't say Discovery

The language in the Senate bill avoids any mention of the Smithsonian, Space Center Houston, Discovery or even the space shuttle. It only stipulates that a "space vehicle" (defined as a vessel that carried people into space) be transferred within 18 months of enactment to a NASA center "involved in the administration of the Commercial Crew program" and put on public display "within the Metropolitan Statistical Area" of that center."

Sen. Cruz's insistence, along with the personal title of his bill, "Bring the Space Shuttle Home Act," is the basis for starting this thread. The temporary NASA administrator has a 30-day deadline to decide (by August 3rd). Much of the time has already been exhausted, and we, who are monitoring this thread, are on the fence, waiting.

[John-H]

I know the spacecraft they need - Apollo 7.  I know it is transportable because I have a picture somewhere of it leaving Ottawa in a huge wooden crate.

[catdlr]

I know the spacecraft they need - Apollo 7.  I know it is transportable because I have a picture somewhere of it leaving Ottawa in a huge wooden crate.

According the Giemini:  "The command capsule for Apollo 7 is on display at the Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas."

Source: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apolloloc.html#:~:text=Apollo%207,of%20Flight%20Museum%2C%20Dallas%2C%20Texas