|
Author
|
Topic: Exhibiting NASA's retired shuttle orbiters
|
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 04-13-2011 09:44 AM
   
I honestly believe if Columbia was still with us then JSC would have been awarded an orbiter. |
Ben
Member Posts: 1896
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-13-2011 09:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by FullThrottle:
My thinking was that Enterprise was only flown on missions over California at Edwards AFB. Never saw a test flight on the East Coast or even around Florida.
Enterprise was stacked and rolled out to the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center, the first shuttle to do so, and was test fitted on the pad, in the VAB (etc) as well as test fitted and checked out at the facility at Marshall SFC in Alabama. |
J.L
Member Posts: 674
From: Bloomington, Illinois, USA
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 04-13-2011 10:17 AM
Enterprise at KSC...  |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 04-13-2011 10:53 AM
I have heard stories from old folks that recall back in the day that LA/Southern California was rich in aviation milestones. Craft like the Spirit of St Louis were built in San Diego as were Atlas rockets, PBY Catalinas and B-24s.Some say the Apollo spacecraft were built in Downey. The first winged space vehicle the X-15 was built and flown exclusively in the LA area sort of, the XB-70 too. The Blackbird, the U-2, F-117, the B-2. A few rocket engines that may have carried men to the Moon may have been built in the region. Skylab and the Saturn 5 second and third stages were built in Orange County. There is also a small NASA outpost called JPL close to LA too. Oh and I heard that the space shuttles themselves may have been assembled in the LA area. So in fairness, if this is all true, the LA area may in fact be an appropriate venue for an orbiter. Plus, somehow they managed to get a full size DC-8 to the museum. (Built in Long Beach) I believe the wingspan of a DC-8 is about double that of the shuttle. Say what you will about LA, and believe me it can't be any worse than what the local residents say about LA, it may be an appropriate venue for an orbiter. Now if they can just find $250 million to move it here and build a display building. Tax the rich maybe? I will be honest, the current facility does not hold a candle to the San Diego Air and Space Museum by example, in my opinion, but they may have one of the finest displays of unmanned exploratory spacecraft representing JPL's works. I was personally shocked that LA got it. I mean really, who saw it coming? But on the other hand I am looking forward to being able to actually get in a car and drive my kids to see some space craft of merit rather than hop on a plane, pay hundreds of dollars to check my bags, and fly 3,000 miles to see one in the nation's attic. I hope people in the region can come down, or up, and see it too, and maybe take in Disneyland, and watch the crazy people walking around Hollywood. (Don’t roll down the windows.) Maybe some old guy will take his grand daughter there someday and show her what he built when he was young. |
ringo67
Member Posts: 179
From: Seekonk, Mass., USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 04-13-2011 11:30 AM
I agree with you all about the lack of geographic diversity with the assignment of the orbiters. The Air Force museum in Ohio would have been a better choice geographically, but their display was unimpressive. The shuttle looks lost among all the other vehicles on the hanger floor.Where the orbiters are going I think they'll have pride of place in the collections. For instance, I love KSC's plans for Atlantis. I can't wait to go down to Florida to see that in person. Finally, I must admit, as a New Englander, I am very happy to have an orbiter, even Enterprise, a mere couple of hours away. I will certainly visit the Intrepid once she's there. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 04-13-2011 12:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tegwilym:
So they plan on hauling it through LA on a truck from LAX?
The only shuttle not trucked was Endeavour. All the others were were trucked over land to Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB) from Air Force Plant 42. The street in Lancaster called Challenger Way is the street that took them to EAFB. They did not have a Mate/Demate Device in Palmdale till they shutdown the Vandenberg Air Force Base shuttle site and then it was moved to Palmdale. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-13-2011 12:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tegwilym:
So they plan on hauling it through LA on a truck from LAX?
NASA said yesterday that the museums will be meeting at Kennedy Space Center later this week to discuss the logistics of moving a shuttle to their facilities, among other topics.The early talk that I've heard about moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center has involved airlifting the orbiter by multiple helicopters, but given that the CSC has been so tight lipped about their plans, that may have been someone speculating rather than knowing what they have planned. |
thump
Member Posts: 575
From: washington dc usa
Registered: May 2004
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The early talk that I've heard about moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center has involved airlifting the orbiter by multiple helicopters
You've got to be kidding, right? Shouldn't the transport to the location have been part of the proposals, and consideration? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:13 PM
NASA told the media on Tuesday that all four chosen museums' logistics plans ranked highly but with regards to the museums that were not chosen, logistical challenges was not a factor in the decision. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
Not replying as a resident of the area, but as to what NY and the Intrepid have to do with the shuttle program, well, what does England have to do with Apollo 10? Or Paris and Apollo 13?
Well someone in NY clearly appreciates irony... like having the much-maligned Concorde on display after the Port Authority tried but failed to ban it long-term from landing in NY! My view on shuttle dispositions is irrelevant, but I just hope that anything that's sits outside in the NY climate gets proper care and attention. |
SpaceDust
Member Posts: 115
From: Louisville, Ky USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:39 PM
Two questions that come to mind since a lot of people are up in arms because NY and LA were picked. It's going to take millions to move the orbiters to these locations and then millions more to build a building (if they don't have one already) to place them in. From what I've read it seems that some of these locations picked don't even have the cash yet. So, what happens if they can't come up with the money? Is an orbiter then offered to the next location on the list? Could it be these locations were picked just because they can't come up with the money allowing NASA an easy way out of "Why didn't you consider us"? This way NASA could then offer an orbiter to a place like Houston were they possibly wanted it to go to begin with? Another question, what happens if the museum goes out of business or doesn't keep the orbiter in top condition? Does the orbiter just disintegrate in its place and forgotten about... kind of like Buran? Who's to police how these treasures are kept and maintained and what if their not? |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceDust:
Who’s to police how these treasures are kept and maintained and what if their not?
The answer to the first part: the public. And how long did it take for the Saturn V rockets, which were stored outside (as opposed to an enclosure such as promised for Enterprise) to be restored and preserved? Where was the outcry when these national treasures were declared surplus in the '70s? |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 04-13-2011 01:53 PM
Has their been any discussion of offering a 747 to the Museum of Flight in Seattle who could then have a mockup orbiter built and mounted atop it? |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 04-13-2011 02:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceDust:
From what I've read it seems that some of these locations picked don't even have the cash yet.
I imagine with the moneyed people in both NY and LA they will find funding. The Donald Trump Enterprise exhibit maybe. Argh! |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 04-13-2011 02:42 PM
Any word on what will happen to the shuttle cabin mockup that is at Dryden and used by the fire rescue crews for training? I hope that gets to stay there at least. |
chenry
Member Posts: 60
From: Zionsville, IN 46077
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-13-2011 03:29 PM
They screwed the pooch. On many levels. |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 04-13-2011 03:55 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight (I live in Honolulu), but the NYC choice seems far and beyond the oddest decision of all. I love NYC, but no one is going to go there mainly to see the Shuttle when there are so many other great things to do there. (I won't list the other good reasons already mentioned as to why NYC is not ideal, except to say that those are valid as well.) And if one of the main purposes of exhibiting the orbiters is to generate interest in and support for the space program, then:Yes, the West Coast should have one, so I don't disagree with LA. But the middle part of the country should have one so that people don't have to travel to one of the coasts to see one. That argues for either Houston (which has also has a direct connection to Shuttle, obviously), Ohio (also, but a less so), or Chicago (zero connection). If I were in Houston or Ohio, I'd launch a campaign to get an explanation or to pressure NASA to overturn this decision. KSC, yes. Smithsonian, yes. LA, yes. NYC, no. |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 04-13-2011 04:27 PM
I wonder if there can be such a thing as a march or a petition to review the decision. I think I have gotten over the fact that one will go to CA, but the NY decision NEEDS to be reviewed and explained more thoroughly. Any ideas? |
Rick Boos
Member Posts: 851
From: Celina, Ohio
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 04-13-2011 04:50 PM
I personally believe that the locations picked leave a lot to be desired! Houston in my estimation should have received one for sure, as well as the Smithsonian... but N.Y. and the Cape? Doesn't the Cape have a full size mockup as well as the Hall of Fame? They also have the burial grounds for Challenger and Columbia! I guess my real question is why the sudden change in regards to delegating where a spacecraft goes following it's retirement? In the past spacecrafts where turned over to the Smithsonian to be loaned out and they made the decision... not NASA. Logistics for us in the states and contribution to the program should have played a part in the decisions. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 04-13-2011 05:30 PM
No matter where the shuttles got sent people were going to be upset. We all knew Discovery was going to go to the Smithsonian and that was not a surprise. This is the one time I would not have wanted to be in Mr. Bolden's shoes since you could only make three places happy. I am still in shock that Endeavour will end up about 2.5 hours away from me. I thought the only chance of one ever being in California was if one of the last flight landed at Edwards. I still will not believe it until I see the SCA land with 105 that it will be in California. How long do the museums have before they have to take delivery of the shuttle? What happens if they are not ready to receive the orbiter when NASA is ready to send it to them? |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 04-13-2011 05:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
but given that the CSC has been so tight lipped about their plans
How many of the other proposals were kept from public disclosure? |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 04-13-2011 07:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Boos:
Doesn't the Cape have a full size mockup as well as the Hall of Fame? They also have the burial grounds for Challenger and Columbia!
The full scale mock-up is not NASA property but was bought and paid for by Delaware North as a display years ago. Challenger is buried stored at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station but Columbia is stored in the Vehicle Assembly Building for future study. It's not like Challenger and Columbia will ever go on display like the other orbiters so to assume that KSC has been given too many orbiters is incorrect. |
Murph
Member Posts: 108
From: New York, NY USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 04-13-2011 07:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by canyon42:
My apologies if things got a little testy
I offer my apologies in that same spirit as well. As we all know the internet loses those non-verbal cues a conversation has.The bad blood between United States Air Force and NASA has well been documented over the years, and seems to mostly exist on the Air Force side. Mike Mullane wrote about it in his excellent book "Riding Rockets." I'm sure this goes back to the late 1950s when the USAF thought they were going to be in charge of the space program and had wrenched from them by President Eisenhower's decision to create NASA. It was not a surprise to me that they didn't get one, although the feelings I got on this message board was that many felt it was a certainty. I woke up yesterday morning, with the firm belief that the USS Intrepid would not get any shuttle. I presumed that the West Coast would get one, I was sure that Florida would get one, it seems fair, they are the home of the space shuttle, and where the final one went, after the one at the Smithsonian, was up for grabs. I presumed somewhere in the Midwest, possibly Chicago. After all, Chicago is where the president is from. When I watched Charlie's speech from Florida I was delighted to find out that the Intrepid got the Enterprise, although some seem to think it's the consolation prize of space shuttles. As a member of the Intrepid, I'm sure I could make an easy case for their getting the shuttle, their association with Mercury and Gemini projects, their return of spacecraft to the Cape, their long history of naval aviation, and even an argument for New York City could be made as the wings of the space shuttle were manufactured around here, as well as New York's place in aviation history, Charles Lindbergh, Grumman and, Republic, etc.. I have no doubt that folks in Seattle, California, Texas, and any other place in this board could come up with a similar argument for their hometowns. My point was simply that so many people seem to find that attacking the awarding of the shuttle Enterprise to the Intrepid was the way to go. Simply presuming so many things could go wrong, or would go wrong by the Intrepid's handling of the space shuttle smacked as being somewhat petty, and below the level of discourse that this board has usually kept. When in fact, nothing has gone wrong. The awarding of the shuttle to New York was, in my opinion, that more people would see it here. Yes, there are a great many things to do in New York City and I doubt many people will be making the trip solely here to see the space shuttle, but if they see it while it's here, well, I think that's what they had in mind. The shuttle itself does not have to be a draw here. I doubt the space shuttle itself will have a significant effect on New York City tourism. Also, to put the shuttle on the world stage, such as New York City offers, assures will be seen by the not only visitors, but appropriate dignitary types, when they come to visit New York, such as presidents and kings, visiting the United Nations, who, if we face facts, the United States is always attempting to impress. Additionally the media will no doubt make use of it here. It will not be a forgotten relic in some dusty museum. I am reminded of when the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame was awarded to Cleveland, there seems to be some regret about that decision now by the Board of Directors of the hall. They said it would be "just another thing in New York", stating that in Cleveland it would be something special. Unfortunately, Cleveland has never reached the goals for visitors to the hall every year, and the Rock Hall of Fame director, came out and said "We should have put in New York City." I found that remark to be somewhat unkind to the good people of Cleveland, after all they put up the money for it. The space shuttle Enterprise may not be a total standout in New York City, but it will definitely be the standout of the collection of the USS Intrepid. And I'm sure they will treat it and display it like a precious jewel. And it will get visitors, that's for sure. Some on this board seem to think they can come up with a way to wrench the Enterprise out of the hands of the Intrepid, I feel such talk is beneath any form of good sportsmanship. It's extremely, extremely unlikely that this decision could be overturned by congressional pressure, or for that matter any other pressure. The cats out of the bag, and the decision was made by the man who had the power to make the decision. It's more important that the shuttle be well displayed and maintained properly. I agree they are tending to bunch them up along the East Coast, but I believe, for the reasons I have stated, awarding the shuttle to New York City, and the USS Intrepid was no stranger than awarding the shuttle to Seattle, Dayton Ohio, or numerous other places in our country, and could be argued as a wiser one. If Seattle or anywhere else, had been awarded the Enterprise, I would've congratulated them and wished them the best of luck, even if I questioned the decision. I believe that's good manners. I was just wondering why that good grace was not extended to the Intrepid. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-13-2011 08:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
Has their been any discussion of offering a 747 to the Museum of Flight in Seattle who could then have a mockup orbiter built and mounted atop it?
The disposition of the two Shuttle Carrier Aircraft has yet to be decided. There's been some talk of their continuing service to NASA or other organizations, after further modifications. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-13-2011 08:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceDust:
Who's to police how these treasures are kept and maintained and what if their not?
According to NASA, the ownership agreement between the space agency and the museums includes a clause that if ever the museum no longer wants or cannot support displaying the orbiter, the vehicle will be returned to NASA. The museums cannot sell, or otherwise reassign the orbiters to other facilities.That clause applies to three of the orbiters, including Enterprise. Until transferred to the Intrepid, Enterprise belongs to NASA again, its ownership having been turned over by the Smithsonian on April 7, 2011. NASA is retaining ownership of Atlantis at the Kennedy Space Center because the space agency owns the Visitor Complex. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-13-2011 08:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Boos:
In the past spacecrafts where turned over to the Smithsonian to be loaned out and they made the decision... not NASA.
The Smithsonian, facing its own budget constraints, was unable to assume ownership of all the space shuttle artifacts coming out of NASA as it did at the end of Apollo.Although the institution is still being given first right of refusal, the Smithsonian decided to only accept the artifacts that it would display or preserve itself. As such, NASA — with congressional approval — instituted the orbiter disposition process and worked with the General Services Administration to make other shuttle artifacts available to other museums and educational institutions. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-13-2011 08:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
How many of the other proposals were kept from public disclosure?
All of them. Public disclosure was never required, nor a factor in selection, and in fact, the original and revised RFIs stated that the content of the museums' proposals would be kept confidential.It was left for the museums to decide whether they desired to make their bid known and how much information to share with the public. |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 729
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 04-13-2011 08:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...the original and revised RFIs stated that the content of the museums' proposals would be kept confidential. It was left for the museums to decide whether they desired to make their bid known and how much information to share with the public.
And this is precisely why I've been hesitant to criticize the selections that were announced yesterday. Although some of the display sites were not what I would have chosen, I have also kept in mind that those doing the deciding had access to a lot of information the rest of us didn't. For that reason, my response has largely been, "Well, that's different, isn't it? Good luck to all the winners." |
btguest
Member Posts: 28
From: Waldorf, MD
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-13-2011 09:24 PM
There is clearly only one solution here: we need to open up the space shuttle production line again!
|
Fezman92
Member Posts: 1031
From: New Jersey, USA
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 04-13-2011 09:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by btguest:
There is clearly only one solution here: we need to open up the space shuttle production line again!
Good idea. |
maxq98
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-13-2011 09:41 PM
I have seen a few comments about the shuttle mock up at KSC. Is there any way that JSC could get this one from the KSC visitor center? I know it is owned by a private company, but does it have to stay in Florida or can they display it in Houston and still retain ownership or could they sell or donate it to them. It seems like a good solution for JSC to get a shuttle of some sort and KSC won't need two.I also read an article that JSC and the families of the deceased orbiters Columbia and Challenger, were trying to get Columbia for display or memorial... any truth behind this ever happening? |
RocketmanRob
Member Posts: 268
From: New York City USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 04-13-2011 10:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Murph:
I was just wondering why that good grace was not extended to the Intrepid.
Thanks for your comments regarding Enterprise going to the Intrepid Museum. The tone of the reaction to Enterprise going there has been a bit strong and surprising. Personally, I felt KSC, JSC, and the Smithsonian should have received them and then all of the other locations were a toss-up to receive Enterprise with all having similar pros and cons. Every location appropriately played the political game in this process - no one city/location did this exclusively - remember some of the language that was added by various Congressional representatives to the RFP process. I too was surprised by Intrepid winning out, but am very happy that it be coming here. I will be getting a family membership so that I can visit with my kids often. I've spoken to a few other New Yorker's that plan on doing the same. I understand the reaction, but I think you put it well, that I would have simply congratulated what ever city got it and planned to travel to DC or Florida here on the East coast to see one. The Intrepid is a fantastic museum that just received a complete multi-million dollar overhaul. The 7 train will be extended down that way in a few years (already under construction) that will provide direct access to the museum. Let's not assume that they will not take good care of this national treasure. That was part of the RFP process and if NASA wasn't satisfied they would have never sent it there. Hopefully we have all learned the result of keeping it outdoors in Florida, Texas, and Alabama. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 04-14-2011 12:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by isaacada1:
Jay, what is your source for the Museum of Flight of wanting Enterprise? Was it in a newsletter? Do you have a quote from Bonnie Dunbar? I don't recall the museum going after a specific shuttle in any of their promotional materials.
Well, my information source is a discussion between myself, Robert and Al Whitaker from the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville as all three of us were at the press site for STS-131. Al was showing the video of Alabama's plans for a new museum display featuring Enterprise if they won it. If I remember correctly, Robert mentioned that Seattle was making a play for Enterprise as well under the assumption it might be easier to get it instead of a flight orbiter. I was listening in since I was also a Space Camp graduate like Robert and interested in what was going on at the USSRC since I hadn't been there for a few years. Al was there covering Dottie Metcalf-Lindenberger's flight as she was the first Space Camp graduate to fly into orbit. Robert had images from the other museum proposals on his laptop as he was putting together a cS article to showcase them. Granted this was one year ago and it was still early in the process (and a couple months before Seattle broke ground on the new wing) So I imagine as things gelled, the Seattle museum board probably decided to make a play for a flight orbiter instead. Plus, it may not have been clear at the time if the Smithsonian would retain ownership of Enterprise, leaving them free to send it to where ever they chose if they got Discovery or if ownership would revert back to NASA. Or I could also have remembered it incorrectly. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 04-14-2011 12:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by FullThrottle:
My thinking was that Enterprise was only flown on missions over California at Edwards AFB. Never saw a test flight on the East Coast or even around Florida.
In addition to what Ben said, Enterprise flew to Marshall as well for vibration testing and I believe spent time on the east coast on the back of NASA 905 before it was sent to the Paris Air Show in 1984 (or was it 85?). Then it came back, did the stacked fit check at Vandenberg AFB (only shuttle to ever get stacked on SLC-6) and finally went to Dulles where it was stored for years before Udvar Hazy was built. The last test I believe Enterprise as a whole was used in was a testing of a barrier system at Dulles where it got winched through at slow speed (not sure why they did it honestly). Portions of Enterprise's nose gear strut were also used for shuttle tire testing after that. I suppose in the entire history of Enterprise, one could argue that it has spent more of its lifetime on the east coast rather than the west coast, albeit more in storage and on display as opposed to actual testing, even if NASA did pay it a visit from time to time for periodic checks and evaluations. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-14-2011 06:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
If I remember correctly, Robert mentioned that Seattle was making a play for Enterprise as well under the assumption it might be easier to get it instead of a flight orbiter.
I don't remember the specifics of our discussion, but other than the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, which wanted to craft a specific exhibit/story around Enterprise, I don't think any of the museums – including Seattle – ever stated they did not want a flown-in-space orbiter as their first choice. Some like the Museum of Flight however, were said to be much warmer to the idea of receiving Enterprise than some of the other organizations vying for a vehicle. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-14-2011 06:37 AM
Former space shuttle program director Wayne Hale has weighed in on why he thinks Houston did not get a shuttle. Immediate reaction from many people in the Houston area was that the Orbiter disposition decision was politically tainted. For example, this was the explanation of my old Rice classmate Annise Parker, her honor the Mayor of Houston.Maybe there is some truth to that. It's hard to say what goes on inside the Washington beltway with any certainty. But my suspicions lie closer to home. Houston didn't get an orbiter because Houston didn't deserve it... |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-14-2011 07:32 AM
May have been discussed in a different thread, but where and what's the status of Shuttle-C/MPTA-098? As well, anybody know what spare parts were made following Endeavour's construction? I do remember that not enough were made to make another orbiter, but I was thinking should a museum want a shuttle, taking those parts and Shuttle-C. It would be no different than cobbling together a Saturn V from flight and nonflight stages. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-14-2011 07:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by RocketmanRob:
The 7 train will be extended down that way in a few years (already under construction) that will provide direct access to the museum.
Unless things have changed, the 7 train comes nowhere near the Intrepid, nor are there plans to. The terminus of the 7 will be at the Javits Center, at 34th and 10th or 11th. They planned for a stop at 41st and 10th or 11th which was eliminated but if it is brought back, it's still a walk to the Intrepid. (I come in from NJ through Port Authority, take the 42nd St. crosstown bus to the piers, then walk a few blocks north.)Maybe with Enterprise coming to Intrepid they can extend the 7 the other way - to Secaucus Junction.  That way, you could get visitors coming in from Newark Airport. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 04-14-2011 07:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Portions of Enterprise's nose gear strut were also used for shuttle tire testing after that...
Don't forget that reinforced carbon-carbon panels from the leading edge of Enterprise's left wing were used for foam strike testing after the Columbia accident. Enterprise is displayed with those panels still missing. It was thanks to those panels that the accident team was able to demonstrate the validity of the foam strike theory as the cause of Columbia's destruction. Even in retirement, Enterprise served an invaluable role in the fleet.For at least a year after her arrival at Dulles, Enterprise was parked out in the open on an apron adjacent to the south end of Runway 1L/19R. Whenever I flew out of Dulles, I always tried to book a window seat so that I could get a look at her as we taxied to the runway! She was eventually moved into a hangar. |
Murph
Member Posts: 108
From: New York, NY USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 04-14-2011 07:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
Unless things have changed, the 7 train comes nowhere near the Intrepid, nor are there plans to. The terminus of the 7 will be at the Javis Center, at 34th and 10th or 11th.
Although its a small point, as you know, the Intrepid is on 12th Ave, and 46th Street, hardly a long hike from the terminus of the 7 train when it is completed. I often stroll over there when the weather is nice and I live on the opposite side of Manhattan. NYC is a walking town, tourists don't often bring cars here anyway, and its pretty accessible, in my opinion. Unfortunately I doubt the 7 will ever extend to NJ, they have been planning that since 1976 and its still no closer to fruition. |
advertisement