Post by: mastronaut on 08/30/2006 01:42 am
I know this is premature, but when the shuttles are finally retired who will get them? How will they be displayed?
Full stack or horizontal? Do you think people will be allowed to walk through? Just something I've been thinking about.
Post by: HailColumbia on 08/30/2006 01:48 am
They absolutly cannot allow people to walk through, the orbiters would be destroyed. We cant have some kid sticking gum on the walls of the flight deck, plus, not much room in there for tour groups anyway. Do they let you sit in apollo 11 at the smithsonian? no. its sacred, so are the shuttles.
I would imagine that they would be displayed horizonatally, a full stack seems hard to me, as it would be criminal to display them outdoors. you would need a pretty big space to display a vertical shuttle stack. maybe somthing like pathfinder.... but indoors.
Post by: Ben E on 08/30/2006 01:57 am
Post by: vt_hokie on 08/30/2006 02:20 am
Post by: MKremer on 08/30/2006 02:22 am
Mount the orbiter on pillars (one for each landing gear) so the bottom is 12-15 feet off the floor, to allow visitors to walk underneath and observe/photograph the tiles, ET attachments, and engines. For the top, have wide walkways surrounding the orbiter - close enough to see the details and look into the cockpit windows (and engines), but also far enough away to prevent possible damage (10 feet or so).
Post by: TyMoore on 08/30/2006 02:49 am
No matter what anyone personally thinks about the program which gave them life, the orbiters are a historical treasure, and once retired, should be treated as such.
Post by: mastronaut on 08/30/2006 03:37 am
Post by: Jim on 08/30/2006 09:51 am
Quote
mastronaut - 29/8/2006 11:24 PM
What about an Orbiter building along the lines of the Saturn V display with the shuttle horizontal at an angle (upward heads down position) with the ET above suspended from the ceiling and the SRBs attached to show just how impressive it is. I agree about a runway where people can get close and see inside the cockpit as well. The payload bay doors can be open to show how cavernous it is.
So the "Space Shuttle Center" at KSC is going to be 1/4 the size of the VAB with unbelievable trusswork. The best you could hope for is like the MSFC and KSC stacks at the visitor centers
PS. Payload bay doors can't be opened in 1g with out some support.
Post by: mastronaut on 08/30/2006 11:11 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2006 01:31 pm
Quote
Ben E - 30/8/2006 2:44 AM
Steve, I agree, they should never allow anyone inside. However, I think a video guided tour of the orbiter for visitors would be good or perhaps even a full-scale mockup alongside the real thing.
I agree. I would find it highly disrespectful if they allowed tourists inside, getting their sticky fingers all over flight deck.
Post by: Mark Dave on 08/30/2006 04:50 pm
I would think to show it in the vertical, to show how massive it is ready to launch. A good way is a building the size of the ET Michoud facility just big enough for the stack to fit and room for visitors to walk around, but not touch the vehicle. I'd let Discovery be posed in her launch position on a ET/SRB stack as she is the most flown of the fleet. Atlantis can be shown similar to Enterprise, but with scafolds all over it with the orbiter behind glass. I got that idea from seeing Apollo 8 at the Museum of Science and Industry here in Chicago and the U boat displayed now in an enclosed underground room.
Post by: spaceshuttle on 08/30/2006 04:56 pm
Quote
MarkD - 30/8/2006 11:37 AM
Yeah indoors please. Proof of not is the Saturn V at JSC, now with holes in it and garbage in it.
I would think to show it in the vertical, to show how massive it is ready to launch. A good way is a building the size of the ET Michoud facility just big enough for the stack to fit and room for visitors to walk around, but not touch the vehicle. I'd let Discovery be posed in her launch position on a ET/SRB stack as she is the most flown of the fleet. Atlantis can be shown similar to Enterprise, but with scafolds all over it with the orbiter behind glass. I got that idea from seeing Apollo 8 at the Museum of Science and Industry here in Chicago and the U boat displayed now in an enclosed underground room.
with the technology of today, they could possible simulate SSME ignition through a laser show...
Post by: astrobrian on 08/30/2006 09:04 pm
Quote
MarkD - 30/8/2006 11:37 AM Yeah indoors please. Proof of not is the Saturn V at JSC, now with holes in it and garbage in it. I would think to show it in the vertical, to show how massive it is ready to launch. A good way is a building the size of the ET Michoud facility just big enough for the stack to fit and room for visitors to walk around, but not touch the vehicle. I'd let Discovery be posed in her launch position on a ET/SRB stack as she is the most flown of the fleet. Atlantis can be shown similar to Enterprise, but with scafolds all over it with the orbiter behind glass. I got that idea from seeing Apollo 8 at the Museum of Science and Industry here in Chicago and the U boat displayed now in an enclosed underground room.
Jog around it a couple times and you get a feel for its size for sure. They have indeed let the Saturn V go, but it has undergone some restorations and a building now around it. I plan on going down next weekend to check it out. As for the orbiters, I think they too should have thier own buildings, climate controlled as well. I like the video tour idea, they should have that on dvd for cheap when going by the display.
Post by: gordo on 08/31/2006 12:41 pm
Dulles - Discovery
KSC - Endeavour
Seattle - Atlantis
Palmdale - Enterprise
Post by: mastronaut on 08/31/2006 12:46 pm
Huntsville - Atlantis
Houston - Endeavour
Smithsonian - Enterprise ;) The heavy hitters have to get the orbiters.
Post by: Jim on 08/31/2006 12:56 pm
NASM (since they already have one)
KSC
JSC
NASM (space flown orbiter)
MSFC (left overs)
Palmdale
WPAFB and Seattle (which really has no claim)
It doesn't matter which of the spaceflown ones go where, since there isn't a discriminator
Post by: simonbp on 08/31/2006 01:48 pm
The USSRC would need to raise some serious money to house a flown orbiter; they're already squeezing the stone dry trying to build the new Saturn V building...
Now, if they could the dynamic test articles for Ares I and V... :)
EDIT: A Palmdale Shuttle center would be good, rather than keeping everything in the East...
Simon ;)
Post by: Austin on 08/31/2006 07:35 pm
Quote
Jim - 31/8/2006 5:43 AM
I don't see a non NASA center other than the NASM getting an orbiter. I will rank the places in the order of most likely
NASM (since they already have one)
KSC
JSC
NASM (space flown orbiter)
MSFC (left overs)
Palmdale
WPAFB and Seattle (which really has no claim)
It doesn't matter which of the spaceflown ones go where, since there isn't a discriminator
Jim, KSC and JSC I agree with, but do you really think NASM should have two? I know that Enterprise isn't spaceflown, but aren't the dimensions the same? (as flown orbiters)
Palmdale I could see as well.
Post by: Jim on 08/31/2006 07:44 pm
Post by: Austin on 08/31/2006 07:55 pm
Quote
Jim - 31/8/2006 12:31 PM
I don't mean two, I mean that get one ( maybe exchange OV-101 for one of the others) and then MSFC gets whatever is left, because OV-101 was at MSFC for tests at one time
Oh, gotcha.
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/31/2006 07:56 pm
Quote
When the Udvar-Hazy was previewed to the press in November 2003, it was said then that Enterprise was a place holder for one of the flown orbiters. So you can pretty much count on one of them (my guess: Discovery) going to UHC.
That leaves two flown birds and Enterprise.
The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex has already announced plans and a budget to build an orbital processing facility (OPF) replica to display a flown orbiter to the public. And let's face it, its the Cape, the most popular public space attraction after the National Air and Space Museum. So, its also a safe assumption an orbiter will be staying in Florida.
One left (and Enterprise).
Johnson Space Center is the home of the shuttle program. True, its Visitor Center is disappointing (from a space enthusiast's viewpoint) but the arrival of an orbiter could be the injection of space-themed excitement needed to turn the place around (from the Super Hero-obssessed, children's playground it is today). My bet would be that #3 is Houston-bound.
But let's say its not: here is — what I would assume — the shortlist of candidates:That's six places and two orbiters.
- U.S. Space & Rocket Center (Alabama)
- Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center
- Air Force Plant 42 (Palmdale, CA)
- California Science Center (Los Angeles)
- Seattle Museum of Flight (Washington)
- U.S Air Force Museum (Ohio)
For the sake of argument, let's disqualify Huntsville — they already have Pathfinder and the only complete stack on display anywhere). I would also disqualify Los Angeles but for no other reason than the other choices are more likely.
Personally, I think the USAF Museum has the strongest claim on the remaining-but really going to JSC-flown orbiter, given their prestige. I think Kansas and Seattle are tied for second place. They are both excellent museums but their locations leave something to be desired.
At the end of the day though, I could see Palmdale being assigned Enterprise over all six, given its history.
Post by: Jim on 08/31/2006 08:00 pm
Post by: gordo on 08/31/2006 08:46 pm
KSC is a major tourist attraction, but in reality no other NASA centre can say that. The shuttles need to be indoors, so unless a NASA centre is going to committ a chunk of public money to build a facility its not going to happen, where as places like the Smithsonian and Seattle have got facilites. I would suspect KSC build an extention to the Saturn V centre.
Post by: Mark Dave on 08/31/2006 09:18 pm
Post by: mastronaut on 08/31/2006 11:23 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 09/01/2006 02:52 am
Quote
Jim - 31/8/2006 2:47 PMThe California Science Center — one of only four museums to have flown examples of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo on display (the other three being the KSC Visitor Complex, Kansas Cosmosphere and the Smithsonian itself). The CSC has Mercury-Redstone 2, Gemini XI and ASTP's Command Module.
California Science Center (Los Angeles) vs CA Aerospace museum?
Post by: collectSPACE on 09/01/2006 02:58 am
Quote
gordo - 31/8/2006 3:33 PMSpace Center Houston — JSC's Visitor Center — is a major tourist destination for Houston visitors. A temporary building designed to last 10 years (or more) has recently been constructed around their Saturn V. If an orbiter was on its way, one could imagine a permanent exhibit facility being built to house both the Saturn and shuttle together.
KSC is a major tourist attraction, but in reality no other NASA centre can say that. The shuttles need to be indoors, so unless a NASA centre is going to committ a chunk of public money to build a facility its not going to happen, where as places like the Smithsonian and Seattle have got facilites. I would suspect KSC build an extention to the Saturn V centre.
As for KSC, they will reportedly not be building onto (or near) the Saturn V Center, but rather plans call for an extension (or building adjacent) to their new Shuttle Launch Experience simulator. Here is their brief description:
Quote
When the Space Shuttle program concludes, the visitor complex has envisioned a home for one of the orbiters. Visitors will be able to interact with the real vehicle and browse artifacts. Placed in the context of a processing facility environment, the Space Shuttle Orbiter Exhibit will be designed to capture the imagination of the public in much the same way as the Saturn V rocket does today at the Apollo/Saturn V Center.
Post by: Jim on 09/01/2006 11:29 am
Quote
collectspace - 31/8/2006 10:39 PMQuoteJim - 31/8/2006 2:47 PMThe California Science Center — one of only four museums to have flown examples of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo on display (the other three being the KSC Visitor Complex, Kansas Cosmosphere and the Smithsonian itself). The CSC has Mercury-Redstone 2, Gemini XI and ASTP's Command Module.
California Science Center (Los Angeles) vs CA Aerospace museum?
They changed the name since I lived there. We are talking about the same facility. It was more of a standalone museum in the 80's.
Post by: DontForgetHF on 09/01/2006 10:20 pm
Post by: mastronaut on 09/01/2006 11:17 pm
Post by: Flightstar on 09/02/2006 12:02 am
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.
Post by: Mark Dave on 09/02/2006 01:10 am
Post by: DontForgetHF on 09/02/2006 06:15 pm
I know these vehicles have some nostalgic value, but they were built for research and science. I see no harm in taking at least one of them apart for analysis. Heck, put it back together afterwards for display.
Post by: Avron on 09/02/2006 07:58 pm
Post by: DontForgetHF on 09/02/2006 08:22 pm
Post by: triddirt on 09/02/2006 09:35 pm
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2006 09:44 pm
Quote
triddirt - 2/9/2006 5:22 PM
Where would the full scale training mockups go? Could these be gutted enough to let folks walk through?
Walkthrus already exist at MSFC and KSC
Post by: spaceshuttle on 09/02/2006 10:49 pm
Post by: simonbp on 09/03/2006 06:26 pm
WRT to Pathfinder, it's rather high up and hard to see except from a distance; a close-up exhibt of Enterprise would be a nice complement...
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...
Simon ;)
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/03/2006 07:15 pm
Post by: rsp1202 on 09/03/2006 08:39 pm
And I think you'll see a KH-11 on display before a Blackstar. Now that's a double bill worth paying bucks for.
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2006 09:07 pm
Post by: oscar71 on 09/03/2006 09:21 pm
Quote
Flightstar - 1/9/2006 6:49 PMQuoteDontForgetHF - 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.
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2006 10:00 pm
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
Post by: collectSPACE on 09/03/2006 10:30 pm
Quote
simonbp - 3/9/2006 1:13 PMAn 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.
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...
"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.
Post by: rsp1202 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.
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2006 12:41 am
Quote
rsp1202 - 3/9/2006 7:26 PMQuoteNo 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
Post by: rsp1202 on 09/04/2006 12:51 am
Post by: Avron on 09/04/2006 04:16 am
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?
Post by: soldeed on 09/04/2006 04:30 am
Post by: Namechange User on 10/04/2006 08:41 pm
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.....
Post by: Chris Bergin 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.
Post by: Paul Adams 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
Post by: collectSPACE on 10/05/2006 04:48 pm
Quote
Paul Adams - 5/10/2006 11:25 AMThe 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.
Hopefully by then the Smithsonian will have it's facts straight.
Back to orbiter retirement, there may be some news on this subject soon. Not necessarily headline news, but news none-the-less.
Post by: punkboi 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.
Post by: psloss on 10/05/2006 05:02 pm
Quote
punkboi - 5/10/2006 12:31 PMWhat makes that fact more significant than others?QuoteOV-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.
Post by: Jorge 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.
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
Post by: punkboi on 10/05/2006 05:17 pm
Quote
psloss - 5/10/2006 9:45 AMQuotepunkboi - 5/10/2006 12:31 PMWhat makes that fact more significant than others?QuoteOV-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.
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) :)
Post by: DaveS on 10/05/2006 05:34 pm
Quote
Jorge - 5/10/2006 7:00 PMActually, the first HST Service Mission was by Endeavour(STS-61 in December 1993). But HST was deployed by Discovery however.
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).
Quote
Jorge - 5/10/2006 7:00 PMDidn't stop the OV's when they were transferred from Palmdale to Edwards.
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.
Post by: Jorge on 10/05/2006 05:36 pm
Quote
DaveS - 5/10/2006 12:17 PMQuoteJorge - 5/10/2006 7:00 PMActually, the first HST Service Mission was by Endeavour(STS-61 in December 1993). But HST was deployed by Discovery however.
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).
Ah, you're right - got those confused.
Well, at least Discovery will get the last HST servicing mission as well!
--
JRF
Post by: punkboi on 10/05/2006 05:54 pm
Quote
Jorge - 5/10/2006 10:19 AM Well, at least Discovery will get the last HST servicing mission as well! -- JRF
Where did you read that? Did Griffin already approve the HST mission?
Post by: psloss on 10/05/2006 05:58 pm
Quote
DaveS - 5/10/2006 1:17 PMTrue, but back in the 80s, there wasn't that much work to do to clear an area out there -- which wasn't really "metro" at the time. People may outnumber Joshua trees in the Antelope Valley now, but it wasn't always that way... (and yes, I'm exaggerating) :)
Didn't stop the OV's when they were transferred from Palmdale to Edwards.
Edit: this reminds me of something John Young said in testimony to the Rogers Commission (http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5part5.htm) about how to get an orbiter back to KSC after an emergency landing in Orlando...search for "beeline"
Post by: psloss on 10/05/2006 06:03 pm
Quote
punkboi - 5/10/2006 1:00 PMC'mon, where's the dedication? All five of the shuttle launches I attended were when I was living in either Oregon or Southern California.
...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) :)
:)
Post by: Jorge on 10/05/2006 06:41 pm
Quote
punkboi - 5/10/2006 12:37 PMQuoteJorge - 5/10/2006 10:19 AM Well, at least Discovery will get the last HST servicing mission as well! -- JRFWhere did you read that? Did Griffin already approve the HST mission?
He hasn't approved it formally yet. But there's a "Flight of Opportunity" on the manifest for it, STS-125, OV-103, April 2008. Griffin clearly wants to do it, so does the Astronaut Office, most of the (hand-picked) managers reporting to him, and the rank-and-file are behind it as well. There are no technical showstoppers now that the OBSS Structural Dynamics DTO demonstrated that the OBSS could provide an EVA repair platform for a non-ISS shuttle mission. There are some open questions about whether/how to plan for LON rescue if 39B is turned over to ESMD, but that won't be a showstopper. If Griffin says "no" next month, it'll be due to some issue that hasn't surfaced yet... and I'll be very surprised.
--
JRF
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2006 06:56 pm
Quote
Jorge - 5/10/2006 1:00 PMI 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.
The USAF did NASA a favor by pulling out. NASA wanted them out
Post by: Jorge on 10/05/2006 07:18 pm
Quote
psloss - 5/10/2006 12:41 PMQuoteDaveS - 5/10/2006 1:17 PMTrue, but back in the 80s, there wasn't that much work to do to clear an area out there -- which wasn't really "metro" at the time. People may outnumber Joshua trees in the Antelope Valley now, but it wasn't always that way... (and yes, I'm exaggerating) :)
Didn't stop the OV's when they were transferred from Palmdale to Edwards.
Same with Clear Lake... both highway 3 and NASA Parkway are heavily urbanized, with lots of utility poles to have to hinge to get the wings over. And I don't even want to think about how they will get through the underpass where the new NASA Parkway Bypass rejoins NASA Parkway just west of El Camino Real.
--
JRF
Post by: Jorge on 10/05/2006 07:19 pm
Quote
Jim - 5/10/2006 1:39 PMQuoteJorge - 5/10/2006 1:00 PMI 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.
The USAF did NASA a favor by pulling out. NASA wanted them out
Doesn't change my opinion that they shouldn't get an orbiter.
--
JRF
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2006 08:09 pm
Post by: Jorge on 10/05/2006 08:17 pm
Quote
Jim - 5/10/2006 2:52 PM
They will get one
It will be an injustice if they do. They should have the grace not to ask.
--
JRF
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2006 09:22 pm
NASA does not hold the same feelings towards the DOD/USAF as you do.
Post by: collectSPACE on 10/05/2006 09:36 pm
Quote
Jim - 5/10/2006 2:52 PMIf they [the USAF museum] do, then its most likely to be Enterprise.
They will get one
There is very little question that the Smithsonian and KSC will house orbiters. And recently, while speaking to someone close to the JSC Saturn V, I was told that its temporary building, which is not yet complete, is already being looked at to expand to make room for a soon-to-be retired space vehicle.
Read into that what you may...
Post by: Jorge on 10/05/2006 09:45 pm
Quote
Jim - 5/10/2006 4:05 PM
The USAF pump billions of dollars into the shuttle program and they built a launch site. NASA appreciated the DOD contributions and many of the military detailees had/have high ranking positions in NASA.
NASA does not hold the same feelings towards the DOD/USAF as you do.
Almost all of those billions were wasted on the launch site that was never used, and therefore benefitted NASA not one bit. Apart from that, the only DoD money for shuttle that I can find solid documentation on is development of the IUS and the ridiculously low amount ($268 million) that the DoD paid for the nine classified shuttle flights (Jenkins, p. 328), an amount that was insufficient to fully fund even one launch. The DoD actively declined to spend money on the development of the shuttle itself; all the DoD provided was to support NASA at congressional and OMB budget hearings to give the appearance of a unified front (Jenkins, p. 151). You need to study some history.
Regarding "NASA" not holding the same feelings as "I" do, there is an assumption buried in your statement that "NASA" is a monolithic entity and an assumption about my status as well. Both are wrong.
I do not object to displaying OV-101 at Dryden/Edwards, but that's as much of an orbiter as the USAF should get.
--
JRF
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2006 09:53 pm
NASA almost used the IUS as much as the USAF.
I work for NASA and one of many ex USAF and DOD employees. We still rely on USAF support for ELV launches
DFRC is not USAF.
Post by: Jorge on 10/06/2006 12:39 am
Quote
Jim - 5/10/2006 4:36 PM
The DOD provided more money than you list. NASA allowed the DOD to close VAFB.
NASA almost used the IUS as much as the USAF.
I work for NASA and one of many ex USAF and DOD employees. We still rely on USAF support for ELV launches
DFRC is not USAF.
If the DoD provided more money than I listed - especially for shuttle development, please send the primary source documentation to Dennis Jenkins. He could use the material for the fourth edition of his book.
NASA allowed DoD to close SLC-6 (not all of VAFB) because SLC-6 was only needed for polar launches, which were almost entirely DoD. It doesn't change the fact that the billions spent on SLC-6 did not benefit the shuttle program. It quite clearly didn't. In fact, it was a net burden inasmuch as NASA detailed some shuttle personnel to SLC-6 in 1985-86 to help prepare it, stretching the KSC workforce thinner during the period immediately prior to 51L.
I already acknowledged the IUS.
Do not assume that everyone who works for NASA is monolithic in their opinions. I am supportive of the USAF and DoD in general, but with regard to the specific matter of shuttle development, the weight of the evidence is that DoD involvement was one of several factors that ruined the shuttle. Both entities would likely have been better off today had they walked away from the table in 1971, even if it meant the cancellation (or at minimum, severe rescoping) of the program as we have come to know it.
We were talking about DoD support for shuttle, not ELV launches. ELVs are launched from CCAFS, not KSC, so of course the DoD supports those. I have seen no evidence for DoD financial support for shuttle development beyond what I have listed. I acknowledge DoD support of shuttle operations beyond what I previously listed: 45th SW range safety support, NGA support of shuttle ascent/orbit imaging, and NORAD/SPACECOM/STRATCOM support of debris avoidance. Probably several other minor line items as well. None of that comes close to offsetting the nine shuttle flights NASA flew for DoD at a cost of close to $9 billion while being reimbursed $268 million from DoD. It certainly doesn't warrant an orbiter.
I am aware that DFRC is not DoD. Sharing OV-101 between NASA/DFRC and USAF/EAFB is as much as the USAF deserves.
--
JRF
Post by: Dobbins on 10/06/2006 12:45 am
Quote
punkboi - 5/10/2006 1:00 PM
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) :)
KSC visitor's complex is sponsering the History Channel's "space week". As a promo they have a sweepstakes with a 5 day all expenses paid trip to see STS-118 launch.
http://www.history.com/space/sweepstakes/
Post by: Jim on 10/06/2006 01:26 am
Quote
Jorge - 5/10/2006 8:22 PM
1. If the DoD provided more money than I listed - especially for shuttle development, please send the primary source documentation to Dennis Jenkins. He could use the material for the fourth edition of his book.
2. NASA allowed DoD to close SLC-6 (not all of VAFB) because SLC-6 was only needed for polar launches, which were almost entirely DoD. It doesn't change the fact that the billions spent on SLC-6 did not benefit the shuttle program. It quite clearly didn't. In fact, it was a net burden inasmuch as NASA detailed some shuttle personnel to SLC-6 in 1985-86 to help prepare it, stretching the KSC workforce thinner during the period immediately prior to 51L.
3. Do not assume that everyone who works for NASA is monolithic in their opinions. I am supportive of the USAF and DoD in general, but with regard to the specific matter of shuttle development, the weight of the evidence is that DoD involvement was one of several factors that ruined the shuttle. Both entities would likely have been better off today had they walked away from the table in 1971, even if it meant the cancellation (or at minimum, severe rescoping) of the program as we have come to know it.
4. We were talking about DoD support for shuttle, not ELV launches. ELVs are launched from CCAFS, not KSC, so of course the DoD supports those. I have seen no evidence for DoD financial support for shuttle development beyond what I have listed. I acknowledge DoD support of shuttle operations beyond what I previously listed: 45th SW range safety support, NGA support of shuttle ascent/orbit imaging, and NORAD/SPACECOM/STRATCOM support of debris avoidance. Probably several other minor line items as well. None of that comes close to offsetting the nine shuttle flights NASA flew for DoD at a cost of close to $9 billion while being reimbursed $268 million from DoD. It certainly doesn't warrant an orbiter.
5. I am aware that DFRC is not DoD. Sharing OV-101 between NASA/DFRC and USAF/EAFB is as much as the USAF deserves.
--
JRF
1. Classified. Couldn't share it with you or David. NASA set the price for those missions and the DOD paid more than commercial customers. NASA got extra money post Challenger not from the DOD but due to DOD requirements.
2. NASA needs polar launches as much as the DOD. Work Package 4 of the space station program had polar platforms, which evolved into the EOS program. Since '98, 50% of NASA's ELV launches were from VAFB.
The shared launch/processing team was NASA's idea and therefore their fault. KSC didn't want a totally separate team
3. So nothing would be better than what we have? Bad logic. Anyways, the USAF was forced by congress to use the shuttle the NRO did not want the shuttle.
4. Don't lecture me on launch sites, ELV or Shuttle. Been working at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport since '88 and before that the USAF shuttle program office that provided the $268m to NASA. You might not have the evidence but I know there was. It didn't cost NASA 9 B for those flights neither.
The DOD provided processing facilites for NASA spacecraft. It funded the Shuttle Centaur program office. Testing facilities were provided. AFFTC provided flight test support for entry testing. JSC had USAF detailees integrated in the workforce. The USAF provide workers at Palmdale for shuttle work. Sunnyvale provided tracking support.
The USAF was very much part of the shuttle program pre 95 and NASA embraced them. Your opinion is in the minority
Post by: Jorge on 10/06/2006 03:25 am
Quote
Jim - 5/10/2006 8:09 PM
1. Classified. Couldn't share it with you or David. NASA set the price for those missions and the DOD paid more than commercial customers. NASA got extra money post Challenger not from the DOD but due to DOD requirements.
2. NASA needs polar launches as much as the DOD. Work Package 4 of the space station program had polar platforms, which evolved into the EOS program. Since '98, 50% of NASA's ELV launches were from VAFB.
The shared launch/processing team was NASA's idea and therefore their fault. KSC didn't want a totally separate team
3. So nothing would be better than what we have? Bad logic. Anyways, the USAF was forced by congress to use the shuttle the NRO did not want the shuttle.
4. Don't lecture me on launch sites, ELV or Shuttle. Been working at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport since '88 and before that the USAF shuttle program office that provided the $268m to NASA. You might not have the evidence but I know there was. It didn't cost NASA 9 B for those flights neither.
The DOD provided processing facilites for NASA spacecraft. It funded the Shuttle Centaur program office. Testing facilities were provided. AFFTC provided flight test support for entry testing. JSC had USAF detailees integrated in the workforce. The USAF provide workers at Palmdale for shuttle work. Sunnyvale provided tracking support.
The USAF was very much part of the shuttle program pre 95 and NASA embraced them. Your opinion is in the minority
2. Those are ELV launches, not shuttle launches, which further reinforces my point.
3. It would not have been "nothing." In 1971, NASA had not yet gotten the go-ahead for the shuttle. Had they walked away from the DoD at that point (BEFORE "the USAF was forced by congress to use shuttle"), it is indeed quite likely that the shuttle as we know it would not have happened. NASA would have had to retrench, reorganize, and come up with a plan B.
That would not necessarily have been a bad thing; in hindsight, my opinion is that high-flight-rate reusable vehicles are indeed the best route to reducing the cost of access to space, but that it was sheer hubris for NASA to think they could develop a fully operational reusable vehicle on the first try and have it meet all performance requirements. Indeed, its failure to meet said requirements is being touted as "proof" by some that reusability itself is a bad thing - this with exactly one data point to work from!
If NASA had, instead, asked for a followon to the X-15 and incrementally worked their way up to orbital by a series of followon X-planes, it is quite likely that they would have learned a lot more about reusable space vehicles than attempting to develop an operational space shuttle right away and then continuing to fly it for 25 years. I consider it is highly likely that Nixon and Congress would have approved this as long as it cost less than the shuttle (and it almost certainly would have, as long as NASA stuck to developing one X-plane at a time). It probably would have cost *enough* less than the shuttle to allow a low-key continuation of Apollo/Saturn IB LEO ops. It is also more likely that such a program could have engaged in more productive cooperation with the DoD - the experimental requirements for an X-plane are a lot easier to accommodate than trying to shoehorn all the DoDs operational requirements into the space shuttle. The previous X-planes were quite successful examples of that.
4. So what do nine shuttle flights cost? Somewhat a trick question. I've got all the budget data in a spreadsheet in current-year dollars and constant-year dollars, accounting for inflation, figured both as total program cost-per-flight (includes DDT&E since 1969) and annual program cost-per-flight (annual shuttle budget divided by number of flights). The $9 B number is actually somewhat less than my figure for total program cost but somewhat more than the average annual program cost for nine flights. The marginal cost-per-flight - the cost of adding one flight to the manifest - is much lower but still can't be lower than about $100-150 million per flight, or $900-1350 million for nine flights. Any way you slice it, the DoD got a huge bargain on those launches.
Anyway, to bring this back to the subject line of the thread, my point is not that DoD didn't contribute to the shuttle program. It's clear that they did and continue to do so. The question is whether their contributions warrant giving them one of the space-flown orbiters when the fleet is retired. My opinion is that they do not, and that the best compromise would be to share OV-101 between NASA/DFRC and USAF/EAFB in California. This would provide an appropriate level of acknowledgment of the DoD role in the program while maximizing the geographic distance between the orbiters so that the largest number of Americans could view one. Udvar-Hazy to KSC is 868 miles, KSC to JSC is 1015 miles, and JSC to DFRC is 1657 miles. Wright-Patterson is only 475 miles from Udvar-Hazy. Putting an orbiter at Wright-Patt wouldn't put nearly as many people within driving distance of an orbiter as putting one at DFRC/EAFB.
--
JRF
Post by: punkboi on 10/06/2006 03:28 am
Quote
Dobbins - 5/10/2006 5:28 PMQuotepunkboi - 5/10/2006 1:00 PM 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) :)KSC visitor's complex is sponsering the History Channel's "space week". As a promo they have a sweepstakes with a 5 day all expenses paid trip to see STS-118 launch. http://www.history.com/space/sweepstakes/
Niiice. :)
Post by: Jim on 10/06/2006 09:24 am
Quote
Jorge - 5/10/2006 11:08 PM
2. Those are ELV launches, not shuttle launches, which further reinforces my point.
Wrong again. They were suppose to be shuttle missions. No west coast shuttle pad therefore ELV missions.
NASA made their bed wrt shuttle costs. The DOD only had to pay the marginal costs of the missions.
WRT all the all stuff about whether the shuttle should have happen, hindsight is 20/20
Post by: Jorge on 10/06/2006 01:40 pm
Quote
Jim - 6/10/2006 4:07 AMQuoteJorge - 5/10/2006 11:08 PM
2. Those are ELV launches, not shuttle launches, which further reinforces my point.
1. Wrong again. They were suppose to be shuttle missions. No west coast shuttle pad therefore ELV missions.
2. NASA made their bed wrt shuttle costs. The DOD only had to pay the marginal costs of the missions.
3. WRT all the all stuff about whether the shuttle should have happen, hindsight is 20/20
1. No, right again. Still doesn't count as an example of a DoD contribution to the shuttle program.
2. "Hey, you screwed yourself on the price!" is hardly a convincing argument for getting an orbiter.
3. Hindsight is how we learn from our mistakes. Hindsight tells me that NASA going to DoD for support on the shuttle was a mistake. I don't know how the DoD feels about it but I imagine many within DoD agree.
--
JRF
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/09/2006 02:42 am
Quote
punkboi - 6/10/2006 4:11 AMQuoteDobbins - 5/10/2006 5:28 PMQuotepunkboi - 5/10/2006 1:00 PM 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) :)KSC visitor's complex is sponsering the History Channel's "space week". As a promo they have a sweepstakes with a 5 day all expenses paid trip to see STS-118 launch. http://www.history.com/space/sweepstakes/Niiice. :)
Wouldn't hurt to enter :)
Post by: RHAnthony on 01/08/2007 06:13 am
Personally, since we're dealing with 3 functioning Orbiters slated for retirement hopefully in 1 peice, and Enterprise already on display by the Smithsonian Institute... I would love to see Enterprise replaced with one of the full Orbiters on display at Dulles, and then see Enterprise take her spot atop an SCA either for static display or ideally, for a tour around the world at large airshows at least for a few years. As for the other 2 Orbiters, I would LOVE to see one as part of a full stack, displayed somewhere with the ET and SRB's, and positioned vertical "ready for launch". Perhaps a permanent display somewhere on or near KSC. The 3rd Orbiter I think would be a wonderful addition to the history displayed in California where most of the noteworthy advances in NASA history have been worked on.
What are your thoughts everyone?
As a side note, I am hoping that in the future it's possible that NASA will allow some of the tiles from an Orbiter, after return from a flight, to be displayed up close and personal in some exhibit in the Smithsonian. I haven't heard of any such plans, but I may just not be aware of such a display, or plans for one. I would love to have the chance to touch one someday. Touching a physical part of human history, has a GREAT potential for inspiration, as well as giving a true appreciation for the things we have achieved. Having said that, being that they are in finite supply, having them available for the public to touch would be ... well, impractical on many levels historically, I would think.
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/08/2007 06:34 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4078&start=1&highlight=Enterprise&highlightmode=1
As it mentions, the Smithsonian has commented that it plans to replace Enterprise with a flown orbiter at the Udvar-Hazy and KSC has already announced its plans for an orbiter display in a mock-OPF setting. JSC has also hinted at putting an orbiter side-by-side with their newly restored Saturn V.
In regards to a full stack display, though not vertical, there is one (Pathfinder) in Huntsville, Alabama at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center.
Having a touchstone-like exhibit of a shuttle tile probably isn't practical — the material is fragile and would likely fall apart quickly if handled by museum-goers. That said, there a number of space museums that already do have flown tiles on display and you can purchase a souvenir sample of the same material or even a real tile that was produced for Columbia prior to STS-1 but never installed. There's been a few flown tiles to come to the secondary market after being presented as VIP gifts by NASA or scrapped but they are much harder to find today (NASA frowns on their sale).
Post by: spaceflight101 on 01/09/2007 12:03 am
KSC and JSC are slam-dunks, and I feel strongly that one needs to go to Udvar-Hazy to replace Enterprise. I would go for Endeavour, but that's because I have photos of me and my son standing beneath her.
Trying to prevent the weather from destroying a full-stack display would be a formidable task indeed. I was happy to see that the Saturn V at KSC had been moved indoors to protect it. The OV-100 orbiters should be given the same protection.
When we were walking beneath Endeavour, they begged us to not touch the tiles. Since I was the only one tall enough, I already knew. I have no desire to own any of the tiles...I'd rather have one of the refractory bricks that line the exhaust trench after it's been blown out.
My father was a bricklayer for United States Steel, but he died seven years before his son would walk beneath a Space Shuttle.
Post by: Waterfalldescender on 01/09/2007 12:14 am
Post by: MySDCUserID on 01/09/2007 12:28 am
Post by: astrobrian on 01/09/2007 12:34 am
Post by: MySDCUserID on 01/09/2007 12:38 am
Post by: Jorge on 01/09/2007 01:32 am
What should happen, in my opinion, is that the Smithsonian sends Enterprise from Udvar-Hazy to be shared between Dryden Flight Research Center and Edwards Air Force Base, since that's where Enterprise did the Approach and Landing Tests. The three flown orbiters then go to Udvar-Hazy, JSC, and KSC. MSFC is the odd man out since their involvement with the shuttle program was mainly with the ET, SRB, and SSME, not the Orbiter.
A little birdie with ties to the Smithsonian tells me that the decision to manifest HST SM-04 on Atlantis' last flight virtually clinches that Atlantis will be the orbiter the Smithsonian wants to put at Udvar-Hazy to replace Enterprise.
The obvious place to display an orbiter at KSC would be in one of the OPFs once they get deactivated. They're not planned to be used by Constellation. The work platforms could be torn out and replaced with viewing platforms that allow tourists to get close to the orbiter without touching it, and also allow better views of the orbiter than are possible with the work platforms.
JSC could be problematic. I'm not sure if the Kemah bridge has a long enough span to allow an orbiter to be barged in as was done with the Saturn V. It may be that the only site the orbiter could be displayed would be at Ellington Field. An SCA could ferry the orbiter in, and an existing hangar could be used as a temporary display facility until a permanent building can be constructed.
Regardless of where the orbiters wind up, you can bet that the Smithsonian (which will be the legal owner of the orbiters) will require that the orbiters be protected from the elements and that some sort of building be in place before the orbiter is shipped out. They are keen not to repeat the experience with the deterioration of the Saturn Vs. For that reason, I would not hold out much hope for an orbiter displayed on a complete ET/SRB stack, nor an orbiter/SCA 747 stack. That would be too expensive to do indoors.
You can also bet that no orbiter will leave KSC until the entire fleet is retired in 2010; NASA has made it clear that they need the retired orbiters as parts donors for the ones still flying.
--
JRF
Post by: gordo on 01/09/2007 01:44 am
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/09/2007 02:10 am
Quote
Jorge - 8/1/2007 8:15 PMFor what it's worth, I was told by another Smithsonian birdie that the paperwork to request Discovery for the Udvar-Hazy was all but filed as it is the oldest surviving orbiter in the fleet.
A little birdie with ties to the Smithsonian tells me that the decision to manifest HST SM-04 on Atlantis' last flight virtually clinches that Atlantis will be the orbiter the Smithsonian wants to put at Udvar-Hazy to replace Enterprise.
Quote
The obvious place to display an orbiter at KSC would be in one of the OPFs once they get deactivated.As mentioned above, the plan for the KSCVC is already in place, budgeted and was announced (though without many details) to the press. I've been told a location has been selected (its not within any of the OPFs) and suffice to say, if true, it will make for a very dramatic experience when completed.
Quote
JSC could be problematic.I hadn't thought of the logistics of moving it to the center. Could it not be ferried to Ellington by the SCA, and then transported (employing the same transporter used to roll the orbiter between OPF and VAB) down HWY 3 to the NASA Parkway and then to the center? I don't remember any overpasses along that route, though you would have to close the road (obviously), you'd have to take down traffic lights (there are a few) and there is the question of clearances along each side. Okay, maybe its not so possible... ;)
Quote
Regardless of where the orbiters wind up, you can bet that the Smithsonian (which will be the legal owner of the orbiters) will require that the orbiters be protected from the elements and that some sort of building be in place before the orbiter is shipped out.While I agree and have heard the same thing about requiring an indoor display, I have been told by multiple parties that whether all three orbiters will be Smithsonian property is still to be decided. NASA may want to retain ownership for various reasons and the Smithsonian may not want all three.
Post by: Jorge on 01/09/2007 03:00 am
Quote
collectspace - 8/1/2007 8:53 PMQuoteJorge - 8/1/2007 8:15 PMFor what it's worth, I was told by another Smithsonian birdie that the paperwork to request Discovery for the Udvar-Hazy was all but filed as it is the oldest surviving orbiter in the fleet.
A little birdie with ties to the Smithsonian tells me that the decision to manifest HST SM-04 on Atlantis' last flight virtually clinches that Atlantis will be the orbiter the Smithsonian wants to put at Udvar-Hazy to replace Enterprise.
Oh well. Guess the matter will remain up in the air for a while (and truthfully, does it really matter which flown orbiter goes where...?).
Quote
QuoteThe obvious place to display an orbiter at KSC would be in one of the OPFs once they get deactivated.As mentioned above, the plan for the KSCVC is already in place, budgeted and was announced (though without many details) to the press. I've been told a location has been selected (its not within any of the OPFs) and suffice to say, if true, it will make for a very dramatic experience when completed.
I agree - very intriguing story, if true.
Quote
QuoteJSC could be problematic.I hadn't thought of the logistics of moving it to the center. Could it not be ferried to Ellington by the SCA, and then transported (employing the same transporter used to roll the orbiter between OPF and VAB) down HWY 3 to the NASA Parkway and then to the center? I don't remember any overpasses along that route, though you would have to close the road (obviously), you'd have to take down traffic lights (there are a few) and there is the question of clearances along each side. Okay, maybe its not so possible... ;)
Highway 3 seems doable, though quite a bit of utility pole relocation might also be required. I'll take a closer look on my way to work tomorrow... :)
The real problem is going to be NASA Parkway. The NASA Parkway Bypass will be complete by then, which splits off from the existing NASA Parkway at Sarah Deel Rd, just west of El Camino Real. Coming from Highway 3, the existing eastbound NASA Parkway goes under the bypass, and the bypass has no eastbound ramps from Highway 3. That could wind up being insurmountable.
--
JRF
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/09/2007 03:53 am
Quote
Jorge - 8/1/2007 9:43 PMGood point — maybe you could use Bay Area Blvd. from Highway 3 to get to Saturn?
Coming from Highway 3, the existing eastbound NASA Parkway goes under the bypass, and the bypass has no eastbound ramps from Highway 3. That could wind up being insurmountable.
Or getting back to your barge idea, you could bring it right up to NASA Parkway at Space Center (next to the Hilton) and use the ramp that two cars recently used to launch themselves into Clear Lake... :)
Post by: Jorge on 01/09/2007 04:18 am
Quote
collectspace - 8/1/2007 10:36 PMQuoteJorge - 8/1/2007 9:43 PMGood point — maybe you could use Bay Area Blvd. from Highway 3 to get to Saturn?
Coming from Highway 3, the existing eastbound NASA Parkway goes under the bypass, and the bypass has no eastbound ramps from Highway 3. That could wind up being insurmountable.
Hmm, could work. Bay Area Blvd is wide enough, though (like the other roads) you'd have plenty of traffic lights and utility poles to relocate. Saturn Ln. is quite narrow from Bay Area to Space Center Intermediate School. I think you'd need to demolish and pave over the center divider to get the orbiter through.
Quote
Or getting back to your barge idea, you could bring it right up to NASA Parkway at Space Center (next to the Hilton) and use the ramp that two cars recently used to launch themselves into Clear Lake... :)
That was the route used to barge in the Saturn V. If you look at Space Center Blvd just west of the Hilton you can still see where the road tees off where the Saturn was rolled in - NASA simply built a fence over it. I have my doubts as to whether the SH 146 bridge at Kemah has a long enough span to allow an orbiter to pass (to be fair, I haven't actually measured it or tried to look up what the actual span is). But TxDOT is talking about an SH 146 bypass through Seabrook and Kemah that would involve replacing the bridge. Perhaps the project could be timed to allow an orbiter to be barged in.
--
JRF
Post by: astrobrian on 01/09/2007 04:55 am
Post by: NASA_Twix_JSC on 01/09/2007 05:58 am
Post by: vt_hokie on 01/09/2007 06:09 am
Post by: Dana on 01/09/2007 06:27 am
Post by: Rifleman on 01/09/2007 12:09 pm
Post by: Jorge on 01/09/2007 01:51 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 9/1/2007 6:52 AM
I would give Discovery to the Smithsonian, since it is the oldest. I would give Atlantis to KSC, and Endeavor to Johnson. Enterprise should go to the USAF museum at Wright Patterson AFB (the offical "National Museum of the United States Air Force"). I feed the USAF Museum should get Enterprise as the Air Force was instrumental (for better or worse) in the development of the Shuttle. Enterprise being put on display in the USAF museum would reflect her role in the development of the shuttle. In addition to this, all flights of Enterprise took place at an Air Force base, and 2 of the 4 Astronauts who flew on Enterprise came from the Air Force.
If you're going to give Enterprise to the USAF, Edwards would be a lot better. That's the base she actually flew from, and it would put an orbiter on the west coast, better spreading them out. Wright-Patterson is only 473 miles driving distance from Udvar-Hazy, but Edwards is 1,598 miles from Johnson.
--
JRF
Post by: on 01/09/2007 02:27 pm
Post by: Rifleman on 01/09/2007 02:46 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/09/2007 02:51 pm
Post by: Jorge on 01/10/2007 02:45 am
Quote
astrobrian - 8/1/2007 11:38 PM
If you're gonna have one going up Bay Aera, why not have a stop by the Rocket Town store :) That would be one heck of a guest showing up
Unfortunately, it's the wrong direction... Rocket Town is west of Highway 3, while the orbiter would need to go east on Bay Area from 3 to get to Saturn. :)
--
JRF
Post by: Jorge on 01/10/2007 02:58 am
Quote
Rifleman - 9/1/2007 9:29 AM
If a shuttle is given to the USAF, it would go to the National Museum at Wright Patterson, as this is the official museum of the air force. When the air force has aircraft to give to a museum, WPAFB is always the first museum it is offered to.
Yes, I understand that. I was talking about what *should* happen with the orbiters, not what I think *will* happen. As far as what *will* happen with the orbiters, here is what the Smithsonian would *like* to happen, according to a certain birdie:
OV-101 (Enterprise) - Museum of Flight, Seattle, Washington
OV-103 (Discovery) - USAF Museum at Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
OV-104 (Atlantis) - Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Museum, Dulles Airport, Virginia
OV-105 (Endeavour) - Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida
As far as I'm concerned, this is a total travesty, originating in a political snit between the Smithsonian and JSC over the Saturn V restoration.
--
JRF
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/10/2007 03:32 am
Quote
Jorge - 9/1/2007 9:41 PMQuoteRifleman - 9/1/2007 9:29 AM
If a shuttle is given to the USAF, it would go to the National Museum at Wright Patterson, as this is the official museum of the air force. When the air force has aircraft to give to a museum, WPAFB is always the first museum it is offered to.
Yes, I understand that. I was talking about what *should* happen with the orbiters, not what I think *will* happen. As far as what *will* happen with the orbiters, here is what the Smithsonian would *like* to happen, according to a certain birdie:
OV-101 (Enterprise) - Museum of Flight, Seattle, Washington
OV-103 (Discovery) - USAF Museum at Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
OV-104 (Atlantis) - Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Museum, Dulles Airport, Virginia
OV-105 (Endeavour) - Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida
As far as I'm concerned, this is a total travesty, originating in a political snit between the Smithsonian and JSC over the Saturn V restoration.
--
JRF
Houston doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let the only flight-worthy Saturn V rot away in the humid Houston air and then "solved" the problem by covering it with one of the world's ugliest barns. How can a city of oil-rich not have had enough civic pride to preserve an important part of its history?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/10/2007 05:02 am
Quote
edkyle99 - 9/1/2007 10:15 PMBy that reasoning, KSC doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let its Saturn V flight-worthy components rot away in the humid, salt-water laden Atlantic air...
Houston doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let the only flight-worthy Saturn V rot away in the humid Houston air...
Quote
...and then "solved" the problem by covering it with one of the world's ugliest barns. How can a city of oil-rich not have had enough civic pride to preserve an important part of its history?If your concern is preservation, then what difference is the shape or appearance of its housing? And what's to say that the assignment of an orbiter to the city/center wouldn't be the high profile new priority needed to inspire and elicit the funding needed for the more tourist-friendly facility?
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/10/2007 05:16 am
Quote
Jorge - 9/1/2007 9:41 PMAn interesting, if not entirely political set of choices and I am sure that the Museum of Flight would be super thrilled to see their name listed. However, taking several sources' (organizations'/agencies') desires into account, I wouldn't be the least surprised if none of the above came true...
OV-101 (Enterprise) - Museum of Flight, Seattle, Washington
OV-103 (Discovery) - USAF Museum at Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
OV-104 (Atlantis) - Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Museum, Dulles Airport, Virginia
OV-105 (Endeavour) - Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida
Post by: Rifleman on 01/10/2007 08:28 pm
Post by: Jim on 01/10/2007 08:49 pm
Post by: MySDCUserID on 01/11/2007 12:03 am
Post by: MKremer on 01/11/2007 02:29 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 10/1/2007 6:46 PM
Could the move to Houston be made easier if the Vertical Stabilizer and Wings were removed? Any idea how much additional cost may be added to the transportation if there was some disassembly/reassembly required?
Huge amounts of costs and time - imagine the amount of TPS/wiring/fluid tubing would be required to be removed/disconnected/uncoupled just to remove any one of those structures, then doing the reverse once it's at the location. Any one of those would be a *very* big and expensive job.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 01/11/2007 10:20 pm
Quote
MKremer - 10/1/2007 9:12 PM
Huge amounts of costs and time - imagine the amount of TPS/wiring/fluid tubing would be required to be removed/disconnected/uncoupled just to remove any one of those structures, then doing the reverse once it's at the location. Any one of those would be a *very* big and expensive job.
Well, you would not have to completely reverse the disassembly. There would be no need to reconnect the various wires and tubes. The TPS would have to be reattached, but certainly not to flight standards. It's not like it will be needing everything to be in flight-worthy condition with an expensive paper trail to back it up. The tourists won't be able to tell the difference.
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/11/2007 11:19 pm
Following up on my and Jorge's discussion on the different paths from Ellington, I've driven Bay Area Blvd., the NASA Parkway and Space Center Blvd. the past day with an eye toward obstacles. While anything is possible, there is just too much infrastructure and large flora on all three roads to make them realistic choices. A barge approach mimicking the Saturn rocket's arrival seems to be the only option.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 01/11/2007 11:25 pm
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/12/2007 01:19 am
Quote
collectspace - 9/1/2007 11:59 PMQuoteJorge - 9/1/2007 9:41 PMAn interesting, if not entirely political set of choices and I am sure that the Museum of Flight would be super thrilled to see their name listed. However, taking several sources' (organizations'/agencies') desires into account, I wouldn't be the least surprised if none of the above came true...
OV-101 (Enterprise) - Museum of Flight, Seattle, Washington
OV-103 (Discovery) - USAF Museum at Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
OV-104 (Atlantis) - Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Museum, Dulles Airport, Virginia
OV-105 (Endeavour) - Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida
This list doesn't look like politics to me. It looks like a list of places, besides KSC which is a given due to the already-strong tourist support there, that have vast indoor display galleries already available with spare floor space. This list hints that there will be no more of this "lawn ornament" business for the retired shuttle orbiters.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/12/2007 01:26 am
Quote
collectspace - 9/1/2007 11:45 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 9/1/2007 10:15 PMBy that reasoning, KSC doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let its Saturn V flight-worthy components rot away in the humid, salt-water laden Atlantic air...
Houston doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let the only flight-worthy Saturn V rot away in the humid Houston air...
KSC started its Saturn V preservation effort more than a decade ago, in 1995. Houston waited another decade, allowing its Saturn V to degrade far more than any other Saturn V. The only Saturn in worse shape is the Saturn IB at the Alabama Welcome Center, which has been scrawled with graffiti and should, by all rights, be promptly confiscated from the State of Alabama.
Quote
Quote...and then "solved" the problem by covering it with one of the world's ugliest barns. How can a city of oil-rich not have had enough civic pride to preserve an important part of its history?If your concern is preservation, then what difference is the shape or appearance of its housing? And what's to say that the assignment of an orbiter to the city/center wouldn't be the high profile new priority needed to inspire and elicit the funding needed for the more tourist-friendly facility?
This is about more than preservation - it is also about presentation. KSC's Saturn V Center showed how well it can be done.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Jorge on 01/12/2007 03:34 am
Quote
collectspace - 11/1/2007 6:02 PM
Preserving the orbiters as artifacts is not only for the sake of tourists. Consider the Apollo command modules: in the past couple of years, NASA and its contractors have sought out the spent capsules to study for Orion. There's no telling what the future might hold and if/when the orbiters might play a role in future designs (government or commercial). The vehicles' systems should be kept intact as flown if at all feasible.
Following up on my and Jorge's discussion on the different paths from Ellington, I've driven Bay Area Blvd., the NASA Parkway and Space Center Blvd. the past day with an eye toward obstacles. While anything is possible, there is just too much infrastructure and large flora on all three roads to make them realistic choices.
I concur with that.
Quote
A barge approach mimicking the Saturn rocket's arrival seems to be the only option.
Not quite; you could SCA the orbiter into Ellington and display it there. Put it in Hangar 990 until the permanent building is ready. The permanent building could be at Ellington proper or it could be at Sonny Carter. Back in the Space Station Freedom days, the facility now known as Sonny Carter was going to be a space station processing facility, and there was a road leading from it back to Ellington to tow station modules to the Super Guppy for the flight to KSC.
--
JRF
Post by: Jorge on 01/12/2007 03:52 am
Quote
edkyle99Quotecollectspace - 9/1/2007 11:45 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 9/1/2007 10:15 PM
Houston doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let the only flight-worthy Saturn V rot away in the humid Houston air...
By that reasoning, KSC doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let its Saturn V flight-worthy components rot away in the humid, salt-water laden Atlantic air...
KSC started its Saturn V preservation effort more than a decade ago, in 1995. Houston waited another decade, allowing its Saturn V to degrade far more than any other Saturn V.
That's an exaggeration. KSC's Saturn V is much closer to the seacoast, causing it to corrode more quickly from salt air. 20 years at KSC is probably equivalent to 30 at JSC.
--
JRF
Post by: RHAnthony on 01/12/2007 07:32 am
I doubt it, but I would love to think that KSC or NASM would make a dedicated Shuttle history exhibit... with a wealth of info on both the triumphs and tragedies of the project. But, I think they'll just get diluted into the overall space history of the USA, and the human species as a whole, which is not a BAD thing... just, really hope
they take the time to make people understand how different this all was from all previous vehicles.
And eventually they'll be able to re-prove it when they retire the constellation stuff, and it sits side by side a 1960's vehicle and my grandkids ask which one was first... gah!
Post by: gordo on 01/12/2007 12:54 pm
You would be surpised that it probabbly costs very little in the scheme of things to do a bit of dismanteling of an orbiter, if required. In the UK and France we've moved Delta winged Concordes around, and in a few occassion chopped the wings off and put them back on for much less than $1m....but if you are going for the conservation model, you leave them as they are.
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/12/2007 01:10 pm
Quote
Jorge - 11/1/2007 10:35 PMQuoteedkyle99Quotecollectspace - 9/1/2007 11:45 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 9/1/2007 10:15 PM
Houston doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let the only flight-worthy Saturn V rot away in the humid Houston air...
By that reasoning, KSC doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let its Saturn V flight-worthy components rot away in the humid, salt-water laden Atlantic air...
KSC started its Saturn V preservation effort more than a decade ago, in 1995. Houston waited another decade, allowing its Saturn V to degrade far more than any other Saturn V.
That's an exaggeration. KSC's Saturn V is much closer to the seacoast, causing it to corrode more quickly from salt air. 20 years at KSC is probably equivalent to 30 at JSC.
--
JRF
I can only speak from personal experience. I saw all three of the complete Saturn V displays while they were still outdoors, not long before preservation efforts began. JSC's was in far worse shape than any of the others. Houston has slightly higher humidity than KSC, and Houston's air is full of who knows how many corrosive chemicals from the massive petroleum industry in the area.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: on 01/12/2007 01:56 pm
Quote
Jorge - 11/1/2007 10:17 PMQuotecollectspace - 11/1/2007 6:02 PM
Preserving the orbiters as artifacts is not only for the sake of tourists. Consider the Apollo command modules: in the past couple of years, NASA and its contractors have sought out the spent capsules to study for Orion. There's no telling what the future might hold and if/when the orbiters might play a role in future designs (government or commercial). The vehicles' systems should be kept intact as flown if at all feasible.
Following up on my and Jorge's discussion on the different paths from Ellington, I've driven Bay Area Blvd., the NASA Parkway and Space Center Blvd. the past day with an eye toward obstacles. While anything is possible, there is just too much infrastructure and large flora on all three roads to make them realistic choices.
I concur with that.QuoteA barge approach mimicking the Saturn rocket's arrival seems to be the only option.
Not quite; you could SCA the orbiter into Ellington and display it there. Put it in Hangar 990 until the permanent building is ready. The permanent building could be at Ellington proper or it could be at Sonny Carter. Back in the Space Station Freedom days, the facility now known as Sonny Carter was going to be a space station processing facility, and there was a road leading from it back to Ellington to tow station modules to the Super Guppy for the flight to KSC.
--
JRF
I'll show my ignorance and ask the question, "is the shuttle too heavy to be carried by helicopter?"
Post by: on 01/12/2007 01:59 pm
Quote
edkyle99 - 9/1/2007 10:15 PM
Houston doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let the only flight-worthy Saturn V rot away in the humid Houston air and then "solved" the problem by covering it with one of the world's ugliest barns. How can a city of oil-rich not have had enough civic pride to preserve an important part of its history?
- Ed Kyle
The Saturn V doesn't belong to the city of Houston. It belongs to JSC.
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2007 01:59 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/12/2007 03:04 pm
Quote
RHAnthony - 12/1/2007 2:15 AMThe Smithsonian has plans for a space shuttle and space station dedicated gallery at the National Air and Space Museum (though to see the orbiter itself, you would need to visit the Udvar-Hazy).
As long as I get to see a space flown orbiter in person sometime in the next 10 years, I'll be very very happy.
I doubt it, but I would love to think that KSC or NASM would make a dedicated Shuttle history exhibit...
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/12/2007 03:07 pm
Quote
bhankiii - 12/1/2007 8:42 AMActually, it doesn't belong to either: it belongs to the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. The museum acquired the rocket from NASA in 1977 and loaned it to the Johnson Space Center for display.
The Saturn V doesn't belong to the city of Houston. It belongs to JSC.
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/12/2007 03:16 pm
Quote
Jorge - 11/1/2007 10:17 PMYou could, but Ellington (at least at current) isn't set-up to handle daily tours by the public and its location is not ideal to attracting visitors (with the exception of the annual air show). That said, it would be quite the sight if a dedicated building could display the orbiter, a couple of T-38s, the Super Guppy (when/if retired), the SCA (when/if retired), an STA and the KC-135 (take it off its outdoor pedestal and bring it inside; I'm assuming the C-9 will stay in service for Orion).
Not quite; you could SCA the orbiter into Ellington and display it there.
With the exception of the orbiter, that entire compliment was on display at Ellington during the last Wings Over Houston.
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/12/2007 09:32 pm
Quote
bhankiii - 12/1/2007 8:42 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 9/1/2007 10:15 PM
Houston doesn't deserve an orbiter, given the way it let the only flight-worthy Saturn V rot away in the humid Houston air and then "solved" the problem by covering it with one of the world's ugliest barns. How can a city of oil-rich not have had enough civic pride to preserve an important part of its history?
- Ed Kyle
The Saturn V doesn't belong to the city of Houston. It belongs to JSC.
As noted elsewhere here, the Smithsonian "owns" the Saturn V's, which are on "loan" for exhibit and could, by all rights, be relocated at any time, just as Gemini 12 was recently "appropriated" by Chicago's Adler Planetarium from its previous display location.
But ownership isn't what matters here. Civic pride is what matters. New York City doesn't "own" the Statue of Liberty, but the Big Apple nonetheless "possesses" "La liberté éclairant le monde" in the minds of most inhabitants of this planet. Private donations, much of it from rich New Yorkers, built the display pedestal for the statue.
Neither KSC nor NASA spent money on the Saturn V Center at KSC. Ticket sales are paying the bill. It merely took original backing by people with vision and a willingness to get the job done.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: gordo on 01/12/2007 09:52 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/12/2007 10:14 pm
Quote
edkyle99 - 12/1/2007 4:15 PMAs another member writes here, there are multi-year loan agreements that are periodically up for review, but the Smithsonian just doesn't pull a spacecraft out of its current location without a good deal of deliberation. In the case of Gemini 12, Goddard Space Flight Center was consulted before its relocation and did not pose objections to its move (per my interview with the CEO of the exhibit company that built the spacecraft's new home at Adler).
As noted elsewhere here, the Smithsonian "owns" the Saturn V's, which are on "loan" for exhibit and could, by all rights, be relocated at any time, just as Gemini 12 was recently "appropriated" by Chicago's Adler Planetarium from its previous display location.
Quote
Neither KSC nor NASA spent money on the Saturn V Center at KSC. Ticket sales are paying the bill. It merely took original backing by people with vision and a willingness to get the job done.Which is why comparing the two (KSC vs. JSC) isn't exactly fair: the KSC Visitor Complex has the advantage of the nearby Orlando tourist traffic to support such activities by ticket and concession sales (and even so, you hear from people still complaining that the Visitor Complex should be free). Houston, while by no means a small city, isn't as great a tourist draw as central Florida. I'm not saying that the funds couldn't be identified — and in fact, I believe they still will be — to build a tourist-friendly enclose for the Saturn V, but to use KSC's situation to justify the same for JSC is unfair, in my opinion.
Post by: Dana on 01/12/2007 11:23 pm
Quote
bhankiii - 12/1/2007 6:39 AM
I'll show my ignorance and ask the question, "is the shuttle too heavy to be carried by helicopter?"
By an enormous margin, yes.
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/13/2007 12:58 am
Quote
edkyle99 - 12/1/2007 4:15 PMQuoteNeither KSC nor NASA spent money on the Saturn V Center at KSC. Ticket sales are paying the bill. It merely took original backing by people with vision and a willingness to get the job done.
Which is why comparing the two (KSC vs. JSC) isn't exactly fair: the KSC Visitor Complex has the advantage of the nearby Orlando tourist traffic to support such activities by ticket and concession sales (and even so, you hear from people still complaining that the Visitor Complex should be free). Houston, while by no means a small city, isn't as great a tourist draw as central Florida. I'm not saying that the funds couldn't be identified — and in fact, I believe they still will be — to build a tourist-friendly enclose for the Saturn V, but to use KSC's situation to justify the same for JSC is unfair, in my opinion.
KSC does have an advantage, but Space Center Houston draws more than 800,000 visitors a year - more than any NFL team and more than some Major League Baseball teams in some years. Imagine how many more people it could draw if it had a spectacular indoor Saturn V + retired Space Shuttle orbiter exhibit. They could also put something big in there to showcase the Ares/Orion programs. I would love to see the results that Texas-style big-thinking could produce. Look at the plans for the new, $1 billion Dallas Cowboys (2006 attendance 506,308) stadium for an example. The KSC Saturn V Center only cost $30-some million to build, as I recall.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: bombay on 01/13/2007 01:58 am
Quote
edkyle99 - 12/1/2007 7:41 PMDo people visit Space Center Houston to see tha Saturn V, or do they happen to see the Saturn V when visiting Space Center Houston? I'm inclined to think the latter.
collectspace - 12/1/2007 4:57 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 12/1/2007 4:15 PMQuoteNeither KSC nor NASA spent money on the Saturn V Center at KSC. Ticket sales are paying the bill. It merely took original backing by people with vision and a willingness to get the job done.
Which is why comparing the two (KSC vs. JSC) isn't exactly fair: the KSC Visitor Complex has the advantage of the nearby Orlando tourist traffic to support such activities by ticket and concession sales (and even so, you hear from people still complaining that the Visitor Complex should be free). Houston, while by no means a small city, isn't as great a tourist draw as central Florida. I'm not saying that the funds couldn't be identified — and in fact, I believe they still will be — to build a tourist-friendly enclose for the Saturn V, but to use KSC's situation to justify the same for JSC is unfair, in my opinion.
KSC does have an advantage, but Space Center Houston draws more than 800,000 visitors a year - more than any NFL team and more than some Major League Baseball teams in some years. Imagine how many more people it could draw if it had a spectacular indoor Saturn V + retired Space Shuttle orbiter exhibit. They could also put something big in there to showcase the Ares/Orion programs. I would love to see the results that Texas-style big-thinking could produce. Look at the plans for the new, $1 billion Dallas Cowboys (2006 attendance 506,308) stadium for an example. The KSC Saturn V Center only cost $30-some million to build, as I recall.
- Ed Kyle
SCH is very kid friendly with alot of hands-on and virtual stuff that kids like. So I think a good chunk of the yearly attendance is from school field trips and such. I'm not so sure a state-of-the-art enclosure would do much at all as far as increasing attendance is concerned.
Just the same, the Saturn V is a national treasure and should be preserved and treated with respect.
By the way, the Cowboys play 8 home games, so the stadium's only open 8 days per year. Unlike SCH, they aren't open 364 days (not Christmas).
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/13/2007 02:04 am
Quote
edkyle99 - 12/1/2007 7:41 PMIf I am doing my my math correctly, to raise the $30M for the KSC exhibit, Space Center Houston would need to charge each of its 800,000 visitors roughly $37.50 each. At current, the adult ticket prices at SCH are roughly half that, $18.95 each. And that assumes every ticket sold is to an adult (children are $4 less; seniors $1 less).
KSC does have an advantage, but Space Center Houston draws more than 800,000 visitors a year... The KSC Saturn V Center only cost $30-some million to build, as I recall.
Whereas the 500,000 Dallas Cowboy fans (to whom you compare SCH visitors) paid anywhere between $53 and $102 per game ticket (per the Cowboy website) and that doesn't take into account tickets sold at Texas Stadium for events other than the games, such as concerts.
(I'm leaving out mention of concessions, as both SCH and Texas Stadium have gift shops and eateries, though I would bet that the sales are exponentially greater in number and for more money at Cowboys games than they are at SCH.)
Back to SCH, that $40 per person would be above and beyond whatever it costs to run their current activities. Being overly simplistic, I think their attendance would hurt if they started charging $60 per person when KSC costs just $40 per adult and offers much more than SCH and has the high-priced ticket-familiar Disney tourists in their favor.
All that said, I am not a great fan of SCH and personally would have taken a different approach to its design and operation were I in charge. And I do believe that the money could be found for a tourist-friendly display of the Saturn V but first and foremost the priority was to protect it from further damage and so we have the temporary building that is there now.
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/13/2007 05:38 am
Quote
collectspace - 12/1/2007 8:47 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 12/1/2007 7:41 PMIf I am doing my my math correctly, to raise the $30M for the KSC exhibit, Space Center Houston would need to charge each of its 800,000 visitors roughly $37.50 each. At current, the adult ticket prices at SCH are roughly half that, $18.95 each. And that assumes every ticket sold is to an adult (children are $4 less; seniors $1 less).
KSC does have an advantage, but Space Center Houston draws more than 800,000 visitors a year... The KSC Saturn V Center only cost $30-some million to build, as I recall.
Clearly the $30 million would not be paid back in only one season. It would be paid back over many years. Over 30 years, for example, it would only cost the 24 million total attendees an extra couple of bucks per ticket to pay for the place - and that assumes that no upstanding Texan decides to donate a dime to the original construction effort.
$20 bucks isn't much these days. It probably costs more than that to see a movie if you buy popcorn and a soda. People pay even though many of the movies are mediocre. I think people would pay more than that to see a real moon rocket and a space shuttle up close, especially if they were housed in an airy, bright, inspiring glass rocket cathedral.
While they are at it, I would love to see Houston grab and pull indoors one of the decaying Saturn I/IB rockets too.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Captain Scarlet on 01/13/2007 01:59 pm
Post by: Dana on 01/13/2007 11:04 pm
Quote
Captain Scarlet - 13/1/2007 6:42 AM
What's going to happen to the SCAs?
IIRC those are pretty early-model 747s, fairly long in the tooth age-wise if not hours-wise. My hunch is they are either going to be converted into some other type of hauler, either external like they are or internal like the new Guppy-type thing (designation eludes me at the moment) Boeing is testing now, or they too will be retired to museums. And being Boeings I'm pretty sure the Seattle Museum of Flight would get one.
Post by: on 01/14/2007 02:39 am
Quote
edkyle99 - 13/1/2007 12:21 AMQuotecollectspace - 12/1/2007 8:47 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 12/1/2007 7:41 PMIf I am doing my my math correctly, to raise the $30M for the KSC exhibit, Space Center Houston would need to charge each of its 800,000 visitors roughly $37.50 each. At current, the adult ticket prices at SCH are roughly half that, $18.95 each. And that assumes every ticket sold is to an adult (children are $4 less; seniors $1 less).
KSC does have an advantage, but Space Center Houston draws more than 800,000 visitors a year... The KSC Saturn V Center only cost $30-some million to build, as I recall.
Clearly the $30 million would not be paid back in only one season. It would be paid back over many years. Over 30 years, for example, it would only cost the 24 million total attendees an extra couple of bucks per ticket to pay for the place - and that assumes that no upstanding Texan decides to donate a dime to the original construction effort.
$20 bucks isn't much these days. It probably costs more than that to see a movie if you buy popcorn and a soda. People pay even though many of the movies are mediocre. I think people would pay more than that to see a real moon rocket and a space shuttle up close, especially if they were housed in an airy, bright, inspiring glass rocket cathedral.
While they are at it, I would love to see Houston grab and pull indoors one of the decaying Saturn I/IB rockets too.
- Ed Kyle
I'd love to see an "airy, bright, inspiring glass rocket cathedral" too. In fact I'd love to see any bright or inspiring architecture at JSC. One of the shocks of coming here from the commercial world is just how uninspiring the digs actually are here. I understand the rationale, and I agree with it - I'd rather spend the budget on lab equipment than new buildings, but it's a bit disappointing when you come here expecting to see Star Fleet Headquarters, and you find generic 1960's government buildings instead.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 01/23/2007 10:14 pm
Post by: paulhbell07 on 01/24/2007 09:18 pm
Discovery--kennedy
Atlantis--Houston
Endevour-Smithsonian
All 3 spaceflight shuttles should not be touched by the human hands, only for cleaning etc.
As for Enterprise, why not have this set up with the iss training modules when nasa is finished with them, locate this setup somewhere on the west coast.
Post by: TheMadCap on 01/24/2007 10:41 pm
What would be really, really cool (somewhat unpractical and unrealistic, I know) is to leave them essentially intact, or with mock MEDS displays and all, and let VIP paying customers get to go inside. Since the pricetag would be rather hefty, you wouldn't have a bunch of snotty-nosed brats, or tourist-types polluting the ships with thier prescence. It would be more for space geeks, like all of us...
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/24/2007 11:12 pm
Quote
TheMadCap - 24/1/2007 5:41 PMIt is expected that the orbiters will be placed on display with all or most of their systems in place.
I assume most of the electronics, like the MEDS and whatnot, will be removed prior to sending them to the museums, wherever that may be?
Post by: Jorge on 01/25/2007 01:51 am
Quote
collectspace - 24/1/2007 6:12 PMQuoteTheMadCap - 24/1/2007 5:41 PMIt is expected that the orbiters will be placed on display with all or most of their systems in place.
I assume most of the electronics, like the MEDS and whatnot, will be removed prior to sending them to the museums, wherever that may be?
That will make for an interesting situation for Atlantis, which will serve as a parts donor for its sisters from 2008 to 2010.
--
JRF
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/25/2007 02:17 am
Quote
Jorge - 24/1/2007 8:51 PMPerhaps I have misinterpreted what was said, but I was under the impression that Atlantis' role as a parts donor would be only on an as-needed basis. In other words, barring an anomaly, frequent visits to Atlantis should be unnecessary. And even in the case of a need, it should (in theory) be possible to substitute Atlantis' "good" parts with the "bad" parts they are being used to replace, keeping Atlantis as intact as possible for later display...
That will make for an interesting situation for Atlantis, which will serve as a parts donor for its sisters from 2008 to 2010.
Post by: TheMadCap on 01/25/2007 12:37 pm
Quote
collectspace - 24/1/2007 9:17 PMQuoteJorge - 24/1/2007 8:51 PMPerhaps I have misinterpreted what was said, but I was under the impression that Atlantis' role as a parts donor would be only on an as-needed basis. In other words, barring an anomaly, frequent visits to Atlantis should be unnecessary. And even in the case of a need, it should (in theory) be possible to substitute Atlantis' "good" parts with the "bad" parts they are being used to replace, keeping Atlantis as intact as possible for later display...
That will make for an interesting situation for Atlantis, which will serve as a parts donor for its sisters from 2008 to 2010.
What would be the point of keeping the electronics intact if no one will ever go inside it? I thought they would try and salvage some more expensive equipment before mothballing the craft. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if they left it "flight ready", that is, with all its parts intact. That would make me want to pay even more to go in and sit in the pilot's chair...
Post by: Jim on 01/25/2007 01:25 pm
Quote
TheMadCap - 25/1/2007 8:37 AMQuotecollectspace - 24/1/2007 9:17 PMQuoteJorge - 24/1/2007 8:51 PMPerhaps I have misinterpreted what was said, but I was under the impression that Atlantis' role as a parts donor would be only on an as-needed basis. In other words, barring an anomaly, frequent visits to Atlantis should be unnecessary. And even in the case of a need, it should (in theory) be possible to substitute Atlantis' "good" parts with the "bad" parts they are being used to replace, keeping Atlantis as intact as possible for later display...
That will make for an interesting situation for Atlantis, which will serve as a parts donor for its sisters from 2008 to 2010.
What would be the point of keeping the electronics intact if no one will ever go inside it? I thought they would try and salvage some more expensive equipment before mothballing the craft. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if they left it "flight ready", that is, with all its parts intact. That would make me want to pay even more to go in and sit in the pilot's chair...
Salvage parts for what? There are no other uses for these parts
Post by: STS Tony on 01/25/2007 04:54 pm
Post by: Jorge on 01/25/2007 05:31 pm
Quote
STS Tony - 25/1/2007 11:54 AM
So Atlantis will stay in an OPF from 2008 to 2010 regardless?
It depends on what you mean by "regardless". Atlantis will stay in an OPF from its last landing to the last landing of its sister ships. Those dates are currently 2008 and 2010, but both could change.
--
JRF
Post by: Jorge on 01/25/2007 05:33 pm
Quote
collectspace - 24/1/2007 9:17 PMQuoteJorge - 24/1/2007 8:51 PMPerhaps I have misinterpreted what was said, but I was under the impression that Atlantis' role as a parts donor would be only on an as-needed basis. In other words, barring an anomaly, frequent visits to Atlantis should be unnecessary. And even in the case of a need, it should (in theory) be possible to substitute Atlantis' "good" parts with the "bad" parts they are being used to replace, keeping Atlantis as intact as possible for later display...
That will make for an interesting situation for Atlantis, which will serve as a parts donor for its sisters from 2008 to 2010.
I agree. I understand that NASA will exhaust its supplies of spares at the NSLD before resorting to cannibalizing Atlantis. There are some systems where that will happen sooner than others. And as you say, there is nothing wrong with swapping the failed box into Atlantis to keep it looking visually complete.
--
JRF
Post by: Jim on 01/25/2007 05:50 pm
Post by: texas_space on 01/25/2007 11:40 pm
Quote
Jim - 25/1/2007 12:50 PM
Also the orbiters will have to be partially 'disassembled" to remove hazardous commodities and purge systems. The OMS and RSC pods will be removed and cleaned up and purged. Same for the SSME's. Fuel cells would be removed since they have KaOH in them. APU's would be removed. Hydraulic system might cause some problems, as it may be needed for ferrying the orbiter. So it might have to be drained at the display site.
So would the retired orbiters necessarily be flown to near their final resting spots?
Post by: Jim on 01/25/2007 11:45 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/26/2007 03:33 am
Quote
Jim - 25/1/2007 6:45 PMAs discussed earlier in this thread, an orbiter bound for JSC could travel by barge (like the Saturn V in the 1970s).
Only way to get them around
Post by: Jim on 01/26/2007 11:40 am
Post by: Sarah on 02/28/2007 07:56 pm
Post by: DaveS on 02/28/2007 08:02 pm
Quote
Sarah - 28/2/2007 9:56 PMWill not happen as both 39A and B will be used for the Constellation program. Same thing applies to the MLPs. Basically, the Constellation program will get all Launch Complex 39 facilities(VAB, pads, RPSFs).
My wish is that whatever orbiter KSC gets they put a stack together on the mobile launch platform, roll it out to pad 39A or B and then build a building around the launch complex. I would pay a good chunk of change to tour that facility.
Post by: gordo on 02/28/2007 08:20 pm
One thing I truly hope the management do is to put on the agenda a photoshoot of the 3 orbiters together before they leave KSC.
{Dream mode on}
If they are shipping Enterprise away from the Smithsonian bring it back to KSC so all 4 orbiters can be together for one last time.
Post by: paulhbell07 on 02/28/2007 10:46 pm
Post by: DMeader on 03/01/2007 12:54 am
Quote
Jim - 25/1/2007 1:50 PM
The OMS and RSC pods will be removed and cleaned up and purged. Same for the SSME's.
I understand the hypergols in the OMS and RCS pods, but what is in the SSME's that would need cleaned up?
Post by: Jim on 03/01/2007 04:18 am
Quote
DMeader - 28/2/2007 8:54 PMQuoteJim - 25/1/2007 1:50 PM
The OMS and RSC pods will be removed and cleaned up and purged. Same for the SSME's.
I understand the hypergols in the OMS and RCS pods, but what is in the SSME's that would need cleaned up?
They need to be dried out.
Post by: C5C6 on 03/01/2007 10:55 am
Post by: Jim on 03/01/2007 11:51 am
Quote
C5C6 - 1/3/2007 6:55 AM
jim how much access to the orbiter interior do you think a regular visitor will have?
I have no idea
Post by: DMeader on 03/02/2007 01:17 pm
Quote
C5C6 - 1/3/2007 6:55 AM
jim how much access to the orbiter interior do you think a regular visitor will have?
Jumping in here....other than viewing it from outside, I would say none. At the major museums I am most familiar with (National Air & Space in Washington and Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson) only a few of the very largest artifacts can be actually entered. The backup Skylab OWS at NASM has had a plexiglas passage built through it. At AFM visitors can walk through a few of the larger transports and a pretty-much-scrapped-out B29 fuselage, but that is about it, at least at the times of my last visits. In comparison to those, the Orbiter crew cabin is quite small and access would be difficult. On top of that, NASM has a pretty strict policy that except in very limited circumstances artifacts are not to be touched by the public to limit damage and degredation. Probably the best we could hope for are platforms to allow visitors to look through the hatch and flight deck windows, and perhaps an access panel open here and there. Another good bet might be an SSME down at floor level.
Post by: gordo on 03/02/2007 01:27 pm
I could list many ways to display a orbiter that allow people a glimpse of the insides.
Post by: DMeader on 03/02/2007 01:45 pm
Just let me stand there in the presence of the Orbiter and look at her. That's enough for me. I've got a shelf-full of books of pictures of the insides. After all, this isn't a ride at Disneyland.
Post by: gordo on 03/02/2007 02:02 pm
Another idea are remote controlled cameras in the crew module and bay to let people virtually explore.
Post by: Namechange User on 03/02/2007 02:15 pm
Quote
DMeader - 2/3/2007 8:45 AM
We have to keep in mind that the Orbiters are really quite fragile, certainly not designed to stand up to the grubby hands of millions of visitors. I personally would be happy with a glimpse through a hatch or window if I knew that kept the spacecraft safe from damage. After all, if the artifacts aren't conserved eventually you have nothing to educate WITH. Granted there has to be a compromise, but I'm fine with it coming down more on the side of conservation. I wouldn't want visitors poking at the tiles and leaving greasy fingerprints on the windows and pulling off little bits here and there for a souvenir. That leads to the old story about George Washington's hatchet. "Oh yes, this is the actual hatchet that George Washington used to chop down the (mythical...I know :) ) cherry tree. Of course, we've had to replace the handle a couple of times over the years and the head is new, but this is the real thing."
Just let me stand there in the presence of the Orbiter and look at her. That's enough for me. I've got a shelf-full of books of pictures of the insides. After all, this isn't a ride at Disneyland.
They are not as fragile as they are made out to be. We have many people in the aft compartment, midbody and crew module day after day to do their work. Granted they are sensetive to collateral damage but they are still in there installing/removing some hefty components, running tests, etc. People will obviously not be strolling through the aft or cockpit but you could have something set up that gives folks a taste of the ship without encasing the vehicle in a nitrogen purge bubble with velvet ropes around it.
Post by: DMeader on 03/02/2007 02:45 pm
I know that workers and crew are in the vehicle constantly, but I just cringe when I envision what hoardes of tourists day-in and day-out could potentially do.
Post by: Martin FL on 03/03/2007 08:01 pm
Quote
DMeader - 2/3/2007 8:45 AM
We have to keep in mind that the Orbiters are really quite fragile, certainly not designed to stand up to the grubby hands of millions of visitors.
I agree. Look what happened to the Burans.
Post by: STSFan10 on 03/06/2007 09:31 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/06/2007 09:33 pm
Quote
STSFan10 - 6/3/2007 10:31 PM
How many months after STS-125 will Atlantis leave KSC?
Years. Atlantis will stay in her OPF until the program is retired. She'll be a donar for her sisters.
Post by: ULAwantabe on 03/06/2007 11:55 pm
Hey, what have they done to preserve the Saturn V in Huntsville at the US Space and Rocket Museum? When I saw it in a horizontal position weathering away 15 years ago I was sadden. Now I see they have a Saturn V in a stacked vertical orientation. Is this one a mockup or have they reoriented the actual vehicle?
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/07/2007 12:09 am
Quote
ULAwantabe - 6/3/2007 6:55 PMI assume this is in reference to Lockheed Martin, in which case, Lockheed is performing the majority of the Orion vehicle engineering work in Houston...
Then I want Denver to get one since the future Orion is being designed in Denver.
Quote
Hey, what have they done to preserve the Saturn V in Huntsville at the US Space and Rocket Museum? When I saw it in a horizontal position weathering away 15 years ago I was sadden. Now I see they have a Saturn V in a stacked vertical orientation. Is this one a mockup or have they reoriented the actual vehicle?The vertical Saturn V is a mock-up. The horizontal "real" Saturn V (500-D/500-F) was recently restored by Conservation Solutions, Inc., the same company that worked to repair and conserve the Saturn V in Houston. A new building to house the Huntsville Saturn V is under construction with a grand opening scheduled for this fall.
Post by: Radioheaded on 03/07/2007 02:52 am
Post by: astronaut23 on 03/07/2007 11:27 am
Quote
Radioheaded - 6/3/2007 9:52 PM
Very respectful IMHO, because had you seen some of the other visitors and their complete lack of respect for the history represented there, you would'nt want them anywhere near an orbiter :(
What do you mean?
Post by: Radioheaded on 03/07/2007 12:19 pm
Quote
astronaut23 - 7/3/2007 7:27 AM
What do you mean?
Please don't think that was meant as an elitist statement :) To me, given some of the aircraft on display, (i.e Enterprise, and "Enola Gay" the B-29 that dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima) that hanger is almost hallowed ground. Sadly I saw a lot of teenagers especially, fooling around close to exhibits, acting stupid in bathrooms, and things along those lines. And those are the sort that would put chewing gum up under the Norton Bombsight in the Enola Gay, or scratch their initials in an orbiter cockpit :angry: . I know that's kinda vague, but like I said, if you had seen it for yourself, you'd understand. Don't get me wrong, this was a *small* minority of the people there that day, but how many would it take to deface a national treasure? I know I'm speaking more to the issue of allowing access to the internals of the vehicle, but sadly, the only way to allow the orbiters to be displayed at all is to "look, but don't touch".
Sorry to vent a little, but as I thought about how cool it would be to actually get inside those aircraft, that was the realization that occured to me....
Post by: DMeader on 03/07/2007 02:25 pm
We have to remember that some percentage of the visitors are people doing the tourist thing and the museum is just another attraction on the itinerary, hurry up lets see all this stuff and move along to what's next. A lot of the kids act like they're at Disneyland and they just want to play. I'd like them to enjoy the experience and hopefully appreciate and learn from it, but I wouldn't expect them to hold these items in the same reverence as we do.
Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson has a B-29 fuselage with access cut so the public can walk through, and also an F-4 nose section that people can sit in, and both (at least compared to a representative example while it was still in normal service) are pretty much trashed. Not maliciously, but just from the wear and tear of thousands feet and hands. I don't think the wear and tear of trained and responsible crew and maintainers working in the orbiter would come anywhere close to years of public access. I'd agree with you that the policy should be "look but please don't touch"
By the way, thanks for the pictures from Udvar-Hazy Center.
Post by: ULAwantabe on 03/07/2007 06:00 pm
Post by: Radioheaded on 03/07/2007 09:34 pm
Quote
DMeader - 7/3/2007 10:25 AM
Agreed, Radioheaded.
We have to remember that some percentage of the visitors are people doing the tourist thing and the museum is just another attraction on the itinerary, hurry up lets see all this stuff and move along to what's next. A lot of the kids act like they're at Disneyland and they just want to play. I'd like them to enjoy the experience and hopefully appreciate and learn from it, but I wouldn't expect them to hold these items in the same reverence as we do.
Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson has a B-29 fuselage with access cut so the public can walk through, and also an F-4 nose section that people can sit in, and both (at least compared to a representative example while it was still in normal service) are pretty much trashed. Not maliciously, but just from the wear and tear of thousands feet and hands. I don't think the wear and tear of trained and responsible crew and maintainers working in the orbiter would come anywhere close to years of public access. I'd agree with you that the policy should be "look but please don't touch"
By the way, thanks for the pictures from Udvar-Hazy Center.
It is a shame, because I'd love to get inside some of those babies, but as you said, even repeated normal entry eventually takes its toll. I think the Udvar-Hazy center's method of display (the fact that it is a giant hanger is nice too) is the only solution.
BTW I've got quite a few pics (I could've spent days in there :laugh: ) so I'll try to post some in the album section of the site soon.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/07/2007 11:43 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/08/2007 12:34 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 7/3/2007 7:43 PM
Couldnt you just put glass panels over everything that would be within reach of the tourist? It would be a shame to have 3 orbiters on display, but none open for internal viewing. Virtual experiences just are not the same. Due to the non-upright-tourist friendly configuration of the side hatch, there definately would need to be staff present to guide tourists through in an orderly fashion. The could enter in the side hatch (all portions of which that can be touched are protected by glass), then they go into the mid deck, and climb up the ladder to the flight deck, just enough to poke a head in, then climb back down and exit through the airlock.
There is not enough room.
Also you are in the middeck when you stick your head in the side hatch.
The airlock has two hatches that are harder to get in and out. Basically all movement thru the hatches in on the hands and knees
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/08/2007 11:48 pm
Quote
Jim - 7/3/2007 7:34 PM
There is not enough room.
Also you are in the middeck when you stick your head in the side hatch.
The airlock has two hatches that are harder to get in and out. Basically all movement thru the hatches in on the hands and knees
Fair enough. Enter the side hatch, poke your head up in the flight deck, come back out the side hatch. Next person.... Yeah, there would be a line, but it's better than nothing.
Post by: DMeader on 03/09/2007 02:19 pm
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/10/2007 01:37 pm
Quote
DMeader - 9/3/2007 9:19 AM
I guarantee you, any museum curator worth his salt would have kittens at the very suggestion.
If he is "worth his salt" he'd get over it and think of a creative way to make it work. A lot of space enthusiasts are constantly complaining that people are not interested in spaceflight, and that steps should be taken to get people more interested. Well, what is more inspiring? Seeing just the outside of an orbiter, or actually getting the opportunity to board it?
Post by: Jorge on 03/10/2007 03:32 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 10/3/2007 8:37 AMQuoteDMeader - 9/3/2007 9:19 AM
I guarantee you, any museum curator worth his salt would have kittens at the very suggestion.
If he is "worth his salt" he'd get over it and think of a creative way to make it work. A lot of space enthusiasts are constantly complaining that people are not interested in spaceflight, and that steps should be taken to get people more interested. Well, what is more inspiring? Seeing just the outside of an orbiter, or actually getting the opportunity to board it?
If he is "worth his salt" he'd stick to his guns and kill this suggestion. Making the orbiters accessible will have no measurable effect on public interest in spaceflight, and exposes the orbiters to damage.
--
JRF
Post by: mkirk on 03/10/2007 03:51 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 10/3/2007 8:37 AMQuoteDMeader - 9/3/2007 9:19 AM
I guarantee you, any museum curator worth his salt would have kittens at the very suggestion.
If he is "worth his salt" he'd get over it and think of a creative way to make it work. A lot of space enthusiasts are constantly complaining that people are not interested in spaceflight, and that steps should be taken to get people more interested. Well, what is more inspiring? Seeing just the outside of an orbiter, or actually getting the opportunity to board it?
Getting a significantly large number of people in and out of an orbiter would be a huge logistics problem and would certainly damage the orbiter over time. Even if you limited the number of people by charging a premium and using those funds to pay for support people (tour guides & maintainers) it would still be a huge headache.
While I was at JSC I was often tasked, and I often volunteered, to give VIPs and others rides in the SMS (shuttle mission simulator) or tours inside of the full scale mockups in Building 9. Many groups of students would come through JSC – COOPs, Interns, Vomit Commit Riders, and other large school groups.
The most people I could comfortably fit in the Crew Cabin (of the mockups) was 5, plus myself. So to get a group of 30 people in and out, while giving them each a chance to take a good look around and ask questions about the toilet and the cockpit displays, would easily take over an hour.
Giving rides in the Simulator was even harder to do for large groups. The SMS building manager would often set aside 1 or 2, 4 hour blocks each semester so that the COOPs could tour, and if logistically possible, fly the simulator during off hours. To operate the sim you needed as a minimum an instructor and a Sim Technician (STE). During a 4 hour block I could possibly get 12 people in the SMS by taking them in groups of 3, for 1 hour, and rotating them in and out of the other front seat (I had to be in one for safety and instructional reasons) and mission specialist seats, to give them each a shot at a single landing at the controls and one lucky visitor a shot at a both a launch/landing.
Use of the Building 9 Mockups by museums would possibly be a great substitute for the orbiters since maintaining and preserving them is less costly and logistically simpler. But you are still talking about small numbers of people who could be pushed through.
Even the display at the KSC visitor center often has huge lines and that is a “piss poor” mockup with huge cutouts so people can enter and exit without using the real crew hatch.
So I agree that it would be great to use some of these assets to inspire the public, but it is not as easy as you might think. People are going to have to pay for the privilege in order to keep the crowds small and to cover the business costs of operating/maintaining the attraction.
I really do understand your desire to climb into these things – it is very cool!!!!
Not long ago I was looking at the Apollo 14 Capsule in the Astronaut Hall of Fame at KSC where it sits on loan from the Smithsonian. It is in there with the hatch wide open and a small glass wall surrounding the spacecraft – the desire to hurdle that wall and climb in is overwhelming... ;)
I even had the thought enter my mind – only briefly – that if I were an employee of the place, or even the janitor, I could take a break from vacuuming the floor late at night after the place is closed, climb into "Smiling Als" seat and start flipping switches until my fingers hurt – and then I could promptly quit the job the next day. ;)
Mark Kirkman
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 04:11 pm
I think the ISS partners would back a idea like this. After all the shuttle did or will lift their labs into orbit. Fancy having a shuttle landing in moscow for a airshow that would be a show stopper.
I am actually surprised that this idea has not been posted before.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 04:19 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 10/3/2007 12:11 PM
I think a good idea would be a world tour. I know that the shuttles are American, but they are admired worldwide. I also know that costs maybe high. But just think about it, 2 shuttles on top of 2 SCA's going around the world air shows. It would be an amazing last orbit of planet earth. I am sure more people would see the shuttles that way instead of being them shut away inside buildings.
I think the ISS partners would back a idea like this. After all the shuttle did or will lift their labs into orbit. Fancy having a shuttle landing in moscow for a airshow that would be a show stopper.
I am actually surprised that this idea has not been posted before.
Logistically impossible. The orbiters are too heavy for transoceanic flights. The weather constraints to protect the TPS would hinder movement also. And the risk of damage is too great. They need to be preserve in a "near" flight condition
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 04:40 pm
There is no way to stop people damaging the orbiters, unless they are put in sealed buildings and no one allowed to see or touch them.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 05:11 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 10/3/2007 12:40 PM
I don't think the orbiters would be to heavy. If they are to heavy to fly over oceans how would Nasa get a orbiter back from spain after an abort. Enterprise flew on the SCA to paris. Why do they need to be kept "near" flight condition, They are not going to go into orbit again. The TPS will get damaged in a museum by people trying to pull the tiles off anyway. People will sell the tiles on ebay etc. This will happen.
There is no way to stop people damaging the orbiters, unless they are put in sealed buildings and no one allowed to see or touch them.
I know they are are too heavy. Enterprise is much lighter than the real orbiters. NASA would have to gut the orbiters (remove engines, middeck equipment, maybe even OMS pods etc) to return them from an overseas abort landing.
Near "flight" condition is to keep the engines on, keep the flight deck and middeck in a mission configuration. This is how aircraft and spacecraft are preserved
Tiles are not going to get damage because "they will be put in sealed buildings and no one allowed to touch them. Much like the KSC Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft
Rain isn't good for the orbiters even when they are static.
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 05:48 pm
As for rain damage, I know about that, as I am sure most people who follow the shuttle program. Why are you worried about protecting the tiles from rain. As I said above the orbiters arn't going to be flown again after 2010. Or has NASA got a plan to bring the orbiters back into service in the future.
As for permenant storage I hope you are right on the building's, and people not being allowed to touch the orbiters.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 06:03 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 10/3/2007 1:48 PM
1. I thought that when Enterprise performed her glide tests she was weighted as a flight ready orbiter
2. Nasa brings the orbiter back from western USA wih a full payload bay.
3. So when Atlantis is finished with her spare parts period, with a empty payload bay, any parts that are taken out for Endeavour and discovery, OMS pods and front RCS pod that are only covers (with no internal pipework/electrics etc), also main engines taken out (with the transport cover that protects the real engines on the back). She wil be a lot lighter for transport.
4. Why are you worried about protecting the tiles from rain. As I said above the orbiters arn't going to be flown again after 2010. Or has NASA got a plan to bring the orbiters back into service in the future.
QUOTE]
1. But not when it went on display around the world. It was gutted and the main engines weren't real
2. It stops 2 or 3 times for fuel on the way back to Florida. No such ability across the oceans
3. Atlantis "spare parts" period would be at the black box level. Not at the major systems. Sometime bad would have had to happen. The OMS and RSC pods are not going to be gutted.
4. I am concern because I don't want a "beatup" orbiter with damage TPS once it would return
Post by: WylieC on 03/10/2007 06:21 pm
of spacecraft.
I envision the last shuttle flight taking off and waiting in orbit is manned Orion. And they both
head fror the ISS together. What a great handoff!
Sentimental Dreams!
Bill H.
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 06:25 pm
2:There are islands all round the world oceans with big enough runways for a fully loaded 747.
3:See number 1 and enterprise and pathfinder have 'fake' OMS and RCS pods.
4:I am not saying take the orbiters off the 747. And again you say about damaged TPS, why, they are not going to fly again.
Ok. I know that the NASA guy's would not want to let their babies out of the country, but just think of the good publicity that NASA would get.
As for storing the orbiters, they need to be kept away from the public. Because no matter what security is put in place, there will be parts missing after a couple of years. And the parts will be up for sale someware. It would be like putting signs up saying "don't play on the grass". What then happens, people play on the grass.
It was only an idea anyway.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 06:54 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 10/3/2007 2:25 PM
2:There are islands all round the world oceans with big enough runways for a fully loaded 747.
Not close enough together for the SCA and orbiter. The SCA with orbiter has to flight lower that normal 747. It's range suffers from this
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 07:05 pm
Post by: Duff on 03/10/2007 07:26 pm
If he is "worth his salt" he'd stick to his guns and kill this suggestion. Making the orbiters accessible will have no measurable effect on public interest in spaceflight, and exposes the orbiters to damage.
--
JRF[/QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the shuttle doesnt have to go by air, it can go by boat.
Sydney-based businessman David Hammer, bought Buran 02 shipped it to Australia and now has it displayed in Sydney.
Link to article: http://www.space.com/news/spaceshuttles/buran_bought_000303.html
some snippets from the article:
After buying and shipping the fully-functional vehicle from Russia to Australia, where it arrived February 10, Hammer plans to put it on display on a refurbished dock on Sydney Harbor starting June 11. Visitors will be to visit the cockpit, view the crew quarters, and move through the fuselage before leaving via the tail.
Asked whether he might try to fly the vehicle, Hammer said his primary interest is in using it as an educational tool for the world’s next generation of space farers: young people.
"I honestly believe children should be entitled to touch and feel the future, outside of the schoolroom," he said.
The display will include a history of the shuttle, and a realistic mock-up of a Soviet-era mission control room.
Buran plans to keep the shuttle on display in Sydney Harbor until 2002, when it will be taken to Melbourne and put on display until 2004. After that, he plans to display the vehicle internationally, but said final deals haven’t been made.
So my thoughts on this:
Maybe the Orbitors might not have a effect on the older generation, however it is the younger generation that we want to get interested. As they are the ones who are going to take space exploration into the future.
Imagine being a kid watching the shuttle take off, and then in 7yrs time, have the oppertunity to go through the Orbitor that you watch ascend into space. It would really keep your interest in the space exploration.
Now I have not been to Sydney to see this, so Im not sure how he has done it. However if this man can get the public going through the Buran ( which he has bought with his own money ), then Im sure NASA can certainly do it.
I have been through the old " Airforce One "( Yes, I know there is allot more room) which from what I can remember seemed to be kept in fairly good condition.
I have also been through plenty of submarine on display's, that are also very tight. However there were signs saying people who have diablities, too old etc, should not attempt to have a look.
Other options I think NASA should do:
give the public entry into the VAB and launch pads.
YEP I can hear all the managers, engineers and technicians saying "no way"! For the reason of safety concerns, security, feeling like a monkey in a cage, etc, etc.
However Boeing allows public into there big tin shed to have a look at the assembly of there 747's,777's etc and have addressed these concerns, why not NASA?
The closer people are to the "action" the better!!
NASA needs as much puplic interest in the space exploration as it can get, so that it can get the $$$$$ for bigger and better projects that it wants to do.
Duff
Post by: dbhyslop on 03/10/2007 07:44 pm
Quote
Duff - 10/3/2007 3:26 PM
YEP I can hear all the managers, engineers and technicians saying "no way"! For the reason of safety concerns, security, feeling like a monkey in a cage, etc, etc.
However Boeing allows public into there big tin shed to have a look at the assembly of there 747's,777's etc and have addressed these concerns, why not NASA?
This is a little disingenuous. Public visitors to the Everett plant aren't out on the floor, but get a few minutes to look around from a small observing booth a few floors up. Employees can arrange floor tours for friends and family, but I believe there's a month lead time and background checks are involved.
Post by: Duff on 03/10/2007 08:04 pm
Quote
dbhyslop - 11/3/2007 3:44 AM-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------QuoteDuff - 10/3/2007 3:26 PM
YEP I can hear all the managers, engineers and technicians saying "no way"! For the reason of safety concerns, security, feeling like a monkey in a cage, etc, etc.
However Boeing allows public into there big tin shed to have a look at the assembly of there 747's,777's etc and have addressed these concerns, why not NASA?
This is a little disingenuous. Public visitors to the Everett plant aren't out on the floor, but get a few minutes to look around from a small observing booth a few floors up. Employees can arrange floor tours for friends and family, but I believe there's a month lead time and background checks are involved.
Yes you are right, it is from a viewing platform, and it is only a few minutes. But this is how Boeing, has addressed safety, security problems etc.
But in the end, the public has had a glimpse of a 747 being assembled. However this doesnt happen at NASA.
The public would love to see the STS being assembled on the MPL, even if from a platform and only a few minutes.
Who here would love to see the shuttle being assembled onto the stack? I know for one, I would love too!
Duff
Post by: astronaut23 on 03/10/2007 08:06 pm
I know 747's are real reliable but what if something happened and the Shuttle went down with it. That'd be a dumb way to lose a spacecraft and piece of history. The media would have a field day with something like that.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 08:09 pm
Quote
Duff - 10/3/2007 3:26 PM
Other options I think NASA should do:
give the public entry into the VAB and launch pads.
YEP I can hear all the managers, engineers and technicians saying "no way"! For the reason of safety concerns, security, feeling like a monkey in a cage, etc, etc.
However Boeing allows public into there big tin shed to have a look at the assembly of there 747's,777's etc and have addressed these concerns, why not NASA?
You are way off base. The managers, engineers and technicians are right. Can't even make the comparision with aircraft assembly. The Boeing Everett plant is totally different than the VAB or pad. The only "hazardous" operation in Boeing plant is cranes lifting heavy objects. The Boeing plant doesn't have 100's tons of solid propellants in it, 1000's of gallons of toxic liquids or high pressure gases.
The bus tours go by the pads, VAB and OPF's. NASA use to include going in the VAB but discontinued it with the shuttle. They also use allow the general public to drive by the pads, on the SLF and go in the OPF during the yearly open house, but 9/11 ended that.
However, the public can go see the ISS components being processed which is the same as the Boeing plant
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 08:16 pm
The stumbling block would be cost, every time the shuttle lands in the western US and the SCA carries it back to kennedy it cost's $1.7million. I am not sure how old that costing is though.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 08:24 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 10/3/2007 4:16 PM
Jim, sorry to go on about this. You say that a shuttle world tour is "Logistically impossible". I have done some scouting around, and found out that it is possible for the SCA to bring atlantis on a world tour. Which ever orbiter the SCA carries, they have a range of 1000 nautical miles (1900km), at a height of 13000/15000 ft, approx .6/.7 mach. The flight path would follow the US east coast, landing at a few of the US airports, up over New Foundland, over greenland, over Iceland down over Scotland/England, various European cities and on to Moscow. And I am sure a flight path would be found to take the shuttle further east, on to japan, US airforce base in the philippines and on to Australia. So it is possible.
The weather will keep it from going than far north. It won't be able to get back to the US. The jet stream blows against it reducing the range.
Just barge it around
But ok, if you want to ruin it, then do it.
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 08:30 pm
And obviously it's not up to me to 'do it'. I was just throwing an idea into the thread like other people are. It's a better idea than chopping holes in the side of the crew compartment for people to see inside.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 08:32 pm
Quote
Duff - 10/3/2007 4:04 PM
Who here would love to see the shuttle being assembled onto the stack? I know for one, I would love too!
You wouldn't be able to see it. It is surrounded by platforms. Only time it is visible is during Orbiter mate and rollout. As stated before, the mate is hazardous.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 08:33 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 10/3/2007 4:30 PM
How did they get Enterprise back to the US then.
And obviously it's not up to me to 'do it'. I was just throwing an idea into the thread like other people are. It's a better idea than chopping holes in the side of the crew compartment for people to see inside.
Enterprise was lighter
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 08:42 pm
Jim, just out of interest what would you do with the orbiters after 2010.
Post by: Duff on 03/10/2007 08:59 pm
Jim
I understand at certain times, days and weeks there would sure be a no go into these area's, however I do think NASA can address some of these safety concerns for public to see these areas at certain times.
When I visited KSC I would have loved to see the launch pad up close, even if no shuttle was there. Same goes with seeing the VAB inside.
I used to work in the diamond mining industy where we had 250T trucks driving around. The public were interested in seeing the working's of the mine. If one of these trucks were to hit a bus, then there would be dead people everywhere. We addressed all safety concerns, and allowed bus's in a working mine. Which is something, I think I never would've seen.
In the end, the vistors were happy, bought diamonds, with no one injured or killed.
Same goes with NASA. Yes it is a dangerous place, address these safety concerns, be vigilant in safety. Get the public to have a look from a "safe distance" within the VAB, etc
When dealing with the public there will always be a risk, however if these risks are managed properly, then there is so much benifits to be made, and in NASA terms, people interested in space exploration, meaning more money for NASA.
Duff
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/10/2007 09:07 pm
I don't know what the tours are like now, but when I visited in 1993 the bus stopped in the VAB carpark. We were allowed to get off the bus and walk around the saturn V that was there then. This was the first time I realized how big the VAB was.
Post by: Jim on 03/10/2007 09:32 pm
Quote
Duff - 10/3/2007 4:59 PM
1. I used to work in the diamond mining industy where we had 250T trucks driving around. The public were interested in seeing the working's of the mine. If one of these trucks were to hit a bus, then there would be dead people everywhere. We addressed all safety concerns, and allowed bus's in a working mine. Which is something, I think I never would've seen.
2. Same goes with NASA. Yes it is a dangerous place, address these safety concerns, be vigilant in safety. Get the public to have a look from a "safe distance" within the VAB, etc
1. There are buses at KSC. The base has tours all the time.
2. The safety concerns are addressed. The safe distance just happens to be outside. It is not NASA's doing. There are laws, OSHA regulations, DOT requirements, insurance etc. Most KSC workers can't get in the VAB or Pad at anytime.
Boeing, the diamond mine, or any other industry does not have the volume of visitors. Excluding the Orlando area, KSC is the largest tourist attraction in Florida.
There isn't a problem with getting people to visit KSC
Post by: Dana on 03/11/2007 01:00 am
Quote
Duff - 10/3/2007 1:59 PM
I used to work in the diamond mining industy where we had 250T trucks driving around. The public were interested in seeing the working's of the mine. If one of these trucks were to hit a bus, then there would be dead people everywhere.
I dunno, Duff-I'd think if one of those 250-ton trucks hit a tour bus, all the dead people would be in one place and really, really thin....
Post by: Duff on 03/12/2007 03:18 pm
Jim
these laws, insurance matters, etc. pretty well govern any industry dealing with Public.
There sure is a big volume of people that come through KSC, however as with any problems work around it. Extra cost, open days, modifications etc. I know its not as simple as opening the doors and allowing everyone in, there is allot of hard work that would need to be done, however if could be done.
KSC might not have a problem with getting visitors, however NASA does seem to have a lack of support, money and lack of interest from " Joe public ". ( There is another thread on this )
Now, in no way am I trying to suggest allowing public into the VAB will change all that, however I do think allowing them closer to the shuttle, etc will help spark/ maintain some interest.
KSC does put on a good tour, however as a member of " Joe Public" ( but not American tax payer ), seeing the shuttle and launch pads closer, and inside the VAB, that is what I want to see. And Im pretty sure many others would too.
Keep the customer ( tax payer ), interested and happy.
Duff
Post by: Duff on 03/12/2007 03:27 pm
Quote
Dana - 11/3/2007 9:00 AM
I dunno, Duff-I'd think if one of those 250-ton trucks hit a tour bus, all the dead people would be in one place and really, really thin....
Dana
How right you are ! I have seen the finishing product of a few unfortuante kangaroos who have jumped into the path of a 250T truck, and YES very thin!
Nearly become a victim myself in my early days of working in the mine.
Duff
Post by: Jorge on 03/12/2007 04:03 pm
Quote
Duff - 12/3/2007 11:18 AM
KSC might not have a problem with getting visitors, however NASA does seem to have a lack of support, money and lack of interest from " Joe public ". ( There is another thread on this )
Now, in no way am I trying to suggest allowing public into the VAB will change all that, however I do think allowing them closer to the shuttle, etc will help spark/ maintain some interest.
No, it won't. It will not even have a measurable effect on NASA's level of public support. The reasons for NASA's current lack of public support are systemic and go a lot deeper than letting the public crawl over artifacts.
--
JRF
Post by: Jim on 03/12/2007 04:20 pm
Quote
Jorge - 12/3/2007 2:03 PMQuoteDuff - 12/3/2007 11:18 AM
KSC might not have a problem with getting visitors, however NASA does seem to have a lack of support, money and lack of interest from " Joe public ". ( There is another thread on this )
Now, in no way am I trying to suggest allowing public into the VAB will change all that, however I do think allowing them closer to the shuttle, etc will help spark/ maintain some interest.
No, it won't. It will not even have a measurable effect on NASA's level of public support. The reasons for NASA's current lack of public support are systemic and go a lot deeper than letting the public crawl over artifacts.
--
JRF
Correct. A very small portion of the American public (tax payers) are able to make it to KSC. Changing the tours would not affect the number not the interest level
Post by: Jim on 03/12/2007 04:24 pm
Quote
Duff - 12/3/2007 1:18 PM
1. these laws, insurance matters, etc. pretty well govern any industry dealing with Public.
2. There sure is a big volume of people that come through KSC, however as with any problems work around it. Extra cost, open days, modifications etc. I know its not as simple as opening the doors and allowing everyone in, there is allot of hard work that would need to be done, however if could be done.
3. seeing the shuttle and launch pads closer, and inside the VAB, that is what I want to see. And Im pretty sure many others would too.
1. And they prevent the public from going in the VAB. Just like most of the KSC workers
2. It can't be done. No way around it.
3. There are a lot of things John Q. Public can't see and these are among them.
Post by: Namechange User on 03/12/2007 04:57 pm
Quote
Duff - 10/3/2007 3:59 PM
Jim
I understand at certain times, days and weeks there would sure be a no go into these area's, however I do think NASA can address some of these safety concerns for public to see these areas at certain times.
When I visited KSC I would have loved to see the launch pad up close, even if no shuttle was there. Same goes with seeing the VAB inside.
I used to work in the diamond mining industy where we had 250T trucks driving around. The public were interested in seeing the working's of the mine. If one of these trucks were to hit a bus, then there would be dead people everywhere. We addressed all safety concerns, and allowed bus's in a working mine. Which is something, I think I never would've seen.
In the end, the vistors were happy, bought diamonds, with no one injured or killed.
Same goes with NASA. Yes it is a dangerous place, address these safety concerns, be vigilant in safety. Get the public to have a look from a "safe distance" within the VAB, etc
When dealing with the public there will always be a risk, however if these risks are managed properly, then there is so much benifits to be made, and in NASA terms, people interested in space exploration, meaning more money for NASA.
Duff
I went to Nellis AFB recently. As a member of the USAF Reserves and as a taxpayer I would have liked to seen Area 51. Doesn't mean it was going to happen. Same concept....
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/12/2007 05:00 pm
Quote
dbhyslop - 10/3/2007 2:44 PMQuoteDuff - 10/3/2007 3:26 PM
However Boeing allows public into there big tin shed to have a look at the assembly of there 747's,777's etc and have addressed these concerns, why not NASA?
This is a little disingenuous. Public visitors to the Everett plant aren't out on the floor, but get a few minutes to look around from a small observing booth a few floors up. Employees can arrange floor tours for friends and family, but I believe there's a month lead time and background checks are involved.
We are also forgetting an important point about Boeing. They are buildng these airframes for paying customers. So by definition they need to have a mechanism for doing dog and pony shows for those writing the checks. Opening it up to the public is just a nice extension. Besides unlike a solid rocket in the VAB a jumbo has little risk of turning the whole building into smoldering pile of scrap metal melt.
As for the diamond mines, I asume a country that is not as risk adverse as the US. Why do I feel if you really wanted to, they would let you sit in the flame trench for a soyuz launch... Mine tours are fun, I was amazed to get one of the imperial marble mine up in VT some years back, you thought the VAB was big. I'll give you a hint, the underground mine provided the top half of the washington monument
I think everyone on this list (except those that know what a rocket can really do to you) would give there to front teeth to crawl all over the VAB, 39A/B, and be closer than any sane person to a shutle launch.
The smithsonian not NASA has the job of providing the relic display for Joe Public. If NASA does not need the object it should be disposed of either to a museum or scrap metal dealer. Old rockets make nice dreams, but NASA's job is to get us back to the moon and beyond.
Post by: Duff on 03/12/2007 06:03 pm
No, it won't. It will not even have a measurable effect on NASA's level of public support. The reasons for NASA's current lack of public support are systemic and go a lot deeper than letting the public crawl over artifacts.
--
JRF[/QUOTE]
Jorge
On the last note: NASA allows historical artifacts to deteriorate in wet damp silo ( Challenger ). But that is another thread.
I didnt say it was the reason for lack of public support, however it would help spark/maintain some interest ( In some of " Joe Public" ). There are also many other ways that NASA can help.
So how do you measure it? How do you not know that class rooms of young teenagers been shown a close up of the shuttle, VAB etc will not spark a huge interest in space exploration in 10yrs time? All I know it that there is a problem right now, and they need to change it around, and young people are the future.
Kids like big machines, so to see a shuttle up close, get assembled and then watch it go into space would sure spark a interest.
When you read the thread " Why arent most people interested in the space program"? Then I suppose Amercian tax paying Joe Public, can go "what is NASA doing for me?" "Why should I be interested?" "What do I get out of it?"
NASA does need to try and sell itself to the public a bit more.
OV-106
Big difference mate. Isnt Area 51 used for testing new test planes etc, for the defence of your county?Or have they now started putting missles on the shuttle?
The shuttle dosnt do any work for the millitary anymore, as far as I know.
Jim
It can be done. One stroke of the pen from the top dog there at NASA, with lots of brain storming, risk assessments and action taken before hand can sort that out. Yep it would be hard work, but it can be.
Ok fellas, what is the possibility and odds of a SRB going off in the VAB? Isnt it not disarmed? I imagine NASA would have some very big safety measure's to stop, the accidental ignition of a SRB, to protect its workers and public.
Duff
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 03/12/2007 06:16 pm
You know, I agree with you about teenage students. If they are given the chance to actually what goes on 'behind the scenes' at KSC then they are bound to be more interested in it all, I know I would've been! :)
Post by: MKremer on 03/12/2007 06:28 pm
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/12/2007 07:42 pm
Quote
Duff - 12/3/2007 2:03 PM
Ok fellas, what is the possibility and odds of a SRB going off in the VAB? Isnt it not disarmed? I imagine NASA would have some very big safety measure's to stop, the accidental ignition of a SRB, to protect its workers and public.
High enough that Joe KSC worker can not get in the VAB if he does not belong there... It may be close to zero, but it is not zero...
but look what can happen
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/38716/marshmallow_factory_explosion/
That was an SRB manufacturing plant...
More people have died in pad accidents than riding rockets...
Brazil 2003 : http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/brazil_failure_030823.html
Soviet Union 1960 : http://www.astronautix.com/articles/therophe.htm
Nasa is not immune and has also had pad/VAB deaths...
Post by: Namechange User on 03/12/2007 07:52 pm
Big difference mate. Isnt Area 51 used for testing new test planes etc, for the defence of your county?Or have they now started putting missles on the shuttle?
The shuttle dosnt do any work for the millitary anymore, as far as I know.
Ahh, I see sarcasm has been lost. It actually is the same basic concept. You can't let the general public all over your work centers, which can be hazardous, and still do the job you want them to see. Contrary to popular belief, the pads are not abandoned when there is not a shuttle on them. There is a lot of work maintaining them between flows. Much of this work is hazardous due to the GSE (Ground Support Equipment) that is used to load prop, etc. Same with the VAB. There are hazardous ops going on there a lot of the time with stacking SRB segments, ET work, etc.
What would happen the first time someone got hurt or exposed to something when they shouldn't been there in the first place?? The tour is actually quite good for the general public and it lets the folks see the big picture without impeeding necessary operations.
Post by: ULAwantabe on 03/12/2007 10:58 pm
Now I am surprised that this question has not been raised. One of the things I so much regret in life is not going down to see a Saturn V launch (as a kid it was not possible with my family's tight budget). So my question is how many people plan to come to the good old KSC to see one of the last Shuttle launches? I was thinking of going to see the "LAST" launch in 2010 but I am thinking that maybe the second to last launch will have far fewer crowds.
Hey, lets go one step further... How many people saw the first launch of Columbia LIVE? I saw the first launch on TV from Hawaii in the middle of the night. I even remember viewing every drop flight test of Enterprise LIVE on TV of course!
Post by: Jorge on 03/13/2007 12:41 am
Quote
Duff - 12/3/2007 2:03 PMQuoteNo, it won't. It will not even have a measurable effect on NASA's level of public support. The reasons for NASA's current lack of public support are systemic and go a lot deeper than letting the public crawl over artifacts.
On the last note: NASA allows historical artifacts to deteriorate in wet damp silo ( Challenger ). But that is another thread.
Yes, I agree. Both that it's another thread, and that it's shameful that NASA has allowed Challenger's remains to deteriorate. Her remains should be in climate-controlled storage like Columbia's (but just as inaccessible).
Quote
I didnt say it was the reason for lack of public support
Neither did I. Glad that we're clear on that.
Quote
however it would help spark/maintain some interest ( In some of " Joe Public" ). There are also many other ways that NASA can help.
So how do you measure it? How do you not know that class rooms of young teenagers been shown a close up of the shuttle, VAB etc will not spark a huge interest in space exploration in 10yrs time? All I know it that there is a problem right now, and they need to change it around, and young people are the future. Kids like big machines, so to see a shuttle up close, get assembled and then watch it go into space would sure spark a interest.
You don't have to let the kids inside a shuttle for that to happen. Kids love dinosaurs too, but museums don't let kids crawl all over the dinosaur skeletons. Some of the better museums have dinosaur mockups the kids can crawl on, and that sounds like a better solution for NASA as well.
Quote
When you read the thread " Why arent most people interested in the space program"? Then I suppose Amercian tax paying Joe Public, can go "what is NASA doing for me?" "Why should I be interested?" "What do I get out of it?"
NASA does need to try and sell itself to the public a bit more.
NASA isn't going to inspire people based on what they did in the past, but what they are doing now and what they plan to do in the future. If those things are uninspiring, then the public will be uninspired. Letting the public crawl over artifacts from a since-cancelled program won't change that.
But that misses the larger point. Once retired, the shuttles are historical artifacts to be preserved. It will be impossible to do that while letting the public access them directly, no matter what precautions are taken. And once they are ruined, they are ruined forever. Even if allowing the public inside the shuttles *did* cause some temporary increase in support for NASA, that would not be the right thing to do for posterity. Look at Stonehenge, for example.
Quote
Big difference mate. Isnt Area 51 used for testing new test planes etc, for the defence of your county?Or have they now started putting missles on the shuttle? The shuttle dosnt do any work for the millitary anymore, as far as I know.
Are you talking about the shuttle or the VAB? The VAB is still a working NASA facility - and a hazardous one - and will remain so in the Constellation era, as long as SRBs are stacked there.
Quote
Ok fellas, what is the possibility and odds of a SRB going off in the VAB? Isnt it not disarmed? I imagine NASA would have some very big safety measure's to stop, the accidental ignition of a SRB, to protect its workers and public.
"Disarming" an SRB won't stop it from burning if an ignition source comes into contact with the propellant. NASA does take many safety measures around SRBs, but the biggest measure is to strictly limit access to facilities during hazardous operations like stacking.
I toured the VAB during the STS-121 TCDT. The tour got delayed a day because the STS-115 SRBs were being stacked, even though everyone on the tour was badged and cleared - you didn't get in there unless you *needed* to be in there. When we did get to tour the building, our guide summarized the evacuation procedures in the event of an accidental SRB ignition as follows: "Turn around and hug the person next to you. Because in 30 seconds the entire building will be 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. You won't have time to get out, no matter how fast a runner you are."
--
JRF
Post by: Jim on 03/13/2007 02:39 am
Quote
Duff - 12/3/2007 4:03 PM
It can be done. One stroke of the pen from the top dog there at NASA, with lots of brain storming, risk assessments and action taken before hand can sort that out. Yep it would be hard work, but it can be.
It can't be done, period. The NASA administrator can't change laws. He isn't all that powerful
Also because the structure of the VAB, there is no viewing vantage point, except within the high bay itself.
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/13/2007 03:20 am
Quote
Jorge - 12/3/2007 6:41 PM
NASA isn't going to inspire people based on what they did in the past, but what they are doing now and what they plan to do in the future. If those things are uninspiring, then the public will be uninspired. Letting the public crawl over artifacts from a since-cancelled program won't change that.
But that misses the larger point. Once retired, the shuttles are historical artifacts to be preserved. It will be impossible to do that while letting the public access them directly, no matter what precautions are taken. And once they are ruined, they are ruined forever. Even if allowing the public inside the shuttles *did* cause some temporary increase in support for NASA, that would not be the right thing to do for posterity. Look at Stonehenge, for example.
JRF
Quite right, that would be the Smithsonian's job. The remaining shuttles will, no doubt, be distributed to various museums around the country. That does not preclude the public having the opportunity to walk through them however. One of my favorite memories was walking through the Skylab in Washington DC.
Post by: Jorge on 03/13/2007 04:08 am
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 12/3/2007 11:20 PMQuoteJorge - 12/3/2007 6:41 PM
NASA isn't going to inspire people based on what they did in the past, but what they are doing now and what they plan to do in the future. If those things are uninspiring, then the public will be uninspired. Letting the public crawl over artifacts from a since-cancelled program won't change that.
But that misses the larger point. Once retired, the shuttles are historical artifacts to be preserved. It will be impossible to do that while letting the public access them directly, no matter what precautions are taken. And once they are ruined, they are ruined forever. Even if allowing the public inside the shuttles *did* cause some temporary increase in support for NASA, that would not be the right thing to do for posterity. Look at Stonehenge, for example.
Quite right, that would be the Smithsonian's job. The remaining shuttles will, no doubt, be distributed to various museums around the country. That does not preclude the public having the opportunity to walk through them however. One of my favorite memories was walking through the Skylab in Washington DC.
Of course, that Skylab was the backup, not a flown spacecraft...
--
JRF
Post by: DMeader on 03/13/2007 11:48 am
Post by: TyMoore on 03/13/2007 05:27 pm
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 12:21 am
Quote
DMeader - 13/3/2007 7:48 AM
And what you "walked through" was a plexiglas tunnel that went in a hole on one side and out the other. That can't be done with the orbiter. While we are at it, why not tell NASM that we want to be able to sit in Neil Armstrong's couch in Columbia, and get that mannekin out of the way so we can all lay on the lower wing of the Wright Flyer. Give it up. these are priceless relics that must be preserved, not thrill rides at Disneyland.
There was only one original Wright Flyer, and it was open cockpit, so there is no concern with being able to see the inside here. Apollo capsules are relatively small, so much of the experience could be gained by just poking a head in the hatch. These capsules are relatively plentiful, so I do not see a problem with opening one or two of them up for poking a head into. Or, at least create some sort of plexiglass "bubble" that goes deeper into the cabin so one can poke in a head, but not actually touch anything.
There are three orbiters. I suppose I may be somewhat satisfied if they set some platforms up for easily peaking into the mid-deck and flight deck, but you just do not get the same experience as actually being able to be inside something that has actually been in space. Sure you could build a mock-up of a flight deck. But would any of you be happy with viewing an external mock-up of an orbiter vs. the real deal? I believe the answer is no. That is why so many are so concerned with ensuring that every nut, bolt, switch, wire, actuator, tank, strut, brace, stringer, longeron, etc. is left inside in flight condition. It's just not the same without it. But what is the point of preserving every internal nut, bolt, switch, wire, actuator, tank, strut, brace, stringer, longeron, etc. if you do not even get to see them... even those items preserved in the cabin.
Open one up. Measures can be put in place to limit damage. Damage will occur, but there are two other orbiters, and in a museum, it is not like the thing will be coated in spray graffitti for all eternity. If taxpayers cannot go into space, then at least let them go into one of the vehicles that they helped to fund. If you do not wish to board an orbiter then don't, but I'm fully an advocate of having at least one orbiter open to the public.
I also think it would be great for having the aft compartment open for looking inside. There is a lot of great engineering in there to admire. Perhaps display the orbiter with one engine removed so tourists can look at how the engines attach to the aft. The removed engine could be displayed next to the orbiter to keep things "together."
Post by: DMeader on 03/14/2007 12:19 pm
I'll be blunt.... all this rationalization of "NASA needs to boost its image, opening up an orbiter for the public to see inside will do that" strikes me as disingenuous at the least and selfish at the worst. "I want to see it, so I don't care what the future implications are" is what I'm hearing over and over.
"Damage will occur, but there are two other orbiters...". Good Lord, that is appalling.
Post by: mastronaut on 03/14/2007 04:07 pm
Post by: Rifleman on 03/14/2007 04:26 pm
Post by: Launch Fan on 03/14/2007 08:15 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 14/3/2007 12:26 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that all 4 orbiters (including Enterprise) should NOT be open to the public.
I totally agree.
Post by: gordo on 03/14/2007 09:01 pm
Allowing very limited access inside should be considered, for example museums could run an annual fundraising grand draw that give 100 people the chance to go inside during a special once a year event with an astronaut as a guide.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 09:31 pm
These sorts of responses are certainly expected from hardcore space enthusiasts. But I can't help but ask, what is the point of putting so much effort into preserving the inside of the orbiter if nobody even gets to see it? What is it being preserved for? It's like spending a lot of time and money to find a really great couch that feels great to sit on and looks great in your living room, but then covering it up with a slip cover in the sake of "preserving" it to retain its resale value. Sure, it's protected and safe, but you have just defeated the whole reason for going to great lengths to get that perfect couch. In this case, you are going to great lengths to preserve the inside of an orbiter, but for nobody to enjoy. I"m not even sure what the preservation is for. At least the couch preservation is for the sake of retaining resale value.
Letting tourists into an orbiter would not lead to the death and destruction of that orbiter. Nor would it rob future generations of anything. What are you robbing them of if you dont want them to see it anyway? Nobody is advocating pulling Atlantis from the OPF and turning it into a McDonalds.
Again, if you go the mock-up route in the sake of preservation, why not just lock the real orbiters away from the public and let them see the mock-ups that have already been built? I can assure you that the orbiters are more at risk of being damaged/slowly pilfered by museum staff than they are by the general public. Besides, the orbiters are machines. Minor damage can be fixed. It's not like a 1,000 year old mummy.
What type of damage can we expect to see from tourists with the proper precautions if the panels and walls are covered in plexi glass? Maybe a few nicks and dings in the areas that cannot be covered in a practical manner? Maybe some worn down coatings in some areas? All relatively minor things. Items that cannot be covered in a practical manner could be removed (and kept in a safe place) and be replaced with high-fidelity mock-ups (try to keep this substitution to a minimum).
Sure, there is the "save it for future engineering analysis if required" arguement. But is the damage caused by tourists really going to prevent such analysis from being done? It's very doubtful in my opinion. Again, there are two other orbiters.
Again, I certainly do not expect that I could ever convince the majority of hardcore space enthusiasts (or hardcore antiquity collectors), but I think the general public may have a different opinion. A poll or petition may be a way of revealing whether or not there is interest.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 09:36 pm
Quote
TyMoore - 13/3/2007 1:27 PM
...besides, that's what historicly accurate replicas are for!
They aren't the same. Do you get the same satisfaction out of seeing the mock-up at KSC as you would a real orbiter?
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 09:38 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 14/3/2007 12:26 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that all 4 orbiters (including Enterprise) should NOT be open to the public. Once or twice a year, a preservation team should enter the orbiters to dust, clean up, and take any action necessary to preserve the orbiter, but under no circumstance should any of the orbiters be open to the public.
What is all of this for if nobody gets to see it? What is the point of the preservation?
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 09:40 pm
Quote
mastronaut - 14/3/2007 12:07 PM
Each orbiter is a bit different than one another, (for instance the Coumbia had a more unique tail than the others), which one do you want to volunteer to the public?
It's not like the orbiter would be modified so extensively that these differences would be lost. Who says any modification would be required at all?
Post by: stefan1138 on 03/14/2007 10:00 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 14/3/2007 5:40 PMQuotemastronaut - 14/3/2007 12:07 PM
Each orbiter is a bit different than one another, (for instance the Coumbia had a more unique tail than the others), which one do you want to volunteer to the public?
It's not like the orbiter would be modified so extensively that these differences would be lost. Who says any modification would be required at all?
The remaining three orbiters have only very minor differences. Discovery and Atlantis were more or less constructed at the same time and Endeavour used spares from the construction of these two vehicles. (Challenger and Columbia were different though).
Stefan :)
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 10:04 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/14/2007 10:51 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 14/3/2007 7:40 PMQuotemastronaut - 14/3/2007 12:07 PM
Each orbiter is a bit different than one another, (for instance the Coumbia had a more unique tail than the others), which one do you want to volunteer to the public?
It's not like the orbiter would be modified so extensively that these differences would be lost. Who says any modification would be required at all?
Yes, they would. The entry into the orbiter is not made for high volume traffic nor is there a lot of floor space to move around. Basically, it is like a van with a very small door. The material in the flight and middeck are not make for high traffic. When the orbiter is in the OPF or at the pad, there are protective covers everywhere.
Sorry, wish all you want but it would take significant mods and still be highly unlikely
PS. For those have pointed this out in the past, notice I didn't use "never" or "impossible"
Post by: Jim on 03/14/2007 10:56 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 14/3/2007 7:31 PM
1. These sorts of responses are certainly expected from hardcore space enthusiasts. But I can't help but ask, what is the point of putting so much effort into preserving the inside of the orbiter if nobody even gets to see it? What is it being preserved for? It's like spending a lot of time and money to find a really great couch that feels great to sit on and looks great in your living room, but then covering it up with a slip cover in the sake of "preserving" it to retain its resale value. Sure, it's protected and safe, but you have just defeated the whole reason for going to great lengths to get that perfect couch. In this case, you are going to great lengths to preserve the inside of an orbiter, but for nobody to enjoy. I"m not even sure what the preservation is for. At least the couch preservation is for the sake of retaining resale value.
2. Letting tourists into an orbiter would not lead to the death and destruction of that orbiter. Nor would it rob future generations of anything. What are you robbing them of if you dont want them to see it anyway? Nobody is advocating pulling Atlantis from the OPF and turning it into a McDonalds.
3. Again, if you go the mock-up route in the sake of preservation, why not just lock the real orbiters away from the public and let them see the mock-ups that have already been built? I can assure you that the orbiters are more at risk of being damaged/slowly pilfered by museum staff than they are by the general public. Besides, the orbiters are machines. Minor damage can be fixed. It's not like a 1,000 year old mummy.
4. What type of damage can we expect to see from tourists with the proper precautions if the panels and walls are covered in plexi glass? Maybe a few nicks and dings in the areas that cannot be covered in a practical manner? Maybe some worn down coatings in some areas? All relatively minor things. Items that cannot be covered in a practical manner could be removed (and kept in a safe place) and be replaced with high-fidelity mock-ups (try to keep this substitution to a minimum).
s.
.
1. You got it right. It is just there to look pretty. See but don't touch. Like most artifacts or priceless treasures.
2. Not totally, but close to it. People are hard on objects
3. Mockup for going into, the real thing to walk around.
4. Very heavy damage.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 10:59 pm
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 11:07 pm
Quote
Jim - 14/3/2007 6:56 PM
1. You got it right. It is just there to look pretty. See but don't touch. Like most artifacts or priceless treasures.
2. Not totally, but close to it. People are hard on objects
3. Mockup for going into, the real thing to walk around.
4. Very heavy damage.
1. Look pretty? I'm talking about the inside. It won't look anything, nobody will be able to see it.
2. People are hard on objects yes. But we are not talking failure of critical structural elements here. We're also only talking about a relatively small area of the fuselage here.
3. Again...what are we preserving the inside for? What is the purpose? It's not even there to look at.
4. Very heavy damage in what respects? In being flight worthy? Well, if you go by flight worthiness standards, it most certainly would be significant. However, outside of that world, I'd still classify the damage as minor, and would guess that most of it would be superficial in nature. It's not like the landing gear will collaspe or anything.
Post by: Gekko0481 on 03/14/2007 11:20 pm
Quote
Martin FL - 3/3/2007 8:01 PM
I agree. Look what happened to the Burans.
Only space rated Buran got crushed didnt it in that hangar collapse?
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/14/2007 11:21 pm
Quote
Gekko0481 - 14/3/2007 7:20 PMQuoteMartin FL - 3/3/2007 8:01 PM
I agree. Look what happened to the Burans.
Only space rated Buran got crushed didnt it in that hangar collapse?
Yeah, you can't compare the treatment of the Burans to the suggestion of allowing tourists into the orbiter in a controlled museum setting. Not advocating turning Atlantis into McDonalds.
Post by: Gekko0481 on 03/14/2007 11:31 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 12/3/2007 6:00 PM
I think everyone on this list (except those that know what a rocket can really do to you) would give there to front teeth to crawl all over the VAB, 39A/B, and be closer than any sane person to a shutle launch.
Lol, quite right. I may be 15 and from the UK (furhter away from a rocket/shuttle site than I would like :( ), but I'm pretty sure that if you gave them the chance someone would want to sit on top of the FSS during a launch...
Post by: Jim on 03/15/2007 01:21 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 14/3/2007 9:07 PMQuoteJim - 14/3/2007 6:56 PM
1. You got it right. It is just there to look pretty. See but don't touch. Like most artifacts or priceless treasures.
2. Not totally, but close to it. People are hard on objects
3. Mockup for going into, the real thing to walk around.
4. Very heavy damage.
1. Look pretty? I'm talking about the inside. It won't look anything, nobody will be able to see it.
2. People are hard on objects yes. But we are not talking failure of critical structural elements here. We're also only talking about a relatively small area of the fuselage here.
3. Again...what are we preserving the inside for? What is the purpose? It's not even there to look at.
4. Very heavy damage in what respects? In being flight worthy? Well, if you go by flight worthiness standards, it most certainly would be significant. However, outside of that world, I'd still classify the damage as minor, and would guess that most of it would be superficial in nature. It's not like the landing gear will collaspe or anything.
1. put camera in it
2. That is the problem, it is weak secondary structure, not made for wear and tear
3. because, just like we keep the other capsules. Not every display aircraft cockpit is available to climb in, SR-71, X-15, X-1, etc. Only dime a dozen display aircraft allow tours in the cockpit
4. broken panels, switches, missing parts, etc
It is not a viable tourist stop. The hatch is too small (36"), too little room in the middeck and almost no room in the flight deck. there is no flow pattern. Less than 7 people in it at once.
Give it up. It won't happen
Edit:
This will prevent general public cockpit tours. Only one exit. It would violate fire regulations.
Post by: Joey on 03/15/2007 04:42 am
But I'd like to point out that historical aircraft (I'm thinking specifically of the Udvar-Hazy museum) such as the prototype 707, the Concorde, the Enola Gay, etc, *Do* *Not* have any type of access to the interior of the aircraft.
Post by: CFE on 03/15/2007 07:28 am
I think the best way to display an orbiter is with the payload bay open, and visitors would be able to see inside the bay by climbing a staircase onto a catwalk that is positioned for viewing down into the bay. A mockup of the orbiter's cockpit should be built so that visitors can go inside and experience what it must have felt like to fly in the shuttle.
Post by: stefan1138 on 03/15/2007 10:02 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 14/3/2007 6:04 PM
Endeavour was assembled from structural spares that were specifically procured completley separate from the other orbiters, and they were not "left overs."
Ok, the spare parts were procured seperately, but they were produced at the time of Discovery´s and Atlantis´Construction. For example the start of assembly of the crew cabin was on 15 Feb 1982 (as per Denis Jenkins book). As far as I know the differences between OV-103, OV-104 and OV-105 are very minor (in case they are not, pls someone correct me).
Stefan :)
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/15/2007 10:16 am
I also agree with Jim, the orbiters need looking after when they retire. But why rap them up in cotten wool, people will want to see them. I'm not talking about cutting holes in them for people to walk through, people will want to look at the orbiters, just like they look at other items that are important to mans (sorry, I mean human) history.
The impression I get from your posts Jim is that you want the orbiters locked away for no one to see them.
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/15/2007 11:54 am
http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/sponsored_sites/tss/Photos/Sonora/butrfly1.jpg
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA120606.01A.cave_butterfly.2f537e1.html
And that was with a guided tour through the cave. The shuttle is just as fragile. Image what would happen without a tour guide. How many parts and bits are missing from the KSC Saturn V. In the early 90's the tour bus use to just drop you off at it and you could "climb" all over it.
Sadly, I do cave survey in my spare time. You can always tell if another person, survey crew has been through the area just by the damage. And these are closed caves where we are very careful while doing the survey work, but still you can see the impact. It is impossible to have zero impact when people can go into and through something. How often does one have to replace the carpet in a building lobby?
I would love to go inside an orbiter, but doing what they did to the skylab spare is criminal. The artifacts are not the current space program, but need to be preserved so we can learn from the past.
Post by: Jim on 03/15/2007 12:50 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 15/3/2007 8:16 AM
The impression I get from your posts Jim is that you want the orbiters locked away for no one to see them.
No, I was only referring allowing people to go inside.
The vehicles should be put on display much like most indoor aircraft diplays
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/15/2007 01:34 pm
This is what I would like to see happen.
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/15/2007 02:59 pm
- Closed circuit cameras could be placed inside the middeck and flight deck that can be pointed and "zoomed" by tourists; the same system is in place inside LM-2 at the National Air and Space Museum affording visitors the chance to tour the cabin, which would be impossible otherwise;
- QuickTime VR 360 degree movies can be taken of the crew cabin which could then be presented on flat panel displays near the orbiters; the Smithsonian hired David Palermo of WorldVR, and Dennis Beela, both veterans of virtual reality and digital photography, to record 200 aircraft and 128 space artifacts using state-of-the-art high resolution digital photography and QuickTime VR: http://www.worldvr.com/smithsonian.html
Coupled with the presentation of cabin mock-ups, most visitors should be able to appreciate the confines of the orbiters while still preserving them intact for researchers and historians to study as merited.
Post by: cz77 on 03/16/2007 05:15 pm
Post by: mastronaut on 03/16/2007 05:36 pm
Quote
cz77 - 16/3/2007 2:15 PM No one (visitor wise) should be allowed inside the shuttles. At most maybe some sort of limited intrusion like a plastic cylinder in through the access hatch so that one person at a time might be able to crawl in or something. Ramps to allow people to look in through the cockpit windows. But these things were not designed to have thousands of people wandering and stumbling through them. As much as I would like to get inside of some of the planes at the airforce museum, I know 'it aint gonna happen' and I am ok with that.
I agree fully. The average American is getting too large to fit comfortably, which could lead to someone becoming stuck, thus damaging the orbiter.
Post by: Jonesy STS on 03/19/2007 02:46 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/19/2007 02:48 pm
Quote
Jonesy STS - 19/3/2007 3:46 PM
Is there any chance an orbiter would go on a world tour, like Enterprise did?
Got a lovely framed picture of Enterprise at Stansted Airport :)
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/19/2007 03:19 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/19/2007 04:00 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 19/3/2007 12:19 AM
Jonesy STS, I asked about this idea a couple of pages back, I even checked if it were possible that the STA was able to bring a flight ready orbiter over here (because of the heavier weight of a flight ready orbiter). And it is possible. I got some heated responces from other posters about it. I would like to see it happen, but I don't think it will.
It is not possible. It is only possible one way by SCA. By boat is possible but just as unlikely
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/19/2007 04:16 pm
Post by: E_ E_ H on 03/19/2007 04:33 pm
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/19/2007 04:38 pm
Old war birds are a different story... Not to many of the flying displays are owned by the goverment. It is mostly private individuals and organizations. The shuttle will still be goverment property.
Post by: Jim on 03/19/2007 04:57 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 19/3/2007 1:16 AM
I am sorry Jim I do not agree with you. The SCA can do it both ways. The SCA brought Enterprise back to the US didn't it. I have a stated in a previous post that the SCA is able to fly the distance's between airports and refuel. But I do agree that it is not practical to fly an orbiter around the world, based on costs involved.
The SCA can not. I worked this issue when I was in the USAF. The jet stream reduces range going west. Enterprise doesn't apply. It was lighter and subjected not to the altitude and precipitation restrictions that a real orbiter is. Any overseas landing required that the orbiter be gutted to allow its return to the US. The northern route is still too long on return and too cold.
Post by: Jackson on 03/19/2007 06:52 pm
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/19/2007 09:05 pm
Also why would the orbiter be restricted because of the cold, again as I stated before they are not going to fly in orbit again. I also know about the jet stream affecting distance traveled. Also NASA SCA websites (along with other websites and books) states that which ever orbiter flys the distance traveled is the same 1900km.
Jim, people are just throwing ideas around on here, I thought that was what the forum was for. I am not going to say anything else on the matter of orbiter retirement as you will not listen to other peoples ideas, even when I agreed with what you said you wanted to do with the orbiters when they retire.
Post by: APG85 on 03/20/2007 04:35 pm
Post by: Super George on 03/23/2007 01:14 am
Quote
APG85 - 20/3/2007 12:35 PM
Recently, the National Museum of the United States Air Force put a model of their newest hangar (to be constructed next year) on display. Space Shuttle Discovery is shown as one of the displays within this hangar...
Where is that located?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/23/2007 02:14 am
Quote
Super George - 22/3/2007 9:14 PMQuoteAPG85 - 20/3/2007 12:35 PM
Recently, the National Museum of the United States Air Force put a model of their newest hangar (to be constructed next year) on display. Space Shuttle Discovery is shown as one of the displays within this hangar...
Where is that located?
Dayton Ohio. Near Wright Patterson AFB and Huffman Prairie, where the Brothers Wright really learned to fly after they returned from North Carolina.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Dana on 03/23/2007 05:41 am
Quote
paulhbell07 - 19/3/2007 3:05 PM
So all the figures that NASA quote about how far the SCA can fly with a full loaded orbiter (by that I mean a full payload bay), are the quotes untrue?
Also why would the orbiter be restricted because of the cold, again as I stated before they are not going to fly in orbit again. I also know about the jet stream affecting distance traveled. Also NASA SCA websites (along with other websites and books) states that which ever orbiter flys the distance traveled is the same 1900km.
Jim, people are just throwing ideas around on here, I thought that was what the forum was for. I am not going to say anything else on the matter of orbiter retirement as you will not listen to other peoples ideas, even when I agreed with what you said you wanted to do with the orbiters when they retire.
1000-1200 miles at a hop and 250 knots? Not a fun way to fly the Atlantic.
I don't think the NASA web sites are including Enterprise as an "Orbiter" in those performance charts, because Enterprise stopped going anywhere quite a while before NASA had to think about publishing those stats on the Web. To do so would be sort of like current USAF sites offering up stats on how many 1960s Hound Dog missiles a B-52H could carry.
Remember what Enterprise is-not a real Orbiter, just a big glider that's shaped like one. An SCA could go farther with Enterprise because Enterprise is lighter, thus allowing the SCA to carry more fuel. The SCA could do the trip with Enterprise but it would be cutting it pretty fine with a real Orbiter, and you don't need to take chances like that. As for the "too-cold" thing, this is just a guess but I think that's more of a limit to the SCA/Orbiter combo than to the Orbiter specifically (the two mated aircraft having the potential to accumulate a HUGE amount of ice). BTW NASA-Dryden's SCA info page lists a "minimum temperature at altitude" for the SCA at 15 deg. F/-9 deg. C. Up high and up north it can EASILY get a LOT colder than that.
Jim knows what he's talking about-the problem is he never elaborates/explains much. :)
Post by: Andy L on 03/23/2007 04:41 pm
Quote
APG85 - 20/3/2007 12:35 PM
Recently, the National Museum of the United States Air Force put a model of their newest hangar (to be constructed next year) on display. Space Shuttle Discovery is shown as one of the displays within this hangar...
Do you have an image of that model?
Post by: DMeader on 03/23/2007 05:57 pm
Quote
....as I stated before they are not going to fly in orbit again.
and others (that I'm not going to bother searching for, they're up the thread a bit) that say thing to the order of "we should be allowed inside, there will be some wear and damage but so what..." are what annoy me. There is an air of selfishness about them, the desire to see the item being put above the consequences.
These are priceless artifacts. I doubt that in our lifetimes there will be anything similar. When their flying days are over they need to be preserved in a safe location for the appreciation and study by future generations. By all means exhibit them in a way that allows the public to see them to the maximum extent that does not threaten their well-being. Any damage and subsequent repair erodes their authenticity and must be avoided. The very thought of a globe-trotting space shuttle dog and pony show is ridiculous. Even if the SCA could carry an orbiter to the far-flung destinations that have been mentioned, can we subject the flight crews to the risk? Who would pay for it? I assume that the North-Atlantic weather (rain, icing) alone would be very hard on the TPS.
I'm sorry that the orbiter will never be seen in Europe or Asia or other locals. I really am. By the same token, I'm sorry that the Mona Lisa will never be seen at my local art gallery or the Wright "Flyer" at my local airport. If I want to see any item like this I don't demand it be brought to me... I know it is up to me to make the pilgrimage to wherever it is safely housed.
Post by: gordo on 03/23/2007 06:36 pm
Post by: DMeader on 03/23/2007 06:46 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/23/2007 07:27 pm
Quote
Andy L - 23/3/2007 12:41 PMI spoke with a spokesperson for the museum today who said that the model of Discovery is a placeholder and does not confirm that they will receive that specific orbiter or, for that matter, any orbiter. "We have requested a shuttle, but there have been no decisions on where the shuttles will go once they are retired," said Sarah Parke, public affairs specialist.
Recently, the National Museum of the United States Air Force put a model of their newest hangar (to be constructed next year) on display. Space Shuttle Discovery is shown as one of the displays within this hangar...
Quote
APG85 - 20/3/2007 12:35 PMMs. Parke was kind to forward a couple of images, which I have posted here with a link back to this thread. I've also attached them below...
Do you have an image of that model?
Post by: APG85 on 03/23/2007 07:29 pm
Post by: gordo on 03/23/2007 08:26 pm
Quote
DMeader - 23/3/2007 8:46 PM
The Wright "Flyer" was sent to England for display as the result of a dispute that Orville Wright had with the Smithsonian Institution over credit for for the first manned powered flight being given to Langley rather than the Wrights. It was shipped to the Science Museum in London, where it arrived in February 1928. The "Flyer" remained in England until 1948. At that time it was returned to the United States and installed in the Smithsonian and remained there until it was moved to the new National Air & Space Museum in the mid seventies. To the best of my knowledge, the "Flyer" was never a travelling exhibit. I don't have access to my library here at work, I'll post details later
So thats an idea - lets give an orbiter to a European museum. ESA has been a big NASA partner in the SSP right from the start, 3 orbiters in the US, 1 in Europe sounds about fair.
Post by: DMeader on 03/23/2007 09:42 pm
Quote
DMeader - 23/3/2007 3:46 PM
To the best of my knowledge, the "Flyer" was never a travelling exhibit. I don't have access to my library here at work, I'll post details later
Ok, more details from the February 2003 issue of Air&Space Smithsonian:
After the "Flyer" was damaged on 17/12/1903, it was disassembled and crated, remaining so until 1916, when Orville Wright re-assembled the aircraft for display at MIT in Cambridge. Due to a dispute with the Smithsonian Institution over credit for the first controlled flight by a heavier-tha-air man carrying aircraft, Wright sent the "Flyer" to London for display at the Science Museum. It remained there until 1948 (stored underground outside of London during WWII) when the controversy over credit for the first flight was resolved. on 17/12/1948 "Flyer" was installed in the Smithsonian Arts and Industries Building on the Mall in Washington DC where it remained until it was moved to the new National Air and Space Museum in 1976.
The "Flyer" has never been a travelling exhibit, has not "been displayed in museums around the world" except for its time in London.
And no, no orbiters in Europe. STS was an American program and deserves to stay in the United States.
Post by: gordo on 03/23/2007 10:20 pm
Post by: DMeader on 03/23/2007 10:32 pm
Oh, and don't desparage the Air Force Museum. it stands for a fine tradition of service.
Post by: gordo on 03/23/2007 10:43 pm
Quote
DMeader - 24/3/2007 12:32 AM
Not gonna argue about it. Our space program, our tax dollars... as far as I'm concerned, orbiters stay in the US. You want to see one, you're welcome to come over and visit. I'll buy the beer.
Oh, and don't desparage the Air Force Museum. it stands for a fine tradition of service.
Sure nothing wrong with the airforce museum, but surely space exploration is a peaceful conquest of space. So putting and orbiter in such a facility really is not in the spirt of what we seek to do
Send one to the Paris Air and Space museum....after all the Smithsonian have one of their Concordes, which were from british/french tax francs/pounds
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2007 11:54 pm
Quote
gordo - 23/3/2007 7:43 PMQuoteDMeader - 24/3/2007 12:32 AM
Not gonna argue about it. Our space program, our tax dollars... as far as I'm concerned, orbiters stay in the US. You want to see one, you're welcome to come over and visit. I'll buy the beer.
Oh, and don't desparage the Air Force Museum. it stands for a fine tradition of service.
Sure nothing wrong with the airforce museum, but surely space exploration is a peaceful conquest of space. So putting and orbiter in such a facility really is not in the spirt of what we seek to do
Send one to the Paris Air and Space museum....after all the Smithsonian have one of their Concordes, which were from british/french tax francs/pounds
The US Air Force used the shuttle and was a big part of the program in the early years. There is no "wrong" message with the use and display of the shuttle at the USAF museum. The USAF use of the shuttle was for peaceful purposes.
The Concorde was receieved from a "private" company not the French/English gov'ts
One of the Spacelabs is in Europe
Read the early posts. There aren't enough orbiters to go to Europe.
Post by: Dana on 03/24/2007 04:53 am
Quote
gordo - 23/3/2007 4:43 PMQuoteDMeader - 24/3/2007 12:32 AM
Not gonna argue about it. Our space program, our tax dollars... as far as I'm concerned, orbiters stay in the US. You want to see one, you're welcome to come over and visit. I'll buy the beer.
Oh, and don't desparage the Air Force Museum. it stands for a fine tradition of service.
Sure nothing wrong with the airforce museum, but surely space exploration is a peaceful conquest of space. So putting and orbiter in such a facility really is not in the spirt of what we seek to do
Send one to the Paris Air and Space museum....after all the Smithsonian have one of their Concordes, which were from british/french tax francs/pounds
Yeah but there were 20 Concordes built, of which 18 still exist (1 crashed, 1 scrapped). There are only 3 Orbiters, each of which probably cost twice as much as the entire Concorde fleet.
Post by: gordo on 03/24/2007 07:58 am
Maybe this is the chance NASA, with the help of European funding and ESA, has been waiting for the spread its message further afield.
Considering this here's what they could do.
Atlantis - Smithsonian
Discovery - KSC
Endeavour - Museum of Flight - Seattle
Enterprise - Europe
Post by: paulhbell07 on 03/24/2007 08:50 am
Weather is was a good idea or not, some ideas have been really silly. I did not mean to cause a heated debate like what is going on now.
It is obvious that the orbiters are not going to come outside the US, and I only say this because of cost's involved. It comes down to this, who ever ends up with the orbiters should keep them intact and they need to be presereved. For EVERYONE to admire them.
But to the guys in the US, don't forget what Neil Armstrong said when he landed on the moon --for all mankind--. He did not say for all the people of the US (although he did plant a US flag).
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2007 12:01 pm
Quote
gordo - 24/3/2007 4:58 AM
It not about how many there are, its about doing the right thing to ensure future generations around the world are educated. Paying home to the USAF is not really right is it.
Maybe this is the chance NASA, with the help of European funding and ESA, has been waiting for the spread its message further afield.
Considering this here's what they could do.
Atlantis - Smithsonian
Discovery - KSC
Endeavour - Museum of Flight - Seattle
Enterprise - Europe
Read early in the thread. JSC gets an orbiter and USAF museum
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/24/2007 01:33 pm
As Jim rightly points out the shuttles are US government property, not Delta or US Airways who could decide where their old vehicles go.
The USAF was involved in the shuttle program from early on. It can, has and will be argued for decades just how 'helpful' that relationship was to the overall size, complexity and cost of the whole system. I don't see there being a problem with the USAF displaying a shuttle.
They display lots of vehicles that they tried and weren't exactly thrilled with the cost or results and the USAF use of the shuttle certainly fits into that category.
As for when to retire the shuttle, the whole foam hail repair issue has me think the sooner the better. Get the labs installed at the ISS, service Hubble and be done with it. Free up the money to explore and lets be done with doing laps in LEO.
Post by: gordo on 03/24/2007 06:46 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/3/2007 2:01 PM
Read early in the thread. JSC gets an orbiter and USAF museum
No decisions have been made, its all speculation.
Unless JSC wants to spend millions on a special facility, you can't see them getting an orbiter.
Remember the Smithsonian make the calls as they will be the owners of the 4 orbiters, not NASA or the US Govt. They will do what is best for public display and interpretation. This really starts to rule out "thank-you" gifts to JSC and a USAF museum.
It would be great for an orbiter to come to Europe, but really there is not a world class museum in Europe good enough for one that has the facilities to handle its arrival. On exception, facility wise, would the French air and Space museum at Le Bourget, but its never going to have the funding to handle an orbiter and I'm sure the Smithsonian are not going to be giving an orbiter to the French sadly.
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2007 06:50 pm
Quote
gordo - 24/3/2007 3:46 PMQuoteJim - 24/3/2007 2:01 PM
Read early in the thread. JSC gets an orbiter and USAF museum
No decisions have been made, its all speculation.
Unless JSC wants to spend millions on a special facility, you can't see them getting an orbiter.
Remember the Smithsonian make the calls as they will be the owners of the 4 orbiters, not NASA or the US Govt. They will do what is best for public display and interpretation. This really starts to rule out "thank-you" gifts to JSC and a USAF museum.
.
Not true. It will be just like the Saturn V's. JSC will get one and will build a facility
And it doesn't rule out the USAF Museum
Post by: gordo on 03/24/2007 07:04 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/3/2007 2:01 PM
Not true. It will be just like the Saturn V's. JSC will get one and will build a facility
And it doesn't rule out the USAF Museum
Don't get me wrong, JSC could be good, but they would have to build a facility quicker than the did for the Saturn V! JSC are an NASA organisation let that out to rot.
Here's an Idea; the OPFs are just steel constructed hangars, OPF 3 could be dismanteld and moved to JSC
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2007 09:30 pm
Quote
gordo - 24/3/2007 4:04 PM
Here's an Idea; the OPFs are just steel constructed hangars, OPF 3 could be dismanteld and moved to JSC
Not true. They have concrete in them. It would be easier to build a new facility.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 03/24/2007 09:47 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/3/2007 2:01 PM
Remember the Smithsonian make the calls as they will be the owners of the 4 orbiters, not NASA or the US Govt. They will do what is best for public display and interpretation. This really starts to rule out "thank-you" gifts to JSC and a USAF museum.
Actually, the Smithsonian is legally a body of the Federal Government.
Post by: gordo on 03/24/2007 10:04 pm
Post by: Dana on 03/24/2007 10:48 pm
Quote
gordo - 24/3/2007 1:58 AM
It not about how many there are, its about doing the right thing to ensure future generations around the world are educated. Paying home to the USAF is not really right is it.
Maybe this is the chance NASA, with the help of European funding and ESA, has been waiting for the spread its message further afield.
Considering this here's what they could do.
Atlantis - Smithsonian
Discovery - KSC
Endeavour - Museum of Flight - Seattle
Enterprise - Europe
Yes, it is about how many there are. The example you cited was the Concorde and there were enough of them to go around to just about every facility that could house one. There are only 3 Shuttle Orbiters plus one atmospheric test article (Enterprise). Consequently, unlike the Concorde fleet, there aren't enough to go around, and the organizations directly involved in their development and operations will get first priority. And rightfully so. One or two Apollo spacecraft went to European museums, but again, there were more of 'em to go around. It's more like the X-15. 3 were made and one crashed, so the Smithsonian got one and the USAF Museum has the other.
And unlike the Concordes, the Orbiters are U.S. Government/U.S. taxpayer property. The ESA basically funded payloads and passengers. The Orbiters themselves are ours. The Concordes may have been publically-funded to an extent during development, but in practice they actually belonged to British Airways and Air France, not the British and French governments, ESA, or even RAF or Armee de l'Air.
The Smithsonian has the first of those 4 surviving vehicles to fly, Enterprise, on display. Kennedy Space Center is where they were launched, so they get one. The missions were all controlled from and all the crews mostly trained in Houston (the true home of American manned spaceflight), so JSC gets one. The Air Force was instrumental in the early days of the Shuttle program in terms of funding, design concepts, facilities, and even built a second launch site for it at great expense, although it was never used. Therefore it makes sense for Dayton to get one.
Although I'd love to see the Seattle Museum of Flight get one (because that's closer to me), there's really no reason for them to get an Orbiter. They don't have the facilities to preserve it adequately and it's not like they were built, launched, controlled or recovered at Boeing Field or SeaTac.
Likewise there is absolutely no financial, political or historical reason for any Shuttle vehicle to be sent to Europe.
Maybe you guys can ask for an SCA or STA. Or maybe one of the mock-up trainers or simulators.
Post by: Thorny on 03/24/2007 10:55 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 24/3/2007 5:47 PMQuoteJim - 24/3/2007 2:01 PM
Remember the Smithsonian make the calls as they will be the owners of the 4 orbiters, not NASA or the US Govt. They will do what is best for public display and interpretation. This really starts to rule out "thank-you" gifts to JSC and a USAF museum.
Actually, the Smithsonian is legally a body of the Federal Government.
Eh... kinda. Kinda like saying the State University is a body of the government. It is, but it isn't really run that way. It's more of a quasi-governmental organization. Smithson bequeathed his fortune on the United States to create a museum. Congress created the Smithsonian and established a Board of Regents and a Secretary to run it. They get Federal funding, but they also have a long history of accepting donations (both articles and funding.) Congress doesn't decide where the Smithsonian sends things, the Smithsonian does. (This became an issue with the Enola Gay controversy.)
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/24/2007 11:09 pm
Quote
gordo - 24/3/2007 2:46 PMThis is incorrect. If NASA decides to retain ownership of the orbiters — which it can and has done with other artifacts — then NASA will decide where they are displayed. If NASA decides to divest itself of the orbiters, then by their existing agreement, the Smithsonian will have first right of refusal. If the Institution accepts all three (in addition to Enterprise), then they will manage them as they did the Saturn V stages. However, it is not immediately clear that the Smithsonian desires to own all three, in which case NASA may retain ownership or another museum/organization may take possession of one or more. At the present, the Smithsonian only owns Enterprise.
Remember the Smithsonian make the calls as they will be the owners of the 4 orbiters, not NASA or the US Govt.
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/24/2007 11:17 pm
Quote
gordo - 24/3/2007 2:46 PMThere is an orbiter on its way to Europe, albeit not an American one. Buran Analogue 002, the atmospheric test vehicle previously displayed in Sydney, Australia and for the past few years stranded in Bahrain due to questions over its rightful ownership, will soon be moved to Sinsheim, Germany for permanent exhibit within the Auto & Technik Museum (the same museum currently houses both an Air France Concorde and a Russian Tupolev TU-144).
It would be great for an orbiter to come to Europe, but really there is not a world class museum in Europe good enough for one that has the facilities to handle its arrival.
Post by: Jorge on 03/25/2007 02:00 am
Quote
collectSPACE - 24/3/2007 7:09 PMQuotegordo - 24/3/2007 2:46 PMThis is incorrect. If NASA decides to retain ownership of the orbiters — which it can and has done with other artifacts — then NASA will decide where they are displayed. If NASA decides to divest itself of the orbiters, then by their existing agreement, the Smithsonian will have first right of refusal. If the Institution accepts all three (in addition to Enterprise), then they will manage them as they did the Saturn V stages. However, it is not immediately clear that the Smithsonian desires to own all three, in which case NASA may retain ownership or another museum/organization may take possession of one or more. At the present, the Smithsonian only owns Enterprise.
Remember the Smithsonian make the calls as they will be the owners of the 4 orbiters, not NASA or the US Govt.
Aw, beat me to it! :)
AFAIK, the agreement between NASA and the Smithsonian is purely a memorandum - there is nothing in either statutes passed by Congress or executive orders from the President mandating such an arrangement. In practice, it is extremely unlikely that NASA will not transfer the orbiters to the Smithsonian - but it does mean that the Smithsonian will be extremely sensitive to NASA's preferences on where the orbiters should go.
It is a given that Udvar-Hazy will get a space-flown orbiter to replace Enterprise. The Smithsonian is America's national museum, and Udvar-Hazy is the only Smithsonian facility big enough to house an orbiter. Originally my bet was on Discovery, since it is the most historic of the surviving orbiters, having performed both return-to-flight missions after the 51L and 107 accidents. However, various little birdies indicate that they are now leaning toward Atlantis since NASA shifted the final HST mission to it.
It is also a given that the USAF will get an orbiter. Personally, I would prefer they get Enterprise from Udvar-Hazy and that it be displayed at Edwards AFB. Edwards has strong historical ties to the shuttle program: it was the site of Enterprise's approach and landing tests, was originally the prime landing site for all the shuttle flights until the SLF at KSC was ready, and is still a commonly-used backup landing site. It is also good for geographic diversity; it would put an orbiter on the west coast within easy driving distance of most of SoCal, and would be a good compromise with the Congress members from California pushing for Palmdale to get an orbiter (they want Atlantis as well - good luck with that!). Wright-Patterson, on the other hand, has no historical connection to the shuttle program and is well within a day's drive from Udvar-Hazy. But c'est la guerre. If the USAF gets an orbiter, it will go to Wright-Patt since that is the USAF's official museum and has suitable facilities for displaying an orbiter, which Edwards lacks.
That leaves two orbiters, and JSC and KSC have the strongest claims on them. KSC is where the orbiters are processed and launched, and JSC was where the orbiters were designed, where its missions are controlled, and where its crews are trained. While MSFC has ties to the shuttle program, it does not with the orbiters per se - MSFC mostly deals with the ET, SRBs, and SSMEs. Geographically, MSFC is also a poor choice due to its relative proximity to JSC and KSC. The Smithsonian will of course be keen to prevent a replay of what happened with the Saturn Vs at JSC and KSC, but so will NASA - suitable display facilities will be built. Getting an orbiter to JSC may be a logistical challenge, and it may wind up being displayed at nearby Ellington Field.
--
JRF
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/25/2007 02:32 am
Quote
Jorge - 24/3/2007 9:00 PMIndeed: Agreement Between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Smithsonian Institution Concerning the Transfer and Management of NASA Historical Artifacts, May 28, 1998
AFAIK, the agreement between NASA and the Smithsonian is purely a memorandum - there is nothing in either statutes passed by Congress or executive orders from the President mandating such an arrangement.
Quote
While MSFC has ties to the shuttle program, it does not with the orbiters per se - MSFC mostly deals with the ET, SRBs, and SSMEs.Thematically, MSFC has a good case for Enterprise, if viewed within the context of an exhibit tailored specifically to tell the story of facility testing. The U.S. Space & Rocket Center already has Saturn V 500-D/500-F; adding Enterprise would emphasize the role the center had in both programs' early history.
Post by: gordo on 03/25/2007 09:48 am
Post by: Jim on 03/25/2007 01:20 pm
Quote
gordo - 25/3/2007 5:48 AM
On a different subject, how do you clean the tiles? In a Museum environment over a decade or so they will get quite dirty from the environment(not from people touching them!)
They can be vacuumed and wiped, they are not that fragile.
Post by: APG85 on 03/25/2007 02:53 pm
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 03/25/2007 03:32 pm
Post by: cz77 on 03/26/2007 05:31 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/26/2007 07:11 pm
Quote
cz77 - 26/3/2007 12:31 PMIf you read the above linked agreement between NASA and the Smithsonian, it does in fact provide the Smithsonian first right of refusal ("dibs") on all artifacts deaccessed by NASA and extends to the Smithsonian the ability to have items considered for deaccession even before NASA has released them as artifacts:
In any event, the Smithsonian doesnt have 'dibs' on ANY ex Nasa, ex airforce item......an item is given to them.
Quote
NASA shall offer to transfer to, and the Smithsonian may accept as rapidly as reasonably possible, such artifacts under NASA control which become available, after programmatic utility to NASA or other government agencies has been exhausted, although, in extraordinary circumstances, exceptions or alternative dispositions can be made by NASA. Before the decision to make an exception or alternative disposition is made, the proposed action shall be referred to the Joint Artifacts Committee (established in paragraph 4, below) for consideration. In addition, the Smithsonian may, pursuant to the procedures contained in paragraph 4, call a special meeting of the Joint Committee to discuss the transfer or preservation of items of unusual historical interest that NASA has not yet declared to be artifacts.
Post by: cz77 on 03/27/2007 05:12 pm
Post by: ULAwantabe on 03/30/2007 11:51 am
But if NASA could sell them internationally to the highest bidder, and this raised an uproar among the US people, may I suggest that this is just the type of publicity NASA needs to get congress to increase funding. And I am being serious.
Post by: Jim on 03/30/2007 11:59 am
Quote
ULAwantabe - 30/3/2007 7:51 AM
Perhaps NASA can sell the orbiters to the highest bidder to raise the monies to compensate them for shortfalls in their budget. Does anybody know if the Orbiters are regulated under IRAR? Probably so...
But if NASA could sell them internationally to the highest bidder, and this raised an uproar among the US people, may I suggest that this is just the type of publicity NASA needs to get congress to increase funding. And I am being serious.
Even if they were to sell them, the money goes into the General Treasury Fund and not NASA's budget
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/30/2007 12:23 pm
Quote
ULAwantabe - 30/3/2007 6:51 AM
Perhaps NASA can sell the orbiters to the highest bidder to raise the monies to compensate them for shortfalls in their budget. Does anybody know if the Orbiters are regulated under IRAR? Probably so...
But if NASA could sell them internationally to the highest bidder, and this raised an uproar among the US people, may I suggest that this is just the type of publicity NASA needs to get congress to increase funding. And I am being serious.
So they can end up on blocks when the new owner goes bankrupt like one of the buran vehicles did?
Post by: Jorge on 03/30/2007 01:15 pm
Quote
ULAwantabe - 30/3/2007 6:51 AM
Perhaps NASA can sell the orbiters to the highest bidder to raise the monies to compensate them for shortfalls in their budget. Does anybody know if the Orbiters are regulated under IRAR? Probably so...
Don't know. But they are definitely regulated under ITAR, so the rest of the discussion is moot.
--
JRF
Post by: bholt on 03/30/2007 09:01 pm
I will admit to being biased since Discovery has been my favorite since her first flight in 1984 when I was a kid. Columbia was a close second.....
I think Enterprise should go to the west coast; Atlantis to the Smithsonian; & Endeavour to JSC.
I do not see any orbiter going overseas. That is highly unlikely. They could always build more mock-ups like Explorer, though.
My 2 cents.
Brent
(New member)
Post by: E_ E_ H on 04/04/2007 12:06 pm
Post by: Space101 on 04/16/2007 05:07 am
Quote
E_ E_ H - 4/4/2007 7:06 AM
I wonder what "1 careful owner slightly worn Space Shuttle" would get on EBay?
A punch in the mouth for whatever wise guy thought they could be sold. They are national assets and should be protected.
Post by: E_ E_ H on 04/16/2007 02:00 pm
Post by: Launch Fan on 04/17/2007 08:06 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 04/17/2007 09:08 pm
Quote
Launch Fan - 17/4/2007 3:06 PMIn our interview last month with the new CEO of the Kansas Cosmosphere, Chris Orwoll commented that his museum would like to host one of the orbiters:
Have their been any claims recently to the orbiters, or is this calming down?
Quote
Oh yeah, we'd love to. We know that it would require big changes here, but yes, we'd love to host one of the orbiters.By my count, that makes eight museums and/or NASA centers that have expressed (in one way or another) interest in hosting one of the four orbiters: KSC, JSC, MSFC, the National Air and Space Museum, the National Museum of the United States Air Force, the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington, the Evergreen Aviation Museum in Oregon and the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center.
Post by: johng on 04/21/2007 01:13 am
Now here's an idea for the Smithsonian or Air Force Museum - where they have room for it. Display the Enterprise ON the 747 SCA. Mounted up and ready for a test drop. THe history of the first test glides would support that config for display. Just need a building big enough. Thus the suggestion for AFM or Smithsonian.
Post by: grakenverb on 04/22/2007 12:04 pm
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 04/22/2007 12:44 pm
Quote
grakenverb - 22/4/2007 1:04 PM
Not sure if someone has suggested this or not, and it would be costly, but what about launching one unmanned into an orbit that would last for hundreds of years (if posible)? It has always intrigued me that some of the Apollo hardware is still up there in heliocentric orbit.
Nice thought, but it's pointless so it would never happen! :)
Post by: Jorge on 04/22/2007 05:04 pm
Quote
grakenverb - 22/4/2007 7:04 AM
Not sure if someone has suggested this or not, and it would be costly, but what about launching one unmanned into an orbit that would last for hundreds of years (if posible)?
Not possible. And expensive and pointless, even if it were possible.
--
JRF
Post by: Thorny on 04/22/2007 05:20 pm
Quote
johng - 20/4/2007 8:13 PM
How will they move the orbiters to the various facilities? I think the only mate-demate devices are at KSC, Dryden, and White Sands. Everywhere else would need barge transport, no?
No. There's a portable system that would be used in the event of an abort landing somewhere around the world. Its how Enterprise was taken off the 747 at Dulles.
I don't think White Sands has a MDM, either.
Post by: Ikelos on 04/22/2007 05:50 pm
Post by: DaveS on 04/22/2007 05:58 pm
Quote
Ikelos - 22/4/2007 7:50 PMNothing. It's transportable right now.
What would it take to get Enterprise to a condition where it could fly on the back of the 747 again?
Post by: SpaceNutNewMars on 04/23/2007 02:44 am
If the shuttles are not protected then what will Nasa do with them once retired?
Post by: rdale on 04/23/2007 02:59 am
Quote
SpaceNutNewMars - 22/4/2007 10:44 PM
If the shuttles are not protected then what will Nasa do with them once retired?
This entire thread is about potential post-retirement options, I'd suggest a quick perusal and then ask a specific question if you don't see an answer...
Post by: Rifleman on 04/25/2007 02:27 pm
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070424-012.pdf
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 04/25/2007 03:18 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 25/4/2007 3:27 PM
The website for the National Museum of the United States Air Force just posted this PDF highlighting their new space hanger, as well as their request for an Orbiter.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070424-012.pdf
Thanks.
I believe that that place should get an orbiter. It just seems right to me, as they already have Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Capsules...
Does anyone agree? :)
Post by: Namechange User on 04/25/2007 03:40 pm
Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 25/4/2007 10:18 AMQuoteRifleman - 25/4/2007 3:27 PM
The website for the National Museum of the United States Air Force just posted this PDF highlighting their new space hanger, as well as their request for an Orbiter.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070424-012.pdf
Thanks.
I believe that that place should get an orbiter. It just seems right to me, as they already have Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Capsules...
Does anyone agree? :)
There were a few more of those. We have 3 orbiters. I understand everyone wanting them but one will go to the Smithsonian. That is probably almost a given. As for the other two, it would seem natural one stay at KSC and one come to JSC.
Post by: Rifleman on 04/25/2007 04:20 pm
Not only do they have a Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, they also have an X-15. If they get a shuttle, it would be the only place where you can see all American manned spacecraft in one location.
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 04/25/2007 04:34 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 25/4/2007 5:20 PM
Shuttle Discovery,
Not only do they have a Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, they also have an X-15. If they get a shuttle, it would be the only place where you can see all American manned spacecraft in one location.
Now that would be good to see.. :)
Post by: Jim on 04/25/2007 05:35 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 25/4/2007 12:20 PM
Shuttle Discovery,
Not only do they have a Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, they also have an X-15. If they get a shuttle, it would be the only place where you can see all American manned spacecraft in one location.
the NASM already has all of them
Post by: Rifleman on 04/25/2007 05:47 pm
Post by: DMeader on 04/25/2007 06:40 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 25/4/2007 1:47 PM
NASM has all of them, but they are not all at the same location.
Last time I was there, all of them (X-15, Apollo 11 CM, Gemini 4 and Friendship 7) except Enterprise were in the same ROOM.... Milestones Of Flight Gallery with the X-1 and Spirit Of Saint Louis. Wright "Flyer" was moved temporarily to the special exhibit. Nothing as big as an orbiter would fit in the building on the Mall.
Post by: Jamie Young on 05/20/2007 01:03 am
Post by: waf102 on 05/20/2007 02:11 am
Quote
OV-106 - 25/4/2007 11:40 AMQuoteShuttleDiscovery - 25/4/2007 10:18 AM
Thanks.
I believe that that place should get an orbiter. It just seems right to me, as they already have Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Capsules...
Does anyone agree? :)
There were a few more of those. We have 3 orbiters. I understand everyone wanting them but one will go to the Smithsonian. That is probably almost a given. As for the other two, it would seem natural one stay at KSC and one come to JSC.
Since the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo at Wright-Pat are owned by the Smithsonian and are on loan to WP, then I see no problem with OV-106's suggestion and then moving Enterprise over to WP form Dulles.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/missile/index.asp
-Bill
Post by: Kulfispace on 05/30/2007 08:07 pm
Quote
Rifleman - 25/4/2007 12:20 PM
Shuttle Discovery,
Not only do they have a Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, they also have an X-15. If they get a shuttle, it would be the only place where you can see all American manned spacecraft in one location.
I agree, this would be opportune!
Pardon if I passed over this in previous posts - was there not some speculation of a private Dubai company purchasing an Orbiter to house n the UAE? Rumours of course, and nothing is ever confirmed until we have to say goodbye.
I love the orbiter and the STS, one of the most awe inspiring visual memories to further the case for space exploration, manned and unmanned, in the post-cold war generation.
I'm determined to catch a launch before 2010, already saving up!
Post by: DMeader on 05/30/2007 10:58 pm
Quote
Kulfispace - 30/5/2007 4:07 PM
Pardon if I passed over this in previous posts - was there not some speculation of a private Dubai company purchasing an Orbiter to house n the UAE? Rumours of course, and nothing is ever confirmed until we have to say goodbye.
No piece of US space hardware like an Orbiter could or would be sold like that, no matter how much cash some oil-rich Gulf state wanted to try to throw at it.
No Orbiter will ever leave the US. I wish people would let that go.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 05/30/2007 11:16 pm
Quote
No Orbiter will ever leave the US. I wish people would let that go.
Certainly no amount of discussion on here will influence any decision on where they go, so it is really nothing to get worked up about if somebody wishes the orbiters go to the UAE, NASM, or Antartica (Hey, they're already dressed for the occasion).
Post by: madmardy on 05/30/2007 11:55 pm
Post by: DMeader on 05/31/2007 12:27 am
Quote
madmardy - 30/5/2007 7:55 PM
Would be nice if at least one of them did a world tour as it was on the back of the SCA
We don't need to re-hash all of that yet again. It can't happen. Please go back and read this thread for that discussion.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 05/31/2007 12:32 am
Quote
DMeader - 30/5/2007 7:27 PMQuotemadmardy - 30/5/2007 7:55 PM
Would be nice if at least one of them did a world tour as it was on the back of the SCA
We don't need to re-hash all of that yet again. It can't happen. Please go back and read this thread for that discussion.
This is an opinion thread. He is allowed to offer his opinion even if others have already offered a similar opinion or a counter opinion.
Post by: gordo on 05/31/2007 09:12 pm
Post by: huskerguy05 on 06/10/2007 08:19 am
Which saddens me somewhat. I just wish I could touch the tiles, kinda like touching history and being a part of it. I'd want to see Discovery of all of them. That orbiter has brought NASA through tough times (i.e. first post-challenger flight, first post-columbia flight) also the Hubble deploy. It's got a lot of history.
I know I'm wierd, but thats just me. :-)
Post by: Ducati94 on 06/10/2007 04:12 pm
Post by: Buck Rogers on 06/20/2007 01:24 pm
TYMOORE WROTE:"I sure don't want to see the same thing happen to them as has happened to the Russian orbiters."
Yea no kidding, proof on google earth Baikonor Shuttle complex, even the roof is caved in!
Post by: HarryM on 06/20/2007 04:12 pm
A nice thing might be to have the side-hatch open and insert one of those "bubble" type acrylic domes or a cube so that people could stick their head in and see what the mid-deck looks like, just make sure you have the side of the orbiter protected with acrylic shield so no touching.
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/20/2007 04:41 pm
It is my favorite space vehicle at the NASM, because you are allowed to be inside and get a brief sense of what it would be like to be aboard the vehicle. Since I live nearby, I've gone a few times right at the beginning of the day, and have been lucky to be in Skylab by myself for a few minutes. I find it quite enriching and special. I imagine eating at the standup "dining table" with the window view of the earth, or sleeping in the tiny but still private "staterooms" for the entire crew (eat your heart out, ISS!).
I support the idea of a walkthrough shuttle, even if it is only a mockup. I think people like the "You are there" experience and would enjoy being able enter through the main hatch area, walk through the open payload bay (an accompanying earth view would be ideal) and exit near the OMS pod perhaps. Something like that. I know I'd stand in line for it!
David
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/20/2007 06:41 pm
Quote
Alpha Control - 20/6/2007 11:41 AMWell, mock-up wise, there are a couple of walk-through shuttles in existence already: in addition to the simulators located at Space Camp and ATX in Alabama and Florida respectively, there is the Explorer at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex where the public can walk onto the flight deck and then look back into a full scale payload bay, and at Space Center Houston, where a similar set-up exists, though without the payload bay.
I support the idea of a walkthrough shuttle, even if it is only a mockup.
On a related subject: can anyone name where the only full-scale, fully-configured mock-up of the ISS exists? Hint: it's not inside a museum or NASA facility.
Post by: Jim on 06/20/2007 08:37 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/20/2007 09:45 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/6/2007 3:37 PMIf there's one there, I am unaware of it but to hedge my question then, add "...exists in the U.S."?
Japan
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/21/2007 02:33 pm
http://www.foamworks.com/projects/popups/spacestation.html
To be fair, the configuration is outdated and the solar arrays are probably not 1:1 scale but its the only display of its type for which I am aware...
Post by: DMeader on 06/21/2007 06:33 pm
Quote
Jim - 20/6/2007 4:37 PM
Japan
They have ALL the cool toys over there! ;)
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/21/2007 06:54 pm
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 06/21/2007 06:58 pm
Quote
Alpha Control - 21/6/2007 7:54 PM
That's pretty amazing! What was it built for? (trade show, science center, etc.?)
I want to go and see it next year on holiday! ;)
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/21/2007 07:03 pm
Quote
Alpha Control - 21/6/2007 1:54 PMFry's is a retail electronics store similar to Best Buy and Circuit City. They go to great extents to theme each of their stores (another store in Houston is decked out with oil wells). For their Webster store (which is located closest to JSC) they chose the International Space Station and assembled a 1:1 scale mock-up of the station inside. There are a few additions (an extra-wide module serves as a cafe for shoppers) and as mentioned, it is outdated (e.g. the X-38 CRVs) but it is impressive none the less and definitely worth a visit when in town. From the outside, the store has the appearance of several large ISS modules docked together.
That's pretty amazing! What was it built for? (trade show, science center, etc.?)
I wanted to do a feature story about their opening a couple of years ago but neither the store manager nor their corporate offices would return my calls. I tried visiting the store to request access before they opened to photograph the mock-up, but they could never find the right person for me to talk to for permission. A shame, as I think it really would have been of interest to space enthusiasts.
The photos linked to above were from the company that built the exhibit and were taken during construction. I've yet to find a good set of photographs of the assembled finished mock-up.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 06/22/2007 10:38 pm
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/22/2007 11:55 pm
Post by: MySDCUserID on 06/23/2007 12:15 am
Quote
bobthemonkey - 22/6/2007 7:55 PM
Your name suggests you are refering to the post on the space.com forums by 'shuttle_guy'. I have not seen any documentation myself supporting such a proposal, besides I find it hard to believe that NASA would waive the flight rules relatng to equipment life between OMDP's.
Well, he is correct on a regular basis, so I consider him a trusted source. But it is always nice to have some sort of official documentation back up such claims.
Post by: NASA_Twix_JSC on 06/23/2007 05:46 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 5:38 PM
There are rumors that Atlantis will not be retired in 2008, but will be manifested through 2010. Can anybody confirm?
False. That's why it's not documented. (Edit, I should have actually looked!)
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2007 06:32 am
I think NASA might actually be needing the relatively small savings it can get by retiring Atlantis next year far more than it needs the orbiter actually functioning - and that might even be the deciding issue.
Ross.
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 06/23/2007 06:49 am
Post by: anik on 06/23/2007 07:54 am
Quote
NASA_Twix_JSC - 23/6/2007 9:46 AMQuoteMySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 5:38 PM
There are rumors that Atlantis will not be retired in 2008, but will be manifested through 2010. Can anybody confirm?
False. That's why it's not documented
It is not false... And it is documented... See, for example, my note about it in L2's "PRCB: STS-122 Full Mission Launch Baseline - 100 Pages" thread...
Post by: gordo on 06/23/2007 08:22 am
Quote
MySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 11:38 PM
There are rumors that Atlantis will not be retired in 2008, but will be manifested through 2010. Can anybody confirm?
Wayne Hale revealed the plans on how it would be retired after 125, It would be put into an OPF bay, powered and feed with purge air, so they systems would be in good condition for parts to be robbed.
Plans were also in place to get some bits off quite quickly, to help inventory issues.
She will not be in a condition where they could put her back in the air quickly, for say a LON.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 06/23/2007 02:24 pm
Quote
gordo - 23/6/2007 4:22 AMQuoteMySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 11:38 PM
There are rumors that Atlantis will not be retired in 2008, but will be manifested through 2010. Can anybody confirm?
Wayne Hale revealed the plans on how it would be retired after 125, It would be put into an OPF bay, powered and feed with purge air, so they systems would be in good condition for parts to be robbed.
Plans were also in place to get some bits off quite quickly, to help inventory issues.
She will not be in a condition where they could put her back in the air quickly, for say a LON.
Well if they plan on using it for later missions, they certainly would not use that plan anymore. Anik indicated there is documentation.... but I'm not an L2 member.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/23/2007 02:27 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 11:38 PM
There are rumors that Atlantis will not be retired in 2008, but will be manifested through 2010. Can anybody confirm?
We believe there is some truth to it. We're checking into it. Send my best to SG too, he's a good guy.
Here's the one page that Anik referenced, that I've screenshot out of the presentation on L2 we published in May:
Post by: AntiKev on 06/23/2007 05:00 pm
Moving back on topic, the only place I see there where it suggests that Atlantis could be used on further missions after 125 is the note where it says "OV-104 3 year OMRSD requirement (STS-127)." What is the OMRSD requirement, and are they considering using Atlantis for 127? And also notice that it says "Violates OV-103 8-flight OMDP requirement." Does this mean that Discovery gets another OMDP between now and 2010? I thought the only orbiter that would require one between now and then was Atlantis.
Post by: anik on 06/23/2007 05:25 pm
Quote
AntiKev - 23/6/2007 9:00 PM
Moving back on topic, the only place I see there where it suggests that Atlantis could be used on further missions after 125 is the note where it says "OV-104 3 year OMRSD requirement (STS-127)."
There are other notes also in this image:
1. "ET-131 O/D: 11-AUG-08"... It means that ET-131 will be used for Atlantis (STS-127) flight...
2. "136+11H+6D"... It means the quantity of days for Atlantis preparation in OPF-2 to STS-127 till the rollover to VAB...
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/23/2007 05:37 pm
Post by: Analyst on 06/23/2007 05:52 pm
Nice work again.
Analyst
Post by: Analyst on 06/23/2007 06:02 pm
Quote
AntiKev - 23/6/2007 7:00 PM
Does this mean that Discovery gets another OMDP between now and 2010? I thought the only orbiter that would require one between now and then was Atlantis.
This illustrates my point pretty good. Once upon a time it has been decided 8 flights between OPDM. There are reasons for this. But this does not mean you can't even ask what happens if you fly 9 or 10 times. And you can come to the conclusion you can do this. Probably many things have changed since this decision has been made, maybe the reason for 8 flights is no longer there (because of changed procedures or whatever).
So Atlantis does not *require* an OMPD, this is not written in stone. Same can be said for many other things: end of FY 2010 = end of shuttle flights, ET production has ended (Delta production (and Atlas AFAIR) ended both in the 1980ies and look who is still flying), shuttle recertification needed if you want to fly after 2010.
Analyst
Post by: Jim on 06/23/2007 06:17 pm
Quote
Analyst - 23/6/2007 2:02 PM
Same can be said for many other things: end of FY 2010 = end of shuttle flights, ET production has ended (Delta production (and Atlas AFAIR) ended both in the 1980ies and look who is still flying), shuttle recertification needed if you want to fly after 2010.
Analyst
Those are not the same things. OMDP is a NASA requirement. 2010 is presidential.
The shuttle program is going to end at the end of the decade because shuttle recertification IS needed if you want to fly after 2010.
Nothing was said that OMDP wasn't required, just OV-104 is going to fly more flights
Yes, I am using absolutes
Post by: Jorge on 06/23/2007 07:26 pm
Quote
Jim - 23/6/2007 1:17 PMQuoteAnalyst - 23/6/2007 2:02 PM
Same can be said for many other things: end of FY 2010 = end of shuttle flights, ET production has ended (Delta production (and Atlas AFAIR) ended both in the 1980ies and look who is still flying), shuttle recertification needed if you want to fly after 2010.
Analyst
Those are not the same things. OMDP is a NASA requirement. 2010 is presidential.
Note that there will be a new president on January 20, 2009. The current president can issue any requirements he wants; the next is not bound by those requirements.
That is not to say that more flights will be added to the manifest. Subcontracts are being terminated even now. The next president would find it ruinously expensive to start those back up again to add more flights. Those who have their hearts set on launching (say) the CAM to ISS had better be prepared to state which flight they'd delete to allow it to be manifested, because that's what it would take. The current manifest is it.
But I do think there's a good chance that if, say, STS-132/ISS-20A were to slip past September 30, 2010, the next president will allow it to fly rather than leave Node 3 on the ground.
Quote
The shuttle program is going to end at the end of the decade because shuttle recertification IS needed if you want to fly after 2010.
It is important to maintain context here. The CAIB issued a recommendation for recertification, not a requirement. It was O'Keefe who decreed that those recommendations be treated as requirements, and it was Bush who set the 2010 retirement date in stone. O'Keefe is already out of the picture, and Bush will follow in 19 months' time.
There was nothing magical about the year 2010 in the CAIB recommendation (R9.2-1). It was intended to put a roadblock in front of NASA's then-current plans to fly the orbiters to 2020 and beyond. At the time the CAIB report was published (August 2003), return-to-flight was scheduled for March 2004, and 2010 was considered a nice round number that provided enough time to complete ISS assembly without creating undue schedule pressure. Circumstances have changed since then. Holding fast to ISS assembly complete by 2010 is not impossible, but it will create schedule pressure contrary to the CAIB's original intent.
At least one CAIB member (Steve Wallace) has expressed publicly the opinion that 2010 should be relaxed without recertification to allow the current ISS assembly sequence to be completed without undue schedule pressure, as long as NASA doesn't abuse the situation by adding new flights. I have heard (secondhand) that at least one other CAIB member has expressed the same opinion in private.
Post by: psloss on 06/23/2007 07:35 pm
Quote
Analyst - 23/6/2007 2:02 PMNothing wrong with periodically reviewing one's assumptions and there's at least one project office review document on L2 from last fall on this. (If you have access, search thread subjects for, oddly enough, "OMRSD". :) ) So in this case, it appears that the program has been reviewing this for a while.
This illustrates my point pretty good. Once upon a time it has been decided 8 flights between OPDM. There are reasons for this. But this does not mean you can't even ask what happens if you fly 9 or 10 times. And you can come to the conclusion you can do this. Probably many things have changed since this decision has been made, maybe the reason for 8 flights is no longer there (because of changed procedures or whatever).
Post by: Namechange User on 06/23/2007 07:35 pm
Post by: Analyst on 06/23/2007 07:57 pm
Quote
Jim - 23/6/2007 8:17 PM
Those are not the same things. OMDP is a NASA requirement. 2010 is presidential.
The shuttle program is going to end at the end of the decade because shuttle recertification IS needed if you want to fly after 2010.
Nothing was said that OMDP wasn't required, just OV-104 is going to fly more flights
Yes, I am using absolutes
And this is your mistake. You talk as if you know the future. But you don't.
Wasn't the "all payloads use the STS" paradigm a NASA requirement too? Maybe a national one (NSTS strongly implies this) or even a presidential? Why IS recertification needed? Because someone says, because it is written somewhere? I am sure you know very well a lot of things can change within one year, more within two or three. Trust me, the (then planned) space program in 2010 will be much different than the plans say today. And these are presidential as they are today.
Analyst
Post by: marsavian on 06/23/2007 07:59 pm
Quote
MySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 5:38 PM
There are rumors that Atlantis will not be retired in 2008, but will be manifested through 2010. Can anybody confirm?
It would make the most sense so everybody's favorite missed out module can get a look in before they all go in 2010 ;-). The CAM, AMS and Triana spring to mind. After all if we going to build a Space Station let's make it a good fully fitted one ;-).
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/23/2007 08:02 pm
Quote
marsavian - 23/6/2007 8:59 PMQuoteMySDCUserID - 22/6/2007 5:38 PM
There are rumors that Atlantis will not be retired in 2008, but will be manifested through 2010. Can anybody confirm?
It would make the most sense so everybody's favorite missed out module can get a look in before they all go in 2010 ;-). The CAM, AMS and Triana spring to mind. After all if we going to build a Space Station let's make it a good fully fitted one ;-).
Nothing extra. Atlantis will take a flight off each Discovery and Endeavour.
.......working on it :)
Post by: DaveS on 06/23/2007 08:12 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 23/6/2007 10:02 PMJust to clear up any confusion here, Atlantis will fly 2 additional missions following STS-125/HST SM4 that was originally scheduled for Discovery and Endeavour?
Nothing extra. Atlantis will take a flight off each Discovery and Endeavour.
Quote
.......working on it :)Appriciate that!
Post by: Analyst on 06/23/2007 08:12 pm
Quote
Chris Bergin - 23/6/2007 10:02 PM
Nothing extra. Atlantis will take a flight off each Discovery and Endeavour.
[speculation] ... and Discovery and Endeavour each could do some additional flights too. I remember two "surplus" ETs (above the two contingency flights) in an ET manifest on this site some time ago.[/speculation]
I think this is also about keeping options. Not shutting doors you don't have to shut. IMHO.
Analyst
Post by: Danny Dot on 06/23/2007 08:14 pm
Quote
Jorge - 23/6/2007 2:26 PM
snip
At least one CAIB member (Steve Wallace) has expressed publicly the opinion that 2010 should be relaxed without recertification to allow the current ISS assembly sequence to be completed without undue schedule pressure, as long as NASA doesn't abuse the situation by adding new flights. I have heard (secondhand) that at least one other CAIB member has expressed the same opinion in private.
This make a lot of sense. NASA shouldn't be pressured hard by the time, but more by the scheduled number of flights. If they need to slip to the right to insure safety, let them slip to the right.
Danny Deger
Post by: Jim on 06/23/2007 08:17 pm
Quote
Analyst - 23/6/2007 3:57 PM
1. Wasn't the "all payloads use the STS" paradigm a NASA requirement too? Maybe a national one (NSTS strongly implies this) or even a presidential?
2. Why IS recertification needed? Because someone says, because it is written somewhere?
Analyst
I made no mistake, just as I know the AMS situation. Through friends and coworkers insight into many different parts of NASA. The shuttle will retire after it finishes the existing manifest.
1. no
2. Because the CAIB said so, which is enough for the risk adverse NASA. Nobody is going to go against its recommendations. And also, the shuttle fleet needs it, like all aircraft that have outlived there design cerifications
Post by: Jim on 06/23/2007 08:22 pm
Quote
Analyst - 23/6/2007 4:12 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 23/6/2007 10:02 PM
Nothing extra. Atlantis will take a flight off each Discovery and Endeavour.
[speculation] ... and Discovery and Endeavour each could do some additional flights too. I remember two "surplus" ETs (above the two contingency flights) in an ET manifest on this site some time ago.[/speculation]
I think this is also about keeping options. Not shutting doors you don't have to shut. IMHO.
Analyst
the two ET's are for the two contingency flights. But it doesn't matter if there were 100 ET's, that is not only limiting factor. There WON'T be extra flights. What would fly anyways, MPLM's?
Post by: Ducati94 on 06/23/2007 08:57 pm
Post by: marsavian on 06/23/2007 09:04 pm
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/23/2007 10:29 pm
If that analysis concludes that it is cost-effective (and the money can be found), could it not then be manifested on an extra STS flight?
Post by: gordo on 06/23/2007 10:39 pm
Post by: gordo on 06/23/2007 10:43 pm
Its been discussed a lot on another topic, but would seem a great idea to leave one attached to node 3 as a Junk store. if it becomes unusable eventually, no big deal, be a bit like the Spektra Module on mir.
However an MPLM would look great in a shuttle cargo bay open in a museum, if the ways being discussed to allow to doors to be held open can be implemented.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/23/2007 11:03 pm
Post by: Ducati94 on 06/24/2007 02:18 am
Post by: Bubbinski on 06/24/2007 02:32 am
Post by: MKremer on 06/24/2007 02:42 am
(and there's also the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer hardware that masses of $$$ have already been spent developing and building that would be going to waste with no Shuttle launch hopes)
Post by: Jim on 06/24/2007 03:08 am
Post by: Ben E on 06/24/2007 09:45 am
As for CAM, I'd really like to see it fly, although I know it probably won't. But if I had the choice, I'd delete ULF-2 or UF-3 to make room for it. I think there is an Express pallet assigned to UF-3 - is that a critical component? More so than CAM?
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/24/2007 10:08 am
Triana is basically one big camera designed to sit out at L1 providing a constant 'blue marble' image. AMS is more important to the sci community but it is not ISS critical - it could have been flown as a standalone vehicle, and it may still go down this route.
Post by: psloss on 06/24/2007 12:00 pm
Quote
Ben E - 24/6/2007 5:45 AMThere are now 9 flights after STS-125 (don't forget ISS-15A), which as scheduled will conclude approximately 24 months before the end of FY 2010 -- I'm including the contingency flights. IMO, they need to keep their options open for meeting the current deadline and it might be harder to support the contingencies if you don't have a plan to fly them before the deadline.
It's great news that Atlantis will continue flying, but I don't understand the rationale, as Discovery and Endeavour could surely have handled the flights from 2009-2010. After STS-125, there are only six (?) more missions (ULF-2, 2JA, 17A, UF-3, 19A and 20A, excluding the contingency flights), which surely could be accomplished by Discovery and Endeavour by mid-2010, with maybe a flight every three months (= six month turnaround for each orbiter).
Post by: paulhbell07 on 06/24/2007 12:12 pm
Is Nasa coming round to what some people are talking about on this forum.
1, is Ares V actually going to fly, so the shuttle could provide the up mass, as ares 1 can't.
2, is 4 years to long to rely on the russians to get US astro's up to the ISS, therefore possiblity of more missions past 2010.
And I am just thinking allowed here, just ideas, no need to answer or start another debate weather the shuttle should fly longer.
Post by: psloss on 06/24/2007 12:21 pm
(If someone here thinks that a "continuing supplemental" is realistic though, I'd love to hear their political rationale.)
Post by: Analyst on 06/24/2007 02:47 pm
Quote
psloss - 24/6/2007 2:21 PM
My question is where the approximately $4B to extend shuttle operations each year after FY 2010 is going to come from, because I think it's likely to have to come from within the existing NASA budget.
(If someone here thinks that a "continuing supplemental" is realistic though, I'd love to hear their political rationale.)
I have no idea, but a list *could* include (in order of priority):
- cancel the lunar (let alone Mars) pipe dream (Ares V and LSAM and Lunar Base), its extremly underfunded anyway (not only development but operational costs are greatly underestimated)
- cancel Ares I, its not needed
- develop only Orion and use EELVs, make Orion more affordable
- stop being extremly risk adverse
- cancel COTS, its underfunded and won't bring results, its only there to keep new space happy
- develop a new vehicle (a shuttle with wings, a capsule (Orion or other), whatever) and keep the shuttle flying until the new vehicle is flying, take your time to do it right
Respect LEO (ISS) as the only affordable destination for men within the current budget limits, do science there. Let robots explore beyond until we are really willing to spend the money it takes to leave LEO permanently or we can do it really within the budget available, whichever comes first.
Analyst
Post by: paulhbell07 on 06/24/2007 02:54 pm
Post by: Jim on 06/24/2007 02:59 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 24/6/2007 8:12 AM
I have asked this on L2, so as not everyone is on there I will post here as well.
Is Nasa coming round to what some people are talking about on this forum.
1, is Ares V actually going to fly, so the shuttle could provide the up mass, as ares 1 can't.
2, is 4 years to long to rely on the russians to get US astro's up to the ISS, therefore possiblity of more missions past 2010.
And I am just thinking allowed here, just ideas, no need to answer or start another debate weather the shuttle should fly longer.
The shuttle is still going to end. This is just a redistribution of the remaining flights. No additional ones were added.
What would that shuttle flight anyways, other than MPLM's. There is no work a foot to start designing shuttle payloads
Post by: stockman on 06/24/2007 03:02 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 24/6/2007 10:54 AM
I agree with the robots. Just look at the 2 guys on mars and how much they have done. But there is nothing like having a man or woman step foot on another planet.
Its more than just step foot on a planet and plant a flag. While I love the MER rovers and have watched them almost every day since landing the bottom line is that they have done in 4 plus years what a manned expedition would have accomplished in the first 3-4 days of landing. The return on science and the ability to redirect priorities on the ground is geometrically greater with man present.
Again, I love the rovers too... but I don't want to just go in circles with manned flight for the rest of my life either. jmo
Post by: stockman on 06/24/2007 03:05 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/24/2007 03:18 pm
Quote
stockman - 24/6/2007 10:05 AM
Are they simply using atlantis to take up some of the missions that were destined for the other two oribiters or did they actually manifest additional flights which would require more tanks, more consumables etc...
Your earlier assumption was correct; there are no new manifested flights. The documents suggest a reassignment of one or more existing missions to Atlantis.
Post by: psloss on 06/24/2007 03:18 pm
Quote
Analyst - 24/6/2007 10:47 AMCan you go through the political considerations and the cost for each of these? The first one seems a little more obvious, but I'm interested in the political and budget plausibility for all of these.
I have no idea, but a list *could* include (in order of priority):
- cancel the lunar (let alone Mars) pipe dream (Ares V and LSAM and Lunar Base), its extremly underfunded anyway (not only development but operational costs are greatly underestimated)
- cancel Ares I, its not needed
- develop only Orion and use EELVs, make Orion more affordable
- stop being extremly risk adverse
- cancel COTS, its underfunded and won't bring results, its only there to keep new space happy
- develop a new vehicle (a shuttle with wings, a capsule (Orion or other), whatever) and keep the shuttle flying until the new vehicle is flying, take your time to do it right
Also, hasn't NASA tried your last idea more than once since the shuttle started flying? What would be different this time to make for a different outcome?
Post by: paulhbell07 on 06/24/2007 03:29 pm
Post by: Ducati94 on 06/24/2007 03:35 pm
Post by: paulhbell07 on 06/24/2007 03:47 pm
Did anyone actually understand that.
Post by: Jorge on 06/24/2007 04:16 pm
Quote
Ben E - 24/6/2007 4:45 AM
It's great news that Atlantis will continue flying, but I don't understand the rationale, as Discovery and Endeavour could surely have handled the flights from 2009-2010.
It adds a lot more margin into the schedule, and makes it far more likely that continued incremental launch slips will not cause the end of the program to slip past 2010.
Quote
After STS-125, there are only six (?) more missions (ULF-2, 2JA, 17A, UF-3, 19A and 20A, excluding the contingency flights), which surely could be accomplished by Discovery and Endeavour by mid-2010, with maybe a flight every three months (= six month turnaround for each orbiter).
You forgot 15A, which has now slipped past 126. And NASA does want to fly the contingency logistics flights, if at all possible - the ORUs on those flights will help ISS survive in the post-shuttle timeframe. So nine flights.
Quote
As for CAM, I'd really like to see it fly, although I know it probably won't. But if I had the choice, I'd delete ULF-2 or UF-3 to make room for it. I think there is an Express pallet assigned to UF-3 - is that a critical component? More so than CAM?
ULF-3, not UF-3. It carries ORUs, on-orbit spares that can currently only be carried by the shuttle, and stand a good chance of failing in the post-shuttle timeframe.
Work on the CAM was turned off quite a while ago; even if turned back on right now, it wouldn't be ready for 2010.
Give it up folks.
Post by: Jorge on 06/24/2007 04:35 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 24/6/2007 10:47 AM
What would be the point in taking money from science to fund the shuttle. The shuttle would only ever go to the ISS and the ISS is supposed to be for science, so Nasa would be taking money away from the ISS program to fund the extra shuttle launches. So then if money was taken away from ISS, i.e. less science done on board, why would there be any need for more shuttle launches. Talk about going round in circles.
There will be no "extra" shuttle launches. The fifteen remaining to be flown are all there are and all there will ever be. The question is, if the program continues to experience periodic launch slips, does NASA still cut the program off cleanly at the end of 2010 or does it allow the remaining flights to fly past 2010?
All of the flights in question are to complete ISS (HST SM-4 is in 2008, and no danger of slipping past 2010), and ISS will be incapable of supporting the science it was advertised to be able to perform unless it is completed. So it makes sense to short ISS science funding a bit in the short term to ensure that the thing gets completed.
If you were building a house, and depleted your house budget before the roof was finished, would you spend your furniture budget to furnish a house with no roof, or would you raid the furniture budget so you could finish the roof? That's the real crux of this debate.
Post by: paulhbell07 on 06/24/2007 05:05 pm
Some people where asking about extra flights after 2010, I was trying to put forward that to make extra flights after 2010 would more than likely take money away from ISS work.
Post by: Jorge on 06/24/2007 05:26 pm
Quote
paulhbell07 - 24/6/2007 12:05 PM
Jorge, I said either in this thread or on L2 that I know there is no more than 15 flight's left and I asked if atlantis was taking the slack for the logistic flights. I didn't actually say that there were more flights had been added or would be added to the manifest. Reread my posts. Some people where asking about extra flights after 2010, I was trying to put forward that to make extra flights after 2010 would more than likely take money away from ISS work.
Fair enough, I apologize. My reply should have been directed at the posts you were responding to, and not your post.
Post by: paulhbell07 on 06/24/2007 05:44 pm
The main thing I like about Atlantis flying to the end of the program is she will not be stripped of parts for the other 2 orbiters.
Post by: mjp25 on 06/24/2007 08:59 pm
You can debate all of this as has been done, but here's an idea for the places that do not get an orbiter. Each orbiter has one forward RCS pod and two OMS pods. What if they were made available to nine other sites that are not able to obtain an orbiter? This would leave each orbiter without them, but that can be part of the compromise for getting an orbiter. I'm thinking that a good restoration artist could make reasonable replicas. Perhaps, and I don't know the enormity of the cost, actual tiles could be used and the forward RCS could be touchable.
The Forward RCS and the OMS pods are small enough that they could be housed in any reasonable sized exibit building. They would be realatively easy to transport so perhaps they could be loaned for periods of times so even more than nine other museums could have flight hardware. What do people think?
Post by: MySDCUserID on 06/24/2007 09:07 pm
The consolation prize to other sites could be items such as ground support equipment, missionized equipment (pallets, flown payloads, Canada Arm, OBSS, etc), and simulators.
Post by: Bubbinski on 06/24/2007 10:32 pm
I would think that KSC, JSC, NASM would get the orbiters that have flown in space. That would leave Enterprise....I say mount it back on its 747 (and put the 747 back in its original ex-American Airlines scheme) and make sure the Enterprise looks as it did during the ALT tests, including its air data probe....put it at Edwards, the Air Force Museum in Dayton or (just being selfish here, as I live 30 miles down the road) the Hill AFB Museum in Utah. The Explorer mockup orbiter at KSC could go somewhere else as a good consolation prize. A more realistic thing to have for a museum like Hill AFB's would maybe be a simulator, that would be something people could actually go in. And I would think the Canada Arm would be a great exhibit for a museum in that country.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 06/24/2007 11:13 pm
Post by: Bubbinski on 06/25/2007 12:00 am
And there's a 2nd 747 SCA, that could go somewhere. The Air Force Museum, or the Smithsonian, or someplace else. The Spartan satellite could go somewhere, there's other stuff out there like Spacelab pallets as well. Have the GAS canisters go to someplace in Utah, after all I believe Utah State University was where the program got started, was it not?
Post by: Jim on 06/25/2007 01:11 am
Quote
Bubbinski - 24/6/2007 8:00 PM
Agreed. And I also had another thought....weren't the MPLM's built in Italy? Have them go to Italian or other European museums, the Space Flyer Unit go to Japan, etc.
And there's a 2nd 747 SCA, that could go somewhere. The Air Force Museum, or the Smithsonian, or someplace else. The Spartan satellite could go somewhere, there's other stuff out there like Spacelab pallets as well. Have the GAS canisters go to someplace in Utah, after all I believe Utah State University was where the program got started, was it not?
SFU is in japan
the spacelab pallets have been excess already
the spacelab modules are in NASM and Germany
The spartanS spacecraft already are on display
Post by: Bubbinski on 06/25/2007 03:27 am
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/25/2007 02:28 pm
Quote
Bubbinski - 24/6/2007 10:27 PMThe Spartan 201 spacecraft hangs above and to the right of space shuttle Enterprise in the McDonnell Space Hangar at the National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center. Here's a photo of it before it was hung: http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-102004m.jpg
Where are the Spartan spacecraft displayed?
Spartan 203 was lost on STS-51L. Anyone know where Spartan 204 is today?
Post by: Tigs2010 on 06/26/2007 03:30 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/26/2007 03:31 pm
It's a long thread that I've moved your post to, but all your answer is in here.
Post by: DeanHFox on 06/27/2007 10:01 pm
Post by: mastronaut on 07/22/2007 04:04 am
This sucks! The 100th US manned mission, the first mission to Mir, Atlantis will be a shadow of it's former glory with replica hardware. It might as well be a full scale mock-up.
For those of us who'd love to see the REAL flight hardware, we'll have to settle for photographs and video. C'mon, we as Americans should have a say in this, after all we paid for it. :angry:
Post by: collectSPACE on 07/22/2007 04:32 am
Quote
mastronaut - 21/7/2007 11:04 PMI would see little reason — other than perhaps the budget to assign engineers to do so — that removed hardware could not be replaced with the rejected-for-flight component from the other orbiter. That way, Atlantis would retain original hardware (instead of replicas).
This sucks! The 100th US manned mission, the first mission to Mir, Atlantis will be a shadow of it's former glory with replica hardware. It might as well be a full scale mock-up.
Post by: MySDCUserID on 07/24/2007 12:51 am
Post by: NYC777 on 09/07/2007 01:38 pm
Post by: Thorny on 09/07/2007 05:42 pm
Post by: Jim on 09/07/2007 06:48 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/07/2007 06:51 pm
Post by: emarkay on 09/08/2007 02:27 pm
IMHO, the Orbiters do deserve something fitting a national tour or some multi-city "retirement celebration" to both honor their place in history, the people who designed, built and flew them, and to honor those that lost their lives in them. The taxpayers and the curious could finally see, and possibly find unknown interest in space science, by getting to see one up close and whatever other materials are presented along with them. It seems unlikely that the Government would offer to pay for such an undertaking, but surely some private corporation or foundation could make it possible to do so.
MRK
Post by: psloss on 09/08/2007 02:37 pm
Quote
emarkay - 8/9/2007 10:27 AMIn this very thread, in many of the ~400 posts...
Could those that post "...its been discussed before, don't rehash it here" please post a link to where it was discussed?
Post by: emarkay on 09/08/2007 03:13 pm
Quote
psloss - 8/9/2007 9:37 AMQuoteemarkay - 8/9/2007 10:27 AMIn this very thread, in many of the ~400 posts...
Could those that post "...its been discussed before, don't rehash it here" please post a link to where it was discussed?
I know that - I was referring to the specific post in this (and other threads) IMHO, whomever takes the time to complain, surely must know where the original post was, and they could then kindly put the URL for reference for those who may not want to, or have the time, to see all 400+ threads.
Post by: psloss on 09/08/2007 03:33 pm
Quote
emarkay - 8/9/2007 11:13 AM400+ posts, not threads...I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then, because IMO it's poor form for a poster to expect a group of people to repeat a discussion for one person's benefit. That places the burden on the community, which collectively may have even less time to devote to a discussion that already took place than the new poster of the question. And may be much less be interested in the discussion now than I would presume a poster is to know what has already been written.
I know that - I was referring to the specific post in this (and other threads) IMHO, whomever takes the time to complain, surely must know where the original post was, and they could then kindly put the URL for reference for those who may not want to, or have the time, to see all 400+ threads.
They may be unaware that a previous discussion has occurred, but even in the extreme of not posting links (unnecessary in this case), it seems like it's more reasonable for the person with the question to search the site (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/search/query.asp).
Post by: Jim on 09/08/2007 04:24 pm
Quote
emarkay - 8/9/2007 10:27 AM
It seems unlikely that the Government would offer to pay for such an undertaking, but surely some private corporation or foundation could make it possible to do so.
MRK
doubt it.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/08/2007 06:40 pm
Quote
psloss - 8/9/2007 4:33 PMQuoteemarkay - 8/9/2007 11:13 AM400+ posts, not threads...I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then, because IMO it's poor form for a poster to expect a group of people to repeat a discussion for one person's benefit. That places the burden on the community, which collectively may have even less time to devote to a discussion that already took place than the new poster of the question. And may be much less be interested in the discussion now than I would presume a poster is to know what has already been written.
I know that - I was referring to the specific post in this (and other threads) IMHO, whomever takes the time to complain, surely must know where the original post was, and they could then kindly put the URL for reference for those who may not want to, or have the time, to see all 400+ threads.
They may be unaware that a previous discussion has occurred, but even in the extreme of not posting links (unnecessary in this case), it seems like it's more reasonable for the person with the question to search the site (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/search/query.asp).
Have to agree with this. And of course, the orbiter's final locations haven't been decided on. When that happens, it will be seperate threads. For now, this is only a discussion.
Post by: Orbiter on 06/22/2008 12:22 am
0V-103; Discovery goes to California.
OV-104; Atlantis Goes to Kennedy Space Center
OV-105; Endeavour goes to Johnson Space Center.
Not really sure for California, but I pretty much believe that KSC and JSC will get an Orbiter
Post by: Jorge on 06/22/2008 02:27 am
Brining Up old Threads. But heres my two Cents.
0V-103; Discovery goes to California.
OV-104; Atlantis Goes to Kennedy Space Center
OV-105; Endeavour goes to Johnson Space Center.
Not really sure for California, but I pretty much believe that KSC and JSC will get an Orbiter
NASM/Udvar-Hazy will get a flown orbiter, and send Enterprise somewhere else. My vote would be Dryden/Edwards, but I think if the USAF gets an orbiter they will put it at Wright-Patterson rather than Edwards.
Post by: bholt on 06/22/2008 05:49 pm
I would like to see 2 of the mock-ups renamed Columbia and Challenger to honor the memory of those vehicles and crews. (Although I doubt this will be done for several reasons)
Brent
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 06/22/2008 06:09 pm
NASM/Udvar-Hazy will get a flown orbiter, and send Enterprise somewhere else. My vote would be Dryden/Edwards, but I think if the USAF gets an orbiter they will put it at Wright-Patterson rather than Edwards.
I hope Enterprise ends up at Edwards too! Seeing as that's were it spend most it's working life - it only seems right.
I don't really mind which orbiter goes where, as long as they go to KSC, JSC and ??
Post by: Scotty on 06/22/2008 06:10 pm
If they all stay at NASA centers, it will be KSC, JSC and MSFC.
But I know the National Air and Space Museum will get one, and I'll bet on the other two ending up ay KSC and JSC, and Enterprise will likely be moved to MSFC.
I doubt the Air Force Museum or the Naval Aviation Museum will get one.
Post by: Orbiter on 06/22/2008 06:40 pm
Post by: Jones36 on 06/22/2008 06:52 pm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline plan for now is the following:
103 - Smithsonian
104 - KSC
105 - JSC
Post by: collectSPACE on 06/22/2008 07:35 pm
SEC. 612. DISPOSITION OF SHUTTLE-RELATED ASSETS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall provide a plan to Congress for the disposition of the remaining Space Shuttle orbiters and other Space Shuttle program-related hardware and facilities after the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet. The plan shall include a process by which educational institutions and science museums and other appropriate organizations may acquire, through loan or disposal by the Federal Government, Space Shuttle program-related hardware. The Administrator shall not dispose of any Space Shuttle-related hardware prior to the completion of the plan.
Post by: matthewota on 06/22/2008 08:59 pm
Post by: NASAAN101 on 06/30/2008 12:36 am
NIKKI
Post by: jeff2space on 07/07/2008 12:21 pm
Post by: MB123 on 07/07/2008 12:45 pm
I would be interested in seeing where the MLPs and Crawlers end up if not used by Constellation Program.in the bin, surely.
Post by: DMeader on 07/07/2008 02:43 pm
I would be interested in seeing where the MLPs and Crawlers end up if not used by Constellation Program.
It's not like they can go very far! :)
Post by: Stowbridge on 07/07/2008 04:12 pm
I would be interested in seeing where the MLPs and Crawlers end up if not used by Constellation Program.
It's not like they can go very far! :)
They won't be leaving KSC in a hurry!
Post by: Andrewwski on 07/09/2008 03:47 am
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/08/1187609.aspx
Post by: CessnaDriver on 07/09/2008 06:13 am
Post by: nathan.moeller on 07/09/2008 06:46 am
I do not think I will be able to maintain dry eyes with each shuttles last launch.
With you on that one. I really have to wonder if an STS-134 to launch AMS is really a possibility. I remain skeptical, but hopeful.
Post by: Andrewwski on 07/09/2008 02:57 pm
I do not think I will be able to maintain dry eyes with each shuttles last launch.
I doubt anyone will.
Post by: psloss on 07/09/2008 03:14 pm
I will. The 51-L and 107 experiences emphasized the outcome of the missions.I do not think I will be able to maintain dry eyes with each shuttles last launch.I doubt anyone will.
It's wheels stop for me, not liftoff.
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 07/09/2008 03:25 pm
It's wheels stop for me, not liftoff.
Very well said.
Post by: Alpha Control on 07/09/2008 03:46 pm
As John Young once said, the shuttle is the "World's Greatest All-Electric Flying Machine". I've always liked that phrase.
Post by: rdale on 07/09/2008 03:48 pm
I do not think I will be able to maintain dry eyes with each shuttles last launch.
I doubt anyone will.
I'll hold the tears and keep my man-card. It's enough for my family that I watch NASA TV too much, if I start crying too... ;)
Post by: nobodyofconsequence on 07/09/2008 07:07 pm
It replaced the Saturn V as the symbol of America's prestige and power.
It will be missed. Truly an attempt to jump us a half a century ahead.
Post by: Gene DiGennaro on 07/09/2008 07:42 pm
The sisterhood served the world well.
Post by: psloss on 07/09/2008 07:46 pm
Despite being a disciple of the God known as Apollo/Saturn, I will miss Endeavour, Atlantis, Discovery, Enterprise and their late sisters, Columbia and Challenger.I hope I'm not going to miss the remaining orbiters; I was planning on paying them a visit when that's allowed.
Post by: Stowbridge on 07/09/2008 07:49 pm
Post by: pierogoletto on 07/09/2008 08:02 pm
I do not think I will be able to maintain dry eyes with each shuttles last launch.
Nobody (of us) will, I believe. Both at liftoff and wheel stop, and although we know well that it's the time to go back to the Moon.
Look at the Space Shuttle, that wonder in the sky...
Post by: astrobrian on 07/09/2008 08:39 pm
Thought it was a very poor article, but MSNBC has been poor for years.Eh, wasn't really a bad article, but nothing really in it we haven't heard before.
Not sure if I will be crying or not, but will be choked up at the very least.
As stated..... to the moon
Post by: NASAAN101 on 07/09/2008 08:51 pm
Nikki
Post by: Andrewwski on 07/09/2008 09:11 pm
Thought it was a very poor article, but MSNBC has been poor for years.
Unless it's JimO. ;)
But does anyone else notice that for all their space-related stories they use the same picture of STS-115 landing?
Post by: psloss on 07/09/2008 09:19 pm
Unless it's JimO. ;)In this case I think it's more of a blog entry (although the difference between that and a "story" is becoming more and more cloudy), as it's essentially where Alan Boyle blogs for (MS)NBC.
But does anyone else notice that for all their space-related stories they use the same picture of STS-115 landing?
Post by: Aobrien on 07/09/2008 09:58 pm
Post by: Orbiter on 07/09/2008 09:59 pm
I will boob at Wheel stop.
Translation?
Meaning; I will Cry like mad.
Post by: James Lowe1 on 07/09/2008 10:01 pm
Post by: NASAAN101 on 07/09/2008 10:28 pm
NIKKI
Post by: psloss on 07/09/2008 10:57 pm
this program is been going for what 25-years, now.. it's had to believe, it's bumps in the road, as were saw with Challanger and Columbia, but we were able to keep the program going on and on an even keel, you know.. i still can't believe the program has two years left.."Challenger and Columbia" were much more tumultuous than bumps in the road. One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the shuttles are being retired is because of the STS-107 disaster.
NIKKI
Post by: NASAAN101 on 07/10/2008 04:56 pm
NIKKI
Post by: fredm6463 on 08/14/2008 08:38 pm
Obviously one would go to NASM at Dulles, replacing Enterprise.
One may stay at KSC, but would have to be in enclosed building to keep it in good condition.
What about the third one?
And which vehicles will end up where?
Discovery at NASM?
Atlantis at KSC?
Endeavour at JSC, MSFC, or DFRC (Edwards AFB)?
Post by: rdale on 08/14/2008 08:42 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/14/2008 11:19 pm
Post by: hutchel on 12/13/2008 01:51 pm
Hope you enjoy.
Lee
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/18/2008 01:54 am
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-121708a.html
"The National Air and Space Museum has been offered the space shuttle Discovery and has to pay the estimated $42 million..."
Also: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_08-330_Shuttle_retirement.html
Post by: robertross on 12/18/2008 03:02 am
NASA seeks shuttle suitors: Museums may need to cover the costs for retired orbiters
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-121708a.html
"The National Air and Space Museum has been offered the space shuttle Discovery and has to pay the estimated $42 million..."
Also: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_08-330_Shuttle_retirement.html
Well if they had the money, I'd say that's one of the best bargains going. Wish Canada's Museum of Science and Technology in Ottawa could get one :)
Does it come complete with Canadarm?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/18/2008 03:09 am
Post by: docmordrid on 12/18/2008 03:19 am
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/18/2008 03:20 am
Wish Canada's Museum of Science and Technology in Ottawa could get one :)
Believe it or not, I actually asked about an orbiter going to Canada, and NASA's intentions are to have all three orbiters stay in the U.S. (not to mention export regulations, which preclude the shuttles from leaving the country).
Quote
Does it come complete with Canadarm?
I asked about that too, but the answer wasn't (yet) known.
Post by: rdale on 12/18/2008 03:22 am
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/18/2008 03:25 am
...could a Museum expect to make a return on such an amount of cash?
I would expect the money to come from donors rather than investors.
For example, Airbus recently gave $6 million to the Smithsonian to open a restoration wing at the Udvar-Hazy Center and in return, the IMAX theater there is being renamed for the company.
A well-established popular museum (or NASA visitor center) should be able to attract similar benefactors for similar prestige reasons.
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/18/2008 03:27 am
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/18/2008 03:27 am
(not to mention export regulations, which preclude the shuttles from leaving the country).
LOL! ;D
Apparently certain trips are permissible.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/18/2008 03:33 am
By the way, keep in mind the $42 million doesn't include the SSMEs. That will cost another $1.2 to $2.4 million, though in comparison, that's a drop in the bucket (or engine bell, as the case may be).
Oh well that's more like it. Put me down for a SSME please.....oh, hang on, wrong country. Nevermind then ;)
Post by: psloss on 12/18/2008 12:23 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/transition/home/int_orbiter_rfi.html
Logistically, I found the dates for possible turnover, based on the current end of FY 2010 to be interesting in terms of how long after end of program they'd be looking to move the orbiters out of KSC.
Quote
The Orbiters would be available for donation no earlier than September 30, 2011. NASA desires to ferry the Orbiters to their final destinations no later than May 31, 2012.
Post by: robertross on 12/18/2008 12:53 pm
Believe it or not, I actually asked about an orbiter going to Canada, and NASA's intentions are to have all three orbiters stay in the U.S. (not to mention export regulations, which preclude the shuttles from leaving the country).
That's okay...but we'll take that into consideration next time they need an abort landing site and Halifax is in site... lol (jk)
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/18/2008 07:21 pm
Has there been any plans on where Discovery, Atlantis and Edeavour will end up after the shuttles are retired?
Obviously one would go to NASM at Dulles, replacing Enterprise.
One may stay at KSC, but would have to be in enclosed building to keep it in good condition.
What about the third one?
And which vehicles will end up where?
Discovery at NASM?
Atlantis at KSC?
Endeavour at JSC, MSFC, or DFRC (Edwards AFB)?
Obviously first of all it's going to depend on who can afford one. Ideally the second consideration will be who make a good exhibit out of it and educate a large number of visitors (which ties back to affordability).
The RFI proposes sending out two orbiters, if I understand right. I assume the third is a given for KSC, and probably whichever one is last to fly (Discovery or Endeavor?)
I couldn't see the first (Atlantis?) going anywhere other than NASM, which puts Enterprise back in the pool.
I'd agree on JSC, MSFC, Edwards, or perhaps Boeing Museum of Flight for the last one. I mention Boeing, even though it's a non-NASA facility, because it's a large, well-funded musuem with lots of visitors, and they're involved in the program through their acquisition of Rockwell, which supports the relevance of a shuttle exhibit. Plus, Boeing or Edwards puts one on the West Coast.
I'd love to see one down in my area at the Evergreen Air and Space Museum in McMinneville, OR (home of the Hughes flying boat, aka "Spruce Goose"), but I'd doubt they'd have much chance except maybe for Enterprise. They already have a new exhibit hall with room and a stated interest in getting one. The Intrepid Museum in New York also occured to me as a possibility. They'd likely have to build a new covered barge to park next to their Concorde barge.
I'd love first of all, however, for NASA to take one of them on a summer tour around the US aboard the SCA. Is this practical, or is it just begging for more damage to clean up before putting it on exhibit? Chris, start advocating now for them to take a hop to Europe via Iceland for your opportunity to see one...
Post by: psloss on 12/18/2008 07:30 pm
I couldn't see the first (Atlantis?) going anywhere other than NASM, which puts Enterprise back in the pool.Robert noted that in the post with a link to his story:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4078.msg345497#msg345497
There's a quote from PAO Michael Curie in the story, which was also in Robert's post here:
Quote
"The National Air and Space Museum has been offered the space shuttle Discovery and has to pay the estimated $42 million..."
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/18/2008 07:53 pm
So apparently then the two up for grabs do not include NASM...
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/18/2008 08:12 pm
I assume the third is a given for KSC...
Per NASA, if the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex desires an orbiter, they will need to pay the estimated costs, less the SCA delivery. The costs apply to all entities, including the Smithsonian.
Quote
I'd love first of all, however, for NASA to take one of them on a summer tour around the US aboard the SCA.
Unfortunately, you can pretty much rule this out, unless a private organization decides to pay for it. Included within the $5.8 million charged for the ferry flight delivery is the cost of maintaining the SCA beyond the end of the space shuttle program. By September 30, 2011 -- the earliest the orbiters may become available -- NASA's budget for the space shuttle program will be growing very limited.
Post by: gordo on 12/18/2008 10:50 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/nasa-space-shuttle-sale (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/nasa-space-shuttle-sale)
Post by: Jorge on 12/18/2008 11:00 pm
From the Guardian news paper in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/nasa-space-shuttle-sale (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/nasa-space-shuttle-sale)
Two for sale at $42M each, one to Smithsonian
The media has gotten this story all wrong. The orbiters are not "for sale". Rather, NASA wants to require the museums that will display the orbiters to pay for inerting and transporting them. But make no mistake about it: the orbiters will remain the property of the US government, "on permanent loan" to the museums.
Post by: gordo on 12/18/2008 11:10 pm
All pretty shocking, the NASA HQ people should hang their heads in shame. Its all about protecting the assets, not making money out of museums, which are all charitable institutions and simply would have better things to do with $50m!!!
Guarantee that it will pan out that one museum will find the money for display, KSC will have no money but retain one on display at the Satrun V centre eventually and the Smithsonian look to be given one at NASA's expense.
Enterprise is accessioned to the NASM collection, so they can loan this off to another museum at cost.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/18/2008 11:25 pm
I just read through the full PDF doc on the process.
All pretty shocking, the NASA HQ people should hang their heads in shame. Its all about protecting the assets, not making money out of museums, which are all charitable institutions and simply would have better things to do with $50m!!!
You're not being controversial again are you Gordo ;)
The money is what it'll cost to prepare and ship an orbiter. I don't think anyone is going to be making a profit - and I don't think they are even allowed to?
Post by: Namechange User on 12/18/2008 11:28 pm
I just read through the full PDF doc on the process.
All pretty shocking, the NASA HQ people should hang their heads in shame. Its all about protecting the assets, not making money out of museums, which are all charitable institutions and simply would have better things to do with $50m!!!
Guarantee that it will pan out that one museum will find the money for display, KSC will have no money but retain one on display at the Satrun V centre eventually and the Smithsonian look to be given one at NASA's expense.
Enterprise is accessioned to the NASM collection, so they can loan this off to another museum at cost.
This is just ignorant. Do you any idea how many requests have been made by various museums for an orbiter? I do...and it is a lot.
By having a museum foot the bill is actually a very good idea. First, it will reduce the field to only serious contenders. Second, 50 million for a 2+billion space ship is not a bad trade. For those that can actually raise the money and get one, I expect their business to go up accordingly as well....and most likely the price of admission.
I see nothing wrong with a museum that really wants one to take the cost burden from the tax payer and instead believe it to be a very good move.
Post by: robertross on 12/18/2008 11:42 pm
Second, 50 million for a 2+billion space ship is not a bad trade.
Well I agree with many of those remarks except this one. It's only a $2B spaceship if it's still flying; if it isn't, then it's only a showpiece with intrinsic value.
Granted, people will pay a surcharge to see the orbiter up close, and so would I, but in the end it's just another valuable piece of space history that should be preserved for our future generations.
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/18/2008 11:52 pm
Boeing Donates $1 Million to Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Lifting Fundraising Total to $100 Million (Aug. 28, 2008)
Boeing Donates $5 Million to the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture (April 24, 2008)
Boeing Donates $10 Million to Science Education at Chicago Museums (October 2, 2007)
That's $16 million to museums or monuments in a little over a year... one might expect that Boeing could find $50 million over the next three years to place one of the orbiters it (and its acquired companies) built.
(And that's just one example of a company with a vested history with the space shuttle program that might be enticed into underwriting an orbiter display.)
Post by: AndrewSTS on 12/19/2008 02:13 am
I threw the nearest thing to hand at the TV.
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/19/2008 02:18 am
...claiming exclusive documents (they are public documents?) acquired by the Orlando Sentinel
To be fair to the Orlando Sentinel, they did indeed acquire the RFI in advance of its release by NASA and had an blog/article online an hour or two before the documents were posted to NASA's website.
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/19/2008 03:25 am
Do you any idea how many requests have been made by various museums for an orbiter? I do...and it is a lot.
The Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio is one strong contender. Its supporters have already raised $14 million of the amount needed to get an orbiter!
http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/12/18/ddn121808shuttleweb.html
Heck. This might end in a bidding war!
- Ed Kyle
Post by: juleshow on 12/19/2008 03:40 am
$42m is a bargin for what they are, but could a Museum expect to make a return on such an amount of cash? (not knowing how much is normally paid for such exhibits).
IMO, yes. Besides the lines around the block they'd have school field trips from local and surrounding areas booked for years in advance.
If I recall correctly, the Smithsonian does not charge an entrance fee. I don't believe any of the 'national' museums in the DC area do.
We took our kids to do a whirlwind 4-day tour of the DC area in 2006, and the highlight of highlights for me was the 5 hours we spent at the Udvar-Hazy NASM at Dulles. The kids and the dh had enough after about 2 hours. As for me, I spent over 2 hours alone in the Enterprise / space exploration 'wing'. The orbiter was awesome awesome awesome, and it wasn't even the 'real' real thing. She still had a piece of her WLE missing due to the CAIB inquiry.
I would just about crawl back there from Montreal if they got Discovery.
I can also see KSC keeping an orbiter. How could they not? I know there must be people who think Houston and Palmdale would be equally deserving, but I think of KSC as the real home of the shuttle. It would be amazing to have it displayed stacked with SRBs and a tank, but clearly without a suitable building to house it as such, it's not going to happen.
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/19/2008 05:12 am
I can also see KSC keeping an orbiter. How could they not?
It will come down to facilities and funding. KSC doesn't have a place to display an orbiter indoors at present (nor does JSC or MSFC, etc.), though the Saturn V Center offers a fine example of the possibilities.
NASM has a space already. So does Dayton USAF Museum. There are possibilities in California. JSC and MSFC, not so much, nor KSC unless someone starts raising money pronto - which will be a problem in this economy. I note that the Kansas museum is asking for an SSME "engine kit". If a complete orbiter can't be saved, it could be parted out perhaps.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/19/2008 01:02 pm
KSC doesn't have a place to display an orbiter indoors at present (nor does JSC or MSFC, etc.), though the Saturn V Center offers a fine example of the possibilities.
As of earlier this year, the KSC Visitor Complex's plans for a retired orbiter display was to be inside an extension to an existing facility on the main grounds of the complex.
Quote
So does Dayton USAF Museum. There are possibilities in California. JSC and MSFC, not so much
The Space Gallery, which is where the National Museum of U.S. Air Force intends to display an orbiter, has yet to be built, though is partially funded. Similarly, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center could expand the new Davidson Center for Space Exploration, and JSC could expand the Saturn V Building.
Quote
I note that the Kansas museum is asking for an SSME "engine kit". If a complete orbiter can't be saved, it could be parted out perhaps.
As noted in the RFI, the SSMEs are being treated separate from the orbiters, but otherwise states the orbiters will not be disassembled for transfer or storage.
Post by: trebloc on 12/19/2008 01:15 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/19/2008 02:10 pm
Similarly, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center could expand the new Davidson Center for Space Exploration...
Could, but apparently won't:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/local.ssf?/base/news/1229681732160470.xml&coll=1
"We don't have that kind of money and to be able to do that kind of fundraising effort in this economy is unrealistic," Al Whitaker, spokesman for the Space Center, said Thursday.
After all, it took the center nearly 5 years to raise about $22 million to refurbish its Saturn V rocket and build the new Davidson Center for Space Exploration, $20 million less than what NASA wants for a shuttle, Whitaker said.
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/19/2008 05:20 pm
I'd love first of all, however, for NASA to take one of them on a summer tour around the US aboard the SCA.
Unfortunately, you can pretty much rule this out, unless a private organization decides to pay for it. Included within the $5.8 million charged for the ferry flight delivery is the cost of maintaining the SCA beyond the end of the space shuttle program. By September 30, 2011 -- the earliest the orbiters may become available -- NASA's budget for the space shuttle program will be growing very limited.
Yeah, I figure the funding challenge is a given. However, based on how many aerospace foundations there are that sponsor flying tours of old warbirds, it might not be infeasible to cover the cost of a single tour around the country, and there'd probably be no better way to maximize attention.
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/19/2008 05:28 pm
I hope that one can be displayed upright attached to a tank and boosters. It will need to be a large building but would be a beautiful sight.
That would be awesome, but aside from the cost of a 20 story tall building to house it, they'd also need to procure or replicate the ET and boosters.
Your comment conjured an image of a building similar to that the Spruce Goose is contained in, where almost the entire front wall is glass. As you drive down the highway towards the museum, the site of that plane through the glass is awesome.
Post by: Orbiter on 12/19/2008 06:28 pm
JSC will also possibly get an Orbiter as well, seeing as that's were the Shuttle's are controlled.
Post by: gordo on 12/19/2008 08:10 pm
I just read through the full PDF doc on the process.
All pretty shocking, the NASA HQ people should hang their heads in shame. Its all about protecting the assets, not making money out of museums, which are all charitable institutions and simply would have better things to do with $50m!!!
You're not being controversial again are you Gordo ;)
The money is what it'll cost to prepare and ship an orbiter. I don't think anyone is going to be making a profit - and I don't think they are even allowed to?
The controversial point here is that surely the orbiters should go to where they are best deserved, not to based on those who can afford millions.
I do think NASA is stretching the costs a little bit too much, for sure the museums should be asked to support, but its up to NASA to assist and ensure the right thing is done.
I'm not going to tell NASA who to do it, but as someone who moved a re-located a Concorde by road in the UK, I can tell you at present NASA are talking the mickey a little on this one.
Post by: iamlucky13 on 12/19/2008 08:15 pm
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/19/2008 10:43 pm
The Space Gallery, which is where the National Museum of U.S. Air Force intends to display an orbiter, has yet to be built, though is partially funded. Similarly, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center could expand the new Davidson Center for Space Exploration, and JSC could expand the Saturn V Building.
JSC's Saturn V display isn't really a "Building". It is more like a temporary "Barn". I would hope that space shuttle orbiters would reside in better structures than that.
As others have noted, USSRC won't be able to raise the funds. That place is struggling to maintain the rockets it has, with what appears to me to be a steadily dwindling number of paying visitors to support the place.
So NASM and Dayton. The third in California, perhaps. They have money in California, right?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/20/2008 05:18 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1097466/British-Science-Museum-plans-bid-30m-NASAs-retiring-space-shuttle-Endeavour.html
From the NASA RFI:
"Organizations responding to this RFI must be: 1) a U.S. museum, institution, or organization dedicated to education or educational outreach, including NASA Visitor Centers; 2) a U.S. Federal agency, State, Commonwealth, or U.S. possession or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof; or 3) the District of Columbia."
Post by: gordo on 12/20/2008 07:30 am
Post by: DMeader on 12/20/2008 12:28 pm
As I've said before, since we(UK and France) donated 3 European built Concorde to the US, maybe there is n argument for one to be given to ESA?No. We went through all this months ago. The whole world wants a piece now, but our space program and our tax dollars built them. They belong to the American people, they are part of our heritage. Come visit to see them. I'll buy the beer.
Anyway, the Shuttle isn't an airliner.
Post by: Skylon on 12/20/2008 04:46 pm
Personally, I'd think it should end up on display mounted to SCA N905. Maybe California. Didn't Palmdale, the "birthplace" of the shuttles hope to procure one?
Post by: DMeader on 12/20/2008 05:31 pm
Post by: Opie on 12/20/2008 06:47 pm
Post by: Skylon on 12/20/2008 06:52 pm
I'd like, to see Enterprise stay right where she is. NASM is the place for so many "firsts". Personally I think one orbiter at Udvar-Hazy, one on the west coast somewhere, and the third at KSC. I know USAFM wants one and I'm sure they would present it well, but I have a bit of trouble seeing why they would get one.
Especially considering the way they treated the shuttle program.
If the USAF is to get one, I guess it should be Atlantis. It's first flight was DoD dedicated, and it flew a few of the more critical DoD flights: STS 27 and STS 36 come to mind.
Discovery to the Smithsonian I guess, Endeavour at KSC and Enterprise can go to the West Coast.
Post by: JMS on 12/20/2008 06:54 pm
Maybe because the design of the Shuttles were in part driven by Air Force and DoD requirements. Also the Shuttle's have landed at Edwards AFB over 50 times and carried a multitude of DoD payloads into orbit. In addition the would-have-been Vandenberg AFB launches with Discovery are another link between the AF and the Shuttle.
Also of course, Enterprise' drop tests were done there.
It would be an impressive display to have Enterprise displayed atop and SCA at Edwards.
Post by: Jim on 12/20/2008 07:25 pm
Especially considering the way they treated the shuttle program.What is that suppose to mean? The USAF didn't treat the shuttle badly
Post by: DMeader on 12/20/2008 07:50 pm
Also of course, Enterprise' drop tests were done there.To sit out in the weather for years and rot away?
It would be an impressive display to have Enterprise displayed atop and SCA at Edwards.
I meant no disrespect to the Air Force. Perhaps if the SLC-6 launches had actually happened, I'd feel better about the AF having one. The way it is, USAFM at Wright-Patterson is rather close to Udvar-Hazy in Virginia. But hey.... if that's where two of them end up, then I can see both.
Post by: Colds7ream on 12/20/2008 09:56 pm
As I've said before, since we(UK and France) donated 3 European built Concorde to the US, maybe there is n argument for one to be given to ESA?No. We went through all this months ago. The whole world wants a piece now, but our space program and our tax dollars built them. They belong to the American people, they are part of our heritage. Come visit to see them. I'll buy the beer.
Anyway, the Shuttle isn't an airliner.
True, but our tax pounds and francs went to build Concorde - and whilst the Orbiters are indeed not airliners, three-in-exchange-for-one doesn't seem too bad (given that the Concorde fleets weren't exactly massive either). Also, it wasn't just American dollars that went to the SSP; remember who developed and paid for Spacelab? :-)
Post by: DMeader on 12/20/2008 11:05 pm
True, but our tax pounds and francs went to build Concorde - and whilst the Orbiters are indeed not airliners, three-in-exchange-for-one doesn't seem too bad (given that the Concorde fleets weren't exactly massive either). Also, it wasn't just American dollars that went to the SSP; remember who developed and paid for Spacelab? :-)
Fine, then you can have Spacelab. And three airliners for an Orbiter? Please.
Not that it is up to us here and these are just personal opinions, but as far as I'm concerned I'll say it for the last time for me. Our blood, sweat, tears, sacrifices and accomplishments, so they stay here. By all means, come visit. I'll leave the lights on.
Post by: Jorge on 12/21/2008 03:38 am
Especially considering the way they treated the shuttle program.What is that suppose to mean? The USAF didn't treat the shuttle badly
Maybe from your perspective.
The USAF loaded down the shuttle program with a long list of performance "requirements" that resulted in an overspecified design that could never possibly meet all the requirements, then abandoned the program at the first serious mishap.
Afterwards, the USAF made no serious effort to develop a vehicle that met the "requirements" that they levied on the shuttle program, which constitutes prima facie evidence that they never really needed those "requirements" in the first place.
The term "turd in the punchbowl" comes to mind, for some reason.
Post by: collectSPACE on 12/21/2008 03:48 am
True, but our tax pounds and francs went to build Concorde - and whilst the Orbiters are indeed not airliners, three-in-exchange-for-one doesn't seem too bad (given that the Concorde fleets weren't exactly massive either).
There were more than a dozen Concordes available for display. If the numbers were the same for the orbiters, I am sure consideration would have been given to displaying at least one in Europe (as was done with two of the Apollo command modules, though only one remains there today).
Post by: gordo on 12/21/2008 08:10 am
Good discussion this here with a lot of great debate; I do however wonder if NASA are just testing the market to see who will even think about picking up some of the costs.
Post by: Colds7ream on 12/21/2008 01:25 pm
True, but our tax pounds and francs went to build Concorde - and whilst the Orbiters are indeed not airliners, three-in-exchange-for-one doesn't seem too bad (given that the Concorde fleets weren't exactly massive either).
There were more than a dozen Concordes available for display. If the numbers were the same for the orbiters, I am sure consideration would have been given to displaying at least one in Europe (as was done with two of the Apollo command modules, though only one remains there today).
OK, there were twenty Concordes built altogether; one - F-BTSC - was lost in the French crash, and one - F-BVFD - was scrapped, leaving 18. Three of the remaining airframes, G-BOAG, F-BVFA and G-BOAD, were sent to the Unites States - approximately one sixth of the original airframes were, therefore, sent across the Atlantic to the USA.
Now, there were six Orbiters built, if you include Enterprise - so if one were to be sent across the Atlantic to Europe, that would also be one-sixth of the original airframes available.
True, but our tax pounds and francs went to build Concorde - and whilst the Orbiters are indeed not airliners, three-in-exchange-for-one doesn't seem too bad (given that the Concorde fleets weren't exactly massive either). Also, it wasn't just American dollars that went to the SSP; remember who developed and paid for Spacelab? :-)
Fine, then you can have Spacelab. And three airliners for an Orbiter? Please.
Not that it is up to us here and these are just personal opinions, but as far as I'm concerned I'll say it for the last time for me. Our blood, sweat, tears, sacrifices and accomplishments, so they stay here. By all means, come visit. I'll leave the lights on.
Our blood, sweat, tears, sacrifices and accomplishments went to build Concorde - people outside the UK and France don't seem to realise how loved Concorde was - everyone would stop and stare whenever she flew over, no matter what they were doing; and the aircraft is one of the few to be simply known by her name - most aircraft are referred to as A 747, or whatever. Concorde was just that - Concorde.
There's a chap on TV over here called Jeremy Clarkson - US people may have heard of him. A while back, he did a series called Speed, and one of the episodes featured Concorde. As part of his research, he took a look at the development of the Boeing SST, and came across a couple of NASA engineers - who privately told him that Concorde was a finer engineering accomplishment than Apollo, partly because instead of being used once, the fleet of Concordes rushed back and forth across the sea on a daily basis, but also because instead of carrying three fighter pilots in pressure suits, she carried 100 fat businessmen in dinner suits.
Now whilst I'm not in the business of mocking the USA's space accomplishments, as they're incredible and no-one else has been able to do as much, let's please remember Concorde was more than 'Just an airliner' - she was an engineering feat that no-one else has been able to match, and, for decades, an integral part of the British & French national consciousness.
Post by: Jim on 12/21/2008 03:25 pm
1. The USAF loaded down the shuttle program with a long list of performance "requirements" that resulted in an overspecified design that could never possibly meet all the requirements, then abandoned the program at the first serious mishap.
2. Afterwards, the USAF made no serious effort to develop a vehicle that met the "requirements" that they levied on the shuttle program, which constitutes prima facie evidence that they never really needed those "requirements" in the first place.
1. That is because the White House force it to.
2. It did. T-IV. 10K to GSO with a 40' x 15' volume (20' was for upperstage) or 30k to polar.
Also the shuttle didn't even meet NASA's requirements
Post by: Skylon on 12/21/2008 03:42 pm
1. That is because the White House force it to.
The White House had to force the USAF to get on board with the shuttle program. Once on, the Air Force was in, it developed a laundry list of requirements, such as the heavy delta wings...heck, the AF wanted the shuttle to be capable of launching, deploying its payload and landing...in one orbit. I'd have liked to see that one happen.
Post by: DMeader on 12/21/2008 04:53 pm
There's a chap on TV over here called Jeremy Clarkson - US people may have heard of him....Indeed I have heard of Clarkson, and I am very familiar with his opinions on Americans and the United States. You don't help your case any by using him as a source.
As I have said, it isn't up to me, but you will never convince me, and I will never agree.
Post by: Jorge on 12/21/2008 05:09 pm
2. Afterwards, the USAF made no serious effort to develop a vehicle that met the "requirements" that they levied on the shuttle program, which constitutes prima facie evidence that they never really needed those "requirements" in the first place.
2. It did. T-IV. 10K to GSO with a 40' x 15' volume (20' was for upperstage) or 30k to polar.
Those aren't the requirements I'm referring to. The T-IV had no 1200 nmi crossrange, and no single orbit satellite deploy/retrieval capability.
Those requirements were the main drivers for the delta wing and TPS.
Quote
Also the shuttle didn't even meet NASA's requirements
There is no way the shuttle could have possibly met all of its design requirements, and the addition of the USAF's unneeded "requirements" definitely did not help.
Post by: Jim on 12/21/2008 05:16 pm
Those aren't the requirements I'm referring to. The T-IV had no 1200 nmi crossrange, and no single orbit satellite deploy/retrieval capability.
the 1200 nmi crossrange was for abort once around, which was not a bad requirement and wouldn't call it unneeded.
Since there was a abort once around requirement, the single orbit satellite deploy/retrieval capability did not add anymore changes to the TPS and wing design. And actually, the single orbit satellite deploy/retrieval capability didn't not drive any other changes to the orbiters systems. The shuttle was far from meeting this requirement.
Post by: Gary on 12/21/2008 05:48 pm
Post by: Orbiter on 12/21/2008 06:00 pm
What'll happen to Enterprise if Discovery ends up at the Smithsonian?
Personally, I'd think it should end up on display mounted to SCA N905. Maybe California. Didn't Palmdale, the "birthplace" of the shuttles hope to procure one?
Well they won't throw it away thats for sure, us Space Program dorks would revolt and undertake a civil war. ;D
Palmdale would be a great place for a west coast display.
Post by: brahmanknight on 12/21/2008 06:40 pm
I thought the 1200 mile cross range was more for the proposed vandenburg launches where the Shuttle would launch, deploy a spy sat and then land all within a single orbit.
It was.
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/21/2008 06:58 pm
Enterprise - Edwards/Dryen, mounted atop SCA
Discovery - KSC
Atlantis - JSC
Endeavour - Smithsonian
Post by: rdale on 12/21/2008 08:33 pm
I thought the 1200 mile cross range was more for the proposed vandenburg launches where the Shuttle would launch, deploy a spy sat and then land all within a single orbit.
It was.
I'm confused - are you saying that the locations they'll put orbiters after they retire is related to crossrange requirements?
Post by: Andrewwski on 12/21/2008 08:47 pm
And the idea of Europe getting an orbiter because they built the Concordes is absurd.
Post by: ShuttleDiscovery on 12/21/2008 09:08 pm
And the idea of Europe getting an orbiter because they built the Concordes is absurd.
I agree! >:(
Post by: gordo on 12/21/2008 09:47 pm
And the idea of Europe getting an orbiter because they built the Concordes is absurd.
No that was not the idea I suggested, the theory was that in the 1970s Europe ploughed its money into Concorde while the Uk ploughed it into the NSTS programme. From a technological history point of view some of the Concordes now reside in US Museums, whcih I must add are very popular exhibits; if the right opportunity arose, the argument is easily made that from the same point of view an orbiter should be on display in Europe, you also then make the arguments about ESA's contribution to the programme and it starts to become stronger.
This is not about "its my ball and these are is my rules"
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not going to be starting any crusade to get an orbiter in Europe, but damm NASA for going as far at this stage to rule out anyone outside the US.
Post by: Jason Davies on 12/21/2008 10:20 pm
Did the UK governement own Concorde? (don't know, asking).
Post by: DMeader on 12/21/2008 10:21 pm
... damm NASA for going as far at this stage to rule out anyone outside the US.Why? They are ours. Our space program. We built them. Our people paid for them. The rest of the world has no claim whatsoever. It is literally "our ball". I am getting a bit tired of you repeatedly demanding something that simply does not belong to you. What part of all of this do you not understand? And please do not start the "Concorde" nonsense again. There is no connection.
How would you react if I demanded that you give us your Crown Jewels just because they'd look neat in one of our museums next to the Hope Diamond? Hey, and Big Ben would look good on the National Mall... it would balance nicely against the Washington Monument. Give it to us! What's that you say? Those are British national treasures? Same thing, my friend. Now please give it up, this is really starting to seem like flamebaiting.
Post by: Jim on 12/21/2008 10:30 pm
if the right opportunity arose, the argument is easily made that from the same point of view an orbiter should be on display in Europe, you also then make the arguments about ESA's contribution to the programme
No, ESA got the memento from their contribution, a Spacelab module
Post by: gordo on 12/21/2008 10:38 pm
... damm NASA for going as far at this stage to rule out anyone outside the US.Why? They are ours. Our space program. We built them. Our people paid for them. The rest of the world has no claim whatsoever. It is literally "our ball". I am getting a bit tired of you repeatedly demanding something that simply does not belong to you. What part of all of this do you not understand? And please do not start the "Concorde" nonsense again. There is no connection.
How would you react if I demanded that you give us your Crown Jewels just because they'd look neat in one of our museums next to the Hope Diamond? Hey, and Big Ben would look good on the National Mall... it would balance nicely against the Washington Monument. Give it to us! What's that you say? Those are British national treasures? Same thing, my friend. Now please give it up, this is really starting to seem like flamebaiting.
You are missing the point completely my friend. My discussion point has never been about ownership, its about ensure that this technological marvel is best displayed as widely as possible to ensipre people around the world.
Lets consider NASAs mission and vision statements
NASA Mission Statement
To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.
To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.
To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.
NASA Vision
NASA is an investment in America's future. As explorers, pioneers, and innovators, we boldly expand frontiers in air and space to inspire and serve America and to benefit the quality of life on Earth.
For sure NASA is american agency, but it mission and vision are global.
Post by: Stowbridge on 12/21/2008 11:04 pm
How would you react if I demanded that you give us your Crown Jewels just because they'd look neat in one of our museums next to the Hope Diamond? Hey, and Big Ben would look good on the National Mall... it would balance nicely against the Washington Monument. Give it to us! What's that you say? Those are British national treasures? Same thing, my friend. Now please give it up, this is really starting to seem like flamebaiting.
I agree it's stupid to compare Concorde with an orbiter, but on the above, it's a false statement.
We bought London Bridge, but bought the wrong one, thinking we were buying Tower Bridge :D So yes, it's happened, but we filled out the wrong name on the invoice.
Post by: marsavian on 01/07/2009 12:10 am
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Remarkable-Technologies-Inc-935011.html
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090106-space-shuttle-mars-flight.html
http://www.remarkable.com/marsonashoestring.html
Post by: DMeader on 01/07/2009 01:02 pm
Why retire them when we can go to Mars on them lol ;)
That concept is too ludicrous for words.
Post by: Skylon on 01/09/2009 03:22 am
Why retire them when we can go to Mars on them lol ;)
That concept is too ludicrous for words.
Someone was reading Baxter's Titan it sounds like.
Post by: collectSPACE on 02/05/2009 02:33 pm
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-020409a.html
Rendezvous, a quarterly magazine published to provide NASA employees with the latest transition news, recently addressed the issue of shuttle artifacts by interviewing Rich Wickman, transition manager for Infrastructure, and Lindy Fortenberry, shuttle program artifacts lead, as well as Valerie Neal, curator of the space shuttle collection at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.
Post by: Rik HS on 02/06/2009 11:30 am
Did the UK governement own Concorde? (don't know, asking).
No, the 8 British "built" production aircraft were (and still are I believe) owned by British Airways.
Post by: darren1 on 05/11/2009 07:49 pm
However, I do have a concern with us putting money down on a shuttle. After our little stunt with London Bridge (You got the bridge that you asked for) I think we'd look pretty p***ed when Pathfinder is delivered!
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/11/2009 08:05 pm
Right, dont shoot me down as I'm new here, but I see no problem with us Brits having a shuttle, after all, the Queen Mary was public funded and she now lives in Long Beach (As opposed to her spiritual home) and my home city of Southampton.
However, I do have a concern with us putting money down on a shuttle. After our little stunt with London Bridge (You got the bridge that you asked for) I think we'd look pretty p***ed when Pathfinder is delivered!
Won't shoot you down as I'm English too, but I think the most we could hope for would be an Enterprise style tour on top of a SCA.
We couldn't afford or justify paying for an orbiter, and besides there's something very wrong about one being taken away from a NASA center as far as I'm concerned, but that's because these amazing machines don't deserve to end their days being covered in grubby finger prints from Johnny Tourist.
Chuckles over the London Bridge vs Tower Bridge story :)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/11/2009 08:15 pm
We couldn't afford or justify paying for an orbiter
I dunno... we've got Charley Brown, the Apollo-10 CM at the Science Museum in London. Admittedly there is about a two orders of magnitude difference in scale but...
But it would be great to see the Enterprise in her own hanger at Duxford...
Post by: Spacenick on 05/11/2009 08:46 pm
Post by: Jorge on 05/11/2009 08:50 pm
We couldn't afford or justify paying for an orbiter
I dunno... we've got Charley Brown, the Apollo-10 CM at the Science Museum in London. Admittedly there is about a two orders of magnitude difference in scale but...
Forget the scale. The problem is that there are far fewer orbiters to go around. CSMs are much more plentiful. The fact is that not even every place in the US that wants an orbiter will get one.
Post by: Paul Adams on 05/11/2009 08:54 pm
I'd like to have an Orbiter next to the Buran in Speyer that would be awesome even though the Buran is only an Atmospheric test item. And it would be even more awesome as the same museum also has both a Tupoloev and a Concord
Post by: darren1 on 05/11/2009 08:57 pm
I'd like to have an Orbiter next to the Buran in Speyer that would be awesome even though the Buran is only an Atmospheric test item. And it would be even more awesome as the same museum also has both a Tupoloev and a Concord
Well why don't you have pathfinder?? ;)
In all fairness as stated there aren't enough to go around so if I were from the States I wouldn't be happy at one being shipped abroad. But I think there should be one at Cape Canaveral (Spelling???) as that is where it would be seen by most from outside of America.
But to reply to Gordo, as I've said, the Queen Mary was OURS. So can we have our ball back?? ;)
Post by: DMeader on 05/11/2009 10:57 pm
Get me tickets to a "Top Gear" taping, and then MAYBE we can talk. :)
Post by: stefan1138 on 05/12/2009 03:12 pm
I'd like to have an Orbiter next to the Buran in Speyer that would be awesome even though the Buran is only an Atmospheric test item. And it would be even more awesome as the same museum also has both a Tupoloev and a Concord
I dont want to be a nitpicker, but actually the Concorde and the Tupolev 144 are in the Museum in Sinsheim, which is a one hours drive from Speyer (but which is managed by the same group). Unfortunately they they expose both aircraft to the elements (on the museum roof, where you can board them). Fortunately the Buran in Speyer is displayed inside..
Rgds Stefan
Post by: darren1 on 05/12/2009 06:29 pm
Everybody has their hand out....
Get me tickets to a "Top Gear" taping, and then MAYBE we can talk. :)
http://www.applausestore.com/applausestore-show-detail.php?id=15
Lets talk!!!!! :D
Post by: Spacenick on 05/12/2009 06:35 pm
Post by: Orbiter on 01/12/2010 07:47 pm
Discovery is going to the Smithsonian.
I dunno about Enterprise, Endeavour or Atlantis. Although they mentioned that its likely that one of the two space worthy shuttles will stay at KSC.
Orbiter
Post by: Namechange User on 01/12/2010 08:10 pm
Discovery will go to Smithsonian.
Atlantis most likely to go to USAF museum in Dayton.
Endeavour, no real idea, however likely to stay at KSC.
Post by: Downix on 01/12/2010 08:49 pm
Just heard this on BayNews9 in a discussion about the future of the space shuttle.Enterprise is already in the Smithsonian.
Discovery is going to the Smithsonian.
I dunno about Enterprise, Endeavour or Atlantis. Although they mentioned that its likely that one of the two space worthy shuttles will stay at KSC.
Orbiter
Post by: Orbiter on 01/12/2010 10:24 pm
Just heard this on BayNews9 in a discussion about the future of the space shuttle.Enterprise is already in the Smithsonian.
Discovery is going to the Smithsonian.
I dunno about Enterprise, Endeavour or Atlantis. Although they mentioned that its likely that one of the two space worthy shuttles will stay at KSC.
Orbiter
I know, they're going to move Enterprise somewhere else obviously, or maybe they want two orbiters which I dont think is going to happen.
Orbiter
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 01/12/2010 10:53 pm
Post by: smith5se on 01/12/2010 11:05 pm
Though which ever orbiter they get, the viewing center for it looks promising.
Post by: Orbiter on 01/12/2010 11:13 pm
Atlantis will most likely IMHO go to KSC.
Endeavour, I personally believe it goes to JSC.
Enterprise, no clue
Orbiter
Post by: robertross on 01/12/2010 11:21 pm
Seriously, I would say out west, at Edwards perhaps.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/15/2010 06:36 pm
WASHINGTON -- NASA has issued a follow-up Request for Information, or
RFI, for ideas from education institutions, science museums and other
appropriate organizations about the community's ability to acquire
and publicly display orbiters after the conclusion of the Space
Shuttle Program.
The original RFI in December 2008 noted that a potential shuttle
recipient would have to pay an estimated $42 million for the cost of
"safeing" an orbiter, preparing it for display and ferrying it to a
U.S. destination airport. NASA has updated the requirements and tasks
needed to make each orbiter safe for disposition. The agency will not
ask recipients to provide the funds for this activity. Except for
cost and scheduled delivery changes, the 2008 and 2010 RFIs are
virtually the same. In this follow-up RFI, NASA revised the estimated
display preparation and ferrying costs to $28.8 million.
The schedule for transferring the orbiters may be six months earlier
than originally anticipated. NASA also desires to make selections a
year before receipt of the orbiters, so recipient organizations will
have sufficient time to conduct any fundraising activities necessary
to support preparation and ferry costs.
RFI responses are due to NASA by 11:59 p.m. EST on Friday, Feb. 19,
2010. Organizations that responded to the original RFI do not need to
resubmit a full response, but should clarify their positions with
respect to these changes.
NASA is planning to transfer space shuttle Discovery to the National
Air and Space Museum. Shuttle orbiters Endeavour and Atlantis will be
available for placement no earlier than July, 2011.
For additional information and to view the RFI, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/transition
Post by: bluebert on 01/15/2010 07:28 pm
Post by: robertross on 01/15/2010 07:34 pm
What about the shuttle engines (SSME)? Could they be reused for the new heavy lift vehicle(s)?
Oh don't worry...they'll keep anything useable. Enough engines that cannot fly again to be put in their place
Post by: Paul Adams on 01/15/2010 07:52 pm
Does anyone have any insight into what Kennedy would do with the orbiter they get?
I would go so far as to start a support group fund raising effort to help make such a display a reality. I think that there are probably enough of us shuttle huggers out there who would be willing to contribute a few bucks (and be acknowledged in a way similar to the Saturn V walk at Huntsville) to amass a worthwile amount.
Good idea, bad idea?
Paul
Post by: robertross on 01/15/2010 08:03 pm
First, I would like to see the shuttle continue flying until 2015, but as that is unlikely, I would like to see a vertical full stack at Kennedy Space Center.
Does anyone have any insight into what Kennedy would do with the orbiter they get?
I would go so far as to start a support group fund raising effort to help make such a display a reality. I think that there are probably enough of us shuttle huggers out there who would be willing to contribute a few bucks (and be acknowledged in a way similar to the Saturn V walk at Huntsville) to amass a worthwile amount.
Good idea, bad idea?
Paul
A complete shuttle stack is not viable.
1) we could use the SRB segments for the HLV
2) The stack would be very unstable in high winds, especially with empty SRBs.
Best is an orbiter on the ground, supported on the attach points by fixed jacks.
Post by: Paul Adams on 01/15/2010 08:27 pm
First, I would like to see the shuttle continue flying until 2015, but as that is unlikely, I would like to see a vertical full stack at Kennedy Space Center.
Does anyone have any insight into what Kennedy would do with the orbiter they get?
I would go so far as to start a support group fund raising effort to help make such a display a reality. I think that there are probably enough of us shuttle huggers out there who would be willing to contribute a few bucks (and be acknowledged in a way similar to the Saturn V walk at Huntsville) to amass a worthwile amount.
Good idea, bad idea?
Paul
A complete shuttle stack is not viable.
1) we could use the SRB segments for the HLV
2) The stack would be very unstable in high winds, especially with empty SRBs.
Best is an orbiter on the ground, supported on the attach points by fixed jacks.
Perhaps I should have explained myself a little more fully:
Right now, at the KSC visitors center there is a mock up an ET and SRB’s sat at about a 15 to 20 degree angle. I would imagine it would be quite east to design and build replicas of the SRB’s and ET designed to carry the weight of the orbiter in a vertical position.
Under NO circumstances, should any of the orbiters be displayed outside, that would be next to criminal!
I would propose a purpose designed building with a number of platforms to view the stack from different heights. I envisage a glass front through which the stack is visible. It would certainly become the focus the visitor’s center.
Post by: Jorge on 01/15/2010 08:49 pm
First, I would like to see the shuttle continue flying until 2015, but as that is unlikely, I would like to see a vertical full stack at Kennedy Space Center.
Does anyone have any insight into what Kennedy would do with the orbiter they get?
I would go so far as to start a support group fund raising effort to help make such a display a reality. I think that there are probably enough of us shuttle huggers out there who would be willing to contribute a few bucks (and be acknowledged in a way similar to the Saturn V walk at Huntsville) to amass a worthwile amount.
Good idea, bad idea?
Paul
A complete shuttle stack is not viable.
1) we could use the SRB segments for the HLV
2) The stack would be very unstable in high winds, especially with empty SRBs.
Best is an orbiter on the ground, supported on the attach points by fixed jacks.
Perhaps I should have explained myself a little more fully:
Right now, at the KSC visitors center there is a mock up an ET and SRB’s sat at about a 15 to 20 degree angle. I would imagine it would be quite east to design and build replicas of the SRB’s and ET designed to carry the weight of the orbiter in a vertical position.
Under NO circumstances, should any of the orbiters be displayed outside, that would be next to criminal!
I would propose a purpose designed building with a number of platforms to view the stack from different heights. I envisage a glass front through which the stack is visible. It would certainly become the focus the visitor’s center.
Hey, if you think you can raise enough private funds to do that, have at it. But be aware that you're talking tens of millions of dollars (and probably *high* tens, at that) to build a rig like that.
Post by: Orbiter on 01/16/2010 02:02 pm
Orbiter
Post by: ginahoy on 01/17/2010 02:43 am
What about the shuttle engines (SSME)? Could they be reused for the new heavy lift vehicle(s)?
According to an article in today's NYT, the SSME's and other shuttle artifacts will be available for the cost of transportation and handling (see last paragraph)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/science/space/17nasa.html
Post by: smith5se on 01/17/2010 03:44 am
Perhaps I should have explained myself a little more fully:
Right now, at the KSC visitors center there is a mock up an ET and SRB’s sat at about a 15 to 20 degree angle. I would imagine it would be quite east to design and build replicas of the SRB’s and ET designed to carry the weight of the orbiter in a vertical position.
Under NO circumstances, should any of the orbiters be displayed outside, that would be next to criminal!
I would propose a purpose designed building with a number of platforms to view the stack from different heights. I envisage a glass front through which the stack is visible. It would certainly become the focus the visitor’s center.
I can tell you they definitly do not plan on displaying the orbiter outside; last time I was at KSCVC chatted with an employee about orbiter retirement and options for KSCVC to obtain one. He mentioned the display would be similar to the Saturn V display, except it would be for shuttle. Also proposed will be an "interactive zone," obviously shuttle won't be touched but there will be some hands on items within there he mentioned tiles as one item. But yeah PM me if you'd like scans of the pamphlet he gave me.
But yeah, mind you that's from a VC employee so I'm not sure how much they'd know about it, or if NASA has any say in how it would get displayed, and it was back in August 2009 so things could have changed. I do plan on asking again though when I'm down there for STS 130.
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/17/2010 03:47 am
According to an article in today's NYT, the SSME's and other shuttle artifacts will be available for the cost of transportation and handling (see last paragraph)
All flight-worthy SSMEs are still being retained by the program and the updated RFI specifically excludes discussion of them:
"This RFI does not address Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs). NASA does not plan to include three installed SSMEs with each Orbiter."
What was (since Dec. 2008) and still is being offered are SSME kits -- mix and match sets of retired flight hardware that may or may not be complete. The "no interest" claim by the AP (as reprinted by the New York Times) is curious though, as I have heard directly from museums that expressed interest in acquiring one or more SSMEs.
I can tell you they definitly do not plan on displaying the orbiter outside;
NASA requires all shuttle suitors provide an indoor display otherwise they are not eligible for consideration:
A suitable climate-controlled indoor facility must be available to house the Orbiter when delivered.
Post by: agman25 on 01/18/2010 02:33 pm
Assembly will be required, however."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/science/space/17nasa.html
Post by: Downix on 01/18/2010 02:35 pm
"As for the space shuttle main engines, those are now free. NASA advertised them in December 2008 for $400,000 to $800,000 each, but no one expressed interest. So now the engines are available, along with other shuttle artifacts, for the cost of transportation and handling.Hmm... so who do we contact? I'd grab an SSME or two, already have the vehicle to move them.
Assembly will be required, however."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/science/space/17nasa.html
Post by: agman25 on 01/18/2010 02:37 pm
More importantly weren't they going to reuse the engines if a SDLV was chosen to be developed."As for the space shuttle main engines, those are now free. NASA advertised them in December 2008 for $400,000 to $800,000 each, but no one expressed interest. So now the engines are available, along with other shuttle artifacts, for the cost of transportation and handling.Hmm... so who do we contact? I'd grab an SSME or two, already have the vehicle to move them.
Assembly will be required, however."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/science/space/17nasa.html
Post by: Roo on 01/18/2010 02:56 pm
These are perfectly good engines for something surely - not a mantelpiece item (not to be taken literally)?
Anyway, why are they being sold - is it to raise money or are they no good without an orbiter or similar to attach to?
Hearing something like this, you do feel a little sympathy for those who say that NASA is a dying force.
Roo.
Post by: Downix on 01/18/2010 03:08 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 01/18/2010 03:16 pm
1. The updated RFI does not address the SSMEs. ("This RFI does not address Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs). NASA does not plan to include three installed SSMEs with each Orbiter.")
2. The orbiters and the SSMEs, along with all other shuttle artifacts, are NOT being sold. They are being awarded to museums and educational institutions. There are fees however for shipping that the recipients will need to underwrite. (Earlier NASA intended the museums to also pay for safing the orbiters/SSME kits for display, but that has since been waived.)
3. NASA is retaining all flight-worthy SSMEs. What is being offered to the museums are several partially assembled kits made from flight-retired hardware that may or may not be complete.
4. NASA originally intended to award the SSME kits as part of the same RFI process being used for the orbiters. Instead, they are now being offered under the separate shuttle artifact GSA disposition (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-091409a.html), currently underway.
Post by: William Barton on 01/18/2010 03:16 pm
What about the shuttle engines (SSME)? Could they be reused for the new heavy lift vehicle(s)?
According to an article in today's NYT, the SSME's and other shuttle artifacts will be available for the cost of transportation and handling (see last paragraph)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/science/space/17nasa.html
That does answer my question about what happened to the retired SSMEs. I wonder if it's the whole manufacturing run (minus the obvious 6)?
Post by: Roo on 01/18/2010 03:23 pm
Roo.
Post by: iamlucky13 on 01/19/2010 08:26 am
According to an article in today's NYT, the SSME's and other shuttle artifacts will be available for the cost of transportation and handling (see last paragraph)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/science/space/17nasa.html
:o DIBS! ;D
Now I'm trying to remember who the poster is here with a house stuffed full of various artifacts dating back to at least the Apollo (I remember he posted a picture of a spare LEM instrument panel with the contact indicator lit up on the anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing).
I have to know who the competition is if I'm going to beat him to an SSME.
Post by: civpilot on 01/23/2010 11:27 pm
Enterprise will go somewhere, assuming it can still be flown since it has not seen maintenance in a while. Evaluations in work.
Discovery will go to Smithsonian.
Atlantis most likely to go to USAF museum in Dayton.
Endeavour, no real idea, however likely to stay at KSC.
The military (AF Museum) doesnt need one. I think it would be cool if Enterprise wnet to Palmdale, Discovery is already going to the smithsonian, Atlantis can stay at KSC, and Endeavour can go to JSC. If the af museum decides they have to have one let them have the pathfinder mockup that is at ksc right now.
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2010 11:30 pm
The military (AF Museum) doesnt need one.
Why?
Post by: civpilot on 01/26/2010 07:43 pm
Post by: Jim on 01/26/2010 07:49 pm
They've never really supported the shuttle to begin with.
Not true, they paid for VAFB, IUS, CSOC, SPIF and many other things in support of the Shuttle. It paid for each mission. It was all in until Challenger. The Eastern Range supports every mission. The USAF supplied personnel to NASA for support. The USAF was a partner.
The USAF was a big part of the shuttle program and its museum is a perfect place for an orbiter.
Post by: robertross on 01/26/2010 09:47 pm
The USAF was a big part of the shuttle program and its museum is a perfect place for an orbiter.
I agree. Perhaps Edwards?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/27/2010 05:12 pm
KSC doesn't have a place to display an orbiter indoors at present (nor does JSC or MSFC, etc.), though the Saturn V Center offers a fine example of the possibilities.
As of earlier this year, the KSC Visitor Complex's plans for a retired orbiter display was to be inside an extension to an existing facility on the main grounds of the complex.QuoteSo does Dayton USAF Museum. There are possibilities in California. JSC and MSFC, not so much
The Space Gallery, which is where the National Museum of U.S. Air Force intends to display an orbiter, has yet to be built, though is partially funded. Similarly, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center could expand the new Davidson Center for Space Exploration, and JSC could expand the Saturn V Building.QuoteI note that the Kansas museum is asking for an SSME "engine kit". If a complete orbiter can't be saved, it could be parted out perhaps.
As noted in the RFI, the SSMEs are being treated separate from the orbiters, but otherwise states the orbiters will not be disassembled for transfer or storage.
I know $$$ is the problem, but I'd like to see the Saturn V building at JSC expanded to cover the LJII and the Mercury Redstone there as well... perhaps this would be a good adjuct to a shuttle display building.
Remember that JSC is itself only a couple miles from saltwater and certainly has it's exposure to enough hurricanes (IKE most recently) and they JUST did a renovation on the Little Joe II there, as it was corroding away very badly, as was the Saturn V before it came 'indoors' (or the indoors came to it more properly stated).
It would be a complete shame to allow these Historic National Icons to simply dissolve in the salt air, especially since there is so likely to be so few follow ons to replace them... that and history is irreplaceable.
What value would future generations place on these things?? The ACTUAL HARDWARE used at the time... what value would we place on an actual intact Viking ship or Spanish galleon, or British man of war, or in-situ stones preserved in route to the pyramids, complete with whatever methods/equipment used to move them?? Such historical treasures would be absolutely priceless...
Later! OL JR :)
Post by: Orbiter on 01/27/2010 05:26 pm
They've never really supported the shuttle to begin with.
Not true, they paid for VAFB, IUS, CSOC, SPIF and many other things in support of the Shuttle. It paid for each mission. It was all in until Challenger. The Eastern Range supports every mission. The USAF supplied personnel to NASA for support. The USAF was a partner.
The USAF was a big part of the shuttle program and its museum is a perfect place for an orbiter.
The Space Shuttles will become tourist attractions, and in short, little bit more money for the museum owners. I doubt that people would be willing to go out into the middle of the desert (Edwards) to see a Shuttle, but would be more than willing if it was Kennedy Space Center. Just IMO.
Orbiter.
Post by: psloss on 01/27/2010 05:35 pm
Not Edwards, but the National Museum of the USAF:They've never really supported the shuttle to begin with.
Not true, they paid for VAFB, IUS, CSOC, SPIF and many other things in support of the Shuttle. It paid for each mission. It was all in until Challenger. The Eastern Range supports every mission. The USAF supplied personnel to NASA for support. The USAF was a partner.
The USAF was a big part of the shuttle program and its museum is a perfect place for an orbiter.
The Space Shuttles will become tourist attractions, and in short, little bit more money for the museum owners. I doubt that people would be willing to go out into the middle of the desert (Edwards) to see a Shuttle, but would be more than willing if it was Kennedy Space Center. Just IMO.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/
This possibility has been noted several times in this thread, for example:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4078.msg524334#msg524334
or Robert's post in late August 2006:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4078.msg62447#msg62447
Post by: Orbiter on 01/27/2010 05:37 pm
Enterprise maybe?
Orbiter
Post by: Jorge on 01/27/2010 05:41 pm
Not Edwards, but the National Museum of the USAF:They've never really supported the shuttle to begin with.
Not true, they paid for VAFB, IUS, CSOC, SPIF and many other things in support of the Shuttle. It paid for each mission. It was all in until Challenger. The Eastern Range supports every mission. The USAF supplied personnel to NASA for support. The USAF was a partner.
The USAF was a big part of the shuttle program and its museum is a perfect place for an orbiter.
The Space Shuttles will become tourist attractions, and in short, little bit more money for the museum owners. I doubt that people would be willing to go out into the middle of the desert (Edwards) to see a Shuttle, but would be more than willing if it was Kennedy Space Center. Just IMO.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/
This possibility has been noted several times in this thread, for example:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4078.msg524334#msg524334
or Robert's post in late August 2006:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4078.msg62447#msg62447
In terms of putting tourists within driving distance of an orbiter, Edwards is much better than Wright-Patterson. Edwards puts most of Southern California within driving distance of an orbiter. Wright-Patterson is (just barely) within driving distance of Udvar-Hazy, so there aren't *that* many people within driving distance of Wright-Patterson who couldn't just go to Udvar-Hazy instead. So from that point of view, putting two orbiters that close together seems a bit of a waste.
That said, I recognize that the USAF will put their orbiter at Wright-Patterson, regardless.
Post by: Skylon on 01/27/2010 07:22 pm
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/27/2010 10:05 pm
The Space Gallery, which is where the National Museum of U.S. Air Force intends to display an orbiter, has yet to be built, though is partially funded. Similarly, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center could expand the new Davidson Center for Space Exploration, and JSC could expand the Saturn V Building.
JSC's Saturn V display isn't really a "Building". It is more like a temporary "Barn". I would hope that space shuttle orbiters would reside in better structures than that.
- Ed Kyle
That's a rather crappy statement to make... I've been there numerous times and no it's not the main gallery of the NASM but then it doesn't have to be... especially for a vehicle the size of the Saturn V. It's air conditioned and climate controlled (humidity, of which we have BUCKETS near Houston) and it's a nice, simple facility.
Too much emphasis is placed on BUILDINGS... We build glass and brick and mahogany paneled immaculately outfitted schools in which the kids can't find their own country on map, can't read, and couldn't calculate their way out of a wet paper bag...
Like empty suits, it's what's INSIDE that counts...
JMHO! OL JR :)
Post by: Jorge on 01/27/2010 10:16 pm
The Space Gallery, which is where the National Museum of U.S. Air Force intends to display an orbiter, has yet to be built, though is partially funded. Similarly, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center could expand the new Davidson Center for Space Exploration, and JSC could expand the Saturn V Building.
JSC's Saturn V display isn't really a "Building". It is more like a temporary "Barn". I would hope that space shuttle orbiters would reside in better structures than that.
- Ed Kyle
That's a rather crappy statement to make... I've been there numerous times and no it's not the main gallery of the NASM but then it doesn't have to be... especially for a vehicle the size of the Saturn V. It's air conditioned and climate controlled (humidity, of which we have BUCKETS near Houston) and it's a nice, simple facility.
And, unlike the KSC Saturn V building, it is not even remotely hurricane-proof. It was lucky enough to only see Cat 1 winds during Ike; the next big one will take it down. Therefore it is not suitable as a long-term home.
What's outside does matter.
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/27/2010 10:52 pm
Especially considering the way they treated the shuttle program.What is that suppose to mean? The USAF didn't treat the shuttle badly
Maybe from your perspective.
The USAF loaded down the shuttle program with a long list of performance "requirements" that resulted in an overspecified design that could never possibly meet all the requirements, then abandoned the program at the first serious mishap.
Afterwards, the USAF made no serious effort to develop a vehicle that met the "requirements" that they levied on the shuttle program, which constitutes prima facie evidence that they never really needed those "requirements" in the first place.
The term "turd in the punchbowl" comes to mind, for some reason.
Not to stray too far off topic, but the lesson to learn from history here is "not to drink the koolaid"... which is exactly what the AF/DOD did in jumping in the shuttle program in the first place...
DOD/AF jumped it because of their persistent yet perpetually stymied efforts to get a manned spaceflight capability in space-- 'blue suits' in orbit. First dyna-soar went the way of the dinosaurs, then MOL/Blue Gemini got pulled out from under them at the last moment. STS provided a "great opportunity" to finally get blue suits in orbit. It was co-dependency at it's finest. NASA got to tap badly needed/wanted DOD money for their program, while DOD got to dream of manned orbiting outposts, capturing/inspecting Soviet spacecraft in orbit, even their own astronaut corps; all those 'grandiose visions' that "justified" the development of Dyna-Soar and MOL in the first place. It also satisfied NASA's justification of "weekly launches lowering launch rates to a few hundred dollars a pound with a MANNED spacecraft" by eliminating those pesky expendable boosters which the Air Force would have continued to use, competing with shuttle, and those HAD to go. NASA thus ensured any foes of manned flight were held at bay by ensuring the ONLY vehicle available was a MANNED space shuttle.
Politics makes strange bedfellows! No sooner than they were in bed together than the incompatibility started to show. Air Force cross-range requirements for landing (most notably on polar launches out of Vandenberg on 'once or twice around' missions) drove the switch to delta wings, and DOD requirements to carry huge recon sats required a huge payload bay, which drove the design further and further from it's initially envisioned architecture.
That was a high price to pay for that assurance that there would be no expendable competition for the manned reusable vehicle, and sharing in that DOD money. It's a cost NASA has payed throughout the program.
Experience in the real world proved the point that the shuttle's capabilities were largely unnecessary for DOD/AF needs. Just as Corona and the other early spy sats proved that unmanned reconnaissance was just as effective and actually superior to expensive manned spy labs like MOL, which obviated the need for things like Dyna-Soar and Blue Gemini. STS never panned out to get the kind of flight rates that would have brought costs down, much like the oft-quoted promise in the 70's of "nuclear power providing electricity TOO CHEAP TO METER" and the delays and launch scrubs inherent in a complicated manned vehicle, along with the additional expenses of manrating everything since it's flying on a manned vehicle, which would have been totally unnecessary for an unmanned satellite launched on an expendable booster, proved the point further. The point was driven home when Challenger was lost and the subsequent standdown put vital national security payloads at risk of staying on the ground, proving once and for all the supreme folly of relying on a single complicated, expensive MANNED vehicle to carry relatively simple cargo flights like spy sats which were highly dependent on TIMELY launches for national security reasons.
I would argue that AF/DOD learned the lessons quite well, and RIGHTLY walked away and went back to expendable launchers, culminating in the EELV program and launchers we have today. If NASA had taken the same tack, instead of "plunging ahead" with shuttle and "justifying" it by building a space station architecture around it, NASA COULD have embarked on a "shuttle derived" follow-on launcher with either an "upscaled Apollo" (pre-Orion) or a small top-mounted "Dyna-Soar derived" (sorta OSP-like) crew vehicle for manned launches, with an SDLV (NLS) cargo launcher for the heavy stuff.
IF such a strategy had been implemented THINK of where we could be today! ISS could have been built in 5-6 launches or so, and we could have worked toward a more dependable reusable architecture, or instituted cost-saving measures to the SDLV launchers to streamline the system. If such a system had been in place, we could be seriously talking about BEO operations without having to build EVERYTHING from scratch, more or less at once.
So, my take on it is, the AF/DOD didn't treat NASA badly... NASA made their bed and then they had to lie in it...
JMHO! OL JR :)
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/20/2010 09:21 pm
I see Discovery is most likley going to the Smithsonian, I hope KSC has plans to hold one to display there, and not send all 3 to museums.
Post by: Namechange User on 04/20/2010 09:48 pm
In anticipation of your next question, no, I will not post it here. ;)
Enterprise "looks" gutted because it was not an operational orbiter. It does not have many of the systems or other equipment compliment that space-worthy orbiters have.
All that said, some of the systems will be removed for long-term safing purposes but they will not be a "hollow shell" either
Post by: mjp25 on 04/22/2010 02:48 am
http://www.fantasyofflight.com
Their mission id to restore aircraft to flyable condition! Keep 'em flying! ;-) So maybe just half joking. It is called FANTASY of Flight after all. Seriously though, great museum, would recommend it to anyone. You can and are actually ENCOURAGED to touch the aircraft. I know many of you on here get to actually interact with some of the coolest machines ever built, but for the rest of us, this is a great experience.
Post by: Robson68 on 04/25/2010 03:25 pm
[/quote]
I agree, when Concorde retired Manchester Airport (UK) were lucky enough to get GBOAC, the pride of the supersonic fleet.
After years of it being outside it was beginning to get weather beaten. Thankfully a nice new hanger has been built and it is now under cover.
Post by: Jester on 04/25/2010 06:01 pm
Post by: gordo on 04/28/2010 07:09 am
Post by: JayP on 04/28/2010 02:00 pm
Its also important to keep them as complete as possible form a historical perspective. In 30 years when engineers want to look at a system, they want to open it up and find it and not a gap!
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Most of the aircraft and spacecraft on display in meuseums around the world are only restored visually from the perspective of the viewer. on the inside, they are usually incomplete. Plus, in 30 years, the shuttles will be 70 year old technology. It would be like engineers from today reverse engineering a biplane from the 30s.
Post by: DMeader on 04/28/2010 06:54 pm
Post by: JayP on 04/28/2010 10:56 pm
Depends on caliber of the museum, doesn't it? I'll grant that many "museums" drag a stripped hulk out to the field, chain it down, give it a coat of housepaint and call it done, but look at NASM or USAFM. I don't think you'll find many pretty painted shells amongst their artifacts. They go to the trouble of hunting down documentation and actually manufacturing missing parts for their restorations. I don't think an orbiter should go to anyone not willing to go to such steps with their exhibits. The thought of all those old birds (including a Blackbird) deteriorating out in the elements on the deck of the Intrepid makes me very sad.
Actually, NASM (I don't know about USAFM, but I spent some time at the Garber facility years ago) only restores the exterior appearance. If there is some component missing from the interior of the vehicle that can't be seen from the outside, they wont replace it. For instance, if NASA decides that they can't completely flush and inert the OMS and RCS systems and decides to strip out all of the tanks and plumming, they won't attempt to recreate it.
Post by: DMeader on 04/29/2010 01:31 am
Actually, NASM (I don't know about USAFM, but I spent some time at the Garber facility years ago) only restores the exterior appearance.
Well, I don't intend to argue with you, but that is totally contrary to what I have seen during dozens of trips to NASM, and many many years reading restoration articles in Air&Space Smithsonian.
Post by: collectSPACE on 04/29/2010 04:42 pm
Actually, NASM (I don't know about USAFM, but I spent some time at the Garber facility years ago) only restores the exterior appearance. If there is some component missing from the interior of the vehicle that can't be seen from the outside, they wont replace it.
They may not replace it, but if the original can be located, they will reinstall it. Take Enterprise for example; when received, the cockpit was stripped bare. The museum staff located and obtained several of the original panels and had them reinstalled.
Post by: bodge on 04/29/2010 04:59 pm
The Space Gallery, which is where the National Museum of U.S. Air Force intends to display an orbiter, has yet to be built, though is partially funded. Similarly, the U.S. Space and Rocket Center could expand the new Davidson Center for Space Exploration, and JSC could expand the Saturn V Building.
JSC's Saturn V display isn't really a "Building". It is more like a temporary "Barn". I would hope that space shuttle orbiters would reside in better structures than that.
- Ed Kyle
That's a rather crappy statement to make... I've been there numerous times and no it's not the main gallery of the NASM but then it doesn't have to be... especially for a vehicle the size of the Saturn V. It's air conditioned and climate controlled (humidity, of which we have BUCKETS near Houston) and it's a nice, simple facility.
And, unlike the KSC Saturn V building, it is not even remotely hurricane-proof. It was lucky enough to only see Cat 1 winds during Ike; the next big one will take it down. Therefore it is not suitable as a long-term home.
What's outside does matter.
Even if a building was hurricane wind proof here, the JSC area is very suspectible to storm surge in a major hurricane. A few storms prior to Ike, there were predictions that put the whole center under 20 ft of water. For that reason alone I don't think JSC is the best place to retire a Space Shuttle.
Then again, the Orbiters have done just fine in the OPFs at KSC....
Post by: Arthur on 04/29/2010 07:45 pm
Post by: HelixSpiral on 04/29/2010 09:19 pm
I'm pretty sure that the museum runway isn't capable of landing a 747. It's an old WWII runway.
Post by: Paul Adams on 04/29/2010 09:28 pm
Is anyone here familiar with with the roads around the Air Force museum and Wright-Patt? I'm trying to figure out how the AF would get an orbiter from the main runway at the AFB over to the museum.
I'm pretty sure that the museum runway isn't capable of landing a 747. It's an old WWII runway.
Via public road and probably the removal of many roadside poles. Do a search for how they got the XB70 there!
Post by: HelixSpiral on 04/29/2010 09:40 pm
Post by: psloss on 04/29/2010 09:44 pm
Sounds like a serious photo opportunity if one of the orbiters goes there...Is anyone here familiar with with the roads around the Air Force museum and Wright-Patt? I'm trying to figure out how the AF would get an orbiter from the main runway at the AFB over to the museum.
I'm pretty sure that the museum runway isn't capable of landing a 747. It's an old WWII runway.
Via public road and probably the removal of many roadside poles. Do a search for how they got the XB70 there!
Edit -- already noted in Dayton:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/where-would-space-shuttle-land-at-wright-patt--496844.html
Post by: subisnack on 04/29/2010 10:17 pm
Post by: MickQ on 05/31/2010 01:29 am
Anyone see or hear this ???
Mick.
Post by: David AF on 05/31/2010 01:33 am
Post by: Jim on 05/31/2010 01:33 am
I recently read a report from 'space-travel.com', written by Richard Gordon and Dennis Wingo and dated May 20, 2010 which calls for one or more orbiters to be retired " on orbit".
It is a bad idea.
Post by: smith5se on 06/10/2010 03:43 am
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/sciencemath/de4a/#description
Post by: Namechange User on 06/10/2010 03:45 am
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 02:15 am
So the Houston group wants in at Space Center Houston and wants to build an extension of that building to house it. The connection to JSC is obvious so I won't go in to detail. They apparently have the support of most of the Texas legislature and like a $50 million budget.
The other group is just north of Houston in College Station. They want to put the shuttle in some big museum they are building up there. They say that it's close enough to Houston that people can easily come see it (about 85 miles from where I live) but far enough in that hurricanes and pollution can't damage it. They have a point. Once you put it somewhere, you can't move it out of the way like they can right now. Anyway, they have the support of Pres. George H.W. Bush and apparently a whole bunch of scientists and former NASA people. They have about a $200 million budget.
I can see both sides of that argument IF one is coming to Texas, which kind of makes sense.
What do you all think?
Post by: bodge on 07/25/2010 03:06 am
Ok, I live in Texas and there are two groups here fighting for a space shuttle. They both make sense.
So the Houston group wants in at Space Center Houston and wants to build an extension of that building to house it. The connection to JSC is obvious so I won't go in to detail. They apparently have the support of most of the Texas legislature and like a $50 million budget.
The other group is just north of Houston in College Station. They want to put the shuttle in some big museum they are building up there. They say that it's close enough to Houston that people can easily come see it (about 85 miles from where I live) but far enough in that hurricanes and pollution can't damage it. They have a point. Once you put it somewhere, you can't move it out of the way like they can right now. Anyway, they have the support of Pres. George H.W. Bush and apparently a whole bunch of scientists and former NASA people. They have about a $200 million budget.
I can see both sides of that argument IF one is coming to Texas, which kind of makes sense.
What do you all think?
I've never been impressed by the way Space Center Houston runs its business. The best space artifacts in the center are hidden behind a huge kids ball-pit-play thing.
I agree on the hurricane front - although a facility could be built to withstand the winds from most storms, I still worry about the potential for flood water. Probably too rare an occurrence to really go worry about, but College Station would eliminate it for sure.
College Station (Texas A&M) are also getting one of the STS simulators - I believe the motion base. If they tied having an Orbiter to the simulator, all the better.
Personally, since a large amount of Space Center Houston's business revolves around play, I think they should have gotten one of the Building 9 Shuttle trainers and displayed it in a way that the public could walk through it much in the way VIPs, astronauts, and engineers do at JSC everyday. It would be no different than touring a submarine - guests would enter through a small hatch (side hatch) see the middeck, climb up a ladder into the flight deck one or two at a time, then head back into the middeck to crawl out to the payload bay via the external airlock (I'm thinking the Full Fuselage Trainer here). Then people would walk down a platform through the bay and into the 'back room' that's set up in the FFT now. Totally feasible (trust me). Also, it would be the only chance to see an "Orbiter" in an open state (i.e. PLBDs open), since I imagine all flight Orbiters on display will be presented much like Enterprise - hands-off, behind a rope, and totally closed off. Great for preservation purposes, but such a shame from an experience point of view. My best memories at work involve being somewhere in the guts of the Orbiter - many places where astronauts will never even tread - a memory I wish the public could share too.
On a side note...I think the same sort of setup should be established with the ISS mockups when they are no longer needed in 2025/2030/2100...haha. If VIPs can tour through (VIPs meaning engineer's families, etc) then so should the general public when it's no longer needed for official use.
Just my two cents.
-Bodge
Post by: Namechange User on 07/25/2010 03:46 am
Ok, I live in Texas and there are two groups here fighting for a space shuttle. They both make sense.
So the Houston group wants in at Space Center Houston and wants to build an extension of that building to house it. The connection to JSC is obvious so I won't go in to detail. They apparently have the support of most of the Texas legislature and like a $50 million budget.
The other group is just north of Houston in College Station. They want to put the shuttle in some big museum they are building up there. They say that it's close enough to Houston that people can easily come see it (about 85 miles from where I live) but far enough in that hurricanes and pollution can't damage it. They have a point. Once you put it somewhere, you can't move it out of the way like they can right now. Anyway, they have the support of Pres. George H.W. Bush and apparently a whole bunch of scientists and former NASA people. They have about a $200 million budget.
I can see both sides of that argument IF one is coming to Texas, which kind of makes sense.
What do you all think?
I've never been impressed by the way Space Center Houston runs its business. The best space artifacts in the center are hidden behind a huge kids ball-pit-play thing.
I agree on the hurricane front - although a facility could be built to withstand the winds from most storms, I still worry about the potential for flood water. Probably too rare an occurrence to really go worry about, but College Station would eliminate it for sure.
College Station (Texas A&M) are also getting one of the STS simulators - I believe the motion base. If they tied having an Orbiter to the simulator, all the better.
Personally, since a large amount of Space Center Houston's business revolves around play, I think they should have gotten one of the Building 9 Shuttle trainers and displayed it in a way that the public could walk through it much in the way VIPs, astronauts, and engineers do at JSC everyday. It would be no different than touring a submarine - guests would enter through a small hatch (side hatch) see the middeck, climb up a ladder into the flight deck one or two at a time, then head back into the middeck to crawl out to the payload bay via the external airlock (I'm thinking the Full Fuselage Trainer here). Then people would walk down a platform through the bay and into the 'back room' that's set up in the FFT now. Totally feasible (trust me). Also, it would be the only chance to see an "Orbiter" in an open state (i.e. PLBDs open), since I imagine all flight Orbiters on display will be presented much like Enterprise - hands-off, behind a rope, and totally closed off. Great for preservation purposes, but such a shame from an experience point of view. My best memories at work involve being somewhere in the guts of the Orbiter - many places where astronauts will never even tread - a memory I wish the public could share too.
On a side note...I think the same sort of setup should be established with the ISS mockups when they are no longer needed in 2025/2030/2100...haha. If VIPs can tour through (VIPs meaning engineer's families, etc) then so should the general public when it's no longer needed for official use.
Just my two cents.
-Bodge
The hurricane arguement makes no sense honestly. Last time I checked the orbiters are still operational and the OPF's are a couple of miles from the beach....in Florida. ;)
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 03:56 am
[/quote]
The hurricane arguement makes no sense honestly. Last time I checked the orbiters are still operational and the OPF's are a couple of miles from the beach....in Florida. ;)
[/quote]
Well, how doesn't it make sense? We do get hurricanes down here and they get them down in Florida. Plus, they keep them way up off the ground when in storage and in specially hardened structures, not a visitor center with windows. And they move them if the hurricane is bad enough. I dunno, I'm siding with College Station on this one. I don't mind the drive. Once they get them put somewhere they can't move them out of the way, so...talk me out of it.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 04:01 am
Post by: Namechange User on 07/25/2010 04:07 am
The hurricane arguement makes no sense honestly. Last time I checked the orbiters are still operational and the OPF's are a couple of miles from the beach....in Florida. ;)
[/quote]
Well, how doesn't it make sense? We do get hurricanes down here and they get them down in Florida. Plus, they keep them way up off the ground when in storage and in specially hardened structures, not a visitor center with windows. And they move them if the hurricane is bad enough. I dunno, I'm siding with College Station on this one. I don't mind the drive. Once they get them put somewhere they can't move them out of the way, so...talk me out of it.
[/quote]
Well, they are not way off the ground. In addition the OPF's have to meet codes, just as any facility on any coast line where hurricanes can come ashore.
Trust me, when a hurricane roles toward Florida precautions are taken, but they are still just a few miles from the beach. There really is not a lot of difference between what is done with an operational spacecraft with a storm approaching a couple of miles from the beach and a decommissioned spacecraft about 40 miles from the beach. The facility is key and that is not absolute.
Edit: The orbiters are also not moved in the event of a hurricane.
Post by: scotty125 on 07/25/2010 04:11 am
IIRC, there was a draft bill from KBH back around March that outlined a dispersion plan for the orbiters that I suspect will get a lot of support. The Smithsonian gets Discovery, and JSC and KSC keep the other flight-rated orbiters. That makes Enterprise the only vehicle up for grabs, and my money is on it ending up west of the Mississippi. Remember, the facility must be evaluated, approved, and ready to accept the vehicle a maximum of 12 months after its final flight. With Discovery due back from its last hurrah in mid-November, Enterprise will need to leave Udvar-Hazy and be in it's final resting place by Thanksgiving 2011. That is, unless there's an extension...
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2010 04:16 am
Quote
The hurricane arguement makes no sense honestly. Last time I checked the orbiters are still operational and the OPF's are a couple of miles from the beach....in Florida. ;)
Well, how doesn't it make sense? We do get hurricanes down here and they get them down in Florida. Plus, they keep them way up off the ground when in storage
...huh?
The OPFs are at ground level (which is barely above sea level) and the orbiters are jacked barely off the floor level in the OPF when not on their landing gear.
Quote
and in specially hardened structures,
The OPFs are rated for 105 mph winds. A direct hit from a cat 4 storm would exceed their structural limits.
The VAB is rated for 125 mph winds, but the orbiters aren't stored there.
Quote
not a visitor center with windows. And they move them if the hurricane is bad enough. I dunno, I'm siding with College Station on this one. I don't mind the drive. Once they get them put somewhere they can't move them out of the way, so...talk me out of it.
It's pretty much a given that KSC will get an orbiter and that it will be displayed in a building not further from the coast than the Saturn V building, and not much more hardened (the Saturn V building has an entire glass face, on the side facing the Atlantic). It doesn't make sense to go to much more trouble than that to place an orbiter in Texas, so Space Center Houston should be fine. It's several feet higher above sea level than either the OPFs or the Saturn V building at KSC.
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2010 04:18 am
If one of the orbiters goes to Texas, and I think it will, my money is on JSC. I don't think any of the recently named recipients of major simulators are going to get orbiters as well, which takes College Station out of the running.
IIRC, there was a draft bill from KBH back around March that outlined a dispersion plan for the orbiters that I suspect will get a lot of support. The Smithsonian gets Discovery, and JSC and KSC keep the other flight-rated orbiters.
Similar language was struck from the House bill. This isn't over yet.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 04:19 am
Plus I like the underdog and that looks like a homegrown effort. And there's the Bush factor.
I dunno...visitor center...museum...UofH vs A&M...maybe they have a strong case
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 04:23 am
Quote
should be fine
Why take the risk? It's not that far north of Houston.
(took it out, no offense meant to anyone)
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2010 04:26 am
Quoteshould be fine
Why take the risk? It's not that far north of Houston.
Risk and NASA do not have a good history together.
OK, now you are just being silly.
I am an Aggie myself. Don't embarrass us.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 04:35 am
I'm just thinking long term and if it has to go somewhere, it might as well be a museum. They do tend to specialize in preserving things.
And my money is on Bush.
Post by: scotty125 on 07/25/2010 04:48 am
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 04:55 am
Lets see....if Discovery goes to the smithsonian....and one goes to Texas (my money is still on Bush)...then one goes to Dayton or Chicago or somewhere north...and then one goes to oregon...that's 4 evenly distributed shuttles...
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 04:59 am
If College Station is supported by Pres. GHW Bush, well, how are they not a shoe in? Doesn't the man have a tremendous amount of respect in NASA?
Post by: ApolloStarbuck on 07/25/2010 05:22 am
I don't know if anybody else here had a similar experience but in the 70's when my family went to KSY to see Skylab launch, there were no such restrictions. Somewhere I have pics of my 9-year-old self sitting in a real Apollo CM...you could do it back then as there was seeemingly no real historical reverence yet for the equipment used in the lunar program. We also have pics of the inside of the VAB. You could tour it back then...no fuel-loaded SRB's that could blow up.QuoteBen E - 30/8/2006 2:44 AM
Steve, I agree, they should never allow anyone inside. However, I think a video guided tour of the orbiter for visitors would be good or perhaps even a full-scale mockup alongside the real thing.
I agree. I would find it highly disrespectful if they allowed tourists inside, getting their sticky fingers all over flight deck.
Post by: scotty125 on 07/25/2010 05:39 am
Post by: ApolloStarbuck on 07/25/2010 05:47 am
(edit)... Nixon's library has lots of Apollo material...
That's got to be the biggest historical irony of all time!
Post by: scotty125 on 07/25/2010 05:50 am
(edit)... Nixon's library has lots of Apollo material...
That's got to be the biggest historical irony of all time!
Yeah, I was pretty surprised myself!
Post by: Downix on 07/25/2010 06:52 am
home of the spruce goose right? guess it'd make sense for one of them to go west...I'd like to see Enterprise go to The Museum of Flight in Seattle, which is fitting with Boeings history involving the Shuttle.
Lets see....if Discovery goes to the smithsonian....and one goes to Texas (my money is still on Bush)...then one goes to Dayton or Chicago or somewhere north...and then one goes to oregon...that's 4 evenly distributed shuttles...
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 08:18 am
There is a news article in the local paper about it and apparently the guy that started it for them heard about it on the local morning radio, lol.
I am totally supporting that project. First, I don't want to see a shuttle flooded. Second, they have a former president working for them (doesn't NASA love GHW Bush?). Third, the guy that started it heard about it on the radio on the way to work! C'mon really!?! That kind of stuff just doesn't happen these days.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 07:26 pm
Sorry if I'm being annoying. I just found out about this, like, less than a week ago and I'm all excited. This is the only NASA forum I could find to ask questions in.
I thought you guys might know more than most people. So forgive me for being such a girl about it.
Post by: Jim on 07/25/2010 07:38 pm
(doesn't NASA love GHW Bush?).
Not really. Bush doesn't have any pull in this.
Post by: Namechange User on 07/25/2010 07:48 pm
I am totally supporting that project. First, I don't want to see a shuttle flooded.
Why do you keep talking about it being "flooded". The orbiters are based in Florida. The have spent 30 years there two miles from the beach. The vehicles have never been flooded.
Post by: bodge on 07/25/2010 07:56 pm
I am totally supporting that project. First, I don't want to see a shuttle flooded.
Why do you keep talking about it being "flooded". The orbiters are based in Florida. The have spent 30 years there two miles from the beach. The vehicles have never been flooded.
I can only speak for Houston, not the Cape here however..
-The Clear Lake area is at risk for flooding in the event of a storm surge from the Gulf. Water comes in from the Gulf, up into the Bay, and through the Clear Creek Channel into Clear Lake. During Ike, there was a 30+ ft sailboat parked next to the road next to the Hilton across from JSC. Surge had been predicted to be as high as 20 ft, luckily it was not. Had those predictions come true, that sail boat might have floated onto JSC property, which is wide open and flat. My point is that the local JSC area does flood.
-For KSC to experience surge, I believe you'd have to have a storm come in from the east or straight up the coast and swing West into Florida. That surge would be distributed along the entire coast, although being on the Banana River can't help. What I'm not sure of - is there a history of flooding in the Cape Canaveral & Titusville areas? I don't know that answer. OV-106, maybe you already do?
Post by: Thorny on 07/25/2010 08:05 pm
-For KSC to experience surge, I believe you'd have to have a storm come in from the east or straight up the coast and swing West into Florida. That surge would be distributed along the entire coast, although being on the Banana River can't help. What I'm not sure of - is there a history of flooding in the Cape Canaveral & Titusville areas?
The worst to date was from Tropical Storm Fay in 2008.The Orbiters came through fine.
Post by: Namechange User on 07/25/2010 08:18 pm
My point is that the local JSC area does flood.
I know, I'm pretty familar with the area. ;)
The point is a hurricane is a hurricane. Flooding is only one aspect of such a storm. For the hurricane/flooding concern to be valid then we should have no high-dollar assets in the local area.
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/25/2010 08:39 pm
home of the spruce goose right? guess it'd make sense for one of them to go west...I'd like to see Enterprise go to The Museum of Flight in Seattle, which is fitting with Boeings history involving the Shuttle.
Lets see....if Discovery goes to the smithsonian....and one goes to Texas (my money is still on Bush)...then one goes to Dayton or Chicago or somewhere north...and then one goes to oregon...that's 4 evenly distributed shuttles...
Boeing wasn't involved with Shuttle orbiter. It built the IUS stages used with Shuttle and, of course, the 747 Shuttle carrier aircraft. If the argument is that orbiters should go where they were manufactured, then one should go to Southern California, where Rockwell International put them together.
Now, if one thinks that Boeing should be represented for some reason, I'm all for it because Boeing is headquartered in Chicago where I live (and where a group is proposing bringing one to the Adler Planetarium grounds)!
I do like the idea of sending orbiters to places where Saturn hardware did not go. The South and East have all of the residual Saturn hardware. Shuttles should go West and North. If orbiters do end up where the Saturns are now (KSC, JSC, MSFC, etc), then the Saturns should be relocated to go West and North, etc., to broaden the public educational opportunities.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 09:15 pm
My point is that the local JSC area does flood.
I know, I'm pretty familar with the area. ;)
The point is a hurricane is a hurricane. Flooding is only one aspect of such a storm. For the hurricane/flooding concern to be valid then we should have no high-dollar assets in the local area.
I'm just thinking long term. So lets say it doesn't flood. The building will have windows and blowing shards of glass plus thermal tiles can't be good. (can't you dent those things with your fingernail?)
Then there's air pollution around Houston (thick some days) and a salty environment. Maybe those things can be mitigated, but why even take the risk if an alternate location is so close and out of harms way?
It's been a while since a cat 5 storm hit the Texas coast. Carla hit Alabama and even from there it wrecked Kemah. Ike ripped the roof off of the NASA hanger at Ellington. Even the staff meteorologists at JSC predict major damage to JSC if a major hurricane goes through.
I just don't see the point in taking that kind of risk with such a unique and irreplaceable historic object.
That unnecessary exposure is why I like College Station as a better spot than Clear Lake. I make the drive up there from time to time for various reasons and it's not that bad. Personally, I'll swallow my Houston pride and suffer the shuttle to be up there because, the fact it, it will be safer over the long term.
Post by: scotty125 on 07/25/2010 09:19 pm
Now, if one thinks that Boeing should be represented for some reason, I'm all for it because Boeing is headquartered in Chicago where I live (and where a group is proposing bringing one to the Adler Planetarium grounds)!
Of course, the Adler Planetarium were recently awarded the Fixed Base simulator from Bldg.7. I guess the big question remaining (other than where the orbiters are going) is whether "They" will wait for an actual NASA appropriation and subsequent decision on extension before anouncing the orbiters new homes...
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 09:21 pm
Now, if one thinks that Boeing should be represented for some reason, I'm all for it because Boeing is headquartered in Chicago where I live (and where a group is proposing bringing one to the Adler Planetarium grounds)!
Of course, the Adler Planetarium were recently awarded the Fixed Base simulator from Bldg.7. I guess the big question remaining (other than where the orbiters are going) is whether "They" will wait for an actual NASA appropriation and subsequent decision on extension before anouncing the orbiters new homes...
Makes me wonder if they are trying to keep the orbiters and simulators together. Makes sense in a way. Obama may step in and direct NASA to award one to Chicago.
Post by: Namechange User on 07/25/2010 09:28 pm
My point is that the local JSC area does flood.
I know, I'm pretty familar with the area. ;)
The point is a hurricane is a hurricane. Flooding is only one aspect of such a storm. For the hurricane/flooding concern to be valid then we should have no high-dollar assets in the local area.
I'm just thinking long term. So lets say it doesn't flood. The building will have windows and blowing shards of glass plus thermal tiles can't be good. (can't you dent those things with your fingernail?)
Then there's air pollution around Houston (thick some days) and a salty environment. Maybe those things can be mitigated, but why even take the risk if an alternate location is so close and out of harms way?
It's been a while since a cat 5 storm hit the Texas coast. Carla hit Alabama and even from there it wrecked Kemah. Ike ripped the roof off of the NASA hanger at Ellington. Even the staff meteorologists at JSC predict major damage to JSC if a major hurricane goes through.
I just don't see the point in taking that kind of risk with such a unique and irreplaceable historic object.
That unnecessary exposure is why I like College Station as a better spot than Clear Lake. I make the drive up there from time to time for various reasons and it's not that bad. Personally, I'll swallow my Houston pride and suffer the shuttle to be up there because, the fact it, it will be safer over the long term.
I'm not going to change your mind but I'm afraid though, with all due respect, your reasons are a bit weak.
Buildings are designed to hurricane codes. If it is in a conditioned building, which it will be, then the air quality and environmental rationale falls through.
Again, if you really believe this rationale, then there should be absolutely nothing of value in the Houston area for the reasons you state.
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2010 09:36 pm
I just fail to see why we should protect retired orbiters better than the same orbiters while they were operational, or better than retired Saturn Vs.
Post by: brad2007a on 07/25/2010 09:42 pm
The operational orbiters are stored near sea level in buildings rated for <105 mph winds. The retired Saturn Vs are displayed near sea level in buildings not hurricane-rated.
I just fail to see why we should protect retired orbiters better than the same orbiters while they were operational, or better than retired Saturn Vs.
The orbiters are more fragile than the Saturn Vs.
I think.
Could be wrong...
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 09:42 pm
Yes, you can build to code and yes Houston has some great things.
But...
1) Houston is not Clear Lake, has higher elevation, and is further inland.
2) Murphy's Law applies to planning for a hurricane too. No building built along the coast is rated to Cat 5.
3) Unless JSC wants to invest millions in a proper museum quality HVAC capable of monitoring sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and other agents, then just like other buildings, it's just going to be cool, slightly drier air in there. Museum HVAC is radically more complex than just cooling a building off and drying the air.
It's just too valuable to risk imho...but i know...in the end...mho doesn't mean doo doo.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 09:47 pm
I just fail to see why we should protect retired orbiters better than the same orbiters while they were operational, or better than retired Saturn Vs.
Why protect them better? Because you can and should! That's like asking why you should protect the Constitution better or the Declaration of Independence.
In this case, protect them better because you only have the opportunity to do it one time. Better safe than sorry.
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2010 09:48 pm
The operational orbiters are stored near sea level in buildings rated for <105 mph winds. The retired Saturn Vs are displayed near sea level in buildings not hurricane-rated.
I just fail to see why we should protect retired orbiters better than the same orbiters while they were operational, or better than retired Saturn Vs.
The orbiters are more fragile than the Saturn Vs.
I think.
Could be wrong...
The point remains. Why protect retired orbiters better than operational ones?
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 09:55 pm
The operational orbiters are stored near sea level in buildings rated for <105 mph winds. The retired Saturn Vs are displayed near sea level in buildings not hurricane-rated.
I just fail to see why we should protect retired orbiters better than the same orbiters while they were operational, or better than retired Saturn Vs.
The orbiters are more fragile than the Saturn Vs.
I think.
Could be wrong...
The point remains. Why protect retired orbiters better than operational ones?
Do you really think NASA would have kept the orbiters in harms way if Andrew had been pointed at KSC? Or, would they have moved them? Is keeping a multi billion dollar space craft in the path of an incredibly destructive hurricane worth the risk of losing it or damaging it?
Retired orbiters could not be moved. No one who gets one could afford to move it and I'm betting the 747's are retired as soon as this is all done too. If it get's damaged, even slightly, the infrastructure to repair it and replace parts will be gone.
Post by: scotty125 on 07/25/2010 10:08 pm
No one who gets one could afford to move it and I'm betting the 747's are retired as soon as this is all done too.
Which raises another interesting question...where will the SCA's go? Both are pretty high milage examples IIRC. They'd make some pretty cool lawn ornaments for somebody, and wouldn't have to go in a climate controlled building...
Post by: Jorge on 07/25/2010 10:12 pm
The operational orbiters are stored near sea level in buildings rated for <105 mph winds. The retired Saturn Vs are displayed near sea level in buildings not hurricane-rated.
I just fail to see why we should protect retired orbiters better than the same orbiters while they were operational, or better than retired Saturn Vs.
The orbiters are more fragile than the Saturn Vs.
I think.
Could be wrong...
The point remains. Why protect retired orbiters better than operational ones?
Do you really think NASA would have kept the orbiters in harms way if Andrew had been pointed at KSC? Of would they have moved them. Is keeping a multi billion dollar space craft in the path of an incredibly destructive hurricane worth the risk of losing it or damaging it?
They would not have. It wasn't in the KSC hurricane plan then, and isn't now.
www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/153728main_hurricane-plan.pdf
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 10:19 pm
The operational orbiters are stored near sea level in buildings rated for <105 mph winds. The retired Saturn Vs are displayed near sea level in buildings not hurricane-rated.
I just fail to see why we should protect retired orbiters better than the same orbiters while they were operational, or better than retired Saturn Vs.
The orbiters are more fragile than the Saturn Vs.
I think.
Could be wrong...
The point remains. Why protect retired orbiters better than operational ones?
Do you really think NASA would have kept the orbiters in harms way if Andrew had been pointed at KSC? Of would they have moved them. Is keeping a multi billion dollar space craft in the path of an incredibly destructive hurricane worth the risk of losing it or damaging it?
They would not have. It wasn't in the KSC hurricane plan then, and isn't now.
www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/153728main_hurricane-plan.pdf
From http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6354-hurricane-frances-could-destroy-space-shuttles.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6354-hurricane-frances-could-destroy-space-shuttles.html)
"In preparation for the storm, NASA employees cut off power to the shuttles, closed the shuttles' doors and stowed their wheels. They also covered equipment in plastic, raised hardware off the floor in case of flooding, and sandbagged the entrances to the building housing the shuttles. Swift was wrapped in a "protective double bag" and stored in a shipping container."
So, can a retired shuttle be treated the same way?
That document doesn't explicitly state that the shuttles would not be moved. It doesn't say they will, but it doesn't say they won't either. I'd bet that someone would decide to move the shuttles if a cat 5 was headed that way.
Post by: psloss on 07/25/2010 10:30 pm
That document doesn't explicitly state that the shuttles would not be moved. It doesn't say they will, but it doesn't say they won't either. I'd bet that someone would decide to move the shuttles if a cat 5 was headed that way.There's never been enough resources to quickly move the fleet somewhere else. You can't just lash them onto something and split. It would logistically be very difficult and doing so with even one of the orbiters would have placed the vehicle at greater risk of serious damage or loss than any of the hurricanes that have visited the Space Coast in the last 30 years.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 10:33 pm
That document doesn't explicitly state that the shuttles would not be moved. It doesn't say they will, but it doesn't say they won't either. I'd bet that someone would decide to move the shuttles if a cat 5 was headed that way.There's never been enough resources to quickly move the fleet somewhere else. You can't just lash them onto something and split. It would logistically be very difficult.
What part of space travel has ever been logistically simple? It comes back to risk...do you risk keeping $4 billion worth of moveable, difficult or not, spacecraft in the path of a Cat 5 storm?
Post by: psloss on 07/25/2010 10:35 pm
What part of space travel has ever been logistically simple? It comes back to risk...do you risk keeping $4 billion worth of moveable, difficult or not, spacecraft in the path of a Cat 5 storm?It's not space travel, it's ferrying an orbiter from one place to another. The vehicles have to be prepared for ferry, a process that takes several days at best -- much longer than the warning one would get of a catastrophic hurricane.
And the orbiters have specific requirements for ferrying -- no flight through precipitation, for instance. That presents one logistical problem, along with the issue of getting the orbiter off the 747, since there's been many times where only one 747 was ferry ready.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/25/2010 10:45 pm
If it's retired, how do you fix it?
How do you get it up off the ground and close the wheel bays?
How do you replace tiles damaged by flying debris?
When it's active, you have a legion of people ready to repair it if it even gets a scratch on it. That is far from the case when it is retired.
Parts get sold to collectors, other museums, support equipment gets repurposed, tools are sold off, and replaceable items are no longer made. Even if they were, they would be prohibitively expensive for most operations.
ok, College Station may not be the best place for an active shuttle with an army of willing engineers and a billion dollar budget, but for a retired irreplaceable artifact with a teeny tiny maintenance budget, I can see the benefits. That's been my point all along. Once it's retired, any damage it sustains, it keeps, forever. Why risk it.
Post by: psloss on 07/26/2010 12:07 am
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/07/23/plan-to-place-shuttle-in-dayton-museum-still-alive.html
The language remains in the Senate authorization bill; not as big a deal as what's happening with the post-Shuttle HSF plan, but that will also likely have to be resolved in conference.
Edit: it might be addressed prior to conference, as this note at the end of the Plain Dealer story on the vote (http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/07/ohios_bid_to_secure_retiring_s.html) might imply:
Quote
Senators George Voinovich and Sherrod Brown will work to eliminate similar language in the Senate's version of the NASA bill.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/26/2010 12:28 am
If I was NASA, I might be upset at that. But I'm not, and they're probably used to congress dumping on them.
Post by: Namechange User on 07/26/2010 12:30 am
That document doesn't explicitly state that the shuttles would not be moved. It doesn't say they will, but it doesn't say they won't either. I'd bet that someone would decide to move the shuttles if a cat 5 was headed that way.
What we do during a hurricane is exactly that. We prepare for a storm just the same way, although there are obvious differences, with many of the same precautions one would take with their own home.
That said, there is no logistically easy and quick way to move the fleet out of harms way. In fact by the time we knew a powerful storm was going to make a direct hit in the KSC area we could potentially do more harm by having the orbiters in the open *trying* to get them out of the area. In short, it will never happen.
Post by: psloss on 07/26/2010 12:38 am
What? Some congressmen and senators tried to rewrite the rules of the game at the very end?It's politics. That's the way it's been for a long time. And it's likely to be as influential on where Enterprise, Atlantis, and Endeavour end up as anything else.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/26/2010 02:20 am
Some of the texas delegation is all over SCH getting the shuttle. Bush is all for BCS getting it. That is a problem for GOP rep's needing his support for fund raising and re-election.
Man, I'd hate to be wrapped up in this mess but I'd love to be a fly on the wall in some of these offices.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/26/2010 02:34 am
That document doesn't explicitly state that the shuttles would not be moved. It doesn't say they will, but it doesn't say they won't either. I'd bet that someone would decide to move the shuttles if a cat 5 was headed that way.
What we do during a hurricane is exactly that. We prepare for a storm just the same way, although there are obvious differences, with many of the same precautions one would take with their own home.
That said, there is no logistically easy and quick way to move the fleet out of harms way. In fact by the time we knew a powerful storm was going to make a direct hit in the KSC area we could potentially do more harm by having the orbiters in the open *trying* to get them out of the area. In short, it will never happen.
So they are even less likely to be moved once retired; I'd say never be. At that point, you sandbag the building and hope for the best? Only now, it's surrounded by glass and unable to even be lifted up off of the ground.
Like I have been trying to say all along, it's not an active shuttle anymore and can't be even remotely regarded as such. No one will be able to fix the damage it would sustain if the building it was in were damaged or destroyed due to storm surge, high winds, etc. The budget isn't there to fix it. The people aren't there to fix it. You can build to code, you can build above code if you have lots and lots of money, but no matter what, JSC is still in a likely Hurricane path and that increases the risk of damage.
THAT is why I don't like it near the coast. The second it's retired, it's an artifact, like the Declaration of Independence. Treat it appropriately.
Post by: bodge on 07/26/2010 02:43 am
Again, if you really believe this rationale, then there should be absolutely nothing of value in the Houston area for the reasons you state.
Well, as I know you're aware, there's really one good reason that JSC is even in the area to begin with - and it isn't the great weather :)
It's very silly to think that because JSC and KSC are in location X and Y, and have been there for the past half century, that's it's the best place to store historic artifacts for what could very well be hundreds of years.
We've been lucky, period. You know very well we have back-up MCC plans here at JSC for a reason. Additionally, I'm sure you also cringe when a hurricane does bare down on Florida and gets even close to KSC. The OPFs have experienced leaks. The VAB has lost massive panels. At JSC, it's no different. Despite the stinkiness in the building, I'm glad MCC is almost done (please!) getting a new roof.
NASA is NOT in the business of maintaining artifacts. However, the Smithsonian is. Personally, I believe ALL the Orbiters should be transferred to the Smithsonian, and they should determine the criteria and characteristics for a site for storing the Orbiters. Not engineers, not managers, and DEFINITELY NOT politicians. That's the way the Saturn V is at JSC - SCH doesn't own it, I (believe) the Smithsonian does. And hence why it got restored in the first place.
Let an expert, like the Smithsonian, make the calls.
Post by: bodge on 07/26/2010 02:48 am
The point remains. Why protect retired orbiters better than operational ones?
Jorge:
As you already know:
Original Orbiter Design Operational Life Time: 10 years / 100 flights. Oh yeah and that includes periodic maintenance. I would assume the facilities like the OPF were designed for similar standards.
Artifact Life Time in Museum: 100s of years. No periodic maintenance.
Big difference.
Post by: Namechange User on 07/26/2010 03:16 am
That document doesn't explicitly state that the shuttles would not be moved. It doesn't say they will, but it doesn't say they won't either. I'd bet that someone would decide to move the shuttles if a cat 5 was headed that way.
What we do during a hurricane is exactly that. We prepare for a storm just the same way, although there are obvious differences, with many of the same precautions one would take with their own home.
That said, there is no logistically easy and quick way to move the fleet out of harms way. In fact by the time we knew a powerful storm was going to make a direct hit in the KSC area we could potentially do more harm by having the orbiters in the open *trying* to get them out of the area. In short, it will never happen.
So they are even less likely to be moved once retired; I'd say never be. At that point, you sandbag the building and hope for the best? Only now, it's surrounded by glass and unable to even be lifted up off of the ground.
Like I have been trying to say all along, it's not an active shuttle anymore and can't be even remotely regarded as such. No one will be able to fix the damage it would sustain if the building it was in were damaged or destroyed due to storm surge, high winds, etc. The budget isn't there to fix it. The people aren't there to fix it. You can build to code, you can build above code if you have lots and lots of money, but no matter what, JSC is still in a likely Hurricane path and that increases the risk of damage.
THAT is why I don't like it near the coast. The second it's retired, it's an artifact, like the Declaration of Independence. Treat it appropriately.
Building to code is not an option honestly.
In the end, the vehicle is an aluminum frame. It has mechanical fasteners. The vehicle will be prepared, for wherever it is going, per the End State Requirements Document and certain systems will have been removed. If you are from Houston, just go to the Galveston Flight Museum sometime. Lots of stuff there, some of it does not fly, yet people can maintain it too.
I wish you the best of luck in your endevours honestly. I haven't been arguing against you just the weakness in some of your arguements. Again, good luck to you.
Post by: Namechange User on 07/26/2010 03:18 am
NASA is NOT in the business of maintaining artifacts.
Never said it was.
Once the orbiters are retired, the facility that gains them is repsonsible for proper upkeep and must show how they plan on doing so responsibly as part of the bid process.
Post by: scotty125 on 07/26/2010 03:31 am
Let an expert, like the Smithsonian, make the calls.
I believe the the Smithsonian was involved in the prequalification efforts at various locations around the country. Our space museum has been open to the public for a little over 2 years, and we've hosted inspectors from the Smithsonian at least twice. We've had to qualify our environmental control system which was monitored over 6 months of operation, and passed the test. It was my understanding that the Smithsonian was going to have a big part in selecting the locations, for Enterprise at a minimum, before KBH got into the act. Now it looks like the congress critters will decide in one fashion or another...
Post by: ApolloStarbuck on 07/26/2010 03:34 am
Post by: Namechange User on 07/26/2010 03:38 am
Storing these orbiters safely really isn't that big a deal...just ask the Russians who stored the Shuttle Buran...
Who is suggesting they be stored "unsafely"?
Post by: ApolloStarbuck on 07/26/2010 03:50 am
I am also curious about how many full-sized Orbiter mock-ups are there and are they all spoken for?
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/26/2010 04:54 am
Let an expert, like the Smithsonian, make the calls.
If the Smithsonian is responsible for Saturn hardware, then why has it allowed S-IC-15, the last Saturn V first stage and one of only two flight-ready first stages, fitted with some of the final F-1 engines ever built, to sit outside, behind a fence, inaccessible to the general public, in Louisiana, where it has been exposed to hurricane wind and flood damage, for decades?
Not to mention all of the surviving Saturn I and IB hardware, all sitting outdoors still, corroding away.
There are hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes, etc. Buildings burn. Lightning strikes. None of these Saturn or Shuttle artifacts are going to survive forever. We'll have them for decades perhaps, not eons. But the stuff sitting outdoors is most likely to disappear first.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Downix on 07/26/2010 05:04 am
The portion of Rockwell International which built the shuttle is now part of Boeing, as is North American Aviation, the two major companies behind the orbiters themselves.home of the spruce goose right? guess it'd make sense for one of them to go west...I'd like to see Enterprise go to The Museum of Flight in Seattle, which is fitting with Boeings history involving the Shuttle.
Lets see....if Discovery goes to the smithsonian....and one goes to Texas (my money is still on Bush)...then one goes to Dayton or Chicago or somewhere north...and then one goes to oregon...that's 4 evenly distributed shuttles...
Boeing wasn't involved with Shuttle orbiter. It built the IUS stages used with Shuttle and, of course, the 747 Shuttle carrier aircraft. If the argument is that orbiters should go where they were manufactured, then one should go to Southern California, where Rockwell International put them together.
Quote
Now, if one thinks that Boeing should be represented for some reason, I'm all for it because Boeing is headquartered in Chicago where I live (and where a group is proposing bringing one to the Adler Planetarium grounds)!I like that idea as well. KSC has two Shuttle replicas, so no need for an actual one there, for instance.
I do like the idea of sending orbiters to places where Saturn hardware did not go. The South and East have all of the residual Saturn hardware. Shuttles should go West and North. If orbiters do end up where the Saturns are now (KSC, JSC, MSFC, etc), then the Saturns should be relocated to go West and North, etc., to broaden the public educational opportunities.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Aobrien on 07/26/2010 05:09 am
Quote
I like that idea as well. KSC has two Shuttle replicas, so no need for an actual one there, for instance.
You're kidding right? There is a major difference between a replica and an actual orbiter. I'm just going to leave it at that.
Post by: simonbp on 07/26/2010 05:18 am
While it's a good and noble idea to have one in Southern California, there just isn't a real aviation museum there that could properly take of them. The closest thing the California Science Center, which has hid their flown Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury capsules in a little side building.
For a west-coast location, either Evergreen or the Boeing Museum both could offer a much better long-term home for a shuttle. Likewise, Wright-Patterson would be perfectly capable of hosting the second, and the Smithsonian the third. And just to keep one in the south, I know Huntsville's been gunning for Enterprise for years now...
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/26/2010 06:31 am
"Dear Piper,
Thank you for your interest in our project. Our mission is to acquire one of the three remaining shuttle orbiters for display in the soon-to-be constructed Brazos Valley Museum of Science and History, a fully accredited research museum located on the Texas A&M Campus next to and in cooperation with the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum.
The Bryan/College Station area is centrally located in the State of Texas. An Orbiter in this area honors the long association between NASA and the State of Texas and allows easy access to over 70% of the Texans, many no more than one-and-a-half hours away, all while offering natural protection for the Orbiter. The area is free of pollution, rarely experiences severe weather, and is not affected by tropical weather events. In this setting and within the Brazos Valley Museum of Science and History, the Orbiter will be preserved for generations.
Texas A&M University calls College Station home. One of the criteria set forth by NASA is for receiving institutions to promote education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Texas A&M University is a leader in these fields of study and, in partnership with The Museum, is uniquely qualified to promote STEM education.
The Space Shuttles are more than the sum of their parts, and more than the sum of stories of the people that flew them. The Orbiters carried with them, on each flight, the hopes and dreams of exploration and discovery for the entire human race. Against the backdrop of one of the greatest and most renowned institutions of higher learning in the United States, the Shuttle will continue to inspire millions. In this setting, with examples of ongoing research at the University and accomplishments from all fields of study represented, the shuttle will be displayed to show how those dreams are realized. We will show museum visitors how they too, as future astronauts, former poets, idealistic dreamers, wanderers, quiet thinkers, and restless souls, can walk with all of the brave men and women, from all disciplines, within NASA and the Space Shuttle Program, who have worked hard and risked everything to expand the frontiers of human knowledge.
Thank you for your interest,
Zachary W. Cummings
Director, Brazos Valley Shuttle Project"
I just thought I'd post that.
Also, I was named after a plane. First person to refer to me as Pipper gets neutered.
Post by: Thorny on 07/26/2010 01:40 pm
Do you really think NASA would have kept the orbiters in harms way if Andrew had been pointed at KSC? Or, would they have moved them?
They only have two Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and had four Orbiters at the time of Andrew, so no, they would not all have been movied. There just isn't time.
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/26/2010 02:17 pm
The portion of Rockwell International which built the shuttle is now part of Boeing, as is North American Aviation, the two major companies behind the orbiters themselves.
Yes, but both were Southern California, not Pacific Northwest, companies. Boeing didn't have a big presence, if any, in S. California.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/26/2010 07:32 pm
Adler Planetarium (Anyone know if that's connected to Chicago Museum of Science and Industry?)
Texas A&M, that's been confirmed.
Boeing Museum?
Thinking regionally, if (warning, speculation ahead) the shuttles followed the simulators, that puts them all in areas of large population density, and my sources tell me that is a key criterion in orbiter placement. (pending Congress inserting their big 'ol fat thumb in to everything)
Comments?
I'm chasing down the political side of this. I can't see KBH and GHW being at odds over this given their political history.
-piper
Post by: Jorge on 07/26/2010 07:39 pm
So who is getting the simulators?
Adler Planetarium (Anyone know if that's connected to Chicago Museum of Science and Industry?)
Texas A&M, that's been confirmed.
Boeing Museum?
* The Adler Planetarium, Chicago – Shuttle Fixed Base Simulator (Bldg. 7)
* The Museum of Flight, Seattle, Wash. – Full Fuselage Trainer (Bldg. 9)
* The National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, Dayton, Ohio – Crew Compartment Trainer-1 (Bldg. 9)
* The Smithsonian Institution National Air & Space Museum, Washington, D.C. – Crew Compartment Trainer-2 (Bldg. 9)
* Texas A&M Aerospace Engineering Department, College Station, Texas – Shuttle Motion Base Simulator (Bldg. 7)
* Virginia Air & Space Center, Hampton, Vir. – Shuttle Single System Crew Trainer (Bldg. 7)
* Wings of Dreams Aviation Museum, Starke, Fla. – Shuttle GNS Simulator (Bldg. 7)
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/26/2010 08:23 pm
-piper
Post by: Jorge on 07/26/2010 08:36 pm
That link doesn't work for me.
-piper
Fixed.
Post by: padrat on 07/26/2010 10:30 pm
Post by: Orbiter on 07/26/2010 10:58 pm
Orbiter
Post by: Jim on 07/26/2010 11:07 pm
they are the first ever reusable spacecrafts (Columbia was the first obviously)
Incorrect, Gemini 2 was the first reusable spacecraft
Post by: Jim on 07/26/2010 11:09 pm
Great post padrat! I disagree however about the historical part..
No, he is right, there are many more historically significant spacecraft other than the orbiters.
They haven't done anything on the magnitude of the other spacecraft. Note I said magnitude.
Post by: Orbiter on 07/26/2010 11:27 pm
Orbiter
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2010 12:02 am
we won't ever seen anything like it for quite sometime.
nor should we. It tried to do too many tasks and therefore didn't do any of them well
Post by: padrat on 07/27/2010 12:11 am
seriously though, the orbiters are amazing machines, true marvels of engineering. I just don't believe they should be put on a higher pedestal than Liberty Bell or Columbia (the capsule). But then again, I am a history nut. Numerous times have I took the scenic route to or from work, so that I could drive by, stop and look, at pad 36, or go to where John Glenn blasted off from, or the Gemini pads, or any of the other historic pads out there. I just recently found where Challenger is buried (which BTW, really sucks that you can't get anywhere near it and I really believe there should be some kind of memorial there, but OT and a discussion for another thread) and I've been looking for that one for a LOOONG time!
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/27/2010 12:16 am
When I was a kid, I cried when Challenger was lost, for the loss of the crew and for the loss of the vehicle. It was like watching battleship sink; that lady was lost.
It was the same with Columbia. It was like losing a friend, or a national hero.
The Smithsonian has set the bar for preservation of The Discovery at 500 years. You may not see the wonder of the Orbiters because you work with them every day, or every other day. They lose their appeal when you are buried in one digging out a wire or whatever. It's like a fine Italian sports car, great until you own one, but always nice to look at.
To me, to millions who have never seen a REAL orbiter up close, it's like meeting Thomas Jefferson or shaking hands with George Washington. These things are famous, remote, and unobtainable. To us, the teeming masses, they should be preserved. NASA sees this kind of thing everyday, that's why we all want to be you.
Really, you should be flattered that we, the great unwashed, regard so highly something that you have long since taken for granted.
-piper
Post by: Paul Adams on 07/27/2010 12:29 am
IMHO, the Shuttle should be preserved with care, above many other artifacts, because for nearly 30 years the shuttle was the "face" of space flight. Each Shuttle, for all it's flaws as a vehicle, is a celebrity in it's own right. They were the first "ships." They had names, they had a certain look that came to represent NASA and United States. Really, it has sex appeal, in a way.
When I was a kid, I cried when Challenger was lost, for the loss of the crew and for the loss of the vehicle. It was like watching battleship sink; that lady was lost.
It was the same with Columbia. It was like losing a friend, or a national hero.
The Smithsonian has set the bar for preservation of The Discovery at 500 years. You may not see the wonder of the Orbiters because you work with them every day, or every other day. They lose their appeal when you are buried in one digging out a wire or whatever. It's like a fine Italian sports car, great until you own one, but always nice to look at.
To me, to millions who have never seen a REAL orbiter up close, it's like meeting Thomas Jefferson or shaking hands with George Washington. These things are famous, remote, and unobtainable. To us, the teeming masses, they should be preserved. NASA sees this kind of thing everyday, that's why we all want to be you.
Really, you should be flattered that we, the great unwashed, regard so highly something that you have long since taken for granted.
-piper
I will agree with this: the public (myself included) have an affinity with the orbiters that was never quite achieved with the various capsules.
Perhaps it is as simple as an ‘airplane’ familiarity with them, or the striking if simple color scheme, but I bet almost everyone in the developed world could identify an orbiter, but most would have trouble identifying a capsule, let alone tell one type from another.
Post by: padrat on 07/27/2010 12:31 am
Post by: bholt on 07/27/2010 12:55 am
To me, the loss of Columbia was worse than Challenger from a strictly orbiter standpoint. Columbia was the worlds first reusable spacecraft and was a little different from the rest of the fleet. It is sad that she will not be displayed with honors in the Smithsonian.
Post by: bodge on 07/27/2010 12:59 am
Let an expert, like the Smithsonian, make the calls.
If the Smithsonian is responsible for Saturn hardware, then why has it allowed S-IC-15, the last Saturn V first stage and one of only two flight-ready first stages, fitted with some of the final F-1 engines ever built, to sit outside, behind a fence, inaccessible to the general public, in Louisiana, where it has been exposed to hurricane wind and flood damage, for decades?
Not to mention all of the surviving Saturn I and IB hardware, all sitting outdoors still, corroding away.
- Ed Kyle
Actually I was only speaking for JSC's Saturn V. I honestly don't know about the rest of the Saturn hardware - is it true they are responsible for it all? If not, who is responsible for that hardware? NASA?
The same goes for the Skylab Trainer at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville. Reading about that always makes me a little sad.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/27/2010 01:08 am
I want one in Texas, because I am Texan. I want one away from the coast because I love the shuttles and I want them to last.
-piper
Post by: padrat on 07/27/2010 01:13 am
And I'm going to have to play Jim here, you do know that nearly all US HSF capsules and moon landers had names as well right?
I will agree that the shuttles have been in the public eye for much longer and more recent than previous spacecraft, which is probably why many people feel more emotionally attached to them.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/27/2010 01:18 am
-piper
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/27/2010 01:32 am
Not to mention all of the surviving Saturn I and IB hardware, all sitting outdoors still, corroding away.Most of the obsolete space hardware I have ever seen in my life has been/is treated like this.
Remembered in pre-Shuttle days trolling the 'boneyards' for bits and pieces to do mock-ups / prototypes. Having to evict critters ...
When they setup the Air and Space museum first time - I was struck by how clean everything was ...
Post by: padrat on 07/27/2010 01:35 am
So, is it unreasonable to take extra precautions to preserve them? We should have done that from the start will all the space hardware. Now that we have a chance to do it again, lets do it right.
I want one in Texas, because I am Texan. I want one away from the coast because I love the shuttles and I want them to last.
-piper
not unreasonable at all. I just believe that the shuttles aren't more historical than other capsules that carried humans. Look at all of the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury capsules not on loan that are sitting in storage. In a perfect world I'd like to see all of them on display, right beside the orbiters in a huge space museum. Unfortunately I don't think it's going to happen. And yes I'm in Fl and think that one of them should be displayed here. You may say "but you already have a lot of hardware there", I'd say "well if you want to go see an aircraft carrier, a good place to start would be near an ocean, not in the middle of Kansas" meaning most of the world associates the shuttles launching from here, so It kinda makes sense to display one here in my opinion.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/27/2010 02:01 am
Quote
Look at all of the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury capsules not on loan that are sitting in storage. In a perfect world I'd like to see all of them on display, right beside the orbiters in a huge space museum.
If my sources are correct, that's what they plan to do in College Station. Display as many space artifacts as they have room for. And from what I have gathered, it's a big...big room, something like twelve acres of indoor space.
-piper
Post by: bodge on 07/27/2010 02:22 am
I'd say "well if you want to go see an aircraft carrier, a good place to start would be near an ocean, not in the middle of Kansas"
That would be one awesome exhibit!
(sorry to go O/T :)
Post by: padrat on 07/27/2010 02:32 am
Post by: cd-slam on 07/27/2010 03:34 am
I'd say "well if you want to go see an aircraft carrier, a good place to start would be near an ocean, not in the middle of Kansas"
That would be one awesome exhibit!
(sorry to go O/T :)
[/quote]
You'd be surprised.
http://www.szcpost.com/2009/03/shenzhen-minsk-world-guangdong.html
Haven't been there, but I'd love to go next time I'm in Hong Kong. :)
Post by: collectSPACE on 07/27/2010 06:54 pm
Look at all of the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury capsules not on loan that are sitting in storage.
Not to get too far off topic and perhaps I am misunderstanding the use here, but what Mercury, Gemini and/or Apollo capsules are sitting in storage?
Post by: Jorge on 07/27/2010 07:39 pm
Look at all of the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury capsules not on loan that are sitting in storage.
Not to get too far off topic and perhaps I am misunderstanding the use here, but what Mercury, Gemini and/or Apollo capsules are sitting in storage?
I'd be interested to know as well... it appears that all the manned ones, at least, are on proper display somewhere:
http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/aaindex/home1.html
Post by: padrat on 07/27/2010 07:55 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 07/27/2010 08:35 pm
As Jorge said and A Field Guide to American Spacecraft documents, all the manned craft are on display, and so are many boilerplates and production modules. While a few years ago, I could probably name one or two craft held in storage, even they have since gone display (e.g. CM 011A (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-060904a.html)). I really can't think of a single Mercury, Gemini or Apollo spacecraft -- flown or otherwise -- currently sitting in storage.
Post by: padrat on 07/27/2010 09:07 pm
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/27/2010 10:04 pm
Speculation anyone?
-piper
Post by: PahTo on 07/27/2010 11:00 pm
I know the Museum of Flight in Seattle is actively working to get an orbiter (part of the reason Bonnie Dunbar is in charge of the museum). While I would love to see an orbiter here (and the museum is very worthy of hosting one--you should see the space display, and the museum in general), my speculation is thusly:
Discovery: Smithsonian
Atlantis: JSC
Endeavour: KSC
Which are fitting homes for all three vehicles to be sure!
Post by: PahTo on 07/27/2010 11:01 pm
Oh, and Enterprise at Dryden/Edwards...
:-)
Post by: JMS on 07/27/2010 11:32 pm
I think this is an important disclosure in this discussion. The orbiters were the spacecraft of your generation. For many of us, Mercury, Gemini & Apollo fills that same emotional space. And Apollo 1 was our first gut blow.
When I was a kid, I cried when Challenger was lost, for the loss of the crew and for the loss of the vehicle. It was like watching battleship sink; that lady was lost.
Post by: CenTexRez on 07/29/2010 06:15 am
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7129330.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7129330.html)
i wonder what the fallout from this is going to be... :o
-piper
Post by: alexterrell on 08/02/2010 06:57 pm
I agree, having priceless orbiters subject to that kind of abuse is out of the question. However, the "Explorer" mockup at the KSC Visitors Center is a fairly realistic replica that you can walk right up to.I made a visit to the European Space Centre in Belgium last Friday. I'd driven past it loads of time but this time, I took the kids.
For me, the experience was a bit "basic", but good for the kids. The one thing which really impressed me though was the full sized mock up of the shuttle. I could quote the length and wing span, but I never realised quite how big that made it.
The mock up is mounted horizontally, with the payload doors open. There is a walkway across the payload bay, from where you can peer into the flight deck and look at the 1970s control board.
You could do something similar with the real orbiters. Even better, put a false module in the payload bay and allow people to access the module.
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/02/2010 08:08 pm
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-080210a.html
NASA waved off last month revealing where its soon-to-be-retired space shuttles will be making their final landing for public exhibit.
Delayed launch dates, coupled with congressional acts -- including bills proposing adding at least one more mission to the two remaining for the 30-year shuttle program -- resulted in the space agency postponing its selection of museums where its winged orbiters will go on display. A July announcement had been expected since January of this year, when NASA made a last call for suitors.
"They haven't established a new date," NASA spokesman Mike Curie told collectSPACE. "Because of delays to the manifest, shifting STS-133 to November and STS-134 to February, the announcement was also delayed."
Post by: psloss on 08/02/2010 08:24 pm
Edit -- also thanks for noting the amended text in the House bill. That's also available on Thomas, now, too.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/05/2010 03:05 am
Adler Planetarium is getting a simulator, so is Texas A&M.
Both have a big political backers, Bush at A&M and Obama at Adler.
Both applied for shuttles.
Both have run a relatively silent campaign so far.
Bush and Obama are pretty chummy. Obama has been to A&M twice to speak at Bush's Museum since election.
A&S Museum is getting a shuttle and a simulator. MoF is building a building and getting a simulator. Both applied for shuttles.
It just has me thinking...and drawing unreasonable speculative conclusions.
-piper
Post by: scotty125 on 08/05/2010 04:38 am
Post by: Sparky on 08/05/2010 04:56 am
I agree, having priceless orbiters subject to that kind of abuse is out of the question. However, the "Explorer" mockup at the KSC Visitors Center is a fairly realistic replica that you can walk right up to.I made a visit to the European Space Centre in Belgium last Friday. I'd driven past it loads of time but this time, I took the kids.
For me, the experience was a bit "basic", but good for the kids. The one thing which really impressed me though was the full sized mock up of the shuttle. I could quote the length and wing span, but I never realised quite how big that made it.
The mock up is mounted horizontally, with the payload doors open. There is a walkway across the payload bay, from where you can peer into the flight deck and look at the 1970s control board.
You could do something similar with the real orbiters. Even better, put a false module in the payload bay and allow people to access the module.
I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps, if any of the museums have room for it, also mounting the orbiter on mockups of the ET and SRBs.
Post by: grakenverb on 08/07/2010 10:49 am
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/06/2010-08-06_shifty_senators_try_to_snatch_our_shuttle.html
Post by: psloss on 08/07/2010 10:51 am
NY Daily News already calling one of the shuttles "ours".........Yes, the article is about some amended language in the Senate authorization; Chris noted that here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/06/2010-08-06_shifty_senators_try_to_snatch_our_shuttle.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg625790#msg625790
This provides a little back-story on that additional language.
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/07/2010 12:16 pm
NASA delays deciding where retired space shuttles will be displayed
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-080210a.html
I forgot to mention when posting the above article that we also updated our gallery: "How to display a retired space shuttle"
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-080210b.html
...included are new renderings of the planned expansion to Space Center Houston; the U.S. Space & Rocket Center's planned use of the Orbiter Protective Enclosure; and updated imagery from The Museum of Flight in Seattle released since the ground breaking for their gallery.
Post by: scotty125 on 08/07/2010 12:55 pm
Notice that besides Udvar-Hazy, only one location on Robert's list shows an existing facility ready to go. Guess we'd have to find a new home for our SR-71...The Titan II and Titan IV need a new friend... ;)
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/07/2010 02:18 pm
Post by: HIPAR on 08/07/2010 02:36 pm
--- CHAS
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/07/2010 03:05 pm
I forgot to mention when posting the above article that we also updated our gallery: "How to display a retired space shuttle"
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-080210b.html
Notice that some of the displays look more "crowded" than others, with the orbiters squeezed in among other artifacts. IMO, the displays that give more "room" for visitors to see the entire orbiter from a bit of a distance, and from different levels, are much better. The displays that allow lots of natural lighting also work better, IMO. The Tulsa idea (complete with crew access arm!) is terrific.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/09/2010 02:39 pm
In any case, with regard to the language, it calls for "priority consideration" for former launch-flight-processing sites. As far as I can tell, all that means is that those locations will be considered first...literally, that's it. NASA is not obligated to select those locations first, only to put them on top of the pile. If they don't stack up against the rest of the pile, then they receive no benefit. If two applications score the same numerically, then the application with priority consideration will be given the shuttle.
That's it, in a nutshell, if the priority consideration language receives no further clarification. So, really, I don't think it has much weight.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-piper
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2010 03:09 pm
The Senate version of the NASA bill passed and contains the same sneaky language about "historical connections" that was nixed from the House bill. The House vows that they will not compromise on their bill.
In any case, with regard to the language, it calls for "priority consideration" for former launch-flight-processing sites. As far as I can tell, all that means is that those locations will be considered first...literally, that's it. NASA is not obligated to select those locations first, only to put them on top of the pile. If they don't stack up against the rest of the pile, then they receive no benefit. If two applications score the same numerically, then the application with priority consideration will be given the shuttle.
That's it, in a nutshell, if the priority consideration language receives no further clarification. So, really, I don't think it has much weight.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-piper
NASM, JSC and KSC are a given. Only Enterprises relocation is the unknown.
Post by: chrisking0997 on 08/09/2010 04:14 pm
The Senate version of the NASA bill passed and contains the same sneaky language about "historical connections" that was nixed from the House bill. The House vows that they will not compromise on their bill.
In any case, with regard to the language, it calls for "priority consideration" for former launch-flight-processing sites. As far as I can tell, all that means is that those locations will be considered first...literally, that's it. NASA is not obligated to select those locations first, only to put them on top of the pile. If they don't stack up against the rest of the pile, then they receive no benefit. If two applications score the same numerically, then the application with priority consideration will be given the shuttle.
That's it, in a nutshell, if the priority consideration language receives no further clarification. So, really, I don't think it has much weight.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-piper
NASM, JSC and KSC are a given. Only Enterprises relocation is the unknown.
not saying youre wrong, but that just seems odd. why put out RFPs for museums to take them if NASA has no intention of giving anyone outside NASA (excluding NASM) an orbiter.
thankfully, I dont see the Intrepid getting one, despite that they feel its already "theirs". Their track record with Concorde does not build confidence. Id like to see Discovery at NASM, Atlantis at USAF museum, Endeavour at KSC and Enterprise at Dryden.
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2010 04:44 pm
not saying youre wrong, but that just seems odd. why put out RFPs for museums to take them if NASA has no intention of giving anyone outside NASA (excluding NASM) an orbiter.
The visitor centers at KSC and JSC are not run by NASA. They will require funding from outside sources and not from NASA.
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/09/2010 05:02 pm
NASM, JSC and KSC are a given. Only Enterprises relocation is the unknown.I hope that JSC and KSC are not shoe-ins. NASA would be better served, IMO, making its efforts more accessible to a larger part of the general public. How many more tens of millions would ultimately get to see an orbiter in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles than in Titusville, Florida and Houston, Texas?
- Ed Kyle
Post by: chrisking0997 on 08/09/2010 05:15 pm
not saying youre wrong, but that just seems odd. why put out RFPs for museums to take them if NASA has no intention of giving anyone outside NASA (excluding NASM) an orbiter.
The visitor centers at KSC and JSC are not run by NASA. They will require funding from outside sources and not from NASA.
learn something new every day. thanks!
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/09/2010 05:25 pm
NASM, JSC and KSC are a given.
From my chair here, the only given is the National Air and Space Museum.
The visitor centers at KSC and JSC are not run by NASA. They will require funding from outside sources and not from NASA.
While Space Center Houston is independent from Johnson Space Center, it does work with the JSC exhibits department. For example, the rocket park, including the Smithsonian-owned Saturn V (which Space Center Houston brings its guests through) is the financial responsibility of JSC.
As for the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, NASA awards a contract for its operation. Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts recently re-won that contract for a ten-year period beginning May 1, 2010. While self-sufficient -- the KSCVC receives no appropriated funds from NASA -- the space agency is still responsible for approving exhibit plans, including how to display a retired space shuttle.
Post by: jakef on 08/09/2010 07:19 pm
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/09/2010 07:45 pm
I forgot to mention when posting the above article that we also updated our gallery: "How to display a retired space shuttle"
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-080210b.html
...included are new renderings of the planned expansion to Space Center Houston; the U.S. Space & Rocket Center's planned use of the Orbiter Protective Enclosure; and updated imagery from The Museum of Flight in Seattle released since the ground breaking for their gallery.
I have to compliment you on that article. It's great to see these various concepts together to compare. Let us know if you add more updates to it.
The OPF exhibit idea at KSC would be neat, and perhaps they could move some of the equipment to the permanent location when such time comes. They could use it to let visitors really see what aside from launches happens at KSC, and to expose some of the guts of the shuttle to those of us who want to see more than just the skin.
I imagine an SSME positioned mid-install by the modified forklift they use, an OMS pod removed, a mannequin mock-up of technicians replacing tiles, the ET doors open to show the size of the fuel lines, and the platforms giving visitors a view into the cargo bay so they can see a payload, the docking adapter, robotic arm, and radiators.
I actually like all the proposals I've seen so far, except Intrepid. Sorry to those who are hoping Intrepid gets one. I hope they get fair consideration, but I personally see little relevance or consistency in theme, and NASM puts one already a lot closer to NYC than to us on the West Coast.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/09/2010 11:37 pm
[/quote]
NASM, JSC and KSC are a given. Only Enterprises relocation is the unknown.
[/quote]
As I understand it, coming from people that would know, only NASM is actually a "given." Everyone else has been through an elimination process that narrowed the potential locations down to some "good" ones. Rumor has it that they will be numerically scored according to some chosen algorithm and the highest scores will win the shuttles
That being said, there is an honest will to spread them out geographically too (and I'm not trying to start fights) so I doubt NASA will want two shuttles on the east coast, much less three. So if Discovery is going to NASM, that more or less seals up the east coast, including KSC.
My money is on one going north, one going south, and one going west.
-piper
Post by: Rifleman on 08/09/2010 11:54 pm
Discovery : NASM (already committed, no explanation necessary)
Atlantis : National Museum of the United States Air Force. The NMUSAF is the only facility truly on par with the NASM. The facility has the restoration and maintenance infrastructure to care for the orbiter, it has the space to display it (even before the new hanger is built, they have the room to take delivery at any time) The collection of important and historical aviation artifacts they have is rivaled by only the NASM (and the AF museum surpasses them in many ways). Another factor to remember is that, like the NASM, the AF museum is free to the public. At 1.3 million visitors per year, the shuttle would be seen by many people. The logistical considerations of the NMUSAF being a part of the Air Force, and therefore being able to trade services to NASA instead of paying cash to have an orbiter delivered is also an advantage for the NMUSAF.
Endeavour : Kennedy Space Center Visitors Center. With 1.5 million visitors per year, and being the home of the Shuttle Fleet, as well as the premier tourist attraction for those interested in NASA and spaceflight, I am confident that a shuttle will remain in its home at KSC. The logistical consideration of an easy move to the complex is another plus. KSC has a good track record for the preservation of the historical artifacts in its care.
Enterprise : The Museum Of Flight. The Museum of Flight is an excelent museum, with the restoration and care facilities to maintain an orbiter. At only 500,000 visitors per year, it is on the low end of acceptable attendance. The facilities are first class, however, and the fact that for the shuttles to be visible to the most people, placing one on the west coast makes sense. The museums collection is excellent, although lacking in really historic aircraft (it has lots of excellent examples of particular types of aircraft, but not as many that have the individual historical significance of many of the aircraft located at the NASM, or the NMUSAF) The addition of a shuttle to the museum of flight would give the museum just that, and really push it to the next level.
Other contenders : Why not
Intrepid Air and space museum : At just under 1 million visitors, it would see more exposure than the Museum of Flight, but the relatively close proximity to the NASM, as well as the questionable track record or maintaining their collection (most relics are left out in the open air), combined with the shuttle enclosure proposal that offers the least protection of all proposals, will hold it back. The fact that New York does not have the aviation and spaceflight ties that the other host cities have also is a indifference.
Tulsa Air and Space Museum : A very nice facility, and my personal favorite of the the shuttle exhibit proposals, but at only 90,000 per year attendance, it is simply not in the same class as the other hopefuls.
Houston : Another great facility, but with their questionable care of the Saturn 5, and more importantly, the fact that Nasa is unlikely to keep more than one shuttle for itself, I just don't think Houston will receive a shuttle.
US Space and Rocket Center : Will retain Pathfinder, but will not receive another shuttle.
As I said, these are only guesses, but if I had to place a bet, this would be mine.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/10/2010 06:49 pm
That place brings in 3.3 million visitors per year and they only have about 120,000 residents. That a whole lot of tourists.
If even half of those people went to whatever place it is they are going to put it, that's a lot of exposure. I'd be willing to be that it's be more than half.
That is a HUGE number. No wonder they haven't faded away.
-piper
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/12/2010 09:40 pm
I am confident that a shuttle will remain in its home at KSC. The logistical consideration of an easy move to the complex is another plus.
If I was KVC I just might feel ripped off if NASA was charging me the same $28.8 million just to move it around the complex. That just seems odd.
It makes much more sense for $28.8 mil to pay for shipping to a more distant location, but if they plan on using the OPF as a housing for the shuttle, well...they've made that trip dozens of times, why is it $28.8 million this time around?
Come to think of it, why would they issue a public RFI for everyone to spend money competing on if they were just going to send them to KSC and JSC? I mean, they could have made that decision long ago without an RFI.
Think about it: If Discovery is committed to NASM, that leave two shuttles, Endeavour and Atlantis for JSC and KSC. The Enterprise is under the discretion of the Smithsonian and they could have conducted their own investigation of suitable locations. So, why the RFI if not to seriously consider places outside of the space centers?
Am is missing something?
-piper
Post by: Thorny on 08/12/2010 10:12 pm
It makes much more sense for $28.8 mil to pay for shipping to a more distant location,
Why? When people think of Space Shuttles, they're thinking of Cape Canaveral, Mission Control in Houston, maybe Edwards AFB. But Texas A&M? No, sorry.
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/12/2010 11:05 pm
If I was KVC I just might feel ripped off if NASA was charging me the same $28.8 million just to move it around the complex. That just seems odd.
Per NASA, the $28.8 million (estimated) fee is only if the vehicle needs to be flown by SCA. The KSC Visitor Complex, if awarded one, and if going somewhere other than an OPF, will have to cover the cost associated with transporting it down the road.
Quote
Come to think of it, why would they issue a public RFI for everyone to spend money competing on if they were just going to send them to KSC and JSC? I mean, they could have made that decision long ago without an RFI.
Because there are established regulations for the disposition of any government property.
Quote
The Enterprise is under the discretion of the Smithsonian
Under the terms of its agreement with NASA, the Smithsonian must first offer Enterprise back to NASA before allocating it to another museum. NASA may still be making the decision where Enterprise goes.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/12/2010 11:33 pm
If they wanted, originally, to put them at the visitors centers, they could have written the RFI so that they, alone, were qualified to respond to it. I know that can be done because things have been done that way before.
Good example, Air Force One in the Reagan Library.
IIRC, that was an "open" contest that was written so narrowly that only the Reagan Library qualified. The result was that the Air Force "loaned" Air Force One to the Reagan Library contingent on it being on permanent display...just like the NASA RFI.
So, yes, there are procedures in place, but there is also precedent for narrowing the scope of those procedures. Why wasn't that done in this case if there wasn't a genuine will to consider other locations?
This girl thinks it's because they really want to spread 'em around outside of the space centers. I'm just saying...that's how it looks.
-piper
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/13/2010 03:34 am
It makes much more sense for $28.8 mil to pay for shipping to a more distant location,
Why? When people think of Space Shuttles, they're thinking of Cape Canaveral, Mission Control in Houston, maybe Edwards AFB. But Texas A&M? No, sorry.
Apollo 8, Gemini 12, etc, are in Chicago. Why couldn't Endeavour, say, also be in Chicago? Or Cleveland? Or anywhere? The rockets at KSC Visitors Center, Cape Canaveral AF Museum, and in Houston were largely ignored for decades and nearly rotted away. (Other rockets, like all of the Saturn I/IBs, continue to rot in Huntsville and Florida, etc.) Similar vintage missiles and rockets have been restored and are much better care for in other places like, for example, Dayton, Ohio and at Evergreen in Oregon. The orbiters should go where they will be best maintained, and that may or may not be near existing NASA Centers.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Challenger OV-099 on 08/13/2010 10:57 am
As for the other shuttles, it only makes sense for Atlantis to be sent to the NMUSAF. She is the primary DoD shuttle, and the Air Force does have a close relationship with NASA. Also, I've been to this museum several times and they could take great care of an orbiter, even now before their new (4th) hangar is built.
I think Endeavour would work well at KSC, although there might be some confusion between it and the mock-up, Explorer. (A confusion at least for tourists that don't know much about the shuttle program, I've seen folks that say they saw Explorer launch in 1992...) As for Enterprise, I would say send her to Houston, but after seeing that Saturn V in such horrible shape... it makes one wonder how they would treat a shuttle.
Post by: Thorny on 08/13/2010 01:36 pm
The rockets at KSC Visitors Center, Cape Canaveral AF Museum, and in Houston were largely ignored for decades and nearly rotted away.
No, they didn't. At least not at the KSC Visitor's Center. The vehicles in the Rocket Garden were cleaned and repainted fairly frequently. Even the weird two-first-stages Titan II was only taken down because KSC is getting a bonafide surplus Titan II to replace it.
(Other rockets, like all of the Saturn I/IBs, continue to rot in Huntsville and Florida, etc.)
I took pictures of KSC's Saturn IB a couple of years ago and it still looks fine, not like Houston's Saturn V that had the engine about to fall off. Regardless, who in the world has room to display a Saturn IB indoors? So comparing the Saturns to the DC-9-sized Shuttle Orbiters is a bit of a stretch. And I distinctly remember the outcry when KSC's and Houston's Saturn Vs were moved indoors and purists complained about no longer being able top get a good look at a whole Saturn V from a distance.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/13/2010 05:09 pm
Quote
The orbiters should go where they will be best maintained, and that may or may not be near existing NASA Centers.
- Ed Kyle
Agree. I just want my kids to be able to see one. (when I have them)
-piper
Post by: robertross on 08/14/2010 01:00 am
NASM, JSC and KSC are a given. Only Enterprises relocation is the unknown.I hope that JSC and KSC are not shoe-ins. NASA would be better served, IMO, making its efforts more accessible to a larger part of the general public. How many more tens of millions would ultimately get to see an orbiter in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles than in Titusville, Florida and Houston, Texas?
- Ed Kyle
And that's why it's more of a political decision: #tourists = $$$ for a region. Putting the orbiters in a 'under-utilized' or 'tourist area' ensures the dollars keep rolling in.
I'd say KSC should get one, because there isn't a flight on the space coast every day, so it has to 'fill in the gaps' in between.
I like the idea of Enterprise for Dryden, or somewhere in the southwest. The image of her landing on a dry lake bed just seems like a fitting place for her future years. It would be like going home.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/14/2010 04:18 am
Quote
How many more tens of millions would ultimately get to see an orbiter in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles than in Titusville, Florida and Houston, Texas?
- Ed Kyle
Texas is the 2nd most populous state and has 5 of the top 20 largest cities in the US. The Texas Urban Triangle has more people than New York State. There's a good reason to keep one in Texas. I think that's why NASA hasn't given the College Station project the 'ol boot in the butt. They're in the middle of the TUT.
-piper
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/14/2010 04:46 am
The rockets at KSC Visitors Center, Cape Canaveral AF Museum, and in Houston were largely ignored for decades and nearly rotted away.
No, they didn't. At least not at the KSC Visitor's Center. The vehicles in the Rocket Garden were cleaned and repainted fairly frequently. Even the weird two-first-stages Titan II was only taken down because KSC is getting a bonafide surplus Titan II to replace it.(Other rockets, like all of the Saturn I/IBs, continue to rot in Huntsville and Florida, etc.)
I took pictures of KSC's Saturn IB a couple of years ago and it still looks fine, not like Houston's Saturn V that had the engine about to fall off. Regardless, who in the world has room to display a Saturn IB indoors? So comparing the Saturns to the DC-9-sized Shuttle Orbiters is a bit of a stretch. And I distinctly remember the outcry when KSC's and Houston's Saturn Vs were moved indoors and purists complained about no longer being able top get a good look at a whole Saturn V from a distance.
The "spacecraft" end of SA-209 at KSC corroded so badly by the early 1990s that it had to be scrapped and replaced with a fabbed fake. The first stage also has no real engines. Many of the displays at KSC are not representative of actual launch vehicle configurations. Most have been covered in so many layers of paint that it is hard to see what they really looked like - especially the engines.
Numerous artifacts have had to be removed from the Cape museum due to serious corrosion and/or hurricane damage. Some have apparently been scrapped or parted out. The Titan I has holes rusted through and has a big dent in one of its engines. Two Atlas vehicles used to be there, now there are none.
MSFC has the first Saturn cluster stage (SA-T), a vitally important historic artifact, parked in a back corner where the public was unable to see it after 9/11. This was the first U.S. "super booster", the first to actually outmatched the Soviet rockets. In my mind this piece of hardware is just as important as any Saturn V. Here is what it looks like today. I'll let you judge its condition.
Any number of museums would, I suspect, be willing to restore, conserve, and display this, and other, pieces of Space Race history.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Thorny on 08/14/2010 05:15 am
The "spacecraft" end of SA-209 at KSC corroded so badly by the early 1990s that it had to be scrapped and replaced with a fabbed fake. The first stage also has no real engines. Many of the displays at KSC are not representative of actual launch vehicle configurations.
Honestly, I'm not sure they ever were. They did the best with what they had, which meant mocking up upper stages and spacecraft, pretty much from the beginning.
Numerous artifacts have had to be removed from the Cape museum due to serious corrosion and/or hurricane damage. Some have apparently been scrapped or parted out. The Titan I has holes rusted through and has a big dent in one of its engines. Two Atlas vehicles used to be there, now there are none.
Well, if I didn't specifically say so, I was talking about KSC, not the Air Force Space and Missile Museum or whatever its called. I've not heard the slightest suggestion that the Air Force side is in the running for a Shuttle orbiter, and since those are two independent operations, I'm not sure of the relevance. The KSC Rocket Garden does still have two Atlases, something that's increasingly rare because of the pressurization requirement and advancing age.
Any number of museums would, I suspect, be willing to restore, conserve, and display this, and other, pieces of Space Race history.
I tend to doubt it. Money is tight everywhere and not many museums have space for a Saturn I test article. Wish it were otherwise, but wishing does no good.
Post by: psloss on 08/15/2010 12:16 pm
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-space-shuttle-20100815,0,1278663.story
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/15/2010 09:33 pm
U.S. Space & Rocket Center – Huntsville, AL
Columbia Memorial Science Learning Center – Downey, CA
California Science Center - Los Angeles, CA
Dryden Flight Research Center – Edwards, CA
Ames Research Center – Moffett Field, CA
March Air and Space Museum - Riverside, CA
Air Force Plant 42 – Palmdale, CA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory – Pasadena, CA
San Diego Air & Space Museum – San Diego, CA
Austin Planetarium - Austin, TX
Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex – Titusville, FL
BVMNH/George Bush Library/Texas A&M University - College Station, TX
Michoud Assembly Facility – New Orleans, LA
Goddard Space Flight Center – Greenbelt, MD
Stennis Space Center – Hancock County, MS
White Sands Test Facility – Las Cruces, NM
Intrepid Air & Space Museum – New York, NY
Glenn Research Center – Cleveland, OH
U.S. Air Force Museum – Dayton, OH
Tulsa Air & Space Museum – Tulsa, OK
Evergreen Air & Space Museum – McMinnville, OR
Space Center Houston - Houston, TX
Museum of Flight – Seattle, WA
Quite a few museums, some NASA installations, and one university. That's quite a crowd. There are 23 listed, one or two may have dropped out already.
-piper
Post by: scotty125 on 08/15/2010 10:42 pm
Any number of museums would, I suspect, be willing to restore, conserve, and display this, and other, pieces of Space Race history.
I tend to doubt it. Money is tight everywhere and not many museums have space for a Saturn I test article. Wish it were otherwise, but wishing does no good.
I can tell you at one museum in Oregon would at least consider it. We have been adding aircraft at a helluva clip, and are always on the lookout for missile and space artifacts as well. Take it for what it's worth, but we're starting to talk about expansion again and we're at almost 260,000 square feet of exhibit space now. Make that almost 400K and you've got room for some serious artifacts.
Unfortunately, MSFC is not well renowned for taking care of their artifacts...it seems to me I've heard of other pieces besides the S-1 that should be adopted...
Back to the subject at hand: Remember that when you start talking about future homes for the orbiters, the facilities will need to be ready to go within a maximum of 12 months of that vehicles final flight. Nasa has stated on several occasions that they want them gone as soon as possible (12 months or less.) That means Discovery and Enterprise will be finding themselves headed to new homes no later than the end of 2011. Those facilities will also need to be up and running long enough to have their environmental control systems vetted by the Smithsonian, and that can be a 3-6 month process. I believe Piper's list of institutions is complete as 23 is the number I've heard for the last year or so.
Also, if you are interested in Atlantis or Endeavour, you will not be allowed ANY structural modifications to get them where they need to go. The rules as I've seen them are quite specific that the orbiter structures must remain intact. I believe there's a bit more leeway with regards to Enterprise, but you still won't be able to do anything crazy like taking the wings or tail off. You pretty much need to be very close to an airport or water, or be somewhere without a lot of bridges or overpasses.
Post by: Zpoxy on 08/16/2010 02:23 am
Well, if I didn't specifically say so, I was talking about KSC, not the Air Force Space and Missile Museum or whatever its called. I've not heard the slightest suggestion that the Air Force side is in the running for a Shuttle orbiter, and since those are two independent operations, I'm not sure of the relevance. The KSC Rocket Garden does still have two Atlases, something that's increasingly rare because of the pressurization requirement and advancing age.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken the KSC Visitor Center Atlas displays are assembled over an internal, hidden support spine. There is no pressurization system on those. The Atlas that sat horizontal on the transporter at the CCAFS museum was pressurized, but it's been gone for years. I think I remember hearing it was damaged in the hurricanes of 2004.
Post by: psloss on 08/16/2010 10:22 am
Back to the subject at hand: Remember that when you start talking about future homes for the orbiters, the facilities will need to be ready to go within a maximum of 12 months of that vehicles final flight. Nasa has stated on several occasions that they want them gone as soon as possible (12 months or less.) That means Discovery and Enterprise will be finding themselves headed to new homes no later than the end of 2011.Plans have changed a couple of times already in this process and another thing that NASA has stated is that all the orbiters will remain at KSC until after the last Shuttle mission. It's possible that mission won't be complete until the middle of next year.
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/17/2010 07:35 pm
I can tell you at one museum in Oregon would at least consider it. We have been adding aircraft at a helluva clip, and are always on the lookout for missile and space artifacts as well. Take it for what it's worth, but we're starting to talk about expansion again and we're at almost 260,000 square feet of exhibit space now. Make that almost 400K and you've got room for some serious artifacts.
So are you involved over at Evergreen? I'd have loved to be when I was living down in Portland, but it was too long of a drive.
Back on topic - with ~20 institutions not getting a shuttle, this might be a great opportunity for some the losing institutions to look around the country for other hardware that might still give them reasons to grow their exhibits. A Saturn 1 first stage would be an awesome counterpart in Evergreen's space gallery to the H-4 in the aviation gallery.
Of course, the Saturn 1 couldn't simply fly in to McMinneville on the back of the SCA.
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/17/2010 08:49 pm
Here is the most complete list (so far) of who responded to the RFI from NASA regarding the space shuttle in no particular order.
What's the source of this list? I ask because (a) I know for certain there are several on the list who did not respond to the RFI and (b) I know for certain there are museums who responded to the RFI who are not listed.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/17/2010 08:56 pm
Here is the most complete list (so far) of who responded to the RFI from NASA regarding the space shuttle in no particular order.
What's the source of this list? I ask because (a) I know for certain there are several on the list who did not respond to the RFI and (b) I know for certain there are museums who responded to the RFI who are not listed.
It's the most complete list that I could compile from about 400+ news articles nationwide covering the shuttle retirement. Some may have responded then dropped out and I might have missed some. It's the best I have been able to compile so far. If you know for certain that some did not respond and of some that certainly did, feel free to edit and re-post it.
-piper
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/17/2010 11:07 pm
It's the most complete list that I could compile from about 400+ news articles nationwide covering the shuttle retirement.
Seems then like there's some misinformation going around in the media. No harm on your part (I was more curious if this was being put forth by someone else as an official list). As for adding/correcting, I will... soon.
Post by: scotty125 on 08/18/2010 01:03 am
Of course, the Saturn 1 couldn't simply fly in to McMinneville on the back of the SCA.
I'm lucky enought to work Saturdays in Evergreen's Space Museum...It's the best toy box I've ever had access to! :)
Actually, if something REALLY big can't make it in to McMinnville airport (5400') under its own power, about the only alternative would be by barge. That's how the goose made it all those years ago. I still remember seeing it going through downtown Portland on a barge headed up the Willamette. We'd have to do the same thing with the S-1 or an orbiter. You'd probably have to fly the SCA to somewhere close with water access...probably Seattle or SF, load the orbiter on a barge and head for Portland. IIRC, they were able to get the goose to within 5 or 6 miles of the museum. You'd have to take down some powerlines, but not much in the way of other major obstacles...
Just for grins, here's a video of the biggest thing (other than the goose) in our collection landing across the street:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLkxu93BDJ4
That was an awful lotta flaps!
Post by: wjbarnett on 08/18/2010 01:41 am
Post by: scotty125 on 08/18/2010 02:03 am
An SCA would be a nice runner-up prize if you didn't get a shuttle, but I've heard Nasa plans to hang on to them for spare parts. It would make a helluva billboard parked out front!
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/18/2010 06:43 am
Actually, a one way trip. The crew really floated it in...I heard less than 3,000' from touchdown to stop. They even had about 500 feet left...not even exciting. We towed it across the highway a couple of weeks later, and it's now retired atop the roof of our new water park. There's a picture of it being placed on the roof earlier in this thread.
An SCA would be a nice runner-up prize if you didn't get a shuttle, but I've heard Nasa plans to hang on to them for spare parts. It would make a helluva billboard parked out front!
I was told by one of the SCA pilots, years ago, that landing with the shuttle isn't a problem, it's taking off again. I was pretty young at the time, but IIRC I think he said that on a cold clear day they can stop it in well under a mile.
I know an unloaded 747 can scooch off the ground in record time when it needs to though. So I guess they could drop off the shuttle wherever then take off again without it on less than 8000ft of runway.
It's possible that the biggest problem isn't length of the runway, it's the weight of the SCA + shuttle. I read that the combined weight of SCA + shuttle is 600,000 lb maximum landing weight. That's a whole lot of weight per wheel set, so whatever runway it goes in on (if it goes that way) will have to be thick.
-piper
Post by: JAFO on 08/18/2010 07:26 am
I'm lucky enought to work Saturdays in Evergreen's Space Museum...It's the best toy box I've ever had access to! :)
You're very lucky, Scotty. I've visited the Evergreen Museum many times and they're doing things right there. (I heard the second building was designed with a Shuttle display in mind.) Hate to say it but I'd rather see a Shuttle there than at the Museum of Flight. (I live in Bellingham, WA)
[apologies for thread drift]
Ever seen the 747-200 landing at Rand Airport, SA?
http://www.sa-transport.co.za/aircraft/precision/747.html
http://www.skypark.org/747Landing.htm
(http://www.skypark.org/images/747Rand2.jpg)
[end thread drift, thanks]
Post by: collectSPACE on 08/18/2010 09:48 pm
Per NASA, the $28.8 million (estimated) fee is only if the vehicle needs to be flown by SCA. The KSC Visitor Complex, if awarded one, and if going somewhere other than an OPF, will have to cover the cost associated with transporting it down the road.
Only $8.3 million of the $28.8 million is the cost of ferrying the orbiter to an airport near the display site. Per NASA:
The major tasks include: actual ferry of Orbiter, offload and tow to final location; positioning the orbiter on jack stands and de-servicing Hydraulic System #1; renting two NASA approved mobile Cranes, on loading/offloading the Orbiter to/from Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA); shipment of Ground Support Equipment (GSE) required from and to NASA KSC; travel cost and rentals of hi-lifts, access stands , etc.; and Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and Shuttle Landing Facility costs to conduct the ferry operation.
The balance, $20.5 million, is required for "display preparation" which includes the re-installation of safed orbiter vehicle systems or substitutes for orbiter vehicle systems; provision of new special hazard notices and controls; and configuration of the vehicle to allow it to be ferried to and reside in its final destination.
Tasks include set up of the crew cabin in flight configuration, installation of structural shells and skins for the previously removed orbital maneuvering system pods, forward reaction control system, and internal cabin structural panels, as well as final closeout of the payload bay, wings and the aft compartment... also included is the ground support equipment (GSE) required to support final NASA public display site requirements, including "Data" packs (MSDS-equivalent for remaining passive hazards; Orbiter system configuration summary).
The $20.5 million is also said to include costs for NASA to configure the orbiter for ferry flight, which would (one assumes) be deducted for the special case of the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex.
(NASA initially, but is no longer seeking reimbursement for safing costs.)
Post by: jcopella on 08/20/2010 01:28 am
OV-101: DFRC
OV-103: NASM (given)
OV-104: JSC/KSC (pick 'em)
OV-105: KSC/JSC (pick 'em)
DFRC, NASM, and KSC are mortal locks.
JSC, I'd say, is only a tiny bit less certain.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/20/2010 06:42 am
My bets:
OV-101: DFRC
OV-103: NASM (given)
OV-104: JSC/KSC (pick 'em)
OV-105: KSC/JSC (pick 'em)
DFRC, NASM, and KSC are mortal locks.
JSC, I'd say, is only a tiny bit less certain.
With one shuttle on the east coast already (NASM) I kind of doubt one will go to KSC. It's just geography.
Adler will almost certainly get one with Obama in office, like it or not, that's how he plays the game.
One will go to the northwest, either MoF or Evergreen I'd bet.
Texas will likely get one due to the population, 2nd most populous state. Where in Texas is anyone guess. Everyone says JSC but I'm betting not.
That configuration puts a shuttle North, South, East, and West.
-piper
-piper
Post by: jcopella on 08/20/2010 06:58 am
My bets:
OV-101: DFRC
OV-103: NASM (given)
OV-104: JSC/KSC (pick 'em)
OV-105: KSC/JSC (pick 'em)
DFRC, NASM, and KSC are mortal locks.
JSC, I'd say, is only a tiny bit less certain.
With one shuttle on the east coast already (NASM) I kind of doubt one will go to KSC. It's just geography.
Adler will almost certainly get one with Obama in office, like it or not, that's how he plays the game.
One will go to the northwest, either MoF or Evergreen I'd bet.
Texas will likely get one due to the population, 2nd most populous state. Where in Texas is anyone guess. Everyone says JSC but I'm betting not.
That configuration puts a shuttle North, South, East, and West.
-piper
-piper
Care to place $1000 on it?
Post by: Jim on 08/20/2010 10:01 am
My bets:
OV-101: DFRC
OV-103: NASM (given)
OV-104: JSC/KSC (pick 'em)
OV-105: KSC/JSC (pick 'em)
DFRC, NASM, and KSC are mortal locks.
JSC, I'd say, is only a tiny bit less certain.
With one shuttle on the east coast already (NASM) I kind of doubt one will go to KSC. It's just geography.
KSC is a given. Geography doesn't play into it.
Post by: psloss on 08/20/2010 01:57 pm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703321004575426803336067316.html
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/20/2010 03:28 pm
Quote
Care to place $1000 on it?
ROFL. Maybe you Florida guys can throw a thousand around but not me. I've got $1.
I think KSC is going to be competing with Chicago more than anything.
Locations in Ohio are probably at a disadvantage for the same reason as the Intrepid A&S...only a few hundred miles from NASM. Ultimately, that puts the receiving museums in competition with each other for and with, essentially, the same exhibit. Not so good. That does not maximize the benefit to the taxpayer and it's not all that good for the museums in terms of tourism dollars.
So, based on what I have been told about the priorities in the competition, I could see one going to either Chicago or KSC because each is over 600 miles from NASM. Chicago has a big ally in the White House.
Texas, as the 2nd most populous state and far from NASM, will probably qualify.
Where in Texas is really up in the air from what I hear. In Texas, you have a visitor center focused on NASA competing with a full blown science/history research museum. Both have political giants in their corners (Hutchison for JSC, Bush for TAMU). Both have academic ties, but I'd give the edge in that to Texas A&M since it's a Land Sea Space grant university. Both have big visitor numbers, but again, the edge goes to College Station if you consider Texas A&M getting about 3 million or so visitors per year. Both can make the education claim but I don't know how JSC could compete on an educational footing with Texas A&M. JSC definitely has the overwhelming history connection and might have an edge in public support, whether that's strong enough to counter the raw numbers remains to be seen. People in JSC and College Station both seem to be convinced they are getting the Endeavour if they get one at all. (What is the fascination with Endeavour?)
The west coast will get one because one should go there...somewhere. Who knows where? Wasn't the Smithsonian sniffing around Evergreen? Then, the Seattle MoF already started building their building, but ...they're getting a big BIG simulator, so...? But I think it's safe to say that something will go to the west coast.
But then, like the WSJ article says, congress is likely to un-decide whatever NASA plans anyway.
I wore out my armchair doing all this quarterbacking.
-piper
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/20/2010 08:13 pm
Quote
Care to place $1000 on it?
ROFL. Maybe you Florida guys can throw a thousand around but not me. I've got $1.
We could do an honor system bet where those whose picks lose donate the pledged amounts to the museums that win...
On the other hand, I'm considering making a donation before the selection to help my favored site (45 minute drive from my place to the Museum of Flight) in preparing the necessary facilities.
Quote
Wasn't the Smithsonian sniffing around Evergreen? Then, the Seattle MoF already started building their building, but ...they're getting a big BIG simulator, so...?
Evergreen already has a building (and a superb one at that), so they're ahead in that regards. Museum of Flight's advantage is their location in a major city and their close relationship with Boeing, who is a shuttle contractor.
BTW, I was there a couple weeks after they "started construction" and saw no sign of any work at all. Apparently "starting construction" is a relative term.
Quote
But then, like the WSJ article says, congress is likely to un-decide whatever NASA plans anyway.
Don't remind me. I've been trying to pretend the selection will be reasonable and reflect the intentions laid out in the RFP (preservation, education, accessibility, etc). I don't need to get my imagination going for all the ways congress can screw up the process.
Post by: jcopella on 08/20/2010 10:36 pm
Congress, on the other hand....
Personally, I would be shocked if an orbiter ends up in Chicago (huh?), NY, Seattle, or any Texas location other than Houston.
There will be one in the east (NASM), one in the west (DFRC), and two in the south (KSC & JSC). The only wild card in this equation IMO is Dayton, and I'm afraid their win would come at the expense of JSC. I hope that doesn't happen.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/21/2010 06:49 am
Obama won't intervene in this. There's no upside for him. The best he could do with any decision would be to make a small constituency very excited and piss off a great many more. Plus, he's already burned his political capital on space with FY2011 and he's cratering in public opinion right now. He won't touch this, particularly if the decision comes around election time.
Congress, on the other hand....
Personally, I would be shocked if an orbiter ends up in Chicago (huh?), NY, Seattle, or any Texas location other than Houston.
There will be one in the east (NASM), one in the west (DFRC), and two in the south (KSC & JSC). The only wild card in this equation IMO is Dayton, and I'm afraid their win would come at the expense of JSC. I hope that doesn't happen.
Dayton is just a little to close to NASM. It's a 475mi drive. That's kind of close together. NASM is 275mi from New York. Both are close enough that the museums would compete for visitors, especially to see a shuttle. I suspect NASM would want to draw in the New York crowd as well as the Pittsburgh and Cleveland crowds. If there is a shuttle in Dayton, why go to NASM if you're in Cleveland or Pittsburgh?
There doesn't have to be an upside for him and no one is going to vote nationally yea or nay to Obama based on his decision in the NASA competition. The shuttle isn't THAT important in U.S. politics.
I suspect this will be about paying back political favors from Chicago (Adler Planetarium, they're getting a simulator already) Think about it, the man took a special trip to Europe to pitch the Olympics for Chicago. Now he has a chance to directly influence the outcome of NASA's Orbiter decision, in favor of (orchestral tah-dah) Chicago.
I've said it before, but I wouldn't count out College Station in Texas. Their location is across the street from a pretty heavy duty airport and I think they meet all the other requirements. Plus IIRC they have the support of all the other Texas cities other than Houston. I bet it's going to get dramatic in Texas. George H.W. Bush and Obama are friendly and he's been to Bush's museum a few times to speak. Obama isn't all that happy with the area around JSC either. Like him, dislike him, or really hate him, he's still the president and can wield executive power not excluding the fate of the shuttles, should he choose to.
-piper
Post by: padrat on 08/24/2010 01:10 am
Post by: Aobrien on 08/24/2010 03:50 am
I also feel that there is no need for people to be arguing about where they think they should go. It has not been decided and there is no way for any of us to KNOW where they will go. Feel free to discuss where you would LIKE it to go and how you think they will be stored but do not argue over why someone else's location is wrong as there are no facts on how they will be dispersed.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/24/2010 04:27 am
I agree with Padrat.
I also feel that there is no need for people to be arguing about where they think they should go. It has not been decided and there is no way for any of us to KNOW where they will go. Feel free to discuss where you would LIKE it to go and how you think they will be stored but do not argue over why someone else's location is wrong as there are no facts on how they will be dispersed.
(sigh) RFI, page 2-3 under Space Shuttle Orbiters
"Due to the significance of the Space Shuttle Orbiters and the role they have played in the Nation’s space program, special attention will be paid to ensuring they will retire to appropriate places. NASA is keenly aware of the essential value of these key assets to the space program’s rich history; the Agency is therefore committed to making placement
decisions that are determined to be in the best interest of the American taxpayer."
I asked NASA what it meant and was told that the paragraph communicates the desire within NASA to keep them as far from one another as possible to give everyone a fair chance at seeing them.
Why do I think they will be as far from one another as possible?
I think it because NASA thinks it.
Sure, I'm biased, I like their idea and the only people taking them seriously are NASA. Plus, I ask a lot of questions and I sometimes I even get answers, even from NASA, just have to know the right people.
No offense to anyone. I don't know for sure, but I like to see the reasons why people think the way they do about a certain location. But, to contain the ire, I will refrain from commenting.
-piper
Post by: DMeader on 08/24/2010 03:42 pm
(sigh) RFI, page 2-3 under Space Shuttle Orbiters
"Due to the significance of the Space Shuttle Orbiters and the role they have played in the Nation’s space program, special attention will be paid to ensuring they will retire to appropriate places. NASA is keenly aware of the essential value of these key assets to the space program’s rich history; the Agency is therefore committed to making placement
decisions that are determined to be in the best interest of the American taxpayer."
I asked NASA what it meant and was told that the paragraph communicates the desire within NASA to keep them as far from one another as possible to give everyone a fair chance at seeing them.
Why do I think they will be as far from one another as possible?
I think it because NASA thinks it.
I'm sorry, but for me at least you'll have to quote a more definitive source than "I asked someone at NASA". For your statements to have credibility, you'll have to identify the "people" at NASA you spoke to.
None of this says any more to me beyond the requirement to preserve and display the artifacts properly. Nothing at all indicates proximity or geographic location. If that was indeed the desire, the rules would simply state that one location would have to be in the west, another in the central part of the country, and a third in the east.
Post by: chrisking0997 on 08/24/2010 05:26 pm
Dayton is just a little to close to NASM. It's a 475mi drive. That's kind of close together. NASM is 275mi from New York. Both are close enough that the museums would compete for visitors, especially to see a shuttle. I suspect NASM would want to draw in the New York crowd as well as the Pittsburgh and Cleveland crowds. If there is a shuttle in Dayton, why go to NASM if you're in Cleveland or Pittsburgh?
Both of those museums have and will continue to compete for visitors regardless of if they each get a shuttle or not. The driving reason to go to either of those locations is that they are 2 of the finest aviation and space museums in the world. Their collections are not defined by one or two artifacts but as a whole. One does not usually sit in Cleveland or Pittsburgh and decide where to visit on one artifact alone (unless on they have already been to one or the other)...at least, not on a regular basis.
Discovery is going to NASM. If you want opinions as to why others should go to a given location, heres mine: Atlantis to Dayton, because of the AF connection and their demonstrated ability to care for and showcase rare historical aircraft. Endeavour to KSC, because thats where they launched/landed and it just belongs there (I know, I know...sentimental reason but I dont think anyone argues one belongs there). I used to think Enterprise belonged at Dryden...but I think that should be temporary if Palmdale would step up to the plate and get the museum there up to par. Either that, or Edwards' museum needs to do the same thing. Ive never understood why a better museum has not sprung up there yet. Between the two they'd have pretty good collection that would be worth seeing.
I really dont see these Texas locations getting one, and frankly all this Obama stuff is silly. I cant see why this would rise to the level for him to be involved (but I wouldnt be surprised since he seems to have a knack for finding ways to complicate things). Congresscritters, OTOH, need to step out of it as well...but they just cant let an opportunity to add to their reelection scoresheet go by instead of keeping their noses out of where it doesnt belong. NASA should be allowed to decide their locations by merit and sound reasoning instead of politics, and not put one at an obscure location as a favor. YMMV
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/24/2010 06:11 pm
(sigh) RFI, page 2-3 under Space Shuttle Orbiters
"Due to the significance of the Space Shuttle Orbiters and the role they have played in the Nation’s space program, special attention will be paid to ensuring they will retire to appropriate places. NASA is keenly aware of the essential value of these key assets to the space program’s rich history; the Agency is therefore committed to making placement
decisions that are determined to be in the best interest of the American taxpayer."
I asked NASA what it meant and was told that the paragraph communicates the desire within NASA to keep them as far from one another as possible to give everyone a fair chance at seeing them.
Why do I think they will be as far from one another as possible?
I think it because NASA thinks it.
I'm sorry, but for me at least you'll have to quote a more definitive source than "I asked someone at NASA". For your statements to have credibility, you'll have to identify the "people" at NASA you spoke to.
None of this says any more to me beyond the requirement to preserve and display the artifacts properly. Nothing at all indicates proximity or geographic location. If that was indeed the desire, the rules would simply state that one location would have to be in the west, another in the central part of the country, and a third in the east.
By the same rule bending, NASA could have written the RFI so that only very specific organizations could qualify to respond to it. (Space Centers, Visitor Centers, etc) But they didn't. That is the exact language Congress is seeking to clarify.
The House bill states "The orbiter vehicles shall be made available and located for display and maintenance through a competitive procedure that takes into account geographical diversity."
It's repeated later in the bill and the quality of historical connection left vague. Various congressman and their aides are on record as saying that the "historical connection" is designed to reflect the contribution to the shuttle program by the entire nation and that language to that effect that may be in the full bill that goes to Obama.
Naming names, now we're getting in to treacherous waters. I won't go there.
Sorry, I know that's not the answer you were looking for. I'll shut up now. :-X
-piper
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/24/2010 08:05 pm
Naming names, now we're getting in to treacherous waters. I won't go there.
This suggests to me that your interpretation then isn't documented anywhere that will be considered authoritative when it comes time to make a decision or if a protest (I'm sick of GAO protests) is made on the grounds geographic diversity.
If the house bill passes (isn't it still in committee?), that ensures that to at least a token degree geography is a consideration, but there's still a large number of other consideration to balance.
Post by: Commander Keen on 08/24/2010 10:47 pm
Dayton is just a little to close to NASM. It's a 475mi drive. That's kind of close together. NASM is 275mi from New York. Both are close enough that the museums would compete for visitors, especially to see a shuttle. I suspect NASM would want to draw in the New York crowd as well as the Pittsburgh and Cleveland crowds. If there is a shuttle in Dayton, why go to NASM if you're in Cleveland or Pittsburgh?
Both of those museums have and will continue to compete for visitors regardless of if they each get a shuttle or not. The driving reason to go to either of those locations is that they are 2 of the finest aviation and space museums in the world. Their collections are not defined by one or two artifacts but as a whole. One does not usually sit in Cleveland or Pittsburgh and decide where to visit on one artifact alone (unless on they have already been to one or the other)...at least, not on a regular basis.
Discovery is going to NASM. If you want opinions as to why others should go to a given location, heres mine: Atlantis to Dayton, because of the AF connection and their demonstrated ability to care for and showcase rare historical aircraft. Endeavour to KSC, because thats where they launched/landed and it just belongs there (I know, I know...sentimental reason but I dont think anyone argues one belongs there). I used to think Enterprise belonged at Dryden...but I think that should be temporary if Palmdale would step up to the plate and get the museum there up to par. Either that, or Edwards' museum needs to do the same thing. Ive never understood why a better museum has not sprung up there yet. Between the two they'd have pretty good collection that would be worth seeing.
I really dont see these Texas locations getting one, and frankly all this Obama stuff is silly. I cant see why this would rise to the level for him to be involved (but I wouldnt be surprised since he seems to have a knack for finding ways to complicate things). Congresscritters, OTOH, need to step out of it as well...but they just cant let an opportunity to add to their reelection scoresheet go by instead of keeping their noses out of where it doesnt belong. NASA should be allowed to decide their locations by merit and sound reasoning instead of politics, and not put one at an obscure location as a favor. YMMV
The Edwards museum is hoping to go offbase. Since 9/11 it is hard to get on. If that happens it would be great to have Enterprise as its main attraction. I would not be offended if it ended up in Palmdale either. Afterall, that is where they were all built and it would be more accessible to the public.
Post by: CenTexRez on 08/25/2010 12:40 am
NASA may have, at one time, been saying through the PCO that even though the Orbiter itself was "only" $28.8mil, they required participants to have a dedicated budget of over $200mil for serious consideration. This was about the end of July of this year.
Has anyone else heard this? Can anyone confirm it?
I was wondering what exactly that might mean. That's a huge number and I wondered if that was referring to some kind of endowment or what that might be.
-piper
Post by: iamlucky13 on 08/25/2010 01:32 am
As an example, the Museum of Flight in Washington recently started construction of a $12 million space gallery in order to be ready in time.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/06/2010 01:10 pm
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/09/ssp-review-end-state-requirements-for-discovery/
Post by: iamlucky13 on 09/09/2010 08:14 am
Post by: scotty125 on 10/03/2010 02:54 pm
But while I'm on the subject, are there any ET's non-flight ET's left that are structurally sound? Since the VAB isn't going to have much trade for a while, and assuming KSC does get an orbiter, it would be an awsome display to assemble a full stack on an MLP (with inert SRB's) and close off one of the highbays so the public could have access. It would be absolutely incredible to be able to walk across the deck of an MLP and get the kind of views Pad Rat has had for years. It's not like they are ever going to let anyone set foot inside one...so why not display one in its "natural habitat." It would also be a great excuse to open up the VAB to public tours again for the first time in 30+ years...
Post by: psloss on 10/03/2010 04:07 pm
So now that the authorization bills have passed, and we know (we think) that STS-135 will be the final flight of the Shuttle program, does anyone have any thoughts on when we might hear something on the disposition of the orbiters? There was rumored to be an announcement pending earlier in the year (June?) which was postponed by all the FY2011 high jinks. I'm past worrying about where they're gonna go, I just want to start making plans to go see one be delivered.It wasn't just postponed by the budget process, but the payload-driven manifest changes in the early Spring and the possibility of STS-135 itself. (The orbiters and launch vehicle hardware may have supported flying both STS-134 and STS-133 by now.)
Robert Pearlman of collectSPACE asked Lori Garver about the timetable in the teleconference. She said there may be some impact to the timing of the announcement based on the timing of the last Shuttle mission; however, she also said that the decision "should happen this year."
Post by: psloss on 10/05/2010 11:22 am
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/10/05/still-scavenging-for-shuttles/
Post by: subisnack on 10/05/2010 08:50 pm
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/construction-of-new-air-force-museum-building-could-start-in-2012-963638.html
... "The Air Force Museum Foundation, which raises money for the Air Force museum’s needs, has raised $18.6 million toward an initial goal of $25 million that would be enough to construct a basic building to house the spacecraft and aircraft, museum officials said Monday. The foundation estimates it would need to raise an additional $17 million to fit out the building for opening to the public and for outside parking lots, sidewalks and landscaping.
Museum officials are hoping the foundation will transfer an initial $175,000 within the next week or two for the start of design and environmental studies for the new building, said Dan Dobbyn, chief of the museum’s operations division." ...
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/01/2010 01:44 pm
-piper
Post by: collectSPACE on 11/01/2010 01:46 pm
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-110110b.html
Space shuttle Discovery is ready to fly its final flight this week, but where it will make its last landing is still up in the air.
Long thought destined for the Smithsonian, NASA's oldest flying orbiter may actually end up elsewhere unless the Washington, DC institution can find the millions of dollars needed to prepare Discovery for delivery and display, collectSPACE has learned.
Post by: psloss on 11/01/2010 01:48 pm
Shuttle Discovery's retirement plan in limboThanks, Robert.
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-110110b.html
Space shuttle Discovery is ready to fly its final flight this week, but where it will make its last landing is still up in the air.
Long thought destined for the Smithsonian, NASA's oldest flying orbiter may actually end up elsewhere unless the Washington, DC institution can find the millions of dollars needed to prepare Discovery for delivery and display, collectSPACE has learned.
Post by: HIPAR on 11/02/2010 02:22 pm
--- CHAS
Post by: chrisking0997 on 11/02/2010 06:41 pm
Im a little surprised by the transport costs. 8.3 million? What exactly would go into that figure that makes it so high?
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/02/2010 10:30 pm
Currently, what private institutions can hand over $30,000,000 to 'buy' a shuttle?
--- CHAS
I can think of two.If the NASM is having trouble, one would think very few would be able to pony up that kind of cash. Although, why NASM would not have been setting aside money or starting fundraisers before now to cover it is a good question...its not like this just popped up yesterday.
Im a little surprised by the transport costs. 8.3 million? What exactly would go into that figure that makes it so high?
NASM's operating budget is only a percentage of the $20M Smithsonian budget and some weird quirk of the law prevents the money given to NASM by the federal government to be used to fund the shuttle. It would be like the government paying itself for something it already owns. That same quirk applies to everyone I suspect. No federal dollars towards the shuttle.
$8.3M is based on the highest possible cost, not the expected cost.
NASM is facing the same problem everyone is: bad economy.
-piper
Post by: mjcrsmith on 11/02/2010 10:34 pm
Currently, what private institutions can hand over $30,000,000 to 'buy' a shuttle?
--- CHAS
Richard Branson comes to mind. Not saying, just saying. :)
Post by: chrisking0997 on 11/03/2010 03:46 pm
NASM's operating budget is only a percentage of the $20M Smithsonian budget and some weird quirk of the law prevents the money given to NASM by the federal government to be used to fund the shuttle. It would be like the government paying itself for something it already owns. That same quirk applies to everyone I suspect. No federal dollars towards the shuttle.
interesting. does/did that same quirk apply to Enterprise and other government owned (military) aircraft, or is this something unique to the current situation?
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/03/2010 05:38 pm
The Smithsonian is unique in that it is funded and administered by the US government. Since the US government actually administers the budget of the Smithsonian and no money was written in to their budget to cover the cost of the Discovery, they can't legally use any of their existing budget to cover the cost. They must raise the money privately.
It's related to the reason for the price drop in early 2010. The 2010 budget for NASA was written to cover safing costs which dropped the price by $13.2 Million. It would be illegal for them to accept money to cover the safing costs since their budget contains a line item to that effect. The NASA budget does NOT cover display or delivery, so they must charge for that. I believe it would be illegal for them NOT to.
That is probably the issue: legally, NASA must charge for the shuttles since their budget is already written and the Smithsonian must raise the money outside of their normal budget to avoid related legal problems.
If NASA were to re-write the budget to include all costs then they could essentially "give" the Discovery to NASM. But that would apply to all of the shuttles and every other competing organization too. It would also reduce their available operating budget by up to $115 Million and I'm certain they don't want to do that. Money is already tight enough with the additional shuttle flight.
The Enterprise was probably written in to a budget somewhere and that would make its disposition unique. I suspect that the other articles in the NASM are either on loan from NASA or the Air Force/Navy, have been donated privately, or have been the subject of congressional action designating them as the property of the Smithsonian.
As I understand it, NASA is wholly unwilling to "loan" the shuttles to anyone. Probably because of the ongoing maintenance requirements, which, as the owners, NASA would be responsible for funding.
-piper
Post by: scotty125 on 11/03/2010 06:36 pm
Enterprise is a different story, and I believe the Smithsonian has the ultimate say in the disposition of that vehicle. Would they be in a legal position to "sell" Enterprise to the highest bidder in order fund the aquisition of Discovery? That would be an interesting question for someone more knowledgable than I...Robert Pearlman is perhaps the most well-versed outside of NASA on this subject and I hope to get a chance to pick his brain for a moment at the ASF function at the KSCVC this weekend.
It's my understanding that Discovery, Endeavour, and Atlantis would have a status similar to the aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan in that as a national resource they must be maintained in such a fashion that they could be restored to mission-capable status in some arbitrary time period. More than likely that will never happen outside of a Stephen Baxter novel, but that is one provision of the agreement. They'd be in private (maybe) hands but under government control of one form or another.
It seems like the initial conditions set forth may be changing some, but those are the ground rules as I understand them.
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/03/2010 07:52 pm
-piper
Post by: chrisking0997 on 11/03/2010 07:54 pm
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/03/2010 08:00 pm
If the federal government gives an organization money (a grant), it will have strings attached that mandate its use to fund a specific program. These types of grants take many MANY months to apply for and even longer to receive.
The only way federal money could go to paying for the shuttle would be if money was earmarked for the recipient through congress as general operating funds. Good luck with that one.
-piper
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/17/2010 02:57 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/17/2010 03:36 am
Discovery’s retirement plans provide insight into the fate of the robotic arms - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/11/discoverys-retirement-provide-insight-fate-fleets-robotic-arms/
Post by: Skylon on 11/17/2010 03:51 am
Focused on the continuing retirement plans for Discovery, but also with news about the fate of the fleet's robotic arms:
Discovery’s retirement plans provide insight into the fate of the robotic arms - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/11/discoverys-retirement-provide-insight-fate-fleets-robotic-arms/
Good article. Question though, isn't there one more SRMS in addition to the ones on the remaining orbiters? Columbia flew STS-107 with no SRMS, so where is the spare, and is it going anywhere?
I'm still surprised no actual flight SSME's can be placed on the orbiters.
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/17/2010 05:35 am
What is the Historic American Engineering Record? It seems that at least one of the locations (maybe another one too) are participating in some kind of a record collecting effort for, or with, NASA. Other than the program's existence, I can't find much else about it. Is it a sign of things to come?
-piper
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/17/2010 03:46 pm
Focused on the continuing retirement plans for Discovery, but also with news about the fate of the fleet's robotic arms:
Discovery’s retirement plans provide insight into the fate of the robotic arms - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/11/discoverys-retirement-provide-insight-fate-fleets-robotic-arms/
Good article. Question though, isn't there one more SRMS in addition to the ones on the remaining orbiters? Columbia flew STS-107 with no SRMS, so where is the spare, and is it going anywhere?
I'm still surprised no actual flight SSME's can be placed on the orbiters.
As reported here in the article linked to in the most recent Discovery/fleet retirement article), it is not that actual flight SSMEs cannot be installed into Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour for their retirement display, it's that these SSMEs have been identified as being necessary for the support of a NASA future program rocket program -- namely SD HLV.
Post by: chrisking0997 on 11/17/2010 04:35 pm
Add Clinton, MO to the list of cities that are vying for a shuttle.
I give....why?
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/17/2010 04:47 pm
Add Clinton, MO to the list of cities that are vying for a shuttle.
I give....why?
Beats me, but they're in the competition nonetheless.
Post by: DMeader on 11/17/2010 05:26 pm
As reported here in the article linked to in the most recent Discovery/fleet retirement article), it is not that actual flight SSMEs cannot be installed into Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour for their retirement display, it's that these SSMEs have been identified as being necessary for the support of a NASA future program rocket program -- namely SD HLV.
Along those lines, I assume that the "scrap" SSME nozzles that will be used for the replica shuttle main engines have their histories well-documented. Are these actual "flown" hardware? Would be nice to know what flights they were used on, and that they be installed on the orbiters that they flew on the most.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 11/17/2010 06:09 pm
As reported here in the article linked to in the most recent Discovery/fleet retirement article), it is not that actual flight SSMEs cannot be installed into Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour for their retirement display, it's that these SSMEs have been identified as being necessary for the support of a NASA future program rocket program -- namely SD HLV.
Along those lines, I assume that the "scrap" SSME nozzles that will be used for the replica shuttle main engines have their histories well-documented. Are these actual "flown" hardware? Would be nice to know what flights they were used on, and that they be installed on the orbiters that they flew on the most.
My understanding is that "scrapped" flown SSME nozzles will be used for the RSMEs. I'm sure we'll see documentation on nozzle numbers and flight history.
Post by: Skylon on 11/17/2010 08:26 pm
My understanding is that "scrapped" flown SSME nozzles will be used for the RSMEs. I'm sure we'll see documentation on nozzle numbers and flight history.
Gotcha. That's better than just dummies. Earmarking, one complete SSME would be nice, if it is possible.
My question still stands about Columbia's RMS. I'd heard it was used for parts for the OBSS, but never saw anything to back that up. Is it still around?
Post by: CenTexRez on 11/22/2010 08:41 pm
It seems that at least one of the locations (maybe another one too) are participating in some kind of a record collecting effort for, or with, NASA...
-piper
I might have a partial answer to my own question if anyone cares. I was told today that the team in College Station has been asked by NASA to collect anything and everything they can that is related to the space shuttle.
This is coming to me third hand from someone I trust, but they were light on the details.
Maybe someone here will clear it up? I don't have the energy to chase this right now or even begin to speculate on what it might mean.
Post by: psloss on 12/09/2010 08:52 pm
Shuttle Discovery's retirement plan in limboThere is language in the House-passed full year continuing resolution on this; among the things in Section 2206 is:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-110110b.html
Space shuttle Discovery is ready to fly its final flight this week, but where it will make its last landing is still up in the air.
Long thought destined for the Smithsonian, NASA's oldest flying orbiter may actually end up elsewhere unless the Washington, DC institution can find the millions of dollars needed to prepare Discovery for delivery and display, collectSPACE has learned.
Quote
Provided further, That following the retirement of the space shuttle orbiters, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall bear any costs that normally would be associated with surplusing the orbiters, including taking hazardous orbiter systems offline, and any shuttle recipient other than the Smithsonian Institution shall bear costs for transportation and for preparing the surplused orbiter for display:
Provided further, That should the Administrator determine that the Smithsonian Institution is an appropriate venue for an orbiter, such orbiter shall be made available to the Smithsonian at no or nominal cost:
Provided further, That any funds received by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as a result of the disposition of any orbiter shall be available only as provided in subsequent appropriations Acts:
SpacePolitics noted this, too:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/12/09/cr-passes-house-with-an-interesting-shuttle-provision/
Post by: CenTexRez on 12/15/2010 07:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPS2TRkIJ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBPS2TRkIJ8)
FYI, I didn't post this as an endorsement, so...no offense to anyone. I just thought it was interesting.
-piper
Post by: Lowflight on 12/16/2010 02:44 am
Post by: subisnack on 02/16/2011 10:59 am
"WHIO Local News
Obama pushes for Space Shuttle to be housed at Air Force Museum
By Marc Keinath @ February 15, 2011 9:16 PM WASHINGTON, D.C. - The White House has asked congress for $14 million to prepare for the delivery of the orbiter Atlantis to the National Museum of the Air Force in Dayton.
Supporters of bringing the space shuttle to Dayton see this as a good sign that the orbiter could make its new home here. The request for the money is inside the Obama administration's 2012 budget proposal.
The budget request is likely to provoke an intense struggle on Capitol Hill as the Johnson Space Center in Houston and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida are also seeking an orbiter. The shuttle Discovery has already been promised to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
The addition of this spaceship to the collection housed at the museum could help boost attendance and garner even more national recognition. The Air Force Museum attracts about 1.3 million every year. Officials have suggested that a shuttle could boost that number beyond 2 million."
Post by: beb on 02/16/2011 11:42 am
Local News this morning:
"WHIO Local News
Obama pushes for Space Shuttle to be housed at Air Force Museum
By Marc Keinath @ February 15, 2011 9:16 PM WASHINGTON, D.C. - The White House has asked congress for $14 million to prepare for the delivery of the orbiter Atlantis to the National Museum of the Air Force in Dayton.
Supporters of bringing the space shuttle to Dayton see this as a good sign that the orbiter could make its new home here. The request for the money is inside the Obama administration's 2012 budget proposal.
The budget request is likely to provoke an intense struggle on Capitol Hill as the Johnson Space Center in Houston and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida are also seeking an orbiter. The shuttle Discovery has already been promised to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
The addition of this spaceship to the collection housed at the museum could help boost attendance and garner even more national recognition. The Air Force Museum attracts about 1.3 million every year. Officials have suggested that a shuttle could boost that number beyond 2 million."
Why would we want to put the civilian Shuttle in with a bunch of warbirds? The shuttle wasn't a military project. Putting an orbiter in an air firce museum tells the world that NASA is, secretly, a US military program. I don't think that's the message we want to send to the world.
Post by: psloss on 02/16/2011 12:05 pm
Local News this morning:SpacePolitics noted an article in the Dayton News (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/16/briefs-air-force-shuttle-funding-request-upcoming-hearing/) (along with a good point) and has a link to the operations and maintenance document where the request for money is. Direct link:
"WHIO Local News
Obama pushes for Space Shuttle to be housed at Air Force Museum
By Marc Keinath @ February 15, 2011 9:16 PM WASHINGTON, D.C. -
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110210-042.pdf
Mostly same story, with different headline:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/obamas-request-brings-shuttle-one-step-closer-to-area-1082566.html
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 02/16/2011 12:06 pm
Local News this morning:
"WHIO Local News
Obama pushes for Space Shuttle to be housed at Air Force Museum
By Marc Keinath @ February 15, 2011 9:16 PM WASHINGTON, D.C. - The White House has asked congress for $14 million to prepare for the delivery of the orbiter Atlantis to the National Museum of the Air Force in Dayton.
Supporters of bringing the space shuttle to Dayton see this as a good sign that the orbiter could make its new home here. The request for the money is inside the Obama administration's 2012 budget proposal.
The budget request is likely to provoke an intense struggle on Capitol Hill as the Johnson Space Center in Houston and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida are also seeking an orbiter. The shuttle Discovery has already been promised to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
The addition of this spaceship to the collection housed at the museum could help boost attendance and garner even more national recognition. The Air Force Museum attracts about 1.3 million every year. Officials have suggested that a shuttle could boost that number beyond 2 million."
Why would we want to put the civilian Shuttle in with a bunch of warbirds? The shuttle wasn't a military project. Putting an orbiter in an air firce museum tells the world that NASA is, secretly, a US military program. I don't think that's the message we want to send to the world.
I disagree, the shuttle was developed with alot of USAF input, and Atlantis' first mission was a DoD flight, so her going to Dayton makes sense.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/16/2011 12:09 pm
That is clearly not official, but gives you an idea of a potential timeline.
Post by: psloss on 02/16/2011 12:26 pm
Worth noting that we had a note on L2 that KSC had been told KSC told the Orbiter homes are expected to be announced 4/12.I'm starting to wonder if the politics of this will continue after an announcement is made.
That is clearly not official, but gives you an idea of a potential timeline.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 02/16/2011 12:59 pm
That's just frakkin' fantastic fiscal responsibility there for someone who claims to want to "cut spending."
Post by: cycleroadie on 02/16/2011 01:05 pm
Since when does the President get to decide single-handedly where a Space Shuttle orbiter ends up upon retirement... and why should we, the tax payers, have to pay to send it there when all other companies are having to pay NASA out of their own pockets for an orbiter?
That's just frakkin' fantastic fiscal responsibility there for someone who claims to want to "cut spending."
My thoughts precisely.
Post by: kirghizstan on 02/16/2011 01:42 pm
Post by: Thorny on 02/16/2011 02:01 pm
I disagree, the shuttle was developed with alot of USAF input, and Atlantis' first mission was a DoD flight, so her going to Dayton makes sense.
Just my opinion, but I think the Orbiters should stay at places where they were appreciated. The Air Force turned tail and ran when Shuttle hit hard times. I'll chip in for a Revell-Monogram model for the Air Force Museum.
Post by: chrisking0997 on 02/16/2011 04:24 pm
Why would we want to put the civilian Shuttle in with a bunch of warbirds? The shuttle wasn't a military project. Putting an orbiter in an air firce museum tells the world that NASA is, secretly, a US military program. I don't think that's the message we want to send to the world.
I hope youre joking...
Since when does the President get to decide single-handedly where a Space Shuttle orbiter ends up upon retirement... and why should we, the tax payers, have to pay to send it there when all other companies are having to pay NASA out of their own pockets for an orbiter?
That's just frakkin' fantastic fiscal responsibility there for someone who claims to want to "cut spending."
hmm....perhaps in this era of fiscal responsibility we should see a comparison of how much it would cost to put the shuttles in museums vs chopping them up and recycling them. Maybe we're missing out on a prime opportunity to make some cash here?
regardless, when has a president had the opportunity to single handedly decide where a shuttle goes before now? Presidents get to single handedly decide all sorts of things all the time that require our tax dollars to be spent. And arent we paying for Discovery to be send to Dulles? Wouldnt our tax dollars be spent anyways if the orbiters ended up at NASA facilities like JSC/KSC/Dryden?
This just seems to be much ado about nothing, and most likely only an issue because Obama is involved. Heck, I dont like him, but of all the issues we face today this shouldnt even register on the radar. My first thought was "oh thats just great! now that hes involved it WONT happen"
Post by: cycleroadie on 02/16/2011 04:39 pm
Wouldnt our tax dollars be spent anyways if the orbiters ended up at NASA facilities like JSC/KSC/Dryden?
KSC would not get it, the KSC Visitor's Center would, which is privately owned, does not receive Tax Dollars.
Post by: Jim on 02/16/2011 04:51 pm
Wouldnt our tax dollars be spent anyways if the orbiters ended up at NASA facilities like JSC/KSC/Dryden?
KSC would not get it, the KSC Visitor's Center would, which is privately owned, does not receive Tax Dollars.
Wrong, NASA owns the KSC Visitor's Center, it is just operated by a contractor, who uses gate receipts to operate the center vs tax dollar. This has no bearing on whether KSC gets an orbiter.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 02/16/2011 04:52 pm
Why would we want to put the civilian Shuttle in with a bunch of warbirds? The shuttle wasn't a military project. Putting an orbiter in an air firce museum tells the world that NASA is, secretly, a US military program. I don't think that's the message we want to send to the world.
I hope youre joking...Since when does the President get to decide single-handedly where a Space Shuttle orbiter ends up upon retirement... and why should we, the tax payers, have to pay to send it there when all other companies are having to pay NASA out of their own pockets for an orbiter?
That's just frakkin' fantastic fiscal responsibility there for someone who claims to want to "cut spending."
And arent we paying for Discovery to be send to Dulles? Wouldnt our tax dollars be spent anyways if the orbiters ended up at NASA facilities like JSC/KSC/Dryden?
Not even close. NASA has made it very clear that the museums that get the orbiters have to pay for their delivery. And the Smithsonian cannot use tax obtained dollars from the Federal government to buy Discovery. They have to raise the money on their own... which is a large part of the reason that, as of Oct. 2010, they couldn't afford Discovery. Same would go for KSC visitor's center and JSC visitor's center.
See here: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-110110b.html
Post by: cycleroadie on 02/16/2011 05:08 pm
Wouldnt our tax dollars be spent anyways if the orbiters ended up at NASA facilities like JSC/KSC/Dryden?
KSC would not get it, the KSC Visitor's Center would, which is privately owned, does not receive Tax Dollars.
Wrong, NASA owns the KSC Visitor's Center, it is just operated by a contractor, who uses gate receipts to operate the center vs tax dollar. This has no bearing on whether KSC gets an orbiter.
As Chris G points out below, museums, including in this case, DNC parks, have to pony up the costs, not NASA, so there are still no tax dollars involved here. As opposed to the Air Force Musuem in Dayton which is run by the military from what I can tell anyway, now maybe they can come up with the $28.2 million without tax dollars, I can,t say.
Post by: Jim on 02/16/2011 05:13 pm
As Chris G points out below, museums, including in this case, DNC parks, have to pony up the costs, not NASA, so there are still no tax dollars involved here.Again, the fact that DNC runs the KSC VC has no bearing on whether KSC gets an orbiter. The KSC VC is a NASA museum. Also, an orbiter going to the KSC VC doesn't need to be prepped for SCA transport. Also, NASA still could fund the moves itself.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/16/2011 06:28 pm
Since when does the President get to decide single-handedly where a Space Shuttle orbiter ends up upon retirement... and why should we, the tax payers, have to pay to send it there when all other companies are having to pay NASA out of their own pockets for an orbiter?
That's just frakkin' fantastic fiscal responsibility there for someone who claims to want to "cut spending."
Chris I have to say I see it differently, the USAF wanted the orbiter and will now be paying for it. The AF museum is a demonstration of US Power as displayed in it being the location of the Dayton accords, as well as a recruiting tool. So an orbiter gets kids interested in aviation and the Air Force, from which the US government ultimately benefits from perhaps not fiscally or immediately but none the less a return on investment.
And it doesnt say it has to be Atlantis, perhaps it will be Enterprise.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 02/16/2011 06:38 pm
Since when does the President get to decide single-handedly where a Space Shuttle orbiter ends up upon retirement... and why should we, the tax payers, have to pay to send it there when all other companies are having to pay NASA out of their own pockets for an orbiter?
That's just frakkin' fantastic fiscal responsibility there for someone who claims to want to "cut spending."
Chris I have to say I see it differently, the USAF wanted the orbiter and will now be paying for it. The AF museum is a demonstration of US Power as displayed in it being the location of the Dayton accords, as well as a recruiting tool. So an orbiter gets kids interested in aviation and the Air Force, from which the US government ultimately benefits from perhaps not fiscally or immediately but none the less a return on investment.
And it doesnt say it has to be Atlantis, perhaps it will be Enterprise.
The problem I have here is the Federal tax dollar appropriations for this. Essentially, this would be the Federal government given money to the Air Force to pay the Federal government for Federal government owned property. This is precisely what the Smithsonian is prohibited from doing for Discovery. So why does the Air Force get an exception? If you're going to do that, then you better be ready to pony the same amount for every other museum vying for an orbiter. This just isn't good fiscal policy... especially since it would completely undermine the whole "no tax dollars to pay for, configure the orbiters for display, and transport them" stance.
Post by: psloss on 02/17/2011 08:03 pm
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/boeing-will-donate-5-million-for-new-air-force-museum-building-1084026.html
Post by: psloss on 02/18/2011 01:51 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2011/02/who-gets-a-retired-shuttle-ohio-is-now-a-contender-but-it-wont-beat-out-florida.html
Post by: CenTexRez on 02/22/2011 08:47 pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41397955/ns/technology_and_science-space?GT1=4
What happens if Boeing and USA succeed?
Also,
1) Admn. Bolden has the authorization of Congress to make the final call. From what I've heard of his character, he's not likely to cave to political pressure. Coming from people who know him, he pointedly refuses to talk to anyone about the fate of the shuttles. Any "informed sources" are just as uninformed as the rest of us.
2) By act of Congress, no federal funds can be spent on the shuttles, which includes the Air Force. Congress would have to pass the budget with the $14m in it. You can be though that every Senator and/or Congressman with a potential shuttle site in his or her state and/or district will be looking for funding to help them out. Think earmarks, not line items.
3) If you listen to the "informed sources", Atlantis alone has 4 different homes already and all of them are a "sure thing." Palmdale, Adler, Intrepid, and Dayton...then figure in the Boeing/USA alliance, really...no one knows. (see statement 1)
I don't believe any of it. This is just a guess, but I bet the decisions will be made the day before the announcement and will be made apolitically. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not.
-piper
Post by: CenTexRez on 02/25/2011 08:38 pm
Local News this morning:
"WHIO Local News
Obama pushes for Space Shuttle to be housed at Air Force Museum
By Marc Keinath @ February 15, 2011 9:16 PM WASHINGTON, D.C. - The White House has asked congress for $14 million to prepare for the delivery of the orbiter Atlantis to the National Museum of the Air Force in Dayton.
The official word is that the House Republicans have stricken this measure from the budget bill.
-p
Post by: mr. mark on 02/25/2011 08:49 pm
Post by: Jim on 02/25/2011 08:53 pm
Eventually, the shuttles will face the same apathy that came with the Spruce Goose. Oh, the public will love them for a few years but, after awhile, they'll be sold off to smaller museums or private parties. Time keeps rollin.'
Based on what and also not a relevant analogy, the shuttles can't be sold. Spruce Goose was not gov't owned. None of the previous US spacecraft have be sold.
They will be around longer than any spacecraft under development today.
Post by: CenTexRez on 02/26/2011 04:03 pm
Eventually, the shuttles will face the same apathy that came with the Spruce Goose. Oh, the public will love them for a few years but, after awhile, they'll be sold off to smaller museums or private parties. Time keeps rollin.'
Based on what and also not a relevant analogy, the shuttles can't be sold. Spruce Goose was not gov't owned. None of the previous US spacecraft have be sold.
They will be around longer than any spacecraft under development today.
I'm thinking that one day, maybe in another 50 or 100 years or so, there will be another Atlantis, Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, Endeavour, and Enterprise. When those ships are christened, there will be a resurgence in interest in the old ships. Who knows, these things might last 1000 years or more in the right place and with the right care.
Post by: psloss on 02/27/2011 01:16 pm
It's far more complicated...There's a thread -- a long thread -- on that here, which puts that proposal and story into better context:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41397955/ns/technology_and_science-space?GT1=4
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24010.0
They might, but the appropriations (sub)committees haven't officially marked up FY2012 bills yet. Usually in the spring, and Congress is working on FY2011 and FY2012 concurrently.Local News this morning:
"WHIO Local News
Obama pushes for Space Shuttle to be housed at Air Force Museum
By Marc Keinath @ February 15, 2011 9:16 PM WASHINGTON, D.C. - The White House has asked congress for $14 million to prepare for the delivery of the orbiter Atlantis to the National Museum of the Air Force in Dayton.
The official word is that the House Republicans have stricken this measure from the budget bill.
Post by: Rifleman on 03/05/2011 04:55 pm
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/nasa-to-announce-april-12-if-wright-patt-gets-retired-shuttle-1096764.html
Post by: PahTo on 03/05/2011 04:57 pm
Yep, same info in Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014398663_shuttledecision05m.html
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/05/2011 05:10 pm
Yep, same info in Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014398663_shuttledecision05m.html
This is not new information. It has been reported here on this site for at least a month.
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2011 05:26 pm
Yup:
Yep, same info in Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014398663_shuttledecision05m.html
This is not new information. It has been reported here on this site for at least a month.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4078.msg693088#msg693088
But publicly confirmed yesterday with Mr. Bolden's testimony.
Post by: chrisking0997 on 03/08/2011 06:13 pm
Why would we want to put the civilian Shuttle in with a bunch of warbirds? The shuttle wasn't a military project. Putting an orbiter in an air firce museum tells the world that NASA is, secretly, a US military program. I don't think that's the message we want to send to the world.
I hope youre joking...Since when does the President get to decide single-handedly where a Space Shuttle orbiter ends up upon retirement... and why should we, the tax payers, have to pay to send it there when all other companies are having to pay NASA out of their own pockets for an orbiter?
That's just frakkin' fantastic fiscal responsibility there for someone who claims to want to "cut spending."
And arent we paying for Discovery to be send to Dulles? Wouldnt our tax dollars be spent anyways if the orbiters ended up at NASA facilities like JSC/KSC/Dryden?
Not even close. NASA has made it very clear that the museums that get the orbiters have to pay for their delivery. And the Smithsonian cannot use tax obtained dollars from the Federal government to buy Discovery. They have to raise the money on their own... which is a large part of the reason that, as of Oct. 2010, they couldn't afford Discovery. Same would go for KSC visitor's center and JSC visitor's center.
See here: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-110110b.html
OK, I knew I wasnt going crazy and had seen this before, although Im still missing where I first saw it. This article in the NY Times references part of a bill in congress that exempts the Smithsonian from paying for the orbiter, in effect using taxpayer money (has to come from somewhere, right?).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/science/space/09shuttle.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299610805-18H4qPp2gkGzIUTyPOMyYg (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/science/space/09shuttle.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299610805-18H4qPp2gkGzIUTyPOMyYg)
so is that a part of the budget that was not passed yet?
Post by: psloss on 03/08/2011 08:31 pm
OK, I knew I wasnt going crazy and had seen this before, although Im still missing where I first saw it. This article in the NY Times references part of a bill in congress that exempts the Smithsonian from paying for the orbiter, in effect using taxpayer money (has to come from somewhere, right?).Yes and no. That was in a bill passed by the House in the 111th Congress; however, that never passed the Senate. (I don't believe it was voted on.) That bill "died" at the end of the 111th Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/science/space/09shuttle.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299610805-18H4qPp2gkGzIUTyPOMyYg (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/science/space/09shuttle.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299610805-18H4qPp2gkGzIUTyPOMyYg)
so is that a part of the budget that was not passed yet?
The bill was appropriations for the remainder of FY 2011; however, a "clean" continuing resolution through March 4th was the compromise that passed both chambers and was signed into law.
Not sure the Smithsonian clause has made it through in an appropriations bill yet...possibly in something else.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/09/2011 02:02 am
-p
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/09/2011 02:04 am
OK, I knew I wasnt going crazy and had seen this before, although Im still missing where I first saw it. This article in the NY Times references part of a bill in congress that exempts the Smithsonian from paying for the orbiter, in effect using taxpayer money (has to come from somewhere, right?).Yes and no. That was in a bill passed by the House in the 111th Congress; however, that never passed the Senate. (I don't believe it was voted on.) That bill "died" at the end of the 111th Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/science/space/09shuttle.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299610805-18H4qPp2gkGzIUTyPOMyYg (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/science/space/09shuttle.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299610805-18H4qPp2gkGzIUTyPOMyYg)
so is that a part of the budget that was not passed yet?
The bill was appropriations for the remainder of FY 2011; however, a "clean" continuing resolution through March 4th was the compromise that passed both chambers and was signed into law.
Not sure the Smithsonian clause has made it through in an appropriations bill yet...possibly in something else.
I'd heard that from house reps that the Smithsonian was still on the hook for the money. Best the museum could hope for is a reduced, but non-zero cost. Republicans basically obliterated the freebies.
Post by: Jim on 03/09/2011 02:08 am
A friend told me that June Scobee Rodgers has endorsed College Station. I don't know when that happened, but seems profound.
It has no bearing on the matter.
If Texas is going to get an orbiter, it will be at JSC.
Post by: civpilot on 03/09/2011 04:42 pm
i agree with this being the proper place for the final orbiter assuming Johnson, Kennedy, and the Smithsonian get the others. It was originally designed to be partially an AF launcher so it is part of their history. I would be interested in hearing arguements for any other places over these 4. The only thing I disagree with this is that Enterprise, not Atlantis, should go to the AF as the shuttle never realized the original AF plan. The 'real deal' orbiters should go to Kennedy, Johnson, and the Smithsonian.
I agree. If the air force museum wants a shuttle, let them have their x37 top secret shuttle, one of which is currently in orbit. If they want a space shuttle from NASA, then that request should be denied. Dulles is only 8 hours away from Dayton, those that want to see a shuttle (Discovery) can go there to see one. Atlantis should stay at KSC, Endeavour to Houston, Enterprise to the West Coast, perhaps Palmdale since thats where the shuttles were built. Otherwise the af museum can have Explorer or one of the other display models of the shuttle.
Post by: Mark Dave on 03/09/2011 10:49 pm
Post by: CitabriaFlyer on 03/09/2011 11:03 pm
Post by: Namechange User on 03/09/2011 11:14 pm
I think it would be nice seeing Discovery with Enterprise at the Smithsonian. :)
Enterprise will not remain at the Smithsonian. In fact preparations are underway already to move it....somewhere.
Post by: Jim on 03/09/2011 11:46 pm
I am an air force officer and have a different opinion. The shuttle design was driven by air force requirements once a policy decision was made that the military would utilize the space shuttle. The space shuttle was supported by the USAF (and other parts of DoD) on both coasts. Shuttles did deploy national security payloads and conduct defense related research in orbit. Shuttles did play a role in the national defense during the 80s and 90s, the extent of which is not fully known today. Four USAF officers lost their lives as crewmembers. The museum at Dayton is one of the best aviation museums in the world. For those reasons I would argue that it would be an appropriate venue if the facility commits the capital to take care of the vehicle.
+1. As former USAF officer who was in the USAF shuttle program office, I would agree.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/09/2011 11:48 pm
A friend told me that June Scobee Rodgers has endorsed College Station. I don't know when that happened, but seems profound.
It has no bearing on the matter.
If Texas is going to get an orbiter, it will be at JSC.
Not that I have any right to have a say in the matter, but my opinion would be Endeavour and Atlantis should be at JSC and KSC. Enterprise can go West Coast or MSFC.
Post by: Aobrien on 03/10/2011 12:03 am
Haha coincidence, I just posted basically that on the SSM forum. But you should be sleeping Chris!A friend told me that June Scobee Rodgers has endorsed College Station. I don't know when that happened, but seems profound.
It has no bearing on the matter.
If Texas is going to get an orbiter, it will be at JSC.
Not that I have any right to have a say in the matter, but my opinion would be Endeavour and Atlantis should be at JSC and KSC. Enterprise can go West Coast or MSFC.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/10/2011 01:18 am
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=134358888&m=134384840
-p
Post by: NavySpaceFan on 03/10/2011 11:56 am
I am an air force officer and have a different opinion. The shuttle design was driven by air force requirements once a policy decision was made that the military would utilize the space shuttle. The space shuttle was supported by the USAF (and other parts of DoD) on both coasts. Shuttles did deploy national security payloads and conduct defense related research in orbit. Shuttles did play a role in the national defense during the 80s and 90s, the extent of which is not fully known today. Four USAF officers lost their lives as crewmembers. The museum at Dayton is one of the best aviation museums in the world. For those reasons I would argue that it would be an appropriate venue if the facility commits the capital to take care of the vehicle.
+1. As former USAF officer who was in the USAF shuttle program office, I would agree.
+2. as a retired Navy officer, I agree with my USAF bretheren. The AF Museum is an outstanding and appropriate venue, and as much as I hate to say it, way better than the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensicola.
Post by: DARPA-86 on 03/10/2011 12:36 pm
Got this just a few minutes ago:It probably does not hurt that Ohio has a speaker of the house, hence Dayton/Wright-Patterson coming in "out of the blue"; now we know where the NRP money is going to go. As part of a nascent effort to explore bringing a shuttle to the home of the original prime contractor as a tourist draw (it's estimated 2 million plus visitors in the first three years) we were told we needed Capitol Hill leverage.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=134358888&m=134384840
-p
The Shuttle was born in politics - somehow it is fitting it ends in the same, Did you really expect anything else?
Post by: subisnack on 03/10/2011 12:55 pm
Got this just a few minutes ago:It probably does not hurt that Ohio has a speaker of the house, hence Dayton/Wright-Patterson coming in "out of the blue"; now we know where the NRP money is going to go. As part of a nascent effort to explore bringing a shuttle to the home of the original prime contractor as a tourist draw (it's estimated 2 million plus visitors in the first three years) we were told we needed Capitol Hill leverage.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=134358888&m=134384840
-p
The Shuttle was born in politics - somehow it is fitting it ends in the same, Did you really expect anything else?
I am not sure Dayton came in out of the blue. They have been working on this for the last couple of years, and has always been one of the early contenders.
Post by: DARPA-86 on 03/10/2011 01:02 pm
Good and Congratulations! Personally I think you make a great business case to add an additional attraction to an already going concern. (But again it does not hurt you have the Speaker from your home state) - My "out of the blue" reference - was a poor attempt at military service related humor (Air Force = Blue), my bad as the kids say. I guess no one gets Mort Saul or Shecky Green these daysGot this just a few minutes ago:It probably does not hurt that Ohio has a speaker of the house, hence Dayton/Wright-Patterson coming in "out of the blue"; now we know where the NRP money is going to go. As part of a nascent effort to explore bringing a shuttle to the home of the original prime contractor as a tourist draw (it's estimated 2 million plus visitors in the first three years) we were told we needed Capitol Hill leverage.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=134358888&m=134384840
-p
The Shuttle was born in politics - somehow it is fitting it ends in the same, Did you really expect anything else?
I am not sure Dayton came in out of the blue. They have been working on this for the last couple of years, and has always been one of the early contenders.
Post by: jsmjr on 03/10/2011 10:02 pm
Got this just a few minutes ago:It probably does not hurt that Ohio has a speaker of the house, hence Dayton/Wright-Patterson coming in "out of the blue"; now we know where the NRP money is going to go. As part of a nascent effort to explore bringing a shuttle to the home of the original prime contractor as a tourist draw (it's estimated 2 million plus visitors in the first three years) we were told we needed Capitol Hill leverage.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=134358888&m=134384840
-p
The Shuttle was born in politics - somehow it is fitting it ends in the same, Did you really expect anything else?
Very true about the politics.
You have to believe NASA's internal view is to give Endeavour and Atlantis to KSC and JSC. KSC seems to be the strongest non-Smithsonian contender -- they have a great museum there plus it has the strongest historical connection to the program.
The Administration helped give the USAF a boost -- olive branch to Boehner, maybe? -- in their budget request. (See link below.) Of course, that expenditure is far from a done deal. Honestly, I respect the military contribution to the SSP but think maybe Dayton should get the Enterprise. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/air_force_budget_boosts_dayton.html
Any other location appears to be a very, very long shot. Anyone have a link to the complete list of the applicants?
Post by: Jorge on 03/10/2011 10:49 pm
Got this just a few minutes ago:It probably does not hurt that Ohio has a speaker of the house, hence Dayton/Wright-Patterson coming in "out of the blue"; now we know where the NRP money is going to go. As part of a nascent effort to explore bringing a shuttle to the home of the original prime contractor as a tourist draw (it's estimated 2 million plus visitors in the first three years) we were told we needed Capitol Hill leverage.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=134358888&m=134384840
-p
The Shuttle was born in politics - somehow it is fitting it ends in the same, Did you really expect anything else?
Very true about the politics.
You have to believe NASA's internal view is to give Endeavour and Atlantis to KSC and JSC.
HQ seems to have a problem with JSC... I see a fair probability JSC won't get one.
Post by: scotty125 on 03/10/2011 11:52 pm
The Dayton vs College Station clash might be an interesting Battle of the Presidents...I think College Station might have the edge in that one. Had the Air Force embraced the program after RTF following Challenger, I'd see one going to Wright-Pat, but scrapping SLC-6 and pulling DOD payloads removed any lingering hope that the program would ever achieve anything like the ecconomics envisioned during its design. For that reason alone I'd say thanks but no thanks to Dayton...just my personal opinion.
Keep in mind that while the orbiters will be the stars of the show, there will be lots more material distributed around the country that will allow the public actual hands-on (I'd assume) time versus staring from afar. The orbiters will be strictly look-but-don't-touch, while many of the major simulators may allow the public up close access to what the astronaut corps have been training on for years. In my mind, those will be the really exciting prizes. Can't wait for April 12!
Post by: subisnack on 03/11/2011 12:08 am
Got this just a few minutes ago:It probably does not hurt that Ohio has a speaker of the house, hence Dayton/Wright-Patterson coming in "out of the blue"; now we know where the NRP money is going to go. As part of a nascent effort to explore bringing a shuttle to the home of the original prime contractor as a tourist draw (it's estimated 2 million plus visitors in the first three years) we were told we needed Capitol Hill leverage.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=134358888&m=134384840
-p
The Shuttle was born in politics - somehow it is fitting it ends in the same, Did you really expect anything else?
Very true about the politics.
You have to believe NASA's internal view is to give Endeavour and Atlantis to KSC and JSC. KSC seems to be the strongest non-Smithsonian contender -- they have a great museum there plus it has the strongest historical connection to the program.
The Administration helped give the USAF a boost -- olive branch to Boehner, maybe? -- in their budget request. (See link below.) Of course, that expenditure is far from a done deal. Honestly, I respect the military contribution to the SSP but think maybe Dayton should get the Enterprise. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/air_force_budget_boosts_dayton.html
Any other location appears to be a very, very long shot. Anyone have a link to the complete list of the applicants?
While agree about politics in play for sure, I'm not sure why Boehner keeps being mentioned as someone who is playing a lead roll in this or has the influence that is being suggested. WP has been on a relatively short list two years prior to him being speaker. And his name comes up more now AFTER the opposing view White House backed Dayton? It just does not add up to me.
Honest question, has Boehner ever spoken about this specifically and published? Source or link?
I have no ties to Dayton BTW other than current residence. My "home" is back west. While I'd love to have Atlantis close while I'm here (and the museum is top notch in my opinion), it is what it is, but my post, and others in this thread was giving the "local" insight and news. In the end, as long as the vehicles stay in the US, well taken care of, and shared with the taxpayer in a way that we can be a part of their history, I really don't care where the fine lady's end up.
DARPA, I get the humor now. Sorry, given the tone of the rest of your post and following sarcasm, I did not see it at the time. Point taken. Good one.
Post by: subisnack on 03/11/2011 12:33 am
Any other location appears to be a very, very long shot. Anyone have a link to the complete list of the applicants?
The last one I found was « Reply #774 on: 08/15/2010 05:33 PM » from CenTexRez via a RFI...just a quick search and nothing official. But...
U.S. Space & Rocket Center – Huntsville, AL
Columbia Memorial Science Learning Center – Downey, CA
California Science Center - Los Angeles, CA
Dryden Flight Research Center – Edwards, CA
Ames Research Center – Moffett Field, CA
March Air and Space Museum - Riverside, CA
Air Force Plant 42 – Palmdale, CA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory – Pasadena, CA
San Diego Air & Space Museum – San Diego, CA
Austin Planetarium - Austin, TX
Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex – Titusville, FL
BVMNH/George Bush Library/Texas A&M University - College Station, TX
Michoud Assembly Facility – New Orleans, LA
Goddard Space Flight Center – Greenbelt, MD
Stennis Space Center – Hancock County, MS
White Sands Test Facility – Las Cruces, NM
Intrepid Air & Space Museum – New York, NY
Glenn Research Center – Cleveland, OH
U.S. Air Force Museum – Dayton, OH
Tulsa Air & Space Museum – Tulsa, OK
Evergreen Air & Space Museum – McMinnville, OR
Space Center Houston - Houston, TX
Museum of Flight – Seattle, WA
Post by: Jorge on 03/11/2011 12:34 am
JSC doesn't have a great reputation for caring for and displaying artifacts.
A reputation that is outdated, and exaggerated (KSC's Saturn V sat out almost as long and took more damage from salt air since it is closer to the coast than JSC's).
Quote
There IS still a requirement (I think) to spread the Shuttles and associated equipment around so as to maximize public access to these national treasures. Many of the scenarios I'm hearing don't seem to take that into account, with some concentrating all the vehicles in a relatively small radius on the eastern seaboard. If I had to make a prediction, I'd say Smithsonian, KSC, Datyton or College Station, and, unfortunately for my museum, Boeing's Museum of Flight in Seattle.
IMO, College Station has no shot. Not prejudiced against them (I'm an Aggie myself), just calling it like I see it. If an orbiter goes to Texas at all it will be JSC. I predict Seattle (Enterprise), Dulles (Discovery), Dayton (Atlantis), and KSC (Endeavour). Not that I'd send them there if it were my call (I'd send Enterprise to Dryden/Edwards, and Atlantis to JSC, though which orbiters go to JSC/KSC would be a coin toss, honestly).
College Station has already landed a big consolation prize, the SMS Motion Base... along with all the equipment needed to keep it running, motion and all.
Post by: psloss on 03/11/2011 12:56 am
College Station has already landed a big consolation prize, the SMS Motion Base... along with all the equipment needed to keep it running, motion and all.Sounds like a good excuse for a visit...no idea what their plans are for it, but would be cool to ride in that again.
Post by: Jorge on 03/11/2011 01:08 am
College Station has already landed a big consolation prize, the SMS Motion Base... along with all the equipment needed to keep it running, motion and all.Sounds like a good excuse for a visit...no idea what their plans are for it, but would be cool to ride in that again.
I don't think A&M has any idea what their plans are for it yet, but as an aero alumnus I'd be more than happy to give them some ideas.
Post by: Bubbinski on 03/11/2011 01:56 am
I guarantee you if an orbiter ends up here in UT I would volunteer my weekends and learn what I needed to to help the museum care for it, though my knowledge base is at "interested layman" stage. But alas I think the chance of that happening would be about the same as me being named Mr. Sexiest Man Alive, in other words, no freaking way.
I'd be very surprised if KSC VC didn't get an orbiter, and then there's the Smithsonian. So really all these museums would be competing for one space-flown orbiter and the Enterprise....is this a fair statement to make? Or is the situation more complex than that?
Post by: Jorge on 03/11/2011 02:01 am
I'd be very surprised if KSC VC didn't get an orbiter, and then there's the Smithsonian. So really all these museums would be competing for one space-flown orbiter and the Enterprise....is this a fair statement to make? Or is the situation more complex than that?
That is a fair statement.
Post by: Downix on 03/11/2011 02:12 am
Seattle is going all out for Enterprise, and Boeing is lobbying hard for it. You should see the display preparations.I'd be very surprised if KSC VC didn't get an orbiter, and then there's the Smithsonian. So really all these museums would be competing for one space-flown orbiter and the Enterprise....is this a fair statement to make? Or is the situation more complex than that?
That is a fair statement.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/11/2011 04:26 am
College Station has already landed a big consolation prize, the SMS Motion Base... along with all the equipment needed to keep it running, motion and all.Sounds like a good excuse for a visit...no idea what their plans are for it, but would be cool to ride in that again.
I don't think A&M has any idea what their plans are for it yet, but as an aero alumnus I'd be more than happy to give them some ideas.
I thought NASA already said that the locations of the simulators have no direct bearing on the locations of the Orbiters. Also, in the NPR story NASA said "all options are on the table" and that was only two or three days ago.
I'm digging out my notes, I'm a notes kind of gal. *flips pages, flips pages*
A month or so back, I called the museum in College Station and was told that the plan for the simulator is to place it in to the same wing of the "new museum" that the Orbiter will be in, along with a challenger center and "other space collections."
Their project director told me that he "hadn't explicitly heard that people would be prohibited from going in the shuttle, it's just not something the public could ever easily do." He said that he "didn't believe that NASA would allow it for obvious reasons, but that it's likely a non-issue since there is only one way in and out, it's high off the ground, rather small, and it's not ADA compliant."
Makes sense to me.
-p
Post by: rushdrums on 03/11/2011 05:41 am
Any other location appears to be a very, very long shot. Anyone have a link to the complete list of the applicants?
The last one I found was « Reply #774 on: 08/15/2010 05:33 PM » from CenTexRez via a RFI...just a quick search and nothing official. But...
U.S. Space & Rocket Center – Huntsville, AL
Columbia Memorial Science Learning Center – Downey, CA
California Science Center - Los Angeles, CA
Dryden Flight Research Center – Edwards, CA
Ames Research Center – Moffett Field, CA
March Air and Space Museum - Riverside, CA
Air Force Plant 42 – Palmdale, CA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory – Pasadena, CA
San Diego Air & Space Museum – San Diego, CA
Austin Planetarium - Austin, TX
Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex – Titusville, FL
BVMNH/George Bush Library/Texas A&M University - College Station, TX
Michoud Assembly Facility – New Orleans, LA
Goddard Space Flight Center – Greenbelt, MD
Stennis Space Center – Hancock County, MS
White Sands Test Facility – Las Cruces, NM
Intrepid Air & Space Museum – New York, NY
Glenn Research Center – Cleveland, OH
U.S. Air Force Museum – Dayton, OH
Tulsa Air & Space Museum – Tulsa, OK
Evergreen Air & Space Museum – McMinnville, OR
Space Center Houston - Houston, TX
Museum of Flight – Seattle, WA
I'm partial to SAC in NE (http://www.sasmuseum.com/visit/admissions/)
Bombers to SR-71 to restorations...
Maybe Enterprise can be moved there.
Prolly 'bout the same chance as CSTS lifting off. >:(
Regards,
rush
Post by: psloss on 03/11/2011 01:33 pm
Their project director told me that he "hadn't explicitly heard that people would be prohibited from going in the shuttle, it's just not something the public could ever easily do." He said that he "didn't believe that NASA would allow it for obvious reasons, but that it's likely a non-issue since there is only one way in and out, it's high off the ground, rather small, and it's not ADA compliant."Me, too -- given how cramped it is and given...well, the other factors, chances are high of things getting busted and dinged.
Makes sense to me.
But also sounds like less of an excuse to visit, too -- the real fun is inside with the machine active. ;D
Post by: TimL on 03/11/2011 01:45 pm
It could be done...if they're really interested in drawing in a large crowd. Otherwise, it's like visiting Dulles to see Enterprise, 5 minutes walking around at 30 feet and on to see the SR-71...
Post by: JayP on 03/11/2011 01:48 pm
Post by: psloss on 03/11/2011 01:51 pm
It could be done...if they're really interested in drawing in a large crowd.I would guess it will be done to see inside -- but for me, the fun of being inside the MBS flight deck was watching the machine perform different flight modes, and as mentioned that doesn't sound like it's going to work for public display.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/11/2011 01:54 pm
Two holes on each side...Come in on the flight deck on the left, exit out the right, down a set of stairs (elevator for wheelchairs), come in on the right side lower deck and out the left side. Plexiglass walls along each side to keep folks from taking home a keepsake.
It could be done...if they're really interested in drawing in a large crowd. Otherwise, it's like visiting Dulles to see Enterprise, 5 minutes walking around at 30 feet and on to see the SR-71...
Advocating the destruction of the orbiter. I'm gonna take a wild stab here and NASA won't give a museum an orbiter if they were planning to do that - quite rightfully so.
Post by: TimL on 03/11/2011 02:13 pm
We're not going to pull these things out of the museums and fly them again, so I don't have an objection to making access holes. Have you every visited U-505 in Chicago, access holes thru the pressure hull, touch all the valves and handles, smell the diesel and sweat.
Those are the experience our youth's need to have...they need to see if for themselves and not watch it on a tv screen.
Post by: Alpha Control on 03/11/2011 02:20 pm
Two holes on each side...Come in on the flight deck on the left, exit out the right, down a set of stairs (elevator for wheelchairs), come in on the right side lower deck and out the left side. Plexiglass walls along each side to keep folks from taking home a keepsake.
It could be done...if they're really interested in drawing in a large crowd. Otherwise, it's like visiting Dulles to see Enterprise, 5 minutes walking around at 30 feet and on to see the SR-71...
Advocating the destruction of the orbiter. I'm gonna take a wild stab here and NASA won't give a museum an orbiter if they were planning to do that - quite rightfully so.
There is some precedent for this - Skylab. The Skylab backup vehicle (at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum in downtown DC) was modified in just this manner.
Holes were cut in the sides of the vehicle to allow visitors to walk through it from one side to the other, and plexiglass panels allow you to see everything but not to touch.
Where it was not done (and I wish it was) is Spacelab. The module sits at Dulles, with no access allowed - just walk around, not even a good view of the interior.
Post by: DMeader on 03/11/2011 06:07 pm
Two holes on each side...Come in on the flight deck on the left, exit out the right, down a set of stairs (elevator for wheelchairs), come in on the right side lower deck and out the left side. Plexiglass walls along each side to keep folks from taking home a keepsake.
I don't think you really grasp how small the crew module is. Your upper and lower "holes" would literally be removing almost the entirety of both sides and the passage and plexiglas quite a lot of the interior. Bad idea and I'm glad it won't be done. These are artifacts, not carnival rides.
Post by: robertross on 03/11/2011 06:08 pm
Two holes on each side...Come in on the flight deck on the left, exit out the right, down a set of stairs (elevator for wheelchairs), come in on the right side lower deck and out the left side. Plexiglass walls along each side to keep folks from taking home a keepsake.
It could be done...if they're really interested in drawing in a large crowd. Otherwise, it's like visiting Dulles to see Enterprise, 5 minutes walking around at 30 feet and on to see the SR-71...
Advocating the destruction of the orbiter. I'm gonna take a wild stab here and NASA won't give a museum an orbiter if they were planning to do that - quite rightfully so.
There is some precedent for this - Skylab. The Skylab backup vehicle (at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum in downtown DC) was modified in just this manner.
Holes were cut in the sides of the vehicle to allow visitors to walk through it from one side to the other, and plexiglass panels allow you to see everything but not to touch.
Where it was not done (and I wish it was) is Spacelab. The module sits at Dulles, with no access allowed - just walk around, not even a good view of the interior.
I see a way around this:
Make the mod to Enterprise. I bet they (the final recipient) would love that! You walk into the PLB, and then access through the airlock, and take the slide out the side hatch :)
I personally don't like the idea of modifying Discovery. Enterprise is probably good enough for most people to see it from inside. I know it won't be exactly the same, but the Smithsonian, in my opinion, is to PRESERVE, not hacked away.
Post by: TimL on 03/11/2011 06:33 pm
Two holes on each side...Come in on the flight deck on the left, exit out the right, down a set of stairs (elevator for wheelchairs), come in on the right side lower deck and out the left side. Plexiglass walls along each side to keep folks from taking home a keepsake.
I don't think you really grasp how small the crew module is. Your upper and lower "holes" would literally be removing almost the entirety of both sides and the passage and plexiglas quite a lot of the interior. Bad idea and I'm glad it won't be done. These are artifacts, not carnival rides.
Yes I do, I've been inside Enterprise and at 6'3" I found it a squeeze but then again so was a U-boat and a cessna 172 :)
I would bet the lottery that if only one of the four shuttles was opened up for inside tours, regardless of where they end up displayed, the one you can go inside will have 2-3 times the number of visitors every day.
Post by: scotty125 on 03/11/2011 07:57 pm
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/11/2011 09:46 pm
Two holes on each side...Come in on the flight deck on the left, exit out the right, down a set of stairs...
Mona Lisa? Just an old painting. Not nearly exciting enough, lets give kids some crayons to spruce the old girl up, make it more "hands on."
Moot point anyway, there won't be much of anything left to see. NASA is practically gutting Endeavour and Atlantis. Even the toilets are coming out. The only one that they are keeping more or less complete is Discovery, as the "reference" shuttle. That's only being done to satisfy the needs of future historians for a complete vehicle, at the behest of the Smithsonian. Anything from the other two that can be recovered and repurposed, will be.
That's why some of the places hoping to get one are considering mocked up interior displays. I guess the places with the simulators have an advantage in that they can show how the shuttle functioned too.
-p
Post by: TimL on 03/11/2011 10:05 pm
The Orbiters are machines, tools made by the hands of many to do an important job in space. While many might consider them a thing of beauty, they are not one of a kind works of art...sorry but that was a stupid comparison...if you want to inspire a future generation of space enthusiasts, give them something to touch and feel.
I'm done, seems like a person can't make a post around here without folks wigging out.
Post by: Jim on 03/11/2011 10:17 pm
Two holes on each side...Come in on the flight deck on the left, exit out the right, down a set of stairs (elevator for wheelchairs), come in on the right side lower deck and out the left side. Plexiglass walls along each side to keep folks from taking home a keepsake.
It could be done...if they're really interested in drawing in a large crowd. Otherwise, it's like visiting Dulles to see Enterprise, 5 minutes walking around at 30 feet and on to see the SR-71...
No, it couldn't be done. There is nothing to see in the middeck and there is no way to make the flight deck accessible. For tours, see the KSC Pathfinder/Explorer mockups. That is how it would be done.
That is exactly how the NASM works. It is to preserve them first and then display them.
Post by: Skylon on 03/11/2011 10:32 pm
I personally don't like the idea of modifying Discovery. Enterprise is probably good enough for most people to see it from inside. I know it won't be exactly the same, but the Smithsonian, in my opinion, is to PRESERVE, not hacked away.
You'd need to restore Enterprise's cockpit also. The thing was stripped after ALT. Anything that could be used by the operational orbiters was removed. It's pretty sparse now.
Post by: Jorge on 03/11/2011 10:55 pm
Then I guess the best thing to do is send them all out to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, wrap them in shrink-wrap and hope one day someone will need a spare part off of them for the SD-SLS.
No, the best thing to do is to send them to museums so that people can at least look at the outside. Which is exactly what is being done.
Quote
The Orbiters are machines, tools made by the hands of many to do an important job in space. While many might consider them a thing of beauty, they are not one of a kind works of art...sorry but that was a stupid comparison...if you want to inspire a future generation of space enthusiasts, give them something to touch and feel.
I'm done, seems like a person can't make a post around here without folks wigging out.
In case the implications of scotty125's post were not clear, let me spell it out:
1) The orbiters could possibly have access doors cut into them at KSC, but that would render them structurally incapable of surviving the SCA ferry flights.
2) Therefore the access doors would have to be cut at the destination museums, but they are unlikely to be capable of doing so.
3) Therefore the only orbiter that could be so modified would be the one destined for the KSC visitor center. Modifying the other orbiters is extremely unlikely.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/12/2011 04:07 am
Simply, NASA won't let any part of the shuttles be removed or altered anyway. Keep in mind, the museums won't OWN the shuttles, their just paying for the transportation and display costs. The shuttles will still be owned by the government.
-p
Post by: jsmjr on 03/12/2011 04:36 am
3) Therefore the only orbiter that could be so modified would be the one destined for the KSC visitor center. Modifying the other orbiters is extremely unlikely.
So, since this is NSF, why don't we have copies of the museums' various plans for display? ::) KSC is certainly the site that seems to have been the most creative at designing (or publicizing) their concepts. See http://media.kennedyspacecenter.com/kennedy/orbitermasterplan.htm (press release, not detailed) Smithsonian seems to have been deliberately mum, perhaps not to spoil their pole position.
Post by: DARPA-86 on 03/12/2011 01:56 pm
Cutting the shuttles isn't even remotely an option. Why ruin a one of a kind artifact when you could easily, and probably less expensively, re-create a publicly accessible flight deck and mid deck.I seem to recall that Kennedy Visitor Center already has a mock up with mid deck access and flight deck viewing, this is just before you get to the "Shuttle Experience" where Charlie Bolden comes on film and tries to teach rocket science and the concept of Max-Q while people stand in line for the ride to orbit. I don't remember exactly, I had grandkids tugging on my arm about lunch and I was pretty tired from the night before waiting for the fireworks to go off in the cold at Disney.
Simply, NASA won't let any part of the shuttles be removed or altered anyway. Keep in mind, the museums won't OWN the shuttles, their just paying for the transportation and display costs. The shuttles will still be owned by the government.
-p
I think the business model is to emulate Disney in a good sense, i.e. develope a critical mass of attractions in and around the immediate area to get tourists like me to stay longer, buy more meals, gifts etc.
Does anyone know if the proposed Oribter building would be on the main campus near or adjacent to the Shuttle experience or Memorial? Or are you going to have to ride the bus ala the Saturn V display?
Post by: Wayne Hale on 03/12/2011 03:55 pm
I wonder how KSC is going to get the RMS up into that position since it won't support itself under 1 g?
But KSC and JSC visitor centers have mockups of the shuttle cockpit that folks can walk through. That is probably the best way to see them.
Post by: robertross on 03/12/2011 04:13 pm
I wonder how KSC is going to get the RMS up into that position since it won't support itself under 1 g?
Maybe Canada will be generous and offer a solution (through MDA) in trade for the return of one of the Canadarms that was recently promised :)
Post by: DARPA-86 on 03/12/2011 04:40 pm
At the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy center, they have lots of aircraft; the first model of the 707, a Concorde, and hundreds more. You can't walk through any of them. If you read the Smithsonian's publications they are very motivated to restore their historic aircraft. I know that there are a couple of displays at the NASM on the mall, the 747 cockpit and the Skylab trainer. But those are by far the exception.The same thought process exists on retired ships - there is a continum from one extreme to the other. I have been on submarines that were docent led tours (like in Mantiowoc, WI), on subs and ships where we had virtually free reign (like in Fall River, Mass), and where access and the tour was extremely limited (Portsmouth NH/Kittery MAINE). One thing I know about museums - they start out generally with one idea for exhibit design & display, then fiscal reality hits later on. At the Kalamazoo Air & Space museum (which is excellent by the way) you don't get to climb into the cockpit of the NASA flagged SR-71, but you can walk thru a WW II C-47. They also have both a ISS module mock up and a reproduction Mercury capsule you can (try at least) squeeze into.
I wonder how KSC is going to get the RMS up into that position since it won't support itself under 1 g?
But KSC and JSC visitor centers have mockups of the shuttle cockpit that folks can walk through. That is probably the best way to see them.
PS Since you took the time to comment on this Mr. Hale; let me personally extend my thanks to you for your hard work and dedication to this nations space program, and specifically the Return to Flight in the wake of Columbia. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for you and have read your blog with interest.
Post by: CitabriaFlyer on 03/12/2011 05:14 pm
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/12/2011 10:09 pm
At the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy center, they have lots of aircraft; the first model of the 707, a Concorde, and hundreds more. You can't walk through any of them. If you read the Smithsonian's publications they are very motivated to restore their historic aircraft. I know that there are a couple of displays at the NASM on the mall, the 747 cockpit and the Skylab trainer. But those are by far the exception.
I wonder how KSC is going to get the RMS up into that position since it won't support itself under 1 g?
But KSC and JSC visitor centers have mockups of the shuttle cockpit that folks can walk through. That is probably the best way to see them.
I'd love to know how they plan on having the shuttle supported at such an angle.
1) one hell of a structure to support the weight over not one year, not ten years, but perhaps a century or so.
2) How do you attach the cables to the orbiter, on the high side...fine, but on the low side, how do you keep the cables off of the skin of the shuttle. If you put some kind of projection out off the side, you just added a torsion load to the anchor point...can it withstand that?
3) Can the shuttle bear its own weight for decades on those mounting points?
Cool idea, but is it practical? Kudos if they can safely, and economically do it.
I'm not going to be too sad if they don't get one though. Florida is, and always will be, the seat of space exploration in the US. There will always be activity there, the latest greatest things will always be there. If the shuttles go elsewhere, Kennedy will soldier on and continue launching spacecraft and drawing in people to see...the latest and greatest things.
-p
Post by: robertross on 03/12/2011 10:13 pm
I'd love to know how they plan on having the shuttle supported at such an angle.
1) one hell of a structure to support the weight over not one year, not ten years, but perhaps a century or so.
2) How do you attach the cables to the orbiter, on the high side...fine, but on the low side, how do you keep the cables off of the skin of the shuttle. If you put some kind of projection out off the side, you just added a torsion load to the anchor point...can it withstand that?
3) Can the shuttle bear its own weight for decades on those mounting points?
The shuttle goes up on three attach points now. I see no reason why it couldn't be put in an angled metal frame (a bit like the one holding up the Saturn V at KSCVC) much like a craddle. And once they remove the mass of the 3 SSMEs and OMS pods, and the fact it wouldn't be fueled or crewed, that will greatly lessen the load bearing members.
Post by: Downix on 03/12/2011 11:11 pm
Seattle's Museum of Flight has their display up as well:
3) Therefore the only orbiter that could be so modified would be the one destined for the KSC visitor center. Modifying the other orbiters is extremely unlikely.
So, since this is NSF, why don't we have copies of the museums' various plans for display? ::) KSC is certainly the site that seems to have been the most creative at designing (or publicizing) their concepts. See http://media.kennedyspacecenter.com/kennedy/orbitermasterplan.htm (press release, not detailed) Smithsonian seems to have been deliberately mum, perhaps not to spoil their pole position.
http://www.museumofflight.org/shuttle-boosters/
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/12/2011 11:40 pm
I'd love to know how they plan on having the shuttle supported at such an angle.
1) one hell of a structure to support the weight over not one year, not ten years, but perhaps a century or so.
2) How do you attach the cables to the orbiter, on the high side...fine, but on the low side, how do you keep the cables off of the skin of the shuttle. If you put some kind of projection out off the side, you just added a torsion load to the anchor point...can it withstand that?
3) Can the shuttle bear its own weight for decades on those mounting points?
The shuttle goes up on three attach points now. I see no reason why it couldn't be put in an angled metal frame (a bit like the one holding up the Saturn V at KSCVC) much like a craddle. And once they remove the mass of the 3 SSMEs and OMS pods, and the fact it wouldn't be fueled or crewed, that will greatly lessen the load bearing members.
Well sure, there are lots of ways to get it done. However, there is an extreme difference between getting it done and getting it done in an aesthetically pleasing way. Also, there will be SSME mock-ups on the shuttles, so they won't be that much lighter.
Not being critical, just interested is all.
-p
Post by: robertross on 03/13/2011 12:25 am
I'd love to know how they plan on having the shuttle supported at such an angle.
1) one hell of a structure to support the weight over not one year, not ten years, but perhaps a century or so.
2) How do you attach the cables to the orbiter, on the high side...fine, but on the low side, how do you keep the cables off of the skin of the shuttle. If you put some kind of projection out off the side, you just added a torsion load to the anchor point...can it withstand that?
3) Can the shuttle bear its own weight for decades on those mounting points?
The shuttle goes up on three attach points now. I see no reason why it couldn't be put in an angled metal frame (a bit like the one holding up the Saturn V at KSCVC) much like a craddle. And once they remove the mass of the 3 SSMEs and OMS pods, and the fact it wouldn't be fueled or crewed, that will greatly lessen the load bearing members.
Well sure, there are lots of ways to get it done. However, there is an extreme difference between getting it done and getting it done in an aesthetically pleasing way. Also, there will be SSME mock-ups on the shuttles, so they won't be that much lighter.
Not being critical, just interested is all.
-p
Oh I'm sure it will be a fascinating exhibit. The Saturn V turned out great.
FYI: a single SSME weighs ~7004 lbs = 21000 lbs for all three.
Post by: scotty125 on 03/17/2011 02:49 am
So, since this is NSF, why don't we have copies of the museums' various plans for display?
Follow this link from earlier in the thread for proposed display plans. http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-080210b.html Tulsa's proposal is awesome...
Post by: chrisking0997 on 03/17/2011 03:08 pm
I'd love to know how they plan on having the shuttle supported at such an angle.
1) one hell of a structure to support the weight over not one year, not ten years, but perhaps a century or so.
2) How do you attach the cables to the orbiter, on the high side...fine, but on the low side, how do you keep the cables off of the skin of the shuttle. If you put some kind of projection out off the side, you just added a torsion load to the anchor point...can it withstand that?
3) Can the shuttle bear its own weight for decades on those mounting points?
The shuttle goes up on three attach points now. I see no reason why it couldn't be put in an angled metal frame (a bit like the one holding up the Saturn V at KSCVC) much like a craddle. And once they remove the mass of the 3 SSMEs and OMS pods, and the fact it wouldn't be fueled or crewed, that will greatly lessen the load bearing members.
Theres an SR-71 mounted in a similar way at the Strategic Air and Space museum on Nebraska. Im sure it can be done.
Post by: JMS on 03/17/2011 03:16 pm
Quote
Is that a valid comparison?
Theres an SR-71 mounted in a similar way at the Strategic Air and Space museum on Nebraska. Im sure it can be done.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/17/2011 03:50 pm
I'd love to know how they plan on having the shuttle supported at such an angle.
1) one hell of a structure to support the weight over not one year, not ten years, but perhaps a century or so.
2) How do you attach the cables to the orbiter, on the high side...fine, but on the low side, how do you keep the cables off of the skin of the shuttle. If you put some kind of projection out off the side, you just added a torsion load to the anchor point...can it withstand that?
3) Can the shuttle bear its own weight for decades on those mounting points?
The shuttle goes up on three attach points now. I see no reason why it couldn't be put in an angled metal frame (a bit like the one holding up the Saturn V at KSCVC) much like a craddle. And once they remove the mass of the 3 SSMEs and OMS pods, and the fact it wouldn't be fueled or crewed, that will greatly lessen the load bearing members.
Theres an SR-71 mounted in a similar way at the Strategic Air and Space museum on Nebraska. Im sure it can be done.
Well, aren't the suspension/anchor points on the shuttle down near the wing root? (the ones they use in the VAB)
If they are, then you really can't tilt the shuttle much without the "low" side cable contacting the body of the shuttle. And I'm pretty sure you couldn't have the bay doors open with it suspended from above.
Are there anchor points inside the cargo bay?
Unless they explicitly stated that it would be suspended, I'm betting it's going to be mounted from below using the hard points and the various journalists covering it have misinterpreted the display.
-p
Post by: sanfordshazam on 03/17/2011 08:51 pm
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-adler-has-soaring-design-for-space-shuttle-20110317,0,2649616.story?das
Post by: chrisking0997 on 03/18/2011 03:23 pm
Is that a valid comparison?
Unless they explicitly stated that it would be suspended, I'm betting it's going to be mounted from below using the hard points and the various journalists covering it have misinterpreted the display.
-p
sorry....should have clarified I guess. The SR-71 is mounted on pylons from below, which is why I felt it could be done. I agree that suspension probably wouldnt work, especially with the effect the are going for.
Post by: TexasRED on 03/24/2011 02:55 pm
Also spoke with family members of fallen crew members.
Quote
Husband-Thompson was married to Columbia commander Rick Husband. He was among those killed when the shuttle disintegrated upon reentry in 2003. She says she was stunned to find out recently that Houston was not guaranteed an orbiter and this morning was among a small group of those who lost family in flight who are petitioning NASA for one.Some other stuff in here too.
"Every friend that I have was shocked that it even was an issue. That it's totally logical for a space shuttle to be in Houston," Husband-Thompson said. "It would mean so much to be able to take my family and friends and to be able to come look at the orbiter any time we wanted to."
Space Center Houston is one of 29 entities vying for one of the vehicles.
Making the decision on who gets one he calls ever more difficult given today's meeting with the Challenger and Columbia families.
"They were incredible advocates and I told them essentially what I'm telling you which is we have a process in place that I think is fair. It's going to make a very difficult decision, very difficult. There is no way to make it easy. In the end, the four places that have an orbiter sitting there will be places that were very deserving, representative of a cross section of America," Bolden told us.
The choice will ultimately be made by Bolden.
"If I were not the NASA administrator, I would say the places that should get an orbiter are Houston, the Cape (Canaveral)," Bolden told us. "Any place that played a vital role in the design, development and operation of space shuttle."
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8029714
Post by: Namechange User on 03/24/2011 02:59 pm
Post by: TexasRED on 03/24/2011 03:01 pm
Post by: Namechange User on 03/24/2011 03:02 pm
April 12th we shall know...
I'd prefer to keep two of them in OPF 1, OPF2 and orbit.
Post by: TexasRED on 03/24/2011 03:10 pm
Post by: TFGQ on 03/24/2011 03:35 pm
Post by: mr. mark on 03/24/2011 03:36 pm
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/24/2011 03:36 pm
April 12th we shall know...
I'd prefer to keep two of them in OPF 1, OPF2 and orbit.
Well said!!
Post by: rdale on 03/24/2011 03:44 pm
April 12th we shall know...
I'd prefer to keep two of them in OPF 1, OPF2 and orbit.
There's no public access to the OPFs though, so that's probably not the best plan for retirement.
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/24/2011 04:01 pm
April 12th we shall know...
I'd prefer to keep two of them in OPF 1, OPF2 and orbit.
There's no public access to the OPFs though, so that's probably not the best plan for retirement.
I am sure he means in OPF1 and OPF2 as in getting prepped for missions, hence why he also said in orbit.
Post by: rdale on 03/24/2011 04:04 pm
Post by: Namechange User on 03/24/2011 04:16 pm
Retiring it in orbit is an even worse idea...
Well, since that wasn't I was talking about I guess you don't have to worry.
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/25/2011 12:21 pm
Retiring it in orbit is an even worse idea...
He didnt say retire in orbit... He was saying he prefers them in orbit, meaning in use, not just abandoned up there ::)
Post by: rdale on 03/25/2011 12:40 pm
He didnt say retire in orbit... He was saying he prefers them in orbit, meaning in use, not just abandoned up there ::)
Since this is the thread about what to do with the orbiters after they are retired, it only makes sense to think that he was talking about what to do after they are retired ???
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/25/2011 12:50 pm
Post by: rdale on 03/25/2011 01:03 pm
The end is here, no matter how many posts people make about it not being certainly the end.
It's final.
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/25/2011 02:37 pm
Post by: padrat on 03/25/2011 11:02 pm
P.S. This was not a rant directed at any particular individual, just the whole "Wooooo, the damn Shuttle is finally coming to an end!" crowd.
Rant over
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/25/2011 11:10 pm
I just love how pretty much every thread on this site that deals with the shuttle has someone(s) ready at anytime to point out whenever a positive wave gets rolling that, basically, "The Shuttle is coming to an end. Hey, by the way, the Shuttle is coming to an end. There's nothing you can do stop it. You just need to accept it and move on. The world will be better off anyways when it's gone" Yes, a very basic generalization, but you get my point. Ok ok ok, yes, we know, the Shuttle will cease operating someday, most likely soon. We know. Thank you for once again kicking our morale into the dirt. I've already had the lovely experience of crying when watching Discovery's APUs fall silent for the last time, and, oh boy, i get to experience it again 2 (hopefully) more times. So, once again, WE KNOW. Can we at least get them in the ground BEFORE you start dancing on their headstones?
P.S. This was not a rant directed at any particular individual, just the whole "Wooooo, the damn Shuttle is finally coming to an end!" crowd.
Rant over
Agreed. For many people, many many people, the end of the shuttle program is more than just a transition from one program to the next. Remember, these are ships, and thousands of people served with/on them, serviced them, and appreciated them. Please, respect the people, the program, and don't denigrate those who devoted their lives to it.
-p
Post by: rdale on 03/26/2011 01:53 am
I just love how pretty much every thread on this site that deals with the shuttle has someone(s) ready at anytime to point out whenever a positive wave gets rolling that, basically, "The Shuttle is coming to an end. Hey, by the way, the Shuttle is coming to an end. There's nothing you can do stop it. You just need to accept it and move on. The world will be better off anyways when it's gone"
Just a gentle reminder - this thread was specifically created to talk about what to do when the orbiters are retired. This isn't just a generic shuttle thread where some meanies stopped by to "rub it in" that the program is ending.
Post #1:
"I know this is premature, but when the shuttles are finally retired who will get them? How will they be displayed? Full stack or horizontal? Do you think people will be allowed to walk through? Just something I've been thinking about."
This was created strictly to discuss how to handle the orbiters after their missions are complete. Whether or not the ending of the program is a good thing is for other threads to decide ;)
Post by: padrat on 03/26/2011 02:38 am
Post by: psloss on 03/26/2011 11:29 am
If I've derailed this thread in any way then I apologize. After reading through the board, seeing many other posts of just what I had mentioned above, I then came across your comment, "The end is here, no matter how many posts people make about it not being certainly the end" which was the one to send me over the top. My rant wasn't directed at you or any other individual as I said. I just needed to get some stuff off of my chest. As I'm sure you can imagine, things get fairly touchy around here these days.Please don't sweat it -- I can't fully comprehend your situation, but I realize this situation is more than just an academic or historic exercise.
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/28/2011 02:06 pm
I just love how pretty much every thread on this site that deals with the shuttle has someone(s) ready at anytime to point out whenever a positive wave gets rolling that, basically, "The Shuttle is coming to an end. Hey, by the way, the Shuttle is coming to an end. There's nothing you can do stop it. You just need to accept it and move on. The world will be better off anyways when it's gone" Yes, a very basic generalization, but you get my point. Ok ok ok, yes, we know, the Shuttle will cease operating someday, most likely soon. We know. Thank you for once again kicking our morale into the dirt. I've already had the lovely experience of crying when watching Discovery's APUs fall silent for the last time, and, oh boy, i get to experience it again 2 (hopefully) more times. So, once again, WE KNOW. Can we at least get them in the ground BEFORE you start dancing on their headstones?
P.S. This was not a rant directed at any particular individual, just the whole "Wooooo, the damn Shuttle is finally coming to an end!" crowd.
Rant over
For so many it is hard to understand how anyone can become emotional over a machine, my wife is an example of that, when I told her how the workers have cried over Discoverys retirement and how even I shed tears when she came to a complete stop, I had to explain to her these are not machines to those of you all who have taken care of these ladies for the past 30 years, these are living family members in the eyes of many, and even though I have never been lucky enough to see one in person or up close, I also feel an emotional bond to the orbiters. I have watched them since day 1 and when Challenger and Columbia were lost it was as hard to loose the crew and hard for the workers to loose the orbiters as well.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/28/2011 03:59 pm
http://www.khou.com/home/related/NASA---118679724.html
-p
Post by: padrat on 03/28/2011 04:30 pm
Again, not trying to de-rail the thread, just felt a need to respond.
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/28/2011 04:45 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2011 04:56 pm
I feel after Columbia, the shuttle could fly another 30 years without a accident, They have truly made it the safest vehicle
There is no data to back up that claim
Post by: Namechange User on 03/28/2011 05:03 pm
I feel after Columbia, the shuttle could fly another 30 years without a accident, They have truly made it the safest vehicle
There is no data to back up that claim
"I feel"
There is data to claim it is just as safe, if not safer, than Soyuz. There is also ample data to show IFA, PRs, etc have dropped consistently.
Post by: Namechange User on 03/28/2011 05:05 pm
I know. I'm just messing.
The end is here, no matter how many posts people make about it not being certainly the end.
It's final.
I understand you are the "Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist" but sometimes it still rains when someone like you tells me it is supposed to be sunny.
So, perhaps you don't know everything?
Post by: daveray on 03/28/2011 05:15 pm
Post by: jakef on 03/28/2011 05:25 pm
AMEN!!!
Post by: JayP on 03/28/2011 05:36 pm
“… To some people, that may seem like I’m stretching the point. A LEM is not a child, it’s a machine and a machine doesn’t have a soul. We may yell at our toasters and give names to our cars, but in the end even a LEM is just a collection of wires and circuits and nuts and bolts. I don’t know. I think each LEM does have a soul. It’s the soul of all the people who built her, designed her, first dreamed of her.”
To everyone who has believed in these machines we call Space Shuttles enough to give them a part of your souls through all of the trial and triumphs of the last 30 years, I want to say, Thank You.
Post by: SkyKing on 03/28/2011 05:55 pm
I was actually amazed how strongly against the Shuttle Story Musgrave is, He bashes the Shuttle every chance he gets. He always states how unsafe it is, etc. I feel after Columbia, the shuttle could fly another 30 years without a accident, They have truly made it the safest vehicle and yes, It is a National Pride, Its an amazing machine though of and designed in the 60's and 70's and its sad the U.S feels the desire to retire something that even in todays standards is an amazing machine.
you would be mistaken in that belief...the shuttle is no more safe today then it was the day after Columbia went bang..Musgrave knows that.
Sky King
Post by: Namechange User on 03/28/2011 05:59 pm
Post by: mjcrsmith on 03/28/2011 06:06 pm
you would be mistaken in that belief...the shuttle is no more safe today then it was the day after Columbia went bang..Musgrave knows that.
Sky King
This is probably the most absurd and uninformed post I have seen on NSF. Sad.
Post by: SkyKing on 03/28/2011 06:10 pm
you would be mistaken in that belief...the shuttle is no more safe today then it was the day after Columbia went bang..Musgrave knows that.
Sky King
This is probably the most absurd and uninformed post I have seen on NSF. Sad.
Safety is not about technology, it is about the management structure in which the technology is operated. Nothing really has changed at NASA since Challenger in this respect. The fact that bad metal got into a tank unnoticed until they started having troubles with the tank is yet another data point that the spirit of the O rings lives on
Sky King
Post by: DMeader on 03/28/2011 06:30 pm
(Granted this is somewhat of an emotional issue, but can we stop getting personal in these discussions, here and in other threads?)
Post by: Namechange User on 03/28/2011 06:33 pm
you would be mistaken in that belief...the shuttle is no more safe today then it was the day after Columbia went bang..Musgrave knows that.
Sky King
This is probably the most absurd and uninformed post I have seen on NSF. Sad.
Safety is not about technology, it is about the management structure in which the technology is operated. Nothing really has changed at NASA since Challenger in this respect. The fact that bad metal got into a tank unnoticed until they started having troubles with the tank is yet another data point that the spirit of the O rings lives on
Sky King
Wow, and I thought it was impossible to grow apples on an orange tree.
Post by: SkyKing on 03/28/2011 06:58 pm
you would be mistaken in that belief...the shuttle is no more safe today then it was the day after Columbia went bang..Musgrave knows that.
Sky King
This is probably the most absurd and uninformed post I have seen on NSF. Sad.
Safety is not about technology, it is about the management structure in which the technology is operated. Nothing really has changed at NASA since Challenger in this respect. The fact that bad metal got into a tank unnoticed until they started having troubles with the tank is yet another data point that the spirit of the O rings lives on
Sky King
Wow, and I thought it was impossible to grow apples on an orange tree.
I have no expertise in that area so I would assume it is...but thats irrelevant to the discussion.
Safety and safe operation in a technical environment are not unique to the shuttle system (or the station). NASA and others like to think it is, but it is not. Bad management is bad management and nothing about the bad metal getting into the tank, and the tank being stacked with it...is different then the O rings or (insert several other problems).
Sky King
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/28/2011 07:04 pm
The shuttle does what it always has done, deliver stuff to low orbit, provide a recoverable space science platform, and function as a "relatively safe" way to get to and from the space station.
If NASA was going to focus the next 30 years on all of the above, then why retire proven technology. "It feels" like NASA might be getting back in to the exploration game, which a mission the shuttle is ill suited to fill.
One a different note:
This really parallels the first powered flights when you think about it. The technology was developed, then governments stepped in and proved it could be done repeatedly and relatively safely, then identified the avenues for commercialization. Before long, you had regional commercial flights, but the real exploratory and experimental stuff was (and remains today) the domain of the government.
What's happening now is no different.
-p
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/28/2011 07:05 pm
you would be mistaken in that belief...the shuttle is no more safe today then it was the day after Columbia went bang..Musgrave knows that.
Sky King
This is probably the most absurd and uninformed post I have seen on NSF. Sad.
Safety is not about technology, it is about the management structure in which the technology is operated. Nothing really has changed at NASA since Challenger in this respect. The fact that bad metal got into a tank unnoticed until they started having troubles with the tank is yet another data point that the spirit of the O rings lives on
Sky King
Really? Do you not recall Discovery sitting on the pad and getting rolled back on a 4 month delay to inspect the stringers and replace and fix? Seems to me Safety has improved ALOT. Inspections are done once on orbit on every flight, etc.. The shuttle is safer today than it was in the 80's and 90's and after Columbia that revamped the whole way the look at safety
Post by: Namechange User on 03/28/2011 07:08 pm
Safety and safe operation in a technical environment are not unique to the shuttle system (or the station). NASA and others like to think it is, but it is not. Bad management is bad management and nothing about the bad metal getting into the tank, and the tank being stacked with it...is different then the O rings or (insert several other problems).
Sky King
1. Never said, or even implied, safety and safe operation where unique to STS, ISS, etc. That is a conclusion you leaped to all by yourself.
2. Yet another subjective "editorial" about NASA "thinking" this or that.
3. Bad management is what led to Challenger and ignoring the issues that were presented and proceeding with launch. You would have a point if we found out about the stringers, ignored data and concerns, did nothing and decided to launch with it. There's your apples and oranges.
Post by: padrat on 03/28/2011 07:11 pm
Post by: Alpha Control on 03/28/2011 07:20 pm
I almost wonder if we should start a thread to "vent", if you will. Or share memories, etc.
I think that's a good idea, Padrat. Especially to hear comments and memories from those like yourself who've "worked the program".
Post by: padrat on 03/28/2011 07:32 pm
Post by: Calorspace on 03/28/2011 09:40 pm
Post by: TimL on 03/28/2011 10:11 pm
Post by: SkyKing on 03/29/2011 02:24 am
What are the reasons against just saying to USA, "Here have them, do as you please, if you can operate them commercially do so.."
Several.
First the vehicles were developed with US taxpayer money...they were built with US taxpayer money...this gives USA a vast advantage over any other launch company.
Second the infrastructure that makes the shuttle "fly" has been completely developed with US tax payer money...
Here is just a "modest example". The STA (shuttle training aircraft) is used to train shuttle pilots (along with a simulator that is ancient by current technology). All those were bought with Taxpayer money.
You think USA should get those for 'free"?
If USA wants to pay something for all this then there is some basis to talk. They dont.
Sky King
Post by: SkyKing on 03/29/2011 02:27 am
Safety and safe operation in a technical environment are not unique to the shuttle system (or the station). NASA and others like to think it is, but it is not. Bad management is bad management and nothing about the bad metal getting into the tank, and the tank being stacked with it...is different then the O rings or (insert several other problems).
Sky King
1. Never said, or even implied, safety and safe operation where unique to STS, ISS, etc. That is a conclusion you leaped to all by yourself.
2. Yet another subjective "editorial" about NASA "thinking" this or that.
3. Bad management is what led to Challenger and ignoring the issues that were presented and proceeding with launch. You would have a point if we found out about the stringers, ignored data and concerns, did nothing and decided to launch with it. There's your apples and oranges.
nice try.
to any safety professional worth their ISO rating...the fact that the bad metal GOT INTO the tank unnoticed and was not noticed until a tanking test...should make one worry about what else has "shucked in".
There is nothing "subjective" about the flaws which destroyed Challenger and Columbia and have well near missed on some others. They are all process errors magnified by bad management. In some instances they are classic three mile island mistakes, decades after TMI...
The "routine" waving of flight rules is another sign.
Sky King
Post by: SkyKing on 03/29/2011 02:30 am
you would be mistaken in that belief...the shuttle is no more safe today then it was the day after Columbia went bang..Musgrave knows that.
Sky King
This is probably the most absurd and uninformed post I have seen on NSF. Sad.
Safety is not about technology, it is about the management structure in which the technology is operated. Nothing really has changed at NASA since Challenger in this respect. The fact that bad metal got into a tank unnoticed until they started having troubles with the tank is yet another data point that the spirit of the O rings lives on
Sky King
Really? Do you not recall Discovery sitting on the pad and getting rolled back on a 4 month delay to inspect the stringers and replace and fix? Seems to me Safety has improved ALOT. Inspections are done once on orbit on every flight, etc.. The shuttle is safer today than it was in the 80's and 90's and after Columbia that revamped the whole way the look at safety
"after Columbia that revamped the whole way the look at safety" yeah they always say that right up until another accident then its "wow we slipped back into our old ways"...(see endless explanations after Columbia)
The ET is illustrative. They somehow let bad metal get into the ET manufacture. And did not catch it until they had a tanking test.
Here is however the "thing" ...one really has no idea how safe the fix is. The ET was destroyed after launch so there was no way to inspect it after ascent loads. They have models of course, but they had those at Columbia.
It is like having cracks in the wing root, putting some doublers on the cracks and never really checking to see how they held up after a flight..."the models look great".
Sky King
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/29/2011 02:44 am
Flange was pristine.
No doubt you'll say you wouldn't be happy with that and would want to NDE the tank post ascent, but you're talking about safety, and ascent loads and more so any cracks forming resulting in TPS liberation is your point - and seems to me the "models" worked fine.
That is what they aimed for, to avoid the cracks in the TPS, firstly. The second issue of a potential failure of four stringers in relation to the integrity of the tank is also not happening, given you're going to get some cracks before four stringers fail. That you'd notice big time, from ET sep. Wouldn't need to bring the tank back and NDE that scenario.
Now this thread is about orbiter retirement, as in where they are going. It's not an excuse for you to continue what appears to be your main focus of joining this forum to slag off the Shuttle and anything to do with Shuttle and disrespecting people who did an amazing job with the mitigation of the tank issue.
Post by: rdale on 03/29/2011 02:51 am
I understand you are the "Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist" but sometimes it still rains when someone like you tells me it is supposed to be sunny.
I'm not sure there is anyone else like me here ;)
Quote
So, perhaps you don't know everything?
Perhaps I don't... I did read on L2 though that the orbiters are on the path to prep for museum pieces - if you have info that the program has been extended somehow and the preparations are on hold, please spill the beans (here or on L2.)
Post by: SkyKing on 03/29/2011 02:52 am
I'll tell you one way they know how the radius blocks performed right off the bat. They take hi res photography of the tank after sep and even the slightest crack would have been spotted by the DAT engineers.
Flange was pristine.
No doubt you'll say you wouldn't be happy with that and would want to NDE the tank post ascent, but you're talking about safety, and ascent loads and more so any cracks forming resulting in TPS liberation is your point - and seems to me the "models" worked fine.
That is what they aimed for, to avoid the cracks in the TPS, firstly. The second issue of a potential failure of four stringers in relation to the integrity of the tank is also not happening, given you're going to get some cracks before four stringers fail. That you'd notice big time, from ET sep. Wouldn't need to bring the tank back and NDE that scenario.
Now this thread is about orbiter retirement, as in where they are going. It's not an excuse for you to continue what appears to be your main focus of joining this forum to slag off the Shuttle and anything to do with Shuttle and disrespecting people who did an amazing job with the mitigation of the tank issue.
Chris. I'll let it go, but I am not sure how they would have seen the cracks or the propagation of them... underneath the foam.
I have no real angst against the shuttle except that it is old and costly and in my view is not the nations future in space. Sky King
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/29/2011 03:45 pm
How was the crack initially discovered?
Do they routinely do a sub-foam scan of the tank stringers?
Did someone from the ET manufacturer say "hey, you guys might want to check..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the level of care and maintenance given to the shuttle, at least from what we (the public) seems OCD already.
-p
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/29/2011 05:16 pm
If you all don't mind, inform me of something.
How was the crack initially discovered?
Do they routinely do a sub-foam scan of the tank stringers?
Did someone from the ET manufacturer say "hey, you guys might want to check..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the level of care and maintenance given to the shuttle, at least from what we (the public) seems OCD already.
-p
The crack on the tank was discovered by people inspecting the tank during tanking, so I dont see how you can say they have "OCD" already, technicians discovered it while it was at the pad and the launch was scrubbed, to me it seems they were paying very close attention that day.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/29/2011 06:05 pm
If you all don't mind, inform me of something.
How was the crack initially discovered?
Do they routinely do a sub-foam scan of the tank stringers?
Did someone from the ET manufacturer say "hey, you guys might want to check..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the level of care and maintenance given to the shuttle, at least from what we (the public) seems OCD already.
-p
The crack on the tank was discovered by people inspecting the tank during tanking, so I dont see how you can say they have "OCD" already, technicians discovered it while it was at the pad and the launch was scrubbed, to me it seems they were paying very close attention that day.
Well, I wasn't trying imply that being "OCD" about something as complicated as the shuttle is a bad thing.
OCD = colloquialism
Anyway, I'm glad they are thorough.
I'm glad, that in an incredible abundance of caution, they are inspecting every nut, bolt, panel, and stringer that can be inspected.
-p
Post by: padrat on 03/29/2011 06:42 pm
Back on topic......
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/29/2011 06:56 pm
If you all don't mind, inform me of something.
How was the crack initially discovered?
Do they routinely do a sub-foam scan of the tank stringers?
Did someone from the ET manufacturer say "hey, you guys might want to check..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the level of care and maintenance given to the shuttle, at least from what we (the public) seems OCD already.
-p
The crack on the tank was discovered by people inspecting the tank during tanking, so I dont see how you can say they have "OCD" already, technicians discovered it while it was at the pad and the launch was scrubbed, to me it seems they were paying very close attention that day.
Well, I wasn't trying imply that being "OCD" about something as complicated as the shuttle is a bad thing.
OCD = colloquialism
Anyway, I'm glad they are thorough.
I'm glad, that in an incredible abundance of caution, they are inspecting every nut, bolt, panel, and stringer that can be inspected.
-p
You mean to say you didn't read the 48 articles I wrote on this? ;D
If you seriously want to overload yourself on stringers.....
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/et/
Start here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/11/sts-133-plan-to-repair-et-137-foam-cracks-at-pad/
Kinda joking about reading all the articles, but skip through some of them as it shows just how impressive they are on such issues, and if anyone tells you different....they are bare faced lying, simple as. Super impressive seeing SSP at work.
Anyhoo, yes - this is about where the orbiters are heading for their retirement. Only a week or so until we know.
Post by: SkyKing on 03/29/2011 07:09 pm
Sadly, it doesn't matter how thorough they are with inspections, they could take the tank apart after every tanking and it still wouldn't be good enough for "some" people on here......
Back on topic......
If so "those people" have no solid engineering or safety background. While "tanking" is interesting because of the various thermal cycles and what that does to the complete tank...ascent loads are probably a better judge of structural integrity. See the A-380
Sky King
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 03/29/2011 07:12 pm
This thread is about the retirement of the Orbiters. Any post from here on not pertaining to Orbiter (not Shuttle, Orbiter) retirement will be deleted.
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/29/2011 07:29 pm
Post by: Skylon on 03/29/2011 07:40 pm
Will Discovery head for display with most of her internals? I know engines, thrusters, etc will be dummy items to make it appear flight ready, But will the cockpit, payload bay, etc get stripped out kind of like how Enterprise lost most of her cockpit and avionics, etc?
I'd imagine only if they are usable in something else. Enterprise got stripped because there were four other flight worthy orbiters that could use the hardware.
Post by: padrat on 03/29/2011 07:44 pm
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/29/2011 08:23 pm
Follow this link from earlier in the thread for proposed display plans.
We've now updated our "How to display a retired space shuttle" with the new art from the Adler Planetarium (Chicago, Ill.), revised art from the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum (New York, NY), new photos from The Museum of Flight (Seattle, Wash.) and more...
Updated! Photo Gallery: How to display a retired space shuttle
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911b.html
Also see:
Museums make final push for retired space shuttles as NASA decision nears
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911a.html
...for new comments by STS-134 pilot Greg H. Johnson, STS-135 commander Chris Ferguson and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.
Post by: psloss on 03/29/2011 08:48 pm
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. Interesting comments from the astronauts -- I guess there's no consensus there, either. :)Follow this link from earlier in the thread for proposed display plans.
We've now updated our "How to display a retired space shuttle" with the new art from the Adler Planetarium (Chicago, Ill.), revised art from the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum (New York, NY), new photos from The Museum of Flight (Seattle, Wash.) and more...
Updated! Photo Gallery: How to display a retired space shuttle
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911b.html
Also see:
Museums make final push for retired space shuttles as NASA decision nears
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911a.html
...for new comments by STS-134 pilot Greg H. Johnson, STS-135 commander Chris Ferguson and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/29/2011 10:14 pm
Will Discovery head for display with most of her internals? I know engines, thrusters, etc will be dummy items to make it appear flight ready, But will the cockpit, payload bay, etc get stripped out kind of like how Enterprise lost most of her cockpit and avionics, etc?
I asked this exact question to the only project leader that ever returns my calls. (there's a reason I like the Aggies, they're nice up there)
Anyway, he told me that NASA told him that the Discovery is the "reference orbiter." It will remain, more or less, intact. The only things they will remove are the components that are hazardous to the public. Even the toilets will remain in Discovery.
The same can't be said of Endeavour or Atlantis. They're not protected so they are likely to be internally stripped a la Enterprise. Nothing of interest is likely to remain in either one. Anything that can be re-purposed, will be.
(sad, but... :-\ )
-p
Post by: DMeader on 03/30/2011 12:14 am
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/30/2011 01:15 am
Anyway, he told me that NASA told him that the Discovery is the "reference orbiter." It will remain, more or less, intact.
Bill Gerstenmaier, John Shannon and Mike Moses have all pretty much said the opposite. Discovery will be partially dismantled to perform real detailed forensics (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-031411a.html). For example, they want to dig into Discovery's hydraulic systems:
"Some of the actuators in the hydraulic systems — the flight control systems, elevons, rudder speed brake and the body flap — some of those actuators have been inline for a long time. We want to kind of tear them apart and see what condition they are in," said Moses, speaking of Discovery.
The same will occur with Atlantis and Endeavour. As Gerstenmaier said at Discovery's post-landing press conference, "We're going to take really the best of what we've got here" to study.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/30/2011 01:41 am
Updated! Photo Gallery: How to display a retired space shuttle
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911b.html
Hmm, I like all of those, apart from Dayton, Ohio - due to the mixed in with other vehicles. Most of the others give them a focal point.
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/30/2011 06:35 am
Anyway, he told me that NASA told him that the Discovery is the "reference orbiter." It will remain, more or less, intact.
Bill Gerstenmaier, John Shannon and Mike Moses have all pretty much said the opposite. Discovery will be partially dismantled to perform real detailed forensics (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-031411a.html). For example, they want to dig into Discovery's hydraulic systems:
"Some of the actuators in the hydraulic systems — the flight control systems, elevons, rudder speed brake and the body flap — some of those actuators have been inline for a long time. We want to kind of tear them apart and see what condition they are in," said Moses, speaking of Discovery.
The same will occur with Atlantis and Endeavour. As Gerstenmaier said at Discovery's post-landing press conference, "We're going to take really the best of what we've got here" to study.
I bet the operative phrase is "more or less, intact."
I have no doubt that NASA will thoroughly probe Discovery. Where it's practical or necessary for transport, they'll return/replace the parts.
The NASA historians and the Smithsonian have asked NASA to keep Discovery as whole as is possible given what needs to (and should) be done to learn from her. I'd bet the Smithsonian was eager to avoid what was done to Enterprise (gutting, etc), especially with respect to the interior. (I recall them setting a pretty high bar for preservation)
I don't think they are as concerned with Atlantis and Endeavour.
NASA sent out a letter to some of the contenders asking them to start collecting documents and artifacts and I think it was in this letter that Discovery was named as the "reference orbiter." I only saw it once and I can't quite recall it well enough to be sure. I guess I'll have to make a phone call.
-p
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/30/2011 06:41 am
Follow this link from earlier in the thread for proposed display plans.
We've now updated our "How to display a retired space shuttle" with the new art from the Adler Planetarium (Chicago, Ill.), revised art from the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum (New York, NY), new photos from The Museum of Flight (Seattle, Wash.) and more...
Updated! Photo Gallery: How to display a retired space shuttle
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911b.html
Also see:
Museums make final push for retired space shuttles as NASA decision nears
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911a.html
...for new comments by STS-134 pilot Greg H. Johnson, STS-135 commander Chris Ferguson and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.
I wonder why the aggies haven't publicized their designs yet. I know they have a thick book full.
-p
Post by: collectSPACE on 03/30/2011 12:28 pm
I wonder why the aggies haven't publicized their designs yet. I know they have a thick book full.
Brazos Valley Museum of Natural History director Dr. Deborah Cowman said last week that while they have had their architecture students working on designs, they didn't have any concept art available yet to share. They were hoping to release something over the next couple of weeks.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/30/2011 01:35 pm
Updated! Photo Gallery: How to display a retired space shuttle
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911b.html
Hmm, I like all of those, apart from Dayton, Ohio - due to the mixed in with other vehicles. Most of the others give them a focal point.
It doesnt look any different from how Enterprise is currently displayed and Discovery will be at NASM:
Also dont forget, Dayton will have unique items like the Titan IV and X-15 that will definitely complement the orbiter
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/30/2011 03:05 pm
Post by: JayP on 03/30/2011 03:30 pm
I think he is refering to the fact that it would be kind of back in a corner of the hanger behind a Titan IV and a box car that would block your view of the shuttle until you were almost on top of it. Definetly different than how NASM is displaying Enterprise.
Updated! Photo Gallery: How to display a retired space shuttle
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911b.html
Hmm, I like all of those, apart from Dayton, Ohio - due to the mixed in with other vehicles. Most of the others give them a focal point.
It doesnt look any different from how Enterprise is currently displayed and Discovery will be at NASM:
Also dont forget, Dayton will have unique items like the Titan IV and X-15 that will definitely complement the orbiter
Plus, I can't really get excited about any proposal put forward by a group that can't even get the hatch on the correct side of the vehicle in their artwork.
Post by: brettreds2k on 03/30/2011 04:20 pm
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/30/2011 04:23 pm
Come to think of it, we've seen almost everyone's display ideas, but I don't think we've really talked much about that in this thread: how they will be used after they are retired.
I only know of one location's education plans so far. Anyone else?
-p
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/30/2011 06:35 pm
Anyway, he told me that NASA told him that the Discovery is the "reference orbiter." It will remain, more or less, intact.
Bill Gerstenmaier, John Shannon and Mike Moses have all pretty much said the opposite. Discovery will be partially dismantled to perform real detailed forensics (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-031411a.html). For example, they want to dig into Discovery's hydraulic systems:
"Some of the actuators in the hydraulic systems — the flight control systems, elevons, rudder speed brake and the body flap — some of those actuators have been inline for a long time. We want to kind of tear them apart and see what condition they are in," said Moses, speaking of Discovery.
The same will occur with Atlantis and Endeavour. As Gerstenmaier said at Discovery's post-landing press conference, "We're going to take really the best of what we've got here" to study.
I bet the operative phrase is "more or less, intact."
I have no doubt that NASA will thoroughly probe Discovery. Where it's practical or necessary for transport, they'll return/replace the parts.
The NASA historians and the Smithsonian have asked NASA to keep Discovery as whole as is possible given what needs to (and should) be done to learn from her. I'd bet the Smithsonian was eager to avoid what was done to Enterprise (gutting, etc), especially with respect to the interior. (I recall them setting a pretty high bar for preservation)
I don't think they are as concerned with Atlantis and Endeavour.
NASA sent out a letter to some of the contenders asking them to start collecting documents and artifacts and I think it was in this letter that Discovery was named as the "reference orbiter." I only saw it once and I can't quite recall it well enough to be sure. I guess I'll have to make a phone call.
-p
Ok, so I got a copy of the letter.
Quoth NASA:
"...Although documentation will include all three orbiters, Discovery has been identified as the 'shuttle of record.'..."
That's the origin.
-p
Post by: psloss on 03/30/2011 06:43 pm
Ok, so I got a copy of the letter.NASA isn't monolithic to that extreme...can you be more specific or is that not allowed for this reference?
Quoth NASA:
Post by: CenTexRez on 03/30/2011 07:45 pm
Ok, so I got a copy of the letter.NASA isn't monolithic to that extreme...can you be more specific or is that not allowed for this reference?
Quoth NASA:
Sorry, I was in a hurry. :P
The letter is from the JSC STS Recordation Team. They were seeking public comment on the STS retirement. It went to all "interested offices/societies."
-p
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 04/01/2011 06:10 pm
I'm afraid that as a taxpaying member of the general public, I can't see the point in placing any of the Shuttles at either Kennedy or at Johnson Space Center.
NASA really needs to think about this hard. Retired spacecraft are some of the agencies BEST ambassadors at museums all over the country. Explain to me, in what demented stretch of the imagination, how placing shuttles at Kennedy and Johnson will help NASA spread its message to the general populace WHO VOTE?
Ideally, one orbiter should be on the East Coast at the Smithsonian. A second should be in the Midwest and a third should be on the West Coast. ENTERPRISE should become a travelling exhibit, moving around every few years as a mobile ambassador.
Johnson, Kennedy and Marshal are the LAST places that should be considered for permanent display. Placing them there is more proof that NASA has become insular and out of touch with the very people who pay its bills.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/01/2011 06:40 pm
I just saw an article over on Space.com about Houston lobbying hard to get one of the orbiters. It got me to thinking... and it even got me a bit mad...This article made me feel like I had just kicked a baby or drowned a kitten.
I'm afraid that as a taxpaying member of the general public, I can't see the point in placing any of the Shuttles at either Kennedy or at Johnson Space Center.
NASA really needs to think about this hard. Retired spacecraft are some of the agencies BEST ambassadors at museums all over the country. Explain to me, in what demented stretch of the imagination, how placing shuttles at Kennedy and Johnson will help NASA spread its message to the general populace WHO VOTE?
Ideally, one orbiter should be on the East Coast at the Smithsonian. A second should be in the Midwest and a third should be on the West Coast. ENTERPRISE should become a travelling exhibit, moving around every few years as a mobile ambassador.
Johnson, Kennedy and Marshal are the LAST places that should be considered for permanent display. Placing them there is more proof that NASA has become insular and out of touch with the very people who pay its bills.
Really, I was sad to see the Columbia family members out there in that way. I know why they did it, but I can't shake a weird feeling about it; it made me want to go take a long long shower, like you might do after you came back from a funeral. It just felt disrespectful in a way. I mean, who knows their spouse better than they did but, still, it gave me the blues.
I suppose, if it had been a plea to locate a memorial for the Columbia astronauts in Houston, I'd have been supportive. But that's not what it was, it was. Space Center Houston stands to benefit from the shuttle financially, everywhere does really. But the way they pitched their idea using the Columbia family members really felt, to me, like SCH cheapened themselves by trying to capitalize on the tragedy. Even though they did with the support of the family members. Like I said, it just made me want to go take a long shower to try an wash the ick off of me.
I know at least one of the Challenger family members supports locating the shuttle in College Station, but her letter (it's on their website) touts the educational benefits and doesn't even mention the Challenger accident or the death of her husband. That seems like a more respectful approach to me.
-p
Post by: Thorny on 04/01/2011 06:58 pm
I just saw an article over on Space.com about Houston lobbying hard to get one of the orbiters. It got me to thinking... and it even got me a bit mad...
I'm afraid that as a taxpaying member of the general public, I can't see the point in placing any of the Shuttles at either Kennedy or at Johnson Space Center.
Kennedy attracts 1.5 million visitors from all over the world every year. People come to see space exhibits and facilities. It is very, very far from just the "NASA locals" who will get to see an Orbiter there. I think the only museums with larger numbers of visitors are the Smithsonian (and I'm not even sure the remote Udvar-Hazy is that popular now that the Mall museum ended bus transportation out there) and Intrepid in New York City.
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 04/01/2011 07:17 pm
I just saw an article over on Space.com about Houston lobbying hard to get one of the orbiters. It got me to thinking... and it even got me a bit mad...
I'm afraid that as a taxpaying member of the general public, I can't see the point in placing any of the Shuttles at either Kennedy or at Johnson Space Center.
Kennedy attracts 1.5 million visitors from all over the world every year. People come to see space exhibits and facilities. It is very, very far from just the "NASA locals" who will get to see an Orbiter there. I think the only museums with larger numbers of visitors are the Smithsonian (and I'm not even sure the remote Udvar-Hazy is that popular now that the Mall museum ended bus transportation out there) and Intrepid in New York City.
Precisely!
People already GO there to see the launch facilities and launches. It is already a destination. The thing is, not everyone can afford to travel to Florida or Houston to see the exhibits they already have. Why not locate the orbiters more centrally to large populations of voting citizens? People wouldn't have to travel as far to see them, and thus more people who might not otherwise have developed an interest are potentially swayed to be NASA supporters.
Post by: Thorny on 04/01/2011 08:01 pm
People already GO there to see the launch facilities and launches. It is already a destination.
So you want to put the Orbiters where FEWER people will see them?
Post by: Jim on 04/01/2011 08:02 pm
People already GO there to see the launch facilities and launches.
and the Shuttles. And the proposal to keep an orbiter there is to maintain the visitor volume with the shuttle launches ending.
Also, having Enterprise as a traveling exhibit is too expensive for any organization to manage.
Post by: Jim on 04/01/2011 08:10 pm
I just saw an article over on Space.com about Houston lobbying hard to get one of the orbiters. It got me to thinking... and it even got me a bit mad...
I'm afraid that as a taxpaying member of the general public, I can't see the point in placing any of the Shuttles at either Kennedy or at Johnson Space Center.
NASA really needs to think about this hard. Retired spacecraft are some of the agencies BEST ambassadors at museums all over the country. Explain to me, in what demented stretch of the imagination, how placing shuttles at Kennedy and Johnson will help NASA spread its message to the general populace WHO VOTE?
Ideally, one orbiter should be on the East Coast at the Smithsonian. A second should be in the Midwest and a third should be on the West Coast. ENTERPRISE should become a travelling exhibit, moving around every few years as a mobile ambassador.
Johnson, Kennedy and Marshal are the LAST places that should be considered for permanent display. Placing them there is more proof that NASA has become insular and out of touch with the very people who pay its bills.
wrong, you are the one out of touch. The orbiters are not enough to warrant a museum to be built around them.
There is no site in the midwest that is going to draw more people than JSC. The Kansas Cosmosphere is too isolated. Seattle is too northwest, and so LA is the only place good enough.
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/01/2011 08:10 pm
Post by: Downix on 04/01/2011 08:18 pm
Too northwest?I just saw an article over on Space.com about Houston lobbying hard to get one of the orbiters. It got me to thinking... and it even got me a bit mad...
I'm afraid that as a taxpaying member of the general public, I can't see the point in placing any of the Shuttles at either Kennedy or at Johnson Space Center.
NASA really needs to think about this hard. Retired spacecraft are some of the agencies BEST ambassadors at museums all over the country. Explain to me, in what demented stretch of the imagination, how placing shuttles at Kennedy and Johnson will help NASA spread its message to the general populace WHO VOTE?
Ideally, one orbiter should be on the East Coast at the Smithsonian. A second should be in the Midwest and a third should be on the West Coast. ENTERPRISE should become a travelling exhibit, moving around every few years as a mobile ambassador.
Johnson, Kennedy and Marshal are the LAST places that should be considered for permanent display. Placing them there is more proof that NASA has become insular and out of touch with the very people who pay its bills.
wrong, you are the one out of touch. The orbiters are not enough to warrant a museum to be built around them.
There is no site in the midwest that is going to draw more people than JSC. The Kansas Cosmosphere is too isolated. Seattle is too northwest, and so LA is the only place good enough.
Post by: padrat on 04/01/2011 08:21 pm
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/01/2011 08:27 pm
Post by: padrat on 04/01/2011 08:47 pm
leaving the space industry, unless I get lucky. But anyways, this thread's about the orbiters' retirement, not mine ;)
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 04/01/2011 08:50 pm
People already GO there to see the launch facilities and launches. It is already a destination.
So you want to put the Orbiters where FEWER people will see them?
Does a missionary preach to a congregation or go out among the heathen to proselthyze?
What good does it do to put it where the faithful come when it can be placed to convert and expand the 'faith'?
Post by: psloss on 04/01/2011 08:55 pm
Which charters is that purpose/goal in?People already GO there to see the launch facilities and launches. It is already a destination.
So you want to put the Orbiters where FEWER people will see them?
Does a missionary preach to a congregation or go out among the heathen to proselthyze?
What good does it do to put it where the faithful come when it can be placed to convert and expand the 'faith'?
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 04/01/2011 08:57 pm
Which charters is that purpose/goal in?People already GO there to see the launch facilities and launches. It is already a destination.
So you want to put the Orbiters where FEWER people will see them?
Does a missionary preach to a congregation or go out among the heathen to proselthyze?
What good does it do to put it where the faithful come when it can be placed to convert and expand the 'faith'?
How about Education?
Post by: Thorny on 04/01/2011 09:00 pm
Does a missionary preach to a congregation or go out among the heathen to proselthyze?
What good does it do to put it where the faithful come when it can be placed to convert and expand the 'faith'?
If I understand you correctly, you want to place an Orbiter where it might, somehow, someday draw more than 1.5 million visitors to see it, instead of putting it at a place where we already know at least 1.5 million people will see it every year. The old "if you build it, they will come" idea?
Leave one at KSC. It's the place the faithful already know to look for space exhibits, and it pulls in huge numbers of non-faithful on Day Trips from Disney and cruise ship stopovers at Port Canaveral. Because even if the non-faithful couldn't name a Shuttle astronaut or a Shuttle other than Challenger, they've all heard of Cape Canaveral.
Post by: Jim on 04/01/2011 09:07 pm
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 04/01/2011 11:13 pm
Namely that preaching to the choir gets you lots of amens, but it doesn't bring in new converts to fill the collection plate.
The shuttles are NASA advertising tools. If you honestly believe that they will do the organization the most good by being added to the other NASA draws that are already at those locations to bring in tourists, I can respect that, but I personally disagree strongly.
More kids pile into school buses to visit nearby museums daily than get bused to the Kennedy Space Center in a decade. The first space anything I ever saw was a Gemini Capsule at the Museum of Life and Science in Durham NC on a school trip. It didn't take me long to find their Apollo capsule after that. In my life, much to my personal dismay, I have managed to make just one trip to Kennedy, plus one to Titusville to watch a launch over the ICW.
Placing these amazing machines out among the public, where busloads of schoolkids will be able to come see them, instead of a day's drive down into two different states from the nearest adjoining state is a far better investment. Dayton, Ohio or St. Louis, MO is a day trip for millions of people. Seattle's pretty far north, but Southern California has a huge population and is a relatively easy drive from most of the west coast and the southwest.
Kennedy and Johnson both have their draw. Placing the shuttles there is 'taking the coal to Newcastle'.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/01/2011 11:24 pm
If I understand you correctly, you want to place an Orbiter where it might, somehow, someday draw more than 1.5 million visitors to see it, instead of putting it at a place where we already know at least 1.5 million people will see it every year.
That can also apply to having an orbiter at Dayton, as the Museum draws over a million visitors already......
Post by: psloss on 04/02/2011 12:33 am
The shuttles are NASA advertising tools. If you honestly believe that they will do the organization the most good by being added to the other NASA draws that are already at those locations to bring in tourists, I can respect that, but I personally disagree strongly.And I strongly disagree with this. NASA not only doesn't advertise, they can't. The orbiters aren't advertising tools.
Post by: Thorny on 04/02/2011 12:48 am
Namely that preaching to the choir gets you lots of amens, but it doesn't bring in new converts to fill the collection plate.
You ignored my point that Kennedy gets a lot more visitors than just the choir. There are myriad package vacation deals to the Orlando area that take tourists to the KSC Visitors Center, usually parts of five or seven-day deals that include 2 or 3 days at the various Disney Parks, and extra days at Sea World, KSC, etc. And the cruise industry is thriving at Port Canaveral, which brings in loads of cruise passengers to KSC.
KSC seems to be the best of both worlds (space fans and general public), and by far the strongest argument for an Orbiter outside of the Smithsonian.
Post by: HIPAR on 04/02/2011 02:16 am
--- CHAS
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 04/02/2011 03:07 am
Namely that preaching to the choir gets you lots of amens, but it doesn't bring in new converts to fill the collection plate.
You ignored my point that Kennedy gets a lot more visitors than just the choir. There are myriad package vacation deals to the Orlando area that take tourists to the KSC Visitors Center, usually parts of five or seven-day deals that include 2 or 3 days at the various Disney Parks, and extra days at Sea World, KSC, etc. And the cruise industry is thriving at Port Canaveral, which brings in loads of cruise passengers to KSC.
KSC seems to be the best of both worlds (space fans and general public), and by far the strongest argument for an Orbiter outside of the Smithsonian.
And you are missing mine.
People will come to Kennedy because it is Kennedy, whether it has a Shuttle Orbiter or not. Kennedy is already the Mecca of spaceflight. As I said, putting an orbiter there is 'taking the coal to Newcastle'.
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 04/02/2011 03:08 am
The shuttles are NASA advertising tools. If you honestly believe that they will do the organization the most good by being added to the other NASA draws that are already at those locations to bring in tourists, I can respect that, but I personally disagree strongly.And I strongly disagree with this. NASA not only doesn't advertise, they can't. The orbiters aren't advertising tools.
Oh well then... there's a pretty big cost savings right off the bat. Let's eliminate the Public Affairs Office.
Post by: gordo on 04/02/2011 07:27 am
The arguments continue to favor Shuttles for the Smithsonian and the Cape. That leaves just one Shuttle that's flown in space. Most likely, it will go to Houston. So the question should be 'Who gets the consolation prize'?
--- CHAS
Houston really is unlikely.
Air Force Museum in Dayton is very much favoured for Atlantis. Boeing are making big noises to ensure Enterprise goes to Seattle. This also fits the timeline of Discovery's arrival in Washington with the departure after of OV101
Post by: Jim on 04/02/2011 11:23 am
People will come to Kennedy because it is Kennedy, whether it has a Shuttle Orbiter or not.
No, they come there because there was a shuttle there. No shuttle, no visitors.
Post by: psloss on 04/02/2011 11:37 am
Wouldn't serve your purpose, since PAO can't and doesn't advertise, either.The shuttles are NASA advertising tools. If you honestly believe that they will do the organization the most good by being added to the other NASA draws that are already at those locations to bring in tourists, I can respect that, but I personally disagree strongly.And I strongly disagree with this. NASA not only doesn't advertise, they can't. The orbiters aren't advertising tools.
Oh well then... there's a pretty big cost savings right off the bat. Let's eliminate the Public Affairs Office.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/03/2011 03:42 pm
Namely that preaching to the choir gets you lots of amens, but it doesn't bring in new converts to fill the collection plate.
You ignored my point that Kennedy gets a lot more visitors than just the choir. There are myriad package vacation deals to the Orlando area that take tourists to the KSC Visitors Center, usually parts of five or seven-day deals that include 2 or 3 days at the various Disney Parks, and extra days at Sea World, KSC, etc. And the cruise industry is thriving at Port Canaveral, which brings in loads of cruise passengers to KSC.
KSC seems to be the best of both worlds (space fans and general public), and by far the strongest argument for an Orbiter outside of the Smithsonian.
People will always be going to KSC because there will always be something launched from there and people like to watch launches or see the latest stuff.
The shuttles are part of history, KSC and JSC are making history. They will always be relevant, and always draw visitors. The arguments for placing a shuttle at either location are always entirely financial or sentimental.
After a decade or so, let's be honest, the shuttle will lose relevance. People won't make a trip just to go see it like they once might have done. So, you get a boost in visitors for a few years, then it starts to decline: people have been to KSC/JSC and "seen it" already so the shuttle will be, for them, like a new theme park ride. After you see it, you're done.
If the shuttles go anywhere, they need to go to places that have, and are built around, transient populations; like university campuses. Think long term: captive and diverse students, and their families. There you have a steady stream of people for as long as the campus is there.
The Smithsonian gets one because it is the de facto historical archive for the nation.
Post by: Thorny on 04/03/2011 04:20 pm
The arguments for placing a shuttle at either location are always entirely financial or sentimental.
Both are secondary to public visibility. KSC is the second most popular space-oriented museum in the United States (probably the world.) Behind only the NASM in Washington.
Quote
After a decade or so, let's be honest, the shuttle will lose relevance. People won't make a trip just to go see it like they once might have done. So, you get a boost in visitors for a few years, then it starts to decline: people have been to KSC/JSC and "seen it" already so the shuttle will be, for them, like a new theme park ride. After you see it, you're done.
And going to a museum isn't like that? Has the Mona Lisa changed over the years that I'm not aware of, so that people go back year after year to see it again? If not, then why does the Louvre still attract millions every year?
Quote
If the shuttles go anywhere, they need to go to places that have, and are built around, transient populations; like university campuses. Think long term: captive and diverse students, and their families. There you have a steady stream of people for as long as the campus is there.
A university? Really? I can see the arguments for a major museum like Chicago Museum of Science and Industry winning over KSC... I disagree with it, but I understand it. The university idea is absurd. It would simply mean that hardly anyone other than students at that college would ever see the Orbiter that was there. College Station is not a destination for anyone other than fans going to Aggie football games and a few researchers going to the Bush Library, neither involving people who are much interested in wandering around a museum. And outside of Texas, most people couldn't even tell you where the Aggies play or where College Station is. I'm sorry, but those are simply the cold hard facts. There are at least 50 better location choices for putting a Shuttle Orbiter on display, starting with the Smithsonian and KSC.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/04/2011 04:39 pm
A university? Really? I can see the arguments for a major museum like Chicago Museum of Science and Industry winning over KSC... I disagree with it, but I understand it. The university idea is absurd. It would simply mean that hardly anyone other than students at that college would ever see the Orbiter that was there. College Station is not a destination for anyone other than fans going to Aggie football games and a few researchers going to the Bush Library, neither involving people who are much interested in wandering around a museum. And outside of Texas, most people couldn't even tell you where the Aggies play or where College Station is. I'm sorry, but those are simply the cold hard facts. There are at least 50 better location choices for putting a Shuttle Orbiter on display, starting with the Smithsonian and KSC.
I could spend a whole page dissecting this, but I won't.
Comparing KVC to the Louvre is laughable. KVC is nice, but the Louvre...really?
People go to Paris maybe once if they are wealthy. ($2000 tickets, plus $$$ hotels and $$$ food for a family of 4...yeah right)
I suppose the wealthier people in this forum can afford to make regular plane trips and multiple vacations to see these "destinations" but the majority of Americans can't. For a vast majority of kids in particular, if they want to see a shuttle, it'll be through a free school field trip, not a family vacation, certainly not one that involves plane tickets.
Moving on, to use your example, College Station is about 90 miles from the middle of Houston. About 50 of that 90 miles is city and suburbs. That's a fairly short drive and hardly excludes any shuttle that might go there from public view or restrict it to college students.
It's a pointless argument anyway. It'll be resolved on the 12th. Then we can shift away from speculation on where they will go and start complaining and raging over where they went.
Please cite the references of your "cold hard facts."
Post by: chrisking0997 on 04/04/2011 05:01 pm
Post by: TexasRED on 04/04/2011 05:17 pm
what reason other than the orbiter would someone have to spend hard earned $$ on a side trip to College Station? Just not seeing why (other than personal preference) there would be any reason to place one in such a one-off location. Might as well just put it at JSC and save the vast majority of visitors the 90 mile drive, no?
Was thinking the same thing. I don't think a Shuttle alone at a Library would bring people to visit College Station. I don't see how it meets the visitor requirements Bolden was talking about. Student numbers shouldn't count.
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/04/2011 05:32 pm
wrong, you are the one out of touch. The orbiters are not enough to warrant a museum to be built around them.
There is no site in the midwest that is going to draw more people than JSC. The Kansas Cosmosphere is too isolated. Seattle is too northwest, and so LA is the only place good enough.
Does any part of the general public even go to visit JSC ?
LA can't even support a football team. Does Boeing have a public musuem displaying all of their aircraft ? The shuttle would certainly look small compared to a lineup of 707 thru 787 aircraft.
Now I would support placing the orbital in a public display on the West Coast if they also lined up all of models for shuttle replacements next to it. Can we find decent models of the X-33, X-34, OSP, etc to place all in a row ? It would be perfect to show them all in their half-completed state.
Post by: TexasRED on 04/04/2011 05:42 pm
wrong, you are the one out of touch. The orbiters are not enough to warrant a museum to be built around them.
There is no site in the midwest that is going to draw more people than JSC. The Kansas Cosmosphere is too isolated. Seattle is too northwest, and so LA is the only place good enough.
Does any part of the general public even go to visit JSC ?
LA can't even support a football team. Does Boeing have a public musuem displaying all of their aircraft ? The shuttle would certainly look small compared to a lineup of 707 thru 787 aircraft.
Now I would support placing the orbital in a public display on the West Coast if they also lined up all of models for shuttle replacements next to it. Can we find decent models of the X-33, X-34, OSP, etc to place all in a row ? It would be perfect to show them all in their half-completed state.
Every time I go to rocket park with my daughter, I hear accents and languages from all over the world. Every time.
I'm going to assume that people from inside the US go, too.
My main complaint with JSC is Space Center Houston itself, when you enter chances are you are gong to see some circus crap first, not anything NASA related. That could be fixed though, with just a hammer.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/05/2011 02:26 am
what reason other than the orbiter would someone have to spend hard earned $$ on a side trip to College Station? Just not seeing why (other than personal preference) there would be any reason to place one in such a one-off location. Might as well just put it at JSC and save the vast majority of visitors the 90 mile drive, no?
Was thinking the same thing. I don't think a Shuttle alone at a Library would bring people to visit College Station. I don't see how it meets the visitor requirements Bolden was talking about. Student numbers shouldn't count.
I think you're misinformed, go to their website and read about what they say they have planned up there. It's a full blown museum, not a shuttle alone at a library.
If one comes to Texas, by locating it at JSC you might save some people in Houston a trip but you make it more difficult to get to for people in DFW, Austin, Waco, etc. If you draw a roughly 175 mile circle around College Station, you capture more people than you do in Houston, all of the major cities in Texas are within 175 miles of College Station; those are the numbers that probably matter.
Why shouldn't student numbers count? Try telling NASA that students shouldn't count.
Post by: TexasRED on 04/05/2011 04:05 am
what reason other than the orbiter would someone have to spend hard earned $$ on a side trip to College Station? Just not seeing why (other than personal preference) there would be any reason to place one in such a one-off location. Might as well just put it at JSC and save the vast majority of visitors the 90 mile drive, no?
Was thinking the same thing. I don't think a Shuttle alone at a Library would bring people to visit College Station. I don't see how it meets the visitor requirements Bolden was talking about. Student numbers shouldn't count.
I think you're misinformed, go to their website and read about what they say they have planned up there. It's a full blown museum, not a shuttle alone at a library.
If one comes to Texas, by locating it at JSC you might save some people in Houston a trip but you make it more difficult to get to for people in DFW, Austin, Waco, etc. If you draw a roughly 175 mile circle around College Station, you capture more people than you do in Houston, all of the major cities in Texas are within 175 miles of College Station; those are the numbers that probably matter.
Why shouldn't student numbers count? Try telling NASA that students shouldn't count.
I just don't think that many people will go travel to College Station just to see a Shuttle at a museum. I dunno, I just don't think it will have the drive. I'm betting most people don't even know this museum exists.
I think even less so for out of state travelers. If I were travelling to say Florida, and I could either go to KSC and see a Shuttle there also, or go to KSC plus drive 90 miles each way to see Shuttle at a history musuem, or only go see a Shuttle at museum and no KSC, well I'd rather just go to KSC and see both.
I don't think student numbers should count because they aren't guaranteed visitors. I'd tell NASA if I knew who to tell. Does JSC include all employees, plus Space Center Houston visitors, and all UHCL students too? I honestly haven't looked. But I mean its right next door, too.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/05/2011 02:25 pm
Post by: JayP on 04/05/2011 02:41 pm
Post by: psloss on 04/05/2011 02:42 pm
For a change of pace from the discussions of things that might happen to things that actually are, I was in DC yesterday and had a few extra hours do I went out to Udvar-Hazy. There is a team of USA techs working on Enterprise getting her ready to ferry out. fortunately, they were still letting you walk right up to the normal railings so you could see what is going on.Nice -- thanks for posting.
Post by: TexasRED on 04/05/2011 02:45 pm
Who qualifies as a guaranteed visitor?
er...nobody? Just saying I think JSC should only be counting space center houston numbers, and college station should only be counting the museum visitors, etc. I'm sure both are doing whatever they can to make their numbers higher.
Post by: JayP on 04/05/2011 02:47 pm
Post by: JayP on 04/05/2011 02:53 pm
Post by: JayP on 04/05/2011 02:56 pm
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/05/2011 02:58 pm
Are they raising the gear to test it to?
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 04/05/2011 03:20 pm
To bad you didnt get a shot into the crew hatch since it was open :)
Are they raising the gear to test it to?
Yes. They will have to be able to retract the gear for the ferry flight and deploy the gear after the ferry to tow her to her new display site.
Post by: JayP on 04/05/2011 03:23 pm
To bad you didnt get a shot into the crew hatch since it was open :)
Are they raising the gear to test it to?
Actually, I took several shots of the hatch, but because of it's height above the ground and the fact that the inside was dark, you couldn't really see anything through it. I took about 60 photos total, but I don't want to just dump them all on Chris's servers. They had raised the gear to test it and then let it back down. When they fly it out, they will have to roll it outside on the wheels and then raise the gear once the cranes have picked it up.
Post by: civpilot on 04/05/2011 04:47 pm
The arguments continue to favor Shuttles for the Smithsonian and the Cape. That leaves just one Shuttle that's flown in space. Most likely, it will go to Houston. So the question should be 'Who gets the consolation prize'?
--- CHAS
I hope it goes something like this:
Discovery: Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
Atlantis: Kennedy Space Center
Endeavour: Johnson Space Center
Enterprise: Seattle Museum of Flight
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/05/2011 04:51 pm
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/05/2011 08:02 pm
So, obviously, she'll fly out first, probably to Seattle since Boeing is lobbying so hard for her. They'll have a building ready very soon, too.
Comments?
Post by: Downix on 04/05/2011 08:06 pm
I wonder if that means that Enterprise already has a home. I can't imagine anyone spending money on technicians to evaluate the condition of Enterprise if there wasn't a plan in place already for her to definitely go somewhere else. ("somewhere else" being firmly established)Soon? I drove past it yesterday, it just needs something to put *in* it.
So, obviously, she'll fly out first, probably to Seattle since Boeing is lobbying so hard for her. They'll have a building ready very soon, too.
Comments?
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/05/2011 08:09 pm
I wonder if that means that Enterprise already has a home. I can't imagine anyone spending money on technicians to evaluate the condition of Enterprise if there wasn't a plan in place already for her to definitely go somewhere else. ("somewhere else" being firmly established)
So, obviously, she'll fly out first, probably to Seattle since Boeing is lobbying so hard for her. They'll have a building ready very soon, too.
Comments?
They have not announced where Enterprise is going but regardless it has to be checked, etc because Discovery is going there (Thats the plan) and they have to make sure Enterprise is safe to piggy back on the back of the 747, so before anything is decided, they have to make sure Enterprise is in good enough shape, regardless its going somewhere.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/05/2011 08:30 pm
They have not announced where Enterprise is going but regardless it has to be checked, etc because Discovery is going there (Thats the plan) and they have to make sure Enterprise is safe to piggy back on the back of the 747, so before anything is decided, they have to make sure Enterprise is in good enough shape, regardless its going somewhere.
Soon? I drove past it yesterday, it just needs something to put *in* it.
Right and right. I know technicians have been in the Enterprise before, within the last few months or so I think to certify that it is safe to fly. This latest pass was to check the gear. Correct?
So Boeing is lobbying for it, they have a building for it, the Smithsonian needs room for Discovery, it just makes sense.
If nothing else has changed, NASM still has control over who gets Enterprise, even if they can't announce it until the 12th.
Post by: BVSP on 04/06/2011 01:55 am
I'm the director of the Brazos Valley Shuttle Project, the team that seeks to locate an orbiter in College Station. I've been reading this thread for a little while and thought I might go ahead and join. If anyone has any questions that will not derail the thread, please ask. I'll do my best to try and answer.
Best,
Zach Cummings
Post by: manlymatt83 on 04/06/2011 07:24 am
Post by: DMeader on 04/06/2011 11:19 am
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/06/2011 01:30 pm
Post by: rdale on 04/06/2011 01:32 pm
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/06/2011 02:07 pm
Is it the orbiter retirement thread in General Discussion or a thread elsewhere, like in the Discovery section (deservicing)? I'm looking around.
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/06/2011 03:03 pm
Is it the orbiter retirement thread in General Discussion or a thread elsewhere, like in the Discovery section (deservicing)? I'm looking around.
It's in the General Discussion forum - its quite a long-standing thread (up to 1068 posts as I type) but is currently still very active. You can find it here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4078.0
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/06/2011 03:55 pm
Hello,
I'm the director of the Brazos Valley Shuttle Project, the team that seeks to locate an orbiter in College Station. I've been reading this thread for a little while and thought I might go ahead and join. If anyone has any questions that will not derail the thread, please ask. I'll do my best to try and answer.
Best,
Zach Cummings
Welcome to the site's forum, Zach. Feel free to link up your project's proposal.
I have heard a lot of rumors lately that there's a chance Endeavour and Atlantis may stick around for use by either the United Space Alliance or by private commercial entities. Is this true? Are they definitely being retired, or are there still possibilities? Surely, they can't just keep one around, so if Endeavour is retired, Atlantis would definitely become retired.
And welcome Matt.
Discovery's 100 percent retiring.
If USA push on with their CCDEV proposal, it would involve Endeavour and Atlantis.
It is, however, "unlikely" they will earn a stay of "execution". Anything other than retirement for all three (the current plan) would be a shock, no question.
Post by: gordo on 04/06/2011 05:51 pm
So Boeing is lobbying for it, they have a building for it, the Smithsonian needs room for Discovery, it just makes sense.
If nothing else has changed, NASM still has control over who gets Enterprise, even if they can't announce it until the 12th.
Seattle is an affiliate of the Smithsonian, so it may well have been a done deal giving them first refusal on Enterprise a few years ago, therefore allowing them to start construction of the facility.
Post by: BVSP on 04/07/2011 09:36 pm
Welcome to the site's forum, Zach. Feel free to link up your project's proposal.
Thanks Chris.
I'll see about posting a summary before the weekend. In the meantime, anyone who is interested in our project can visit our website:
http://www.brazosvalleymuseum.org/bringtheshuttle (http://www.brazosvalleymuseum.org/bringtheshuttle)
For specific questions, my email address is:
[email protected]
or I can be reached at the phone number on the website.
Best,
Zach Cummings
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/08/2011 12:50 am
So Boeing is lobbying for it, they have a building for it, the Smithsonian needs room for Discovery, it just makes sense.
If nothing else has changed, NASM still has control over who gets Enterprise, even if they can't announce it until the 12th.
Seattle is an affiliate of the Smithsonian, so it may well have been a done deal giving them first refusal on Enterprise a few years ago, therefore allowing them to start construction of the facility.
I'm really hoping the Museum of Flight does get one, since it's only 30 miles away from where I live, but I've seen nothing that suggests it's a done deal.
There's dozens of Smithsonian affiliates, and the Museum of Flight isn't the only one that's submitted a proposal for a Shuttle:
https://affiliations.si.edu/Map.Asp?MenuID=7
Of course, the Museum of Flight has been very active in advocating one, but having a building ready to accept it as soon as NASA is ready to ship them out was a minimum qualification.
Not to mention, it's a very active museum and was already considering adding more space, so although the new building is tailored to fit a shuttle, they've always planned on using it for smaller space artifacts if they didn't get one.
The Evergreen Aviation Museum in Oregon is another Smithsonian affiliate in the running. They even had a building ready to display a space shuttle before NASA released the first RFP.
Post by: scotty125 on 04/08/2011 02:36 am
Post by: collectSPACE on 04/08/2011 02:49 am
If nothing else has changed, NASM still has control over who gets Enterprise, even if they can't announce it until the 12th.
Not necessarily; the Smithsonian's agreement with NASA specifies that when it no longer desires an artifact that was donated to them by NASA, they must first offer it back to the space agency.
So in this case, there is no requirement for the Smithsonian to retain ownership or control of Enterprise. It could offer it back to NASA, NASA re-assumes ownership, and then awards it to another museum.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/08/2011 05:18 am
If nothing else has changed, NASM still has control over who gets Enterprise, even if they can't announce it until the 12th.
Not necessarily; the Smithsonian's agreement with NASA specifies that when it no longer desires an artifact that was donated to them by NASA, they must first offer it back to the space agency.
So in this case, there is no requirement for the Smithsonian to retain ownership or control of Enterprise. It could offer it back to NASA, NASA re-assumes ownership, and then awards it to another museum.
Unless I am misinterpreting this:
NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (as recorded)
Title VI SEC 603 (a)(final line)
"The Smithsonian Institution, which, as of the date of enactment of this Act, houses the Space Shuttle Enterprise, shall determine any new location for the Enterprise."
I'm sure you are correct with respect to -most- space flight articles. It seems though that Enterprise has been exempted from that rule.
Post by: psloss on 04/08/2011 02:24 pm
Post by: psloss on 04/09/2011 01:04 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110409/NEWS02/104090321/Signs-suggest-Brevard-will-snag-shuttle
Quote
Several local business and government leaders who met in Washington last week with senior NASA official Alan Ladwig said Ladwig indicated to them that Bolden would not be coming here for the announcement if he wasn't bringing good news for Florida. The announcement is scheduled to happen on the 30th anniversary of the first shuttle launch.
Logistically:
Quote
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden is scheduled to announce his decision Tuesday at KSC, likely with shuttle Atlantis as the backdrop.
Edit: story link change.
Post by: psloss on 04/09/2011 01:08 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110409/NEWS02/104090323/Space-expert-says-Endeavour-good-fit-retire-KSC
Edit: story link change.
Post by: collectSPACE on 04/09/2011 01:41 pm
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/09/2011 11:31 pm
You know, if I were running one of these other locations that are trying for a shuttle, I'd be pretty upset if Atlantis and Endeavour both ended up at the space centers.
It might make some sense for NASA to offer up the RFI if there was a genuine interest in getting the shuttles out of the traditional NASA hidey holes and on to other places. But if both shuttles go to NASA visitor centers anyway, what was this all ever about? Why bother with an open RFI? There is a law, I'm sure, but...still.
It suggests that no one else had a real chance in the first place. Rather than have a bunch of people waste time and effort only to give them to the space centers anyway, why not just write the RFI so narrowly that only the visitor centers could possibly comply?
Better yet, offer the RFI after the SCH/KVC were given first right of refusal. Otherwise, what a rip! It ends up being a colossal waste of time on the part of the other participants. NASA ends up looking like that spoiled kid with a "house rule" that automatically gave him Park Place and Boardwalk when there was a game of Monopoly at his house. (it was only fair...to him)
I wouldn't doubt that if it happens this way, after all this is done, other people start to think the same thing. "Thanks for playing, but...sorry, you never really had a chance."
Ugh, I really hope, for the sake of all of the people that devoted time and energy to this, that they don't end up at the visitor centers regardless.
Before anyone says they competed on a level playing field, that will be irrelevant because the public will see it as a perfect example of favoritism and cronyism.
Ok, got my fireproof suit on. Flame away.
Post by: Jim on 04/09/2011 11:43 pm
(Before anyone says they competed on a level playing field, that will be irrelevant because the public will see it as a perfect example of favoritism and cronyism.
No, the public will see it as the one that makes most sense. Going to a space center to see space hardware.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/10/2011 04:50 am
Before anyone says they competed on a level playing field, that will be irrelevant because the public will see it as a perfect example of favoritism and cronyism.
No, the public will see it as the one that makes most sense. Going to a space center to see space hardware.
Oh yes, because space hardware belongs only at a space museum, I forgot.
Well, why even bother with a broadly worded RFI then? Why open it up? That's my question.
Why get 20+ places to start campaigning for a shuttle, then give them both to the space centers? It just makes no sense to me.
Post by: Jim on 04/10/2011 12:17 pm
My point is more sensible than yours about cronyism.
Because there will still be an extra orbiter available.
Anyways, the RFI is requesting information and not proposals. No one is forcing responses.
You are going to have to deal with it, A&M doesn't have a chance. Even if JSC doesnt get one, there are better choices
Post by: mike robel on 04/10/2011 12:24 pm
Enterprise argueably belongs at Edwards AFB, as that is where all its flight took place. There it can be placed in context with the evolution of winged spacecraft from the X-1 (I know, not a spacecraft) to the X-15.
JSC controlled most space flight. Placing one there allows one to view the shuttle in the context of how it was controlled. It would be helpful if JSC had a better visitor center. In my opinion, it is about the worst of the ones I have been to.
The Smithsonian admirably places the shuttle in context with the whole history of aviation and space.
The KSC vistory center has two replica shuttles. One at the visitor center itself and one at the Astronaut Hall of Fame. These could be distributed to other deserving sites that really do not qualify for a flight article. While obviously not the real thing, they do allow an interaction with the craft that we are not going to get with the flight hardware as they will all likely be displayed in a manner in which we will not be able to get up close and personnel with them.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/10/2011 04:33 pm
A&M doesn't have a chance. Even if JSC doesnt get one, there are better choices
Regardless of whether or not that's true, it's doesn't speak to the core of my argument. I'm not arguing the validity of a choice, I'm arguing about the insanity of the process.
The way the RFI was written encouraged other locations to respond. If it was always a forgone conclusion that Atlantis and Endeavour would go to the visitor centers, then why not be "nice" about it and eliminate the other 19 or so places early on before they wasted their time and money.
Placing the orbiters in locations affiliated with the space program, places them in context. KSC is the sight at which every US manned space flight was launched from. By having an orbiter there, you can view the entire history of the program.
Enterprise argueably belongs at Edwards AFB, as that is where all its flight took place. There it can be placed in context with the evolution of winged spacecraft from the X-1 (I know, not a spacecraft) to the X-15.
JSC controlled most space flight. Placing one there allows one to view the shuttle in the context of how it was controlled. It would be helpful if JSC had a better visitor center. In my opinion, it is about the worst of the ones I have been to.
The Smithsonian admirably places the shuttle in context with the whole history of aviation and space.
The KSC vistory center has two replica shuttles. One at the visitor center itself and one at the Astronaut Hall of Fame. These could be distributed to other deserving sites that really do not qualify for a flight article. While obviously not the real thing, they do allow an interaction with the craft that we are not going to get with the flight hardware as they will all likely be displayed in a manner in which we will not be able to get up close and personnel with them.
To me, from the outside, it just seems like NASA did a poor job in explaining exactly how slim of a chance there would be that the shuttles would go anywhere but the space centers.
Agreed about JSC/SCH, for a while there, the first thing you saw when you walked in was a big ball pit, the kind kids play in.
You know, come to think of it, if I ever thought A&M had a chance, it was only in comparison to JSC/SCH. As much as I hate to say it, they're just so...bleagh. It's way out of the way in south Houston and it's degenerated in to a day care with an imax. Not to mention, unfortunately, that the entire JSC / south Houston area is polluted, falling apart, sinking (subsidence), and prone to hurricanes. I mean, who knows, more than a few people are suggesting that JSC may close altogether if things keep going the way they are. Then what happens?
From a preservation standpoint, just...doesn't seem to be the wisest choice.
Post by: mceddiemac on 04/10/2011 04:56 pm
Why get 20+ places to start campaigning for a shuttle, then give them both to the space centers? It just makes no sense to me.
Why?...maybe one of these places would develop a compelling case to have an orbiter displayed there.
The way the RFI was written encouraged other locations to respond. If it was always a forgone conclusion that Atlantis and Endeavour would go to the visitor centers, then why not be "nice" about it and eliminate the other 19 or so places early on before they wasted their time and money.
Why do you believe it was a foregone conclusion that the orbiters were going to the space centers. So to your argument NASA sent this RFI to tease these 19 sites knowing all along the space centers were going to get them. Really?
With regards to College Station, at an annual attendance of ~170,000 (Busch & Brazos) compared to annual attendance of KSCVC at ~1.4 million and JSCVC ~730,000...I'm guessing College Station has to a long way to go to develop a compelling case.
IMHO, Dayton OH, Huntsville AL, and Chicago IL have better arguments than College Station.
Post by: bholt on 04/10/2011 05:36 pm
If KSC gets an orbiter, the replicas could be sent somewhere else.
Post by: psloss on 04/10/2011 05:46 pm
Why get 20+ places to start campaigning for a shuttle, then give them both to the space centers? It just makes no sense to me.I don't equate the chances for KSC and JSC and given what we've seen in public with how the different locations are lobbying recently, it would be a surprise if they both got one.
Post by: Rifleman on 04/10/2011 07:51 pm
National Air and Space Museum : Excellent presentation, free to the public, has the biggest collection of the most historic of aircraft. My wife refers to it as the " hall of fame of airplanes" The location is great, lots of visitors, excellent staff and restoration standards.
Space Center Houston : Has a great collection of spacecraft and artifacts. (one of the few places with a flown Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft) The historical gallery side is very well done. The rest of the center felt like a chuck-e-cheeses. The giant ball pit/kids playland dominates the center of the building. There are few places that you can escape from the constant sounds of kids screaming, and the air blasts from the air cannons on the playland. The flight simulator was a start wars simulator, nothing to do with actual space flight. It is good to get kids interested in space, but it just seems to take away the dignity of the place. I thought that admission price was reasonable (particularly with the half off online tickets). The entire center seemed understaffed, and the staff that was there seemed to know nothing about the space program (I overheard a staff member tell a kid that there were 17 Saturn 5's launched, but Apollo 1 blew up, so only 16 made it to space.) The wait for the tram tour was almost 3 hours long, and everything just seemed a little disorganized. Even in it's restored state, the condition and presentation of the Saturn 5 does not compare to KSC. I did like walk through shuttle mock up, and the skylab trainer. SCH is a decent museum, but the atmosphere provided by the playland kind of ruined the overall experience for me.
Huntsville Space Center : Great museum, I loved the presentation of the saturn 5, and the full stack mockup Saturn only added to the effect. I did not feel that the items stored outdoors were properly cared for, however. The centerfuge ride was a good way to entertain kids, while still teaching them something about space. The full shuttle stack with pathfinder on top if it is impressive. Its been several years since I have visited Huntsville, but if my memory serves be correctly, I feel that the overall presentation was slightly better than Houston.
National Museum of the Untied States Air Force : I know that allot of people on this board don't like the idea of the air force getting a shuttle, but they really need to visit this museum. The air force museum tells the entire story of manned flight, in chronological order, from the wright B flyer, to the F-22. As you walk through the museum, the planes get newer and newer, and every major innovation in aviation can be seen by even the most untrained observer. Make no mistake, this is a military museum, but the story told by this museum is without equal. I give the air force museum the highest marks on presentation. The collection of historically important aircraft at the air force museum is second only to the national air and space museum. I toured the restoration facilities about a year ago, and have full confidence that this museum will always be able to provide the proper care to an orbiter. Admission and parking are free. The location is not great, but it is not bad either, and is accessible to a large part of the country. The museum has a few attractions for kids, but for the most part, this is an adult focused museum (both good and bad, as youth education is critical) Like the national air and space museum, an orbiter would be a centerpiece of their collection, but it would still be only a part of the bigger story told by the museum.
Adler Planetarium : I personally loved the Adler Planetarium. Adler seemed to have the right balance of kid friendly attractions, while still maintaining an atmosphere that was acceptable to adults. A flown Gemini capsule is the only spacecraft of display (although a flown mercury and Apollo capsule can be seen next door) Adler does not have any restoration experience that could be used in the long term maintenance of an orbiter. The staff was knowledgeable and friendly, and seemed to have a true passion for space (little things like a birthday card to spirit and opportunity from the staff that was placed next to the MER mockup conveyed this more than words or actions could.) Adler is a space museum, not just a manned space flight museum. Manned spaceflight is only a small portion of the story told by this museum.
Kennedy Space Center : All around excellent museum. Great collection, great presentation, good atmosphere, KSC really is the gold standard for a museum solely about space flight. There are plenty of things to keep kinds entertained, while not taking away from the dignity of the center. The presentation of the Saturn 5 is without parallel (although I wish the LEM was at ground level so it can be better viewed) The museum is well run, the staff was friendly, and there was no shortage of things to see. The visitors complex is a bit pricey, but not too bad when you take into account just how much there is to see. Restoration standards seem to be very good. The shuttle launch experience was cool, and the explorer shuttle mock up is well done. As long as rockets are being launched from the cape, the visitors center will always be a popular destination for anyone interested in space.
Intrepid Sea Air and Space Museum : Sorry to offend anyone, but I really was not impressed with this museum. It feels like they are trying to cram to much into to small of a space, and the complete lack on major on site restoration facilities, combined with the fact that much of their collection is outdoors, has left many of their aircraft looking somewhat run down. The fact that the museum is on an essex class aircraft carrier is a tourist draw, but also limits the real potential of the museum, both in floor space, and due to the incredible cost of keeping an museum ship of this size afloat. I personally feel that placing an orbiter here will turn it into nothing more than a tourist attraction.
Museum of Flight : Great museum. I feel that this museum is ready to "Join the big leagues" so to speak. Great facility, decent location, reasonable prices, good collection, and a friendly staff can all be found here. The Museum of flight does not have much in the way of centerpiece, historically critical aircraft, but it does house a solid collection spanning almost the entire history of flight. An orbiter would give it that centerpiece display that this needed to take the museum to the next level. Restoration facilities are located on the adjacent boeing field, and the museum has excellent restoration standards (their aircraft stored outdoors being the exception.)
Evergreen Aviation Museum : A nice museum, but simply not in the same class as some of the others. The "Spruce Goose" if the museums centerpiece display. The museum has a nice collection of aircraft, and they all seem to be well taken care of. I do have serious concerns about the planned water park to be built into the museum. It seems to me that this would take away from the dignity of the display, and turn it into little more than a playland for kids, with little actual learning potential.
There are a few contenders that I have never visted (Tulsa, College Station, ext.) These are just my own personal impressions of each site, your millage may vary.
With 2 days left, here is my final guess on what will go where :
Discovery : National Air and Space Museum
Atlantis : National Museum of the United States Air Force
Endeavour : Kennedy Space Center Visitors Complex
Enterprise : Museum of Flight
What is everyone Else's final guesses?
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/11/2011 12:26 am
With regards to College Station, at an annual attendance of ~170,000 (Busch & Brazos) compared to annual attendance of KSCVC at ~1.4 million and JSCVC ~730,000...I'm guessing College Station has to a long way to go to develop a compelling case.
IMHO, Dayton OH, Huntsville AL, and Chicago IL have better arguments than College Station.
The last time I spoke with anyone in College Station about tourists, it was at their visitor bureau. They get over 3 million people a year there going through the town, mostly at the A&M I'm sure. Who knows, their case may be based on that. That would make a little sense if they wanted to be serious.
Post by: gordo on 04/11/2011 04:35 pm
Discovery : National Air and Space Museum
Atlantis : National Museum of the United States Air Force
Endeavour : Kennedy Space Center Visitors Complex
Enterprise : Museum of Flight
What is everyone Else's final guesses?
DITTO, pretty much spot on what I think is going to happen. All the info we have had pieced together points towards this
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 04/11/2011 04:55 pm
Discovery : National Air and Space Museum
Atlantis : National Museum of the United States Air Force
Endeavour : Kennedy Space Center Visitors Complex
Enterprise : Museum of Flight
What is everyone Else's final guesses?
DITTO, pretty much spot on what I think is going to happen. All the info we have had pieced together points towards this
Right on. Those would be my official predictions -- right down to the Orbiter & location.
Post by: neilh on 04/11/2011 08:02 pm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1817/1
Post by: psloss on 04/11/2011 08:46 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/apr/HQ_M11-076_KSC30th.html
The announcement will be made during the ceremony, which begins at 1 pm Eastern in front of OPF Bay 1. (As the media advisory says, live on NASA TV.)
Excerpts:
Quote
At 3 p.m. on April 12, NASA will hold a media teleconference to discuss the placement of the orbiters. Senior NASA officials will be available to answer questions. Journalists interested in participating in the teleconference should call 202-358-1100 prior to noon Tuesday to receive dial-in instructions. The teleconference will be streamed live at:
http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio
The 1 p.m. ceremony is open to Kennedy employees and will take place outside the hangar for shuttle Atlantis, known as Orbiter Processing Facility-1. Atlantis is being prepared for its upcoming STS-135 mission to the International Space Station, the final flight of the Space Shuttle Program.
Post by: MarekCyzio on 04/12/2011 12:56 am
Atlantis will be assigned to KSC!
Post by: jcopella on 04/12/2011 01:44 am
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110411/BREAKINGNEWS/110411014/Sources-Space-shuttle-will-remain-Space-Coast?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home
Atlantis will be assigned to KSC!
Whoa... Would not have predicted 104 to KSC. Like others, I would've bet on 105. Does this mean Dayton's stock just took a dive? If so, I guess Seattle's would go up?
Post by: mike robel on 04/12/2011 01:57 am
Post by: Namechange User on 04/12/2011 02:05 am
104 to KSC
105 to JSC
101 to WPAFB
Just my guess and what I think would be appropriate. Of course, what do I know because I think there is nothing "appropriate" about retiring these vehicles right now and it will be a ultimately noted as a strategic mistake once all the fighting and whoopla has subsided.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 04/12/2011 02:29 am
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110411/BREAKINGNEWS/110411014/Sources-Space-shuttle-will-remain-Space-Coast?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home
Atlantis will be assigned to KSC!
Whoa... Would not have predicted 104 to KSC. Like others, I would've bet on 105. Does this mean Dayton's stock just took a dive? If so, I guess Seattle's would go up?
As with everything, let's wait for the announcement. It's not final until then. :)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/12/2011 02:44 am
Post by: robertross on 04/12/2011 02:45 am
103 to DC
104 to KSC
105 to JSC
101 to WPAFB
Just my guess and what I think would be appropriate. Of course, what do I know because I think there is nothing "appropriate" about retiring these vehicles right now and it will be a ultimately noted as a strategic mistake once all the fighting and whoopla has subsided.
Logical, and concur.
Post by: Space Pete on 04/12/2011 03:03 am
Discovery - NASM.
Atlantis - KSC.
Endeavour - JSC.
Enterprise - Anywhere in California.
That way, the states which contributed the most to the Shuttle Program would get one. And it'd put an Orbiter in 3 corners of the US, and all would be close to large population centres (Discovery = DC & NY, Atlantis = Miami, Endeavour = Houston, Enterprise = LA).
Post by: TheFallen on 04/12/2011 04:14 am
Does this mean Dayton's stock just took a dive?
Should ANY city in Ohio expect good things to happen to it after the basketball-related debacle of last summer? Just sayin' :D
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/12/2011 04:41 am
If an orbiter were to end up in Utah or Arizona I would be like a kid on Christmas morning. But alas I don't think that's going to happen. I have to think the Smithsonian would be getting an orbiter as would the KSC visitors center. Not sure where the third space flown orbiter or Enterprise would go.
As for the Enterprise, even though it hasn't flown in space I would go to see it again (I saw it in 2004). If the Enterprise were restored to her original 1977 markings and mounted on the 747 redone in her silver "American Airlines" markings that would be a majestic sight indeed, one I would remember forever.
Post by: steveS on 04/12/2011 06:46 am
Post by: Space Pete on 04/12/2011 02:49 pm
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/12/2011-04-12_nasa_space_shuttle_enterprise_coming_to_nycs_intrepid_seaairspace_museum_.html
Post by: asmolenski on 04/12/2011 02:56 pm
Intrepid/NYC has snagged Enterprise! :o
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/12/2011-04-12_nasa_space_shuttle_enterprise_coming_to_nycs_intrepid_seaairspace_museum_.html
I saw that link come across on Twitter as well, I'm surprised, and actually disappointed (no offense to New Yorkers!). As Discovery will most likely now definitely guaranteed for Smithsonian at Dulles, that only leave two shuttles to duke it out for some of the most well known and deserving facilities, even NASA facilities like JSC and KSC.
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/12/2011 03:01 pm
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 04/12/2011 03:03 pm
So will Enterprise now sit outdoors on the flight deck or will it atleast get put inside? I would hate to think it will be an outdoor display.
All orbiters, including Enterprise, must be displayed indoors. The Intrepid has plans for a large air-conditioned enclosure.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 04/12/2011 03:03 pm
Intrepid/NYC has snagged Enterprise! :o
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/12/2011-04-12_nasa_space_shuttle_enterprise_coming_to_nycs_intrepid_seaairspace_museum_.html
I saw that link come across on Twitter as well, I'm surprised, and actually disappointed (no offense to New Yorkers!). As Discovery will most likely now definitely guaranteed for Smithsonian at Dulles, that only leave two shuttles to duke it out for some of the most well known and deserving facilities, even NASA facilities like JSC and KSC.
According to an article linked on the previous page, Atlantis is staying at Kennedy. So that only leaves Endeavour.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/12/2011 03:08 pm
So that leaves Endeavour.
Either the middle of the country gets screwed, or the west (blue) coast.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 04/12/2011 03:10 pm
Wow, three shuttles...literally...on the east coast. Two of them about 200 miles apart. I guess the rest of the country just doesn't vote the right way.
So that leaves Endeavour.
Either the middle of the country gets screwed, or the west (blue) coast.
This is my opinion and is based only on my own educated guess - If the information about Enterprise, Discovery and Atlantis is all true, I'm betting that Endeavour ends up in Chicago to appease Obama. But again - that's my opinion only.
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/12/2011 03:11 pm
So will Enterprise now sit outdoors on the flight deck or will it atleast get put inside? I would hate to think it will be an outdoor display.
All orbiters, including Enterprise, must be displayed indoors. The Intrepid has plans for a large air-conditioned enclosure.
Awesome, She doesnt deserve to sit outside :)
Post by: AstroMickey on 04/12/2011 03:24 pm
http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/shuttle/media.html
Post by: Danny Dot on 04/12/2011 03:27 pm
And I think an orbiter would look great next to the Saturn V at JSC.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 04/12/2011 03:28 pm
Will the final announcement be live on NASA TV?
And I think an orbiter would look great next to the Saturn V at JSC.
Yes. It will be made live outside of OPF-1 (Atlantis) on all NASA media channels at 1pm.
Post by: Rocket Guy on 04/12/2011 03:29 pm
Post by: asmolenski on 04/12/2011 03:33 pm
Wow, three shuttles...literally...on the east coast. Two of them about 200 miles apart. I guess the rest of the country just doesn't vote the right way.
So that leaves Endeavour.
Either the middle of the country gets screwed, or the west (blue) coast.
This is my opinion and is based only on my own educated guess - If the information about Enterprise, Discovery and Atlantis is all true, I'm betting that Endeavour ends up in Chicago to appease Obama. But again - that's my opinion only.
Given the last post re: the WSJ, I wasn't giving Chicago much hope, given no NASA history here. It would be great for NASA to become more involved in Chicago and the heartland/midwest, but other NASA centers deserved it much more.
Post by: HIPAR on 04/12/2011 03:36 pm
They have plenty of room for the shuttle on their pier...see attached link:
http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/shuttle/media.html
Wonderful, it will get washed away in a storm surge when that inevitable category big hurricane blows into the Hudson River.
--- CHAS
Post by: nathan.moeller on 04/12/2011 03:36 pm
Wow, three shuttles...literally...on the east coast. Two of them about 200 miles apart. I guess the rest of the country just doesn't vote the right way.
So that leaves Endeavour.
Either the middle of the country gets screwed, or the west (blue) coast.
This is my opinion and is based only on my own educated guess - If the information about Enterprise, Discovery and Atlantis is all true, I'm betting that Endeavour ends up in Chicago to appease Obama. But again - that's my opinion only.
Given the last post re: the WSJ, I wasn't giving Chicago much hope, given no NASA history here. It would be great for NASA to become more involved in Chicago and the heartland/midwest, but other NASA centers deserved it much more.
I agree. Just acknowledging the connection
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/12/2011 03:37 pm
Post by: psloss on 04/12/2011 03:37 pm
The Wall Street Journal is reporting JSC has taken the final one, alongisde KSC, NASM and NYC for Enterprise.Which WSJ report? The two I've seen only say 'Florida and Texas,' which to be fair doesn't necessarily mean JSC.
Post by: John Duncan on 04/12/2011 03:37 pm
US Space and Rocket Center doesn't need one, they can't keep up with the stuff they DO have.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/12/2011 03:38 pm
I genuinely feel bad for the other locations that went in on this with any real hope.
Like I said in a previous post, why even allow other locations to compete if they are going to go the space centers?
I guess the rationale will come out over the next few days or weeks.
Post by: psloss on 04/12/2011 03:39 pm
I guess the rationale will come out over the next few days or weeks.Post-mortem scheduled to start at 3 pm Eastern with the media telecon.
Post by: Rocket Guy on 04/12/2011 03:40 pm
The Wall Street Journal is reporting JSC has taken the final one, alongisde KSC, NASM and NYC for Enterprise.Which WSJ report? The two I've seen only say 'Florida and Texas,' which to be fair doesn't necessarily mean JSC.
I don't know of anyone else in Texas asking for one...
Post by: asmolenski on 04/12/2011 03:41 pm
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 04/12/2011 03:48 pm
The Wall Street Journal is reporting JSC has taken the final one, alongisde KSC, NASM and NYC for Enterprise.Which WSJ report? The two I've seen only say 'Florida and Texas,' which to be fair doesn't necessarily mean JSC.
I don't know of anyone else in Texas asking for one...
Aggies.
http://www.khou.com/home/related/NASA---118679724.html
Post by: astrobrian on 04/12/2011 03:49 pm
I don't know of anyone else in Texas asking for one...There was a planetarium in Austin asking for one, but as best I could tell they've never really had a realistic shot at it.
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/12/2011 03:56 pm
Wow, three shuttles...literally...on the east coast. Two of them about 200 miles apart. I guess the rest of the country just doesn't vote the right way.
So that leaves Endeavour.
Either the middle of the country gets screwed, or the west (blue) coast.
This is my opinion and is based only on my own educated guess - If the information about Enterprise, Discovery and Atlantis is all true, I'm betting that Endeavour ends up in Chicago to appease Obama. But again - that's my opinion only.
Given the last post re: the WSJ, I wasn't giving Chicago much hope, given no NASA history here. It would be great for NASA to become more involved in Chicago and the heartland/midwest, but other NASA centers deserved it much more.
They wanted to include it in the Adler Planetarium, which is probably the weakest member of the Chicago museum campus along the lakefront. The shuttle's are better served to go somewhere else. Soldier Field already looks like a flying saucer crashed into a bunch of greek columns.
Post by: Downix on 04/12/2011 03:58 pm
If these are really the locations and NASA let them leak, I feel disappointed! Some of the locations, like the AF museum, have setup events today corresponding with the official announcement later. Kinda makes that a pointless event now since everyone going already knows they won't be picked. Lots of time and energy wasted.I was planning on attending the Museum of Flight here in Seattle's daily activity, but now seems pointless if they all are being kept in close geographical position to each other.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 04/12/2011 03:58 pm
What a waste of time for the other locations...
Not really. It paid off well for New York. Could just as easily have been Seattle or Chicago.
Post by: TheGame0135 on 04/12/2011 04:00 pm
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/12/2011 04:02 pm
Post by: nathan.moeller on 04/12/2011 04:04 pm
Personally I've always felt like the AF musem, KSC, somewhere in Caly and Texas should have been the 4 places, they're good distances apart and the entire country can see them. Enterprise to NYC is stupid. and i'm highly disappointed in Bolden, not that i've ever really liked his ideals anyway.
When you consider that the USAF pretty much abandoned the shuttle program after Challenger, I don't think Dayton should get one. California would have been the most sensible choice for Enterprise since she did all her flight tests there. NASM is perfect for the flagship Discovery. That leaves KSC and JSC as the most sensible remaining options.
As for Enterprise going to NYC - That's Chuck Schumer territory. I'll let you connect those dots.
Post by: CenTexRez on 04/12/2011 04:05 pm
but then who knows, maybe the Aggies pulled it off.
Post by: Namechange User on 04/12/2011 04:06 pm
Personally I've always felt like the AF musem, KSC, somewhere in Caly and Texas should have been the 4 places, they're good distances apart and the entire country can see them. Enterprise to NYC is stupid. and i'm highly disappointed in Bolden, not that i've ever really liked his ideals anyway.
I agree NYC seems like an odd choice. Yesterday he said every place would be connected to HSF in some way that gets an orbiter. I struggle with NYC if that is the case and this "leak" is accurate.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 04/12/2011 04:07 pm
Also, I've called both places in Texas and no one answered at either location. Given the "baaawwww! woe is me" letter from Houston...and the poorly disguised threat to Bolden from the delegation....
but then who knows, maybe the Aggies pulled it off.
Texas A&M is not a sensible location for a retired orbiter.
Post by: TheGame0135 on 04/12/2011 04:07 pm
Personally I've always felt like the AF musem, KSC, somewhere in Caly and Texas should have been the 4 places, they're good distances apart and the entire country can see them. Enterprise to NYC is stupid. and i'm highly disappointed in Bolden, not that i've ever really liked his ideals anyway.
When you consider that the USAF pretty much abandoned the shuttle program after Challenger, I don't think Dayton should get one. California would have been the most sensible choice for Enterprise since she did all her flight tests there. NASM is perfect for the flagship Discovery. That leaves KSC and JSC as the most sensible remaining options.
As for Enterprise going to NYC - That's Chuck Schumer territory. I'll let you connect those dots.
i'm not saying the AF deserves one, but if you look at it from the stand point of lets get as many people as possible to visit these, then those 4 are the most logical
Post by: nathan.moeller on 04/12/2011 04:09 pm
i'm not saying the AF deserves one, but if you look at it from the stand point of lets get as many people as possible to visit these, then those 4 are the most logical
I'd contend that NASM, KSC, JSC and MoF Seattle were the most logical but that's me.
Post by: psloss on 04/12/2011 04:16 pm
It seems more odd for Enterprise, too, given their display renderings; however, General Bolden also responded in other questioning that the decision would comply with the law, which would be the language in the 2010 re-authorization, which includes the clause that many assumed was to the benefit of the Intrepid site.Personally I've always felt like the AF musem, KSC, somewhere in Caly and Texas should have been the 4 places, they're good distances apart and the entire country can see them. Enterprise to NYC is stupid. and i'm highly disappointed in Bolden, not that i've ever really liked his ideals anyway.
I agree NYC seems like an odd choice. Yesterday he said every place would be connected to HSF in some way that gets an orbiter. I struggle with NYC if that is the case and this "leak" is accurate.
But after this I'm going to wait until after the announcement.
Post by: pummuf on 04/12/2011 04:20 pm
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/12/2011 04:20 pm
i'm not saying the AF deserves one, but if you look at it from the stand point of lets get as many people as possible to visit these, then those 4 are the most logical
The AF does not "deserve" an orbiter, but the Museum of the United States air Force does. It is one of the top aerospace museums in the world, has a huge collection including aircraft/spacecraft, many unique items and an amazing set of restoration skills and millions of visitors a year.
Intrepid was an i-d-i-o-t-i-c decision, and yet again Bolden makes a mistake.
Post by: TheGame0135 on 04/12/2011 04:24 pm
agreed although i'm biased, i live in Ohio, to me, one in NYC and one in Washington, doesn't make sense.i'm not saying the AF deserves one, but if you look at it from the stand point of lets get as many people as possible to visit these, then those 4 are the most logical
The AF does not "deserve" an orbiter, but the Museum of the United States air Force does. It is one of the top aerospace museums in the world, has a huge collection including aircraft/spacecraft, many unique items and an amazing set of restoration skills and millions of visitors a year.
Intrepid was an i-d-i-o-t-i-c decision, and yet again Bolden makes a mistake.
Post by: Rifleman on 04/12/2011 04:25 pm
i'm not saying the AF deserves one, but if you look at it from the stand point of lets get as many people as possible to visit these, then those 4 are the most logical
The AF does not "deserve" an orbiter, but the Museum of the United States air Force does. It is one of the top aerospace museums in the world, has a huge collection including aircraft/spacecraft, many unique items and an amazing set of restoration skills and millions of visitors a year.
Intrepid was an i-d-i-o-t-i-c decision, and yet again Bolden makes a mistake.
Your description of the air force museum could not be more spot on. You also hit the nail on the head with your description on the enterprise going to the intrepid. This reeks of nothing more than a political payout to a blue state.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/12/2011 04:26 pm
Post by: orionContractor on 04/12/2011 04:27 pm
Should we stay on this thread for the annoucement or start a specific thread?
Start a new one, this one is getting long and "rant-y"
Post by: nathan.moeller on 04/12/2011 04:28 pm
Post by: TheGame0135 on 04/12/2011 04:33 pm
also saying neither did Dayton
Post by: jcopella on 04/12/2011 04:33 pm
Robert Pearlman (collectSPACE.com) posted a picture from the media event. Atlantis' OPF doors are open - http://twitpic.com/4k1mjj
Gorgeous picture, thank you for posting, and thanks to Robert for making it available for us.
Post by: nathan.moeller on 04/12/2011 04:35 pm
just saw on twitter Houston is not getting one
also saying neither did Dayton
That's unconfirmed at this point but we'll see.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/12/2011 04:36 pm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24780.0
Now, both on this one and the live thread, no shouting "scandal, political payoff", as that's boring.
Post by: TheGame0135 on 04/12/2011 04:36 pm
i'm well aware they're rumors. i'm just saying that's what they're saying.just saw on twitter Houston is not getting one
also saying neither did Dayton
That's unconfirmed at this point but we'll see.
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 04/12/2011 04:37 pm
Robert Pearlman (collectSPACE.com) posted a picture from the media event. Atlantis' OPF doors are open - http://twitpic.com/4k1mjj
That picture is precious. I want to say thank you to USA for making sure OV-99 and OV-102 are commemorated today. Very classy and respectful.
Damn, I choked up.
+1 USA. Bravo and Kuds... Bravo Zulu.
VR
TEA
RE327
Edit: Switch OV-101 to OV-102... lost in the moment.
Post by: Namechange User on 04/12/2011 04:41 pm
just saw on twitter Houston is not getting one
I'm sure it's true. Why screw everyone once when you can screw them twice?
Post by: orionContractor on 04/12/2011 04:42 pm
just saw on twitter Houston is not getting one
I'm sure it's true. Why screw everyone once when you can screw them twice?
Might as well do it a third time for good measure.... perhaps its coming down the pipe :-P
Post by: majormajor42 on 04/12/2011 04:42 pm
That said, I will be proud of our new resident. I just saw someone Tweet "Sad News: NY gets "Consolation Prize" Test Shuttle that Never Reached Space “@nytimes Space Shuttle Lands in Manhattan" What nerve! really. That reaction is sad. Not mine at all.
What Intrepid does have is $$$. The money to house it properly. Hopefully flood proof as has been mentioned above. It also has a tremendous number of international visitors. There is a ton of pedestrian traffic going to the west side of Manhattan all the time as people make there way to the Intrepid. So many people it's annoying :D So it is not a bad choice. It will give the most number of people exposure to a shuttle, right? What are visitor figures for KSC, JSC, DC Annex, Intrepid Museum?
But I don't buy that this has much to do with Sen. Shumer politics. D'Amato, or Gov. Pataki would have tried just as hard and been just as happy for getting Enterprise. Next.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/12/2011 04:50 pm
What are visitor figures for KSC, JSC, DC Annex, Intrepid Museum?
Not for all but:
Quote
the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force has seen attendance soar, increasing by 15 percent from 2008 to 2009. According to public affairs spokesman Rob Bardua, the museum welcomed 1,107,283 visitors in 2008 and 1,277,364 in 2009.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/air-force-museum-boonshoft-see-more-visitors-during-recession-583181.html
Quote
The museumIntrepid (which is raising admission for adults by $3, to $19.50) hopes for one million visitors a year
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/arts/design/07intr.html
Post by: Rifleman on 04/12/2011 04:53 pm
What are visitor figures for KSC, JSC, DC Annex, Intrepid Museum?
Not for all but:Quotethe National Museum of the U.S. Air Force has seen attendance soar, increasing by 15 percent from 2008 to 2009. According to public affairs spokesman Rob Bardua, the museum welcomed 1,107,283 visitors in 2008 and 1,277,364 in 2009.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/air-force-museum-boonshoft-see-more-visitors-during-recession-583181.htmlQuoteThe museumIntrepid (which is raising admission for adults by $3, to $19.50) hopes for one million visitors a year
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/arts/design/07intr.html
With the Intrepid's price increase, it is worth pointing out that the NMUSAF is free (even parking)
Post by: AstroMickey on 04/12/2011 04:59 pm
NY'r here. I did not expect one of these, nor felt that NYC deserved it. We are close to DC and NY'rs like me who take an interest in HSF have traveled to the Annex or down the coast to JSC. I also don't feel that most NY'rs take an interest in HSF and will care that Enterprise is just down the block.
That said, I will be proud of our new resident. I just saw someone Tweet "Sad News: NY gets "Consolation Prize" Test Shuttle that Never Reached Space “@nytimes Space Shuttle Lands in Manhattan" What nerve! really. That reaction is sad. Not mine at all.
What Intrepid does have is $$$. The money to house it properly. Hopefully flood proof as has been mentioned above. It also has a tremendous number of international visitors. There is a ton of pedestrian traffic going to the west side of Manhattan all the time as people make there way to the Intrepid. So many people it's annoying :D So it is not a bad choice. It will give the most number of people exposure to a shuttle, right? What are visitor figures for KSC, JSC, DC Annex, Intrepid Museum?
But I don't buy that this has much to do with Sen. Shumer politics. D'Amato, or Gov. Pataki would have tried just as hard and been just as happy for getting Enterprise. Next.
Agree as a fellow NY'r. Also, the Intrepid is right next to the Manhattan Cruise Terminal. I found some facts for that venue that stated that for 2010, it had 582,979 combined embarking and transit passengers and 241 ship calls in 2010, which should jump to 264 ship calls and 645,449 passengers for 2011. Many, many of those people with time to kill before their ships leave head right over to the Intrepid, and many of them are foreigners.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/12/2011 04:59 pm
Quote
Well that really stinks, there goes the cachet of going to see something that took astronauts into space steps from times square
How selfish are they? Lucky to even get Enterprise!
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23183&p=357338#post357338
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/12/2011 05:03 pm
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/12/2011 05:04 pm
Post by: MadameConcorde on 04/12/2011 05:05 pm
What Intrepid does have is $$$. The money to house it properly.
They are not capable of taking proper care of the Concorde that was loaned to them by British Airways how do you think they will be able to care for a Space Shuttle?
Poor Concorde G-BOAD has been outside all that time - she needs to be put under cover or she will succumb to the elements.
Also 2 engines are missing from the display and nobody knows or will tell where they are.
I can understand their obsession for wanting to have a Space Shuttle but they should take proper care of what they have on display first - especially Concorde.
::)
Post by: NYC777 on 04/12/2011 06:23 pm
Post by: gordo on 04/12/2011 06:50 pm
Discovery - Smithsonian - Facility ready - stright swap.
Atlantis - KSC - New facility required to be built - no shortage of storage space!
Endeavour - LA - New facility required to be built - stored at KSC until facility is ready?
Enterprise - NYC - New facility required to be built - BIG PROBLEM - Where does Enterprise go for 12 months? Back into storage?
Post by: Downix on 04/12/2011 07:04 pm
So lets bring this back on track a little :There's a lovely facility here in Seattle they could lend it to for 12 months....
Discovery - Smithsonian - Facility ready - stright swap.
Atlantis - KSC - New facility required to be built - no shortage of storage space!
Endeavour - LA - New facility required to be built - stored at KSC until facility is ready?
Enterprise - NYC - New facility required to be built - BIG PROBLEM - Where does Enterprise go for 12 months? Back into storage?
Post by: Namechange User on 04/12/2011 07:20 pm
So lets bring this back on track a little :
Discovery - Smithsonian - Facility ready - stright swap.
Atlantis - KSC - New facility required to be built - no shortage of storage space!
Endeavour - LA - New facility required to be built - stored at KSC until facility is ready?
Enterprise - NYC - New facility required to be built - BIG PROBLEM - Where does Enterprise go for 12 months? Back into storage?
I would think that a couple of them we could still fly for a little while and really get some more use out of them while the facilities are being built.
Post by: scotty125 on 04/13/2011 12:12 am
I understand why my museum didn't get one...in the end we just don't have the attendance numbers to justify it, though that is scheduled to change with a new facility opening this year and improved highway access next near. It was my understanding that a large part of the criteria was that the facility be ready to accomodate the vehicles as they became available. In that regard, Evergreen and others have facilities more than capable of housing a shuttle with the class that their distinguished careers deserve, and doing it now. NYC's scheme is a pretty tacky little dome stuck out on the end of a pier, not at all what you'd expect for a shuttle, and they're already bitchin' about it. Ask the folks in Houston, Dayton, and Seattle if they'd like to have Enterprise in their facilities.
Congratulations to the Smithsonian, KSC, and SoCal...I'm sure they'll do the birds proud...frankly NYC deserves no more than an SSME or two, but certainly not Enterprise. They won't be getting any of my money, that's for sure...and I'll lay even money odds that Enterprise is somewhere else by 2025...
Post by: Rocket Guy on 04/13/2011 12:19 am
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/13/2011 12:25 am
It's only speculation, but Enterprise could take Discovery's place in the OPF (or VAB) while it awaits the new Intrepid enclosure. It would sure be nice if they posed all four in front of the VAB once next year before they are sent off...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYRvaD-xkQ
;)
That would be cool for Enterprise to make one final trip back to KSC.
Post by: TheFallen on 04/13/2011 12:28 am
So lets bring this back on track a little :
Discovery - Smithsonian - Facility ready - stright swap.
Atlantis - KSC - New facility required to be built - no shortage of storage space!
Endeavour - LA - New facility required to be built - stored at KSC until facility is ready?
Enterprise - NYC - New facility required to be built - BIG PROBLEM - Where does Enterprise go for 12 months? Back into storage?
Hold Endeavour inside the Spruce Goose Dome in Long Beach for the time being...though you'll have to kick out the movie studio that's inside there first :)
Post by: catdlr on 04/13/2011 12:37 am
Hold Endeavour inside the Spruce Goose Dome in Long Beach for the time being...though you'll have to kick out the movie studio that's inside there first :)
[/quote]
The original hanger where the Spruce Goose was built in Culver City/Play Vista is still available and it's only four miles from LAX.
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/13/2011 01:13 am
That would get the orbiters viewed by lots of people who might not get the chance to otherwise.
As for the shuttle Endeavour, southern California is now at the top of my trip list next year.
Post by: SpaceAndrew25 on 04/13/2011 03:26 am
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/13/2011 03:50 am
It's only speculation, but Enterprise could take Discovery's place in the OPF (or VAB) while it awaits the new Intrepid enclosure. It would sure be nice if they posed all four in front of the VAB once next year before they are sent off...
Dulles does have hangars you know, Enterprise was stored at one for years before the Dulles annex opened. also since Enterprise will have to be moved to Intrepid by barge it could be stored in a normal climate controlled hangar up in New York and shipped later when the glass hangar is ready.
Post by: Rifleman on 04/13/2011 11:00 am
Post by: psloss on 04/13/2011 11:06 am
The only major problem with this is keeping the SCA active to transport them again once the permanent displays are complete (but this could still be a problem if the winning museums can not take delivery for several years)NASA is planning on delivering all the vehicles by the end of next year.
Post by: JayP on 04/13/2011 01:33 pm
Actually, Dulles has almost no hanger facilitites at all, just some corporate hangers up at the north end of the field. Enterprise (and several other aircraft in the collection) were stored in a pupose built steel building about a mile and a half from the new center. I have no idea what the condition of that building is now.It's only speculation, but Enterprise could take Discovery's place in the OPF (or VAB) while it awaits the new Intrepid enclosure. It would sure be nice if they posed all four in front of the VAB once next year before they are sent off...
Dulles does have hangars you know, Enterprise was stored at one for years before the Dulles annex opened. also since Enterprise will have to be moved to Intrepid by barge it could be stored in a normal climate controlled hangar up in New York and shipped later when the glass hangar is ready.
Post by: Mark Dave on 04/13/2011 03:30 pm
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/13/2011 03:32 pm
will Atlantis be out in the open when she is on display or in a building like the Saturn V?See this (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/kscshuttledisplay.html) for the detailed plan.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/13/2011 03:43 pm
Would be an outrage if they left her outside in the sea air, so that's all good.
Post by: JayP on 04/13/2011 04:29 pm
Post by: gordo on 04/13/2011 05:04 pm
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/13/2011 07:40 pm
Enterprise will need to leave when Discovery arrives, now no reason why it could not come down to KSC for VAB storage for a few months while facilities are ready at the intrepid and at JFK for unloading. Demate and tow at KSC would be fairly straightforward and not a massive expense in the scheme of things
Simpler to store her at a hangar at JFK, I am sure some airline would store it until the orbiter is ready, then move it by barge to the museum.
Another Idea for Houston, any way to get Et-94 there? I know it is not anything related to the training of the orbiter or space flown, but it is a unique item that is not going anywhere. Maybe it could be moved there once NASA determines when it is not needed.
Post by: Downix on 04/13/2011 08:01 pm
ET-94 is being prepared for SLS operation according to the law.Enterprise will need to leave when Discovery arrives, now no reason why it could not come down to KSC for VAB storage for a few months while facilities are ready at the intrepid and at JFK for unloading. Demate and tow at KSC would be fairly straightforward and not a massive expense in the scheme of things
Simpler to store her at a hangar at JFK, I am sure some airline would store it until the orbiter is ready, then move it by barge to the museum.
Another Idea for Houston, any way to get Et-94 there? I know it is not anything related to the training of the orbiter or space flown, but it is a unique item that is not going anywhere. Maybe it could be moved there once NASA determines when it is not needed.
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/13/2011 08:13 pm
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_123238757753208
ET-94 is being prepared for SLS operation according to the law.
That is true, but the ET will not be destroyed from the testing, so hopefully it can be retired to Houston. the MPTA-ET used for the shuttle program is now the display tank for Pathfinder in Alabama.
Post by: GClark on 04/14/2011 06:05 am
Post by: Skylab on 04/14/2011 06:07 pm
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/why-houston-did-not-get-a-shuttle/
Post by: JayP on 04/14/2011 06:31 pm
In all this, has there been any word on disposition of MPTA-098?That was converted into the shuttle-C mockup years ago. I don't know if it is even still in existence.
Edit - Apparently it was still at MSFC as of 8 months ago, but it doesn't look like much now.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum41/HTML/000356.html
Post by: Mark Dave on 04/14/2011 11:53 pm
What will become of Columbia and Challenger?
Post by: robertross on 04/15/2011 12:01 am
Um, honestly, seeing Atlantis hanging like what is seen in the art makes me nervous. Seeing her displayed more like how Enterprise was seems better. But that's me. An orbiter hung by cables doesn't look safe to me.
Hung by cables? No, she'll be securely fastened to the floor and through her External Tank attach points. If it's good enough to survive a launch, it's good enough for a static display.
Post by: Mark Dave on 04/15/2011 02:11 pm
Post by: SpaceAndrew25 on 04/16/2011 05:04 am
Reasonably epic, as much as I worry about the way she's proped up like that (what do I know).I personally worry about it too. I hope they display the orbiters safely.
Post by: rdale on 04/16/2011 01:27 pm
Post by: K466 on 04/18/2011 05:31 pm
Reasonably epic, as much as I worry about the way she's proped up like that (what do I know).I personally worry about it too. I hope they display the orbiters safely.
Yeah, I'm not sure I like that method of display either.
Will any of the orbiters be displayed with payload bay doors closed? Even better, would any of the bay doors be periodically opened and closed?
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/18/2011 05:35 pm
Once displayed like how Enterprise is, I do not think the doors can be opened
Post by: mjp25 on 04/18/2011 06:28 pm
Post by: JayP on 04/18/2011 07:36 pm
Will any of the orbiters be displayed with payload bay doors closed? Even better, would any of the bay doors be periodically opened and closed?
KSC and Intrepid are the only ones proposing to display with the doors open (although I wonder if that will change now that they got Enterprise - there isn't much to see in her payload bay) The doors won't be moved after they are put on display. Doing so would require powering the PDUs for the doors and rigging up a couterweight system to support their weight while moving.
Post by: Orbiter on 04/18/2011 07:41 pm
Orbiter
Post by: JayP on 04/18/2011 07:49 pm
Enterprise has a PLBD that can open up? Didn't know that.
Orbiter
Yes. Remember, she was originally supposed to become the second operational orbiter. Other than the structure of the vertical stabiliser and the various system that were left out, she is structurally very similar to Columbia. Durring the ALT tests, a ballast weight bridge was installed in her payload bay so they could fine tune the CG.
Post by: Skylon on 04/18/2011 09:03 pm
Scroll down on this page to find them: http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d352/omcf/
Looks like to give the Vandenberg team some experience, a dummy KU band antenna and RMS were aboard, but you can see how unfinished Enterprise's payload bay was. The aft of the crew cabin didn't even have windows.
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/19/2011 12:13 pm
Post by: Rifleman on 04/19/2011 02:00 pm
Post by: JayP on 04/19/2011 03:40 pm
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/19/2011 03:48 pm
Post by: Prober on 04/19/2011 10:03 pm
Post by: robertross on 04/19/2011 10:16 pm
Will the enterprise be enclosed at the NY site? I'm thinking about the exposure to the salts and elements if just installed just on the deck.
Yes, on the wharf
Post by: Jorge on 04/20/2011 02:36 am
Will the enterprise be enclosed at the NY site? I'm thinking about the exposure to the salts and elements if just installed just on the deck.
All of the orbiters will be enclosed. That is a requirement before they ship.
Post by: Mark Dave on 04/21/2011 12:22 am
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2011 12:36 am
Post by: woods170 on 04/21/2011 08:51 am
Post by: MarsMethanogen on 04/21/2011 04:20 pm
Orbiter
Yes. Remember, she was originally supposed to become the second operational orbiter. Other than the structure of the vertical stabiliser and the various system that were left out, she is structurally very similar to Columbia. Durring the ALT tests, a ballast weight bridge was installed in her payload bay so they could fine tune the CG.
Really? Obviously, Challenger was, but I wasn't aware that Enterprise was. Is that referenced somewhere, perhaps in Jenkins' book? I've read that book, but perhaps I've forgotten. It just seems that from all the bits and pieces I've read more recently on this site, I've had the complete opposite assumption; that it never was.
Post by: Skylab on 04/21/2011 04:43 pm
Really? Obviously, Challenger was, but I wasn't aware that Enterprise was. Is that referenced somewhere, perhaps in Jenkins' book? I've read that book, but perhaps I've forgotten. It just seems that from all the bits and pieces I've read more recently on this site, I've had the complete opposite assumption; that it never was.Jenkins is mentioned as a source for that statement in the Wikipedia article, but I don't have the book here to check.
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2011 04:54 pm
Post by: Namechange User on 04/21/2011 05:04 pm
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/21/2011 05:11 pm
Post by: Skylon on 04/21/2011 07:37 pm
I believe Enterprise also had a life-limiting structural issue from a "hard bounce" during one of the ALT flights.
That's the first I've heard of that. I do not believe the PIO that happened on the final ALT flight was that severe.
Post by: K466 on 04/21/2011 07:59 pm
Post by: brettreds2k on 04/22/2011 11:52 pm
Really? Obviously, Challenger was, but I wasn't aware that Enterprise was. Is that referenced somewhere, perhaps in Jenkins' book? I've read that book, but perhaps I've forgotten. It just seems that from all the bits and pieces I've read more recently on this site, I've had the complete opposite assumption; that it never was.
Actually the new article (Part 1 On Endeavour) also mentions that Enterpise was considered to replace challenger but quickly was deemed would be to costly and to time consuming so thats how Endeavour came to be. But Enterpise was considered to be fitted as an operational flight vechicle even then. So at the origin when it was built Enterpise was "Supposed" to be converted then the idea again after Challenger.
Post by: tim_george on 06/16/2011 10:30 pm
Apologies if this is covered elsewhere, or this is posted in the wrong section. I just googled the subject and searched this forum and couldn't find what I was looking for...
Assuming STS-135 goes ahead as planned in July, is there an estimated date for when Atlantis will be ready to go on display at Kennedy Space Center?
I am visiting Florida (and KSC for the first time...cannot wait) in mid-September. I am ready to be told I'm being overly optimistic to expect Atlantis to be display-ready by then, but thought I would look into it!
Cheers!
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/16/2011 10:37 pm
Post by: tim_george on 06/16/2011 10:51 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/16/2011 11:23 pm
At least that's from the orbiter side.
Post by: K466 on 06/17/2011 04:53 pm
Post by: cycleroadie on 06/17/2011 04:57 pm
I wonder if we'll be able to see them tow Atlantis over to from OPF to KSC. I assume the visitors center might be closed that day.
If you happen to be out on one of the bus tours, and it's during park hours when it's towed back to OPF, you might see it, the VC is always open even when they are rolling out from OPF to VAB or back from SLF to OPF.
Post by: K466 on 06/17/2011 05:15 pm
I wonder if we'll be able to see them tow Atlantis over to from OPF to KSC. I assume the visitors center might be closed that day.
If you happen to be out on one of the bus tours, and it's during park hours when it's towed back to OPF, you might see it, the VC is always open even when they are rolling out from OPF to VAB or back from SLF to OPF.
My bad for not being clear. I'm referring to the time when they tow Atlantis over to her final resting place, the at the KSC Visitor's Center.
Post by: cycleroadie on 06/17/2011 05:24 pm
I wonder if we'll be able to see them tow Atlantis over to from OPF to KSC. I assume the visitors center might be closed that day.
If you happen to be out on one of the bus tours, and it's during park hours when it's towed back to OPF, you might see it, the VC is always open even when they are rolling out from OPF to VAB or back from SLF to OPF.
My bad for not being clear. I'm referring to the time when they tow Atlantis over to her final resting place, the at the KSC Visitor's Center.
Ah, well that's another story then. Tough call, could be great for business that day, but also could be a logistical nightmare. Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Depends where the new facility is going also I would think ? I heard it might be right where the Explorer is now, but haven't seen anything definitive on that, if anyone else has, chime in, I'd like to know, and unfortunately do not read these threads as often as I'd like. If it's off the main VC site like the the Saturn V building, it won't really matter if they are open or not.
Post by: Jorge on 06/17/2011 05:27 pm
Post by: K466 on 06/17/2011 05:38 pm
Ready-for-transport dates are currently February 2012 (OV-103), June 2012 (OV-105), and October 2012 (OV-104).
That sucks... such dates will make a great photo op (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0)) impossible, I'm sure.
I wonder why Atlantis needs so much longer between it's final flight and ready date, compared to Discovery?
Post by: MadameConcorde on 06/19/2011 02:46 pm
I wonder why Atlantis needs so much longer between it's final flight and ready date, compared to Discovery?
Atlantis does not want to go to a Museum.
She wants to fly.
Post by: Jim on 06/19/2011 02:59 pm
Ready-for-transport dates are currently February 2012 (OV-103), June 2012 (OV-105), and October 2012 (OV-104).
That sucks... such dates will make a great photo op (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0)) impossible, I'm sure.
I wonder why Atlantis needs so much longer between it's final flight and ready date, compared to Discovery?
Less people working on it
Post by: K466 on 06/21/2011 06:04 pm
Atlantis does not want to go to a Museum.
She wants to fly.
Discovery wants to fly too! ;)
Less people working on it
Makes sense now that I think about it... thanks
Post by: brettreds2k on 06/23/2011 03:05 pm
Ready-for-transport dates are currently February 2012 (OV-103), June 2012 (OV-105), and October 2012 (OV-104).
That sucks... such dates will make a great photo op (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0)) impossible, I'm sure.
I wonder why Atlantis needs so much longer between it's final flight and ready date, compared to Discovery?
Id think also because they new building still needs to be built and that will still take quite a while since they havent even announced an exact spot or broken ground you know?
Post by: Jorge on 06/23/2011 03:48 pm
Ready-for-transport dates are currently February 2012 (OV-103), June 2012 (OV-105), and October 2012 (OV-104).
That sucks... such dates will make a great photo op (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0)) impossible, I'm sure.
I wonder why Atlantis needs so much longer between it's final flight and ready date, compared to Discovery?
Id think also because they new building still needs to be built and that will still take quite a while since they havent even announced an exact spot or broken ground you know?
That will affect when the orbiters are actually shipped, but the ready-for-transport dates do not account for it.
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 06/23/2011 04:40 pm
Ready-for-transport dates are currently February 2012 (OV-103), June 2012 (OV-105), and October 2012 (OV-104).
That sucks... such dates will make a great photo op (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24618.0)) impossible, I'm sure.
I wonder why Atlantis needs so much longer between it's final flight and ready date, compared to Discovery?
Id think also because they new building still needs to be built and that will still take quite a while since they havent even announced an exact spot or broken ground you know?
That will affect when the orbiters are actually shipped, but the ready-for-transport dates do not account for it.
Also, it will take that long to get Atlantis ready-to-ferry because there are only two OPFs for three orbiters. So after a month of post-flight deservicing, she will give up her OPF to Endeavour and then be stored in the VAB until Discovery is done with T&R processing.
Post by: brettreds2k on 06/23/2011 05:19 pm
Post by: subisnack on 08/25/2011 10:39 pm
http://www.newstalkradiowhio.com/news/news/local/nasa-scoring-error-revealed-selecting-new-shuttle-/nDQj3/
NASA: Scoring error revealed in selecting new shuttle homes.
NASA now admits that it made a scoring error for the National Museum of the United States Air Force. The agency says the museum should have tied as a winning city for one of the retired space shuttles.
But NASA also says that it acted properly when selecting the locations.
The shuttles are going to Washington, Los Angeles, Cape Canaveral, and New York.
Dayton and Houston believed political influence played a part in the final decision, and asked for an investigation.
Inspector General Paul Martin reports there were no outside influences in the decision, and none from the White House. The report says the decision was based on attendance, population, funding and the facility.
NASA Chief Charles Bolden says that the cities he selected better fit NASA's science education goals.
InfoSource: Associated Press
Post by: Beemer on 08/25/2011 11:09 pm
I think it is sad beyond words that these magnificent space machines have had their wings clipped as it were.
I remember the 6 years between Apollo/Soyuz and the launch of Columbia- that time felt like an eternity after growing up watching 2-3 launches every year since the age of 5.
And it looks like it will be even longer than that before America returns to human space flight.
>:(
Post by: Jim on 08/26/2011 02:44 am
And it looks like it will be even longer than that before America returns to human space flight.
>:(
No, it will be shorter. America is not just NASA.
Post by: DaveJSC on 08/26/2011 02:53 am
And it looks like it will be even longer than that before America returns to human space flight.
>:(
No, it will be shorter. America is not just NASA.
He's on the orbiter retirement thread, and it is a completely inaccurate statement to say it "will be shorter" than it would have been in the context of this thread. A reversal of the orbiter's retirement, even this year, 18 months. Which other vehicle will be flying crew in 18 months time?
It doesn't mean it would have been the right decision, especially long term, but when dealing with facts of the question, an honest answer is required.
Post by: Jim on 08/26/2011 03:02 am
And it looks like it will be even longer than that before America returns to human space flight.
>:(
No, it will be shorter. America is not just NASA.
He's on the orbiter retirement thread, and it is a completely inaccurate statement to say it "will be shorter" than it would have been in the context of this thread. A reversal of the orbiter's retirement, even this year, 18 months. Which other vehicle will be flying crew in 18 months time?
He was referring to the Apollo to shuttle gap of 6 years in his post.
Post by: Beemer on 08/26/2011 11:41 pm
I am not well versed on the commercial spaceflight ventures such as SpaceX so I have no idea of how close or far away they are from putting humans into space.
In that respect I'm probably like many other Americans. For us America in space means NASA, rightly or wrongly.