Author Topic: Orbiter retirement (Read 336970 times)

rsp1202 · « **Reply #40 on:** 09/03/2006 08:39 pm »

I suppose an around-the-U.S. goodbye tour is out of the question because of money, logistics and safety factors. Too bad; even Jordan, Gretzky and Secretariat got something like that.

And I think you'll see a KH-11 on display before a Blackstar. Now that's a double bill worth paying bucks for.

Jim · « **Reply #41 on:** 09/03/2006 09:07 pm »

No KH-11's exist on the ground anymore

oscar71 · « **Reply #42 on:** 09/03/2006 09:21 pm »

Quote

Flightstar - 1/9/2006 6:49 PM

Quote
DontForgetHF - 1/9/2006 5:07 PM

I'm thinking that at least one of the orbiters should be completely diassembled so that all of its subassemblies and components may be analyzed. These orbiters are the only reusable spacecraft to have flown so many missions. There may be some knowledge to gain by seeing how the materials in the airframe and even the various systems have been impacted by repeated flights and repeated exposure to the environments associated with spaceflight.

While the motive is a good one. I would feel there would be a large movement against a full disassembly of an orbiter. Computers should be able to do that work without us "losing" a vehicle that way. They should be protected and honored.

Wasn't Columbia's wreckage supposed to be made available to researchers? Perhaps Challenger's wreckage should also be made available to further expand our knowledge of just what these machines endured while in service.

It's interesting that the Russians only expected to fly each of their shuttles for 10 years at a time because of concerns over wiring and metal fatigue. Perhaps our shuttles can either confirm or deny the Russians' concerns and it would certainly help future engineers know what works and doesnt work when building re-usable vehicles in the future.

Jim · « **Reply #43 on:** 09/03/2006 10:00 pm »

OV-102 is available for entry research. It wouldn't be any good wrt to normal space environment. OV-099 is sealed in a missile silo. It was subjected to salt water and again wouldn't be any good wrt to normal space environment.

The orbiters get a thorough inspection duing their OMDP. There is not need to disassembled them. Also the salt air environment is worse on them

collectSPACE · « **Reply #44 on:** 09/03/2006 10:30 pm »

Quote

simonbp - 3/9/2006 1:13 PM

Oh, and the orbiters will never leave the NASA inventory; once you give (rather than loan) them to a museum, you don't know where they'll end up...

An agreement exists between NASA and the Smithsonian whereas "artifacts under NASA control which become available, after programmatic utility to NASA or other government agencies has been exhausted" are to be offered to the Institution.

"In extraordinary circumstances, exceptions or alternative dispositions can be made by NASA" however the decision must first be put to the Joint Artifacts Committee, which includes representatives from both organizations.

I would expect NASA to transfer ownership of all three orbiters to the Smithsonian. The Insitution will in-turn, enter into long term loans with other museums and visitor centers for their display.

rsp1202 · « **Reply #45 on:** 09/03/2006 11:39 pm »

Quote

No KH-11's exist on the ground anymore

I was being facetious. You won't see either for a very long time, if ever.

Jim · « **Reply #46 on:** 09/04/2006 12:41 am »

Quote

rsp1202 - 3/9/2006 7:26 PM

Quote
No KH-11's exist on the ground anymore

I was being facetious. You won't see either for a very long time, if ever.

Corona (KH-1 thru 6) was declassified.

PS. I have seen things I can't talk about

rsp1202 · « **Reply #47 on:** 09/04/2006 12:51 am »

I knew you knew a lot. Advanced KH's have lots more goodies than Coronas, no? Don't answer that.

Avron · « **Reply #48 on:** 09/04/2006 04:16 am »

Back on Orbiter retirement - please guys..

Retirement order, do you think it will say.. thinking, how can there be LON if there is only one Shuttle.. or are we just to risk the last three crews?

soldeed · « **Reply #49 on:** 09/04/2006 04:30 am »

I expect the smithsonian will have dibs on whichever orbiter they want

Namechange User · « **Reply #50 on:** 10/04/2006 08:41 pm »

Baseline plan for now is the following:

103 - Smithsonian
104 - KSC
105 - JSC

Marshall does not get one since the have no part in the Orbiter Project. California wants one but will most likely not get one. Hell, even Oregon has lobbied for one.....

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #51 on:** 10/04/2006 08:51 pm »

Quote

OV-106 - 4/10/2006 9:24 PM

Baseline plan for now is the following:

103 - Smithsonian
104 - KSC
105 - JSC

Marshall does not get one since the have no part in the Orbiter Project. California wants one but will most likely not get one. Hell, even Oregon has lobbied for one.....

Good, that all makes sense.

Paul Adams · « **Reply #52 on:** 10/05/2006 04:42 pm »

Quote

soldeed - 3/9/2006 11:13 PM

I expect the smithsonian will have dibs on whichever orbiter they want

Hopefully by then the Smithsonian will have it's facts straight. When I was at the new DC facility and photographing Enterprise, the guide told a group of tourists that "this was the same type of spaceship as the Columbia that blew-up when it was taking off from Florida". It was obvious that comment and others that the guy knew at all nothing about the subject. I was left speach-less at what I was hearing!

Paul

collectSPACE · « **Reply #53 on:** 10/05/2006 04:48 pm »

Quote

Paul Adams - 5/10/2006 11:25 AM

Hopefully by then the Smithsonian will have it's facts straight.

The docents at the National Air and Space Museum, both at the flagship building on the Mall and the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, are volunteers. They receive training but are not always well versed on every aspect of air and space history. They are however, very open to learning. I would hope that you (and any others in the same situation) might take the opportunity to politely explain their error. I think you will find them generally and genuinely gracious for the help.

Back to orbiter retirement, there may be some news on this subject soon. Not necessarily headline news, but news none-the-less.

punkboi · « **Reply #54 on:** 10/05/2006 04:48 pm »

Quote

OV-106 - 4/10/2006 1:24 PM California wants one but will most likely not get one. Hell, even Oregon has lobbied for one.....

Despite the fact all orbiters were built in California.

psloss · « **Reply #55 on:** 10/05/2006 05:02 pm »

Quote

punkboi - 5/10/2006 12:31 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 4/10/2006 1:24 PM California wants one but will most likely not get one. Hell, even Oregon has lobbied for one.....
Despite the fact all orbiters were built in California.

What makes that fact more significant than others?

Jorge · « **Reply #56 on:** 10/05/2006 05:17 pm »

Quote

OV-106 - 4/10/2006 3:24 PM

Baseline plan for now is the following:

103 - Smithsonian
104 - KSC
105 - JSC

Marshall does not get one since the have no part in the Orbiter Project. California wants one but will most likely not get one. Hell, even Oregon has lobbied for one.....

Makes sense to me. I would favor sending 101 to California since the ALT tests were there. I also think it would be grossly unfair for Udvar-Hazy to get multiple orbiters. They should be spread around the country so people can see them more easily, and should be in areas that were involved in the program.

As much as Palmdale wants an orbiter, I'd send 101 to Dryden/Edwards. That's where the ALT tests were, and it throws the USAF a bone without giving them a "dedicated" orbiter.

I feel pretty strongly that the USAF shouldn't get their own orbiter (say, at Wright-Patt) since they levied a bunch of requirements on the shuttle that crippled the program and that ultimately they didn't even use, then they pulled out at the first opportunity when NASA was in a bad spot after Challenger.

103 is a good choice for Udvar-Hazy for its historical significance: oldest surviving space-qualified orbiter, fleet leader in terms of number of flights, and some historically significant flights (first HST servicing, first ISS docking, all three RTF flights).

104 and 105 are pretty much a wash as to which goes to KSC and which goes to JSC. Question is where to put them. At KSC the cheapest way to go would be to convert OPF-3 into a display center, but that may be too close to the VAB and the rest of the LC-39 complex to allow visitors. Maybe an annex at the Banana Creek Saturn V center.

JSC may be a little tougher. The Saturn V was barged in but I doubt the orbiter's wings will fit through the Kemah bridge. An SCA could ferry the orbiter to Ellington, but considerable road and utility work would be required to tow the orbiter to JSC. It may just be better to convert a hangar at Ellington into a display building.

In any case, I expect the NASM will have learned its lesson from the deteriorated Saturn Vs, and insist that any center receiving an orbiter should have at least a storage building ready to receive it (like 101 sat in a hangar at Dulles while Udvar-Hazy was being built). Until then, I'd expect all the orbiters to sit tight in their OPFs.
--
JRF

punkboi · « **Reply #57 on:** 10/05/2006 05:17 pm »

Quote

psloss - 5/10/2006 9:45 AM
Quote
punkboi - 5/10/2006 12:31 PM
Quote
OV-106 - 4/10/2006 1:24 PM California wants one but will most likely not get one. Hell, even Oregon has lobbied for one.....
Despite the fact all orbiters were built in California.
What makes that fact more significant than others?

Because I live in California. Haha

Throw us a bone, will ya? It's bad enough most landings take place at KSC now...and Cali space geeks would have to spend hundreds of dollars to go to Florida to TRY to watch a shuttle launch (darn T-storms)

DaveS · « **Reply #58 on:** 10/05/2006 05:34 pm »

Quote

Jorge - 5/10/2006 7:00 PM
103 is a good choice for Udvar-Hazy for its historical significance: oldest surviving space-qualified orbiter, fleet leader in terms of number of flights, and some historically significant flights (first HST servicing, first ISS docking, all three RTF flights).

Actually, the first HST Service Mission was by Endeavour(STS-61 in December 1993). But HST was deployed by Discovery however.

Quote

Jorge - 5/10/2006 7:00 PM
JSC may be a little tougher. The Saturn V was barged in but I doubt the orbiter's wings will fit through the Kemah bridge. An SCA could ferry the orbiter to Ellington, but considerable road and utility work would be required to tow the orbiter to JSC. It may just be better to convert a hangar at Ellington into a display building.

Didn't stop the OV's when they were transferred from Palmdale to Edwards.

Jorge · « **Reply #59 on:** 10/05/2006 05:36 pm »

Quote

DaveS - 5/10/2006 12:17 PM

Quote
Jorge - 5/10/2006 7:00 PM
103 is a good choice for Udvar-Hazy for its historical significance: oldest surviving space-qualified orbiter, fleet leader in terms of number of flights, and some historically significant flights (first HST servicing, first ISS docking, all three RTF flights).
Actually, the first HST Service Mission was by Endeavour(STS-61 in December 1993). But HST was deployed by Discovery however.

Ah, you're right - got those confused.

Well, at least Discovery will get the last HST servicing mission as well!
--
JRF