Author Topic: Space Shuttle Enterprise move from Smithsonian NASM to New York  (Read 191244 times)

Offline Citabria

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 327
I haven't been there in a long time, but I was never impressed with their space section.

apparently they have a  Missile and Rocket Gallery, looks like quite a collection:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/missile/index.asp

If you haven't been there lately, you haven't been there. They have redone the whole thing. The missiles are inside now and the other exhibits are excellent. If you go, don't miss the X-planes hangar tour. And it's all free! But don't expect to escape the great book/gift shop without paying for something.

When I went last year the docent said they were on "the short list" for an orbiter.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18151
  • Liked: 10945
  • Likes Given: 2
I think that it would be a much better place than beside an aircraft carrier on a pier(sorry, that though makes me cringe)
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/missile/index.asp

Two reasons why Intrepid would be a better location:

-a much larger city immediately nearby
-far greater international access (how many international flights go into Dayton, Ohio?)

I personally love the Kansas Cosmosphere and think it is a great museum.  It's also out in the middle of Nowhere. 

It makes less sense to put a retired shuttle in Dayton than it does in one of the largest and most famous cities in the world, and the city with the highest number of foreign tourists in the United States.

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 961
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 48
Here we go again.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18019
  • Liked: 4136
  • Likes Given: 2209

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 1
I think that it would be a much better place than beside an aircraft carrier on a pier(sorry, that though makes me cringe)
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/missile/index.asp

Two reasons why Intrepid would be a better location:

-a much larger city immediately nearby
-far greater international access (how many international flights go into Dayton, Ohio?)

I personally love the Kansas Cosmosphere and think it is a great museum.  It's also out in the middle of Nowhere. 

It makes less sense to put a retired shuttle in Dayton than it does in one of the largest and most famous cities in the world, and the city with the highest number of foreign tourists in the United States.
Case could be made for the aerospace museum in Seattle.  Or JSC.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3081
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 535
I think that it would be a much better place than beside an aircraft carrier on a pier(sorry, that though makes me cringe)


Me too!  Don't get me wrong, I love the Intrepid, and the last time I visited I also saw the Concorde on the adjacent barge.  (You can actually board it, unlike at most museums!) 

But I'd want to see the orbiters all in a safe indoor environment.

Offline collectSPACE

  • The Source for Space History & Artifacts
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Houston, TX
    • collectSPACE
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 5
But I'd want to see the orbiters all in a safe indoor environment.

NASA's requirements state that for any museum to receive an orbiter, it must provide an environmentally-controlled, indoor display. In the case of the Intrepid, their plan is to erect a glass-enclosed hangar on the pier.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23439
  • Liked: 1963
  • Likes Given: 1394
But I'd want to see the orbiters all in a safe indoor environment.

NASA's requirements state that for any museum to receive an orbiter, it must provide an environmentally-controlled, indoor display. In the case of the Intrepid, their plan is to erect a glass-enclosed hangar on the pier.

I don't deny that, what worries me are the effects of weather and the river there (ie strong winds, possible flooding ect) I am pretty sure Seattle will get an orbiter (but probably OV-101) OV-103 will go to NASM, and OV-105 will stay at KSC.  That leaves OV-104 in the air, and considering how much influence the DoD had in the program in the early and mid phases(ie specifically STS-36), I think they have a pretty good chance of getting her at Dayton, especially if NASA wants to ease Air Force concern over sharing EELV's.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2010 12:57 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline JayP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
I have another question about flying Enterprise on the SCA. After OV-101 was delivered to NASM, the other orbiters were modified with the drag chutes and the existing tailcone was modified (and the new one built) to accomodate the different shape at the base of the tail. If they are going to fly Enterprise out on the SCA, will they have to modify one of the tailcones back to the original design to do it? It seems like they will have to.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18019
  • Liked: 4136
  • Likes Given: 2209
I have another question about flying Enterprise on the SCA. After OV-101 was delivered to NASM, the other orbiters were modified with the drag chutes and the existing tailcone was modified (and the new one built) to accomodate the different shape at the base of the tail. If they are going to fly Enterprise out on the SCA, will they have to modify one of the tailcones back to the original design to do it? It seems like they will have to.
Do you have a reference for the tail cone mods?  I don't believe the change to the orbiter tail forced a change to the tail cone.

Edit -- never mind on the reference, should have checked Jenkins.  It's in there.

(This sounds like a good question to ask...have to make a note...)
« Last Edit: 03/23/2010 03:07 pm by psloss »

Offline fredm6463

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Me at nozzle of SRB at KSC Visitor Complex
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
None of that has been decided yet.  I think there are only two things that we can say with certainty about this effort.  The first is that NASM will get Discovery, eventually.  The second is that this is going to be a rather drawn out and ugly process.

On that, consider that NASA still wants a lot of money for each orbiter (I think it is $28 million), and it's more than most museums ever spend at one time on things like facilities upgrades, and certainly more than they spend on acquiring objects.  And it's not only money to purchase an orbiter, but to build a facility to house it and to transport it.  This could easily run into the many tens of millions of dollars.  That alone could mean that one or more of the orbiters will sit in storage for quite awhile. 

And because this is so much money, various museums are going to try and get their politicians involved in getting the federal government to give them the money to get an orbiter.  So the ultimate decision may not depend upon what museum has the best facility or the best display plan, but on what museum has the best political pull.  And, of course, there will be powerful members of Congress insisting that an orbiter must be in their district/state because of history, and blocking other locations.*

Locations that are already interested, or seem likely:

-NASM Udvar-Hazy Center
-Intrepid Air and Space Museum, NYC
-Museum of Flight, Seattle
-Evergreen Aviation Museum, Oregon
-Kennedy Space Center Visitor's Center
-Johnson Space Center visitor's center
-US Air Force Museum
-US Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville

If I was to bet, I would put money on NASM (of course) and KSC.  The latter wins in large part because transport should be really easy and therefore cheap.  Intrepid has an impressive fund-raising machine.  Evergreen apparently already has the space and they have a long history of transporting heavy objects (in fact, that's what Evergreen Aviation does).  Personally, I think that JSC has a poor track record with their Saturn V and doesn't deserve to get one, but that's just my bias.


*There is an analogy with warships.  Some famous US warships have sat in mothballs for decades because nobody could raise the capital to save them.  Currently the USS Iowa, the last American battleship that is not currently a museum, lies rusting in the reserve fleet and efforts to save her have gone nowhere.

I would prefer the Orbiters be at space based museums or facilities, in cities that have other attractions nearby, rather than in a museum in a state/city, which is not a popular travel destination for most Americans.

My choice locations would be:

1) Discovery at NASM, Washington, DC.

2) Atlantis at KSC in new building near Saturn V building.

3) Endeavour at JSC.

4) Enterprise at its debut locale; Edwards Air Force Base.

As a New Yorker, I'd love to have a shuttle near the Intrepid, but we have some bad winters and being right off the west side of NYC, nearly in the water is not a secure location. Also, NYC was, is and shall always be a prime terrorist target.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2010 03:22 pm by fredm6463 »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23439
  • Liked: 1963
  • Likes Given: 1394
If it is alright with Chris, going to bump this thread for the announcement that OV-101 going to Intrepid.  Obviously will cover OV-101 processing for/and moving, but perhaps we can use it for Intrepid hangar construction as well?

Quote
The Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum, which itself is a converted aircraft carrier that once recovered Mercury and Gemini capsules post-splashdown, was one of the first to release its designs for how to house an orbiter. Located in New York City, the Intrepid recently revised its conceptual artwork for a glass-walled hangar to be located alongside the pier where its berthed.

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911a.html
« Last Edit: 04/13/2011 01:15 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Chris Bergin

Yeah, good bump!
Support NSF via L2 -- JOIN THE NSF TEAM -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23439
  • Liked: 1963
  • Likes Given: 1394
Enterprise's hatch is open today, do not know why:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/interact/webcams/uhc4/uhc4vt.cfm

Offline Chris Bergin

Moving out of historical given she will be more and more in the news now.
Support NSF via L2 -- JOIN THE NSF TEAM -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23439
  • Liked: 1963
  • Likes Given: 1394
Enterprise's hatch is open today, do not know why:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/interact/webcams/uhc4/uhc4vt.cfm

And why:

Quote
The hatch actuator (lock) was removed to be serviced. It will be reinstalled.

http://www.facebook.com/udvarhazycenter

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23439
  • Liked: 1963
  • Likes Given: 1394
Quote
Schumer wants Enterprise to land at Stewart:
Stewart Airport at Newburgh is certified as an alternative landing field for the space shuttle because of its 18,000 foot long main runway. Although no shuttle has ever landed at Stewart, US Senator Charles Schumer would like the Intrepid Museum-bound Enterprise to be flown into Stewart and then be brought to its final resting place by barge on the Hudson River.

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2011/April/14/Enterprise_SWF_Schum-14Apr11.htm

Seems like a long journey by barge, aren't there larger airports closer to NYC?
« Last Edit: 04/15/2011 03:40 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 317
Quote
Schumer wants Enterprise to land at Stewart:
Stewart Airport at Newburgh is certified as an alternative landing field for the space shuttle because of its 18,000 foot long main runway. Although no shuttle has ever landed at Stewart, US Senator Charles Schumer would like the Intrepid Museum-bound Enterprise to be flown into Stewart and then be brought to its final resting place by barge on the Hudson River.

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2011/April/14/Enterprise_SWF_Schum-14Apr11.htm

Seems like a long journey by barge, aren't there larger airports closer to NYC?

cripes, does King Charles want to be the pilot too?  Hey, maybe they could do one final ALT flight and have her glide in for the crowd!

Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline gordo

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 0
does anyone know how much of enterprise that was removed still exists.  Will NASA return it now the programme is over and they do not need to hold the spares

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23439
  • Liked: 1963
  • Likes Given: 1394
New rendering and article of the Intrepid addition:

Quote
On the drawing board: a spectacular 75,000-square-foot glass structure on what is now a parking lot across 12th Avenue, near the museum’s home aboard USS Intrepid -- the storied World War II-era aircraft carrier docked at Pier 86 near West 46th Street. The shuttle would be the main attraction, but the building would also offer other exhibits, interactive displays, classrooms and labs for educational programs, a rooftop cafe and other amenities.

 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/an_nyc_space_hub_aPa5GtTuoEPPZ05dUtf44J#ixzz1c0gUeUmx

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0