|
Author
|
Topic: Exhibiting NASA's retired shuttle orbiters
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-14-2011 08:00 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by ilbasso:
Enterprise is displayed with those panels still missing.
Those panels were reinstalled, as can be seen in our gallery from last August as Enterprise was being inspected for its upcoming ferry flight. (The return of the panels pre-dated the ferry preparations but Enterprise wouldn't have been deemed airworthy without them.) |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2476
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 04-14-2011 01:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
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...
For an aircraft it is actually not that difficult to remove engines, wings, empennage, fuselage then relocate those big parts and reassemble. Even easier if the intent is that the aircraft never has to fly again. We have done that many times with Gulfstream aircraft and return them to service again. In this case I would hope that the transport does not include disassembly. For the Shuttle, there are no spare parts available especially for damaged TPS parts. As I see it for this location, I am assuming it goes the same way as the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. The "Main" facility is on the Mall and the satellite exhibits are located in Dulles at the Udvar facility (30 miles away). In this case the Udvar facility is much larger than the "Main" facility. I can see how this would be the case in LA, the CSC is the Main campus and another facility connected to an airport could be the actual site. And, since the land availability is difficult as well as cost is very high, in the LA area, the closest available location may be Palmdale (60 miles away).  |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 04-14-2011 01:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ilbasso:
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.
Last time I was at Udvar-Hazy in September of 2006, Enterprise had RCC panels on the wings. To my knowledge, Enterprise never had actual RCC panels though, but aerodynamic mockups of the same shape. They were used for early impact testing, but it was ones off a flight orbiter (Atlantis I believe) that were used in the test that produced a very audible "Oh ****" on the video footage when the foam blew a hole in one of the panels. |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 729
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 04-14-2011 01:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
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.
According to Terry Waddington's excellent book on the DC-8, the wings of that DC-8 were removed for transit, then reattached on site (reminiscent, by the way, of how the former Air Force One was transported to the Reagan Library and reassembled a few years ago). I don't know what the plans are for the Shuttle; I just bring the DC-8 transit up as a historical curiosity.  |
Ben
Member Posts: 1896
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-14-2011 02:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Murph:
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.
Murph is correct, the new 7 line station will be about eight city blocks from the Intrepid, a walk of about six or seven minutes. |
BMckay
Member Posts: 3220
From: MA, USA
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 04-15-2011 09:48 AM
I am really wondering how much extra traffic a shuttle will bring to KSCVC, the Intrepid and the NASM. Are people really going to go out of their way to go see a shuttle? In many ways people don't care about it now while it is flying... |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 04-15-2011 09:58 AM
I watched an Atlas V launched from Vandenberg AFB at 21:24 PDT last night from my front yard in Huntington Beach about 200 miles away. It was a real site as it climbed up and away to its polar orbit.It just reminded me of how much aerospace tradition there really is here in Southern California. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-15-2011 10:16 AM
I certainly do not think that NY deserves a space shuttle. |
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 04-15-2011 11:32 AM
I've been putting some considered thought into the "international visitors" aspect of the shuttle location selection." On the one hand, I can see Apollo spacecraft being accessible to such visitors, and indeed being placed in other countries, as the point of that program was to demonstrate American superiority on the national stage. By all means, send those capsules and crews around the world to show off... and to win some hearts and minds in developing countries that were then weighing the advantages of capitalism and communism. The shuttle on the other hand, was from its inception a more practical machine than a political one (more to come on this in a moment...). Yes, it was impressive for its day, but I doubt many people in other countries remember where they were when STS-1 launched. So why should we make sure international visitors have easy access to it, instead of our own hard-working, tax-paying citizens who supported it? Sour grapes, perhaps? On the other hand, the shuttle did become an international political instrument. Spacelab, Shuttle-Mir, and ISS are the biggest examples, of course. How many international astronauts from how many countries flew on the shuttle for those (and other) efforts? I could see people from some other countries wanting to see the only way in which their fellow countrymen (and -women) made it into space. So sure, make at least one or two easily accessible to them via major international ports. One might argue that Enterprise, without any international crewmembers, won't be much of a draw in this respect. On the third hand, do all of the locations have to meet that criteria? Do we have to put three of the four in such places (and arguably all four if you consider KSC's proximity to Orlando and Disney) at the expense of the country's heartland? I guess the points are moot now. While I appreciate the Ohio (and Texas) Congressional delegations' enthusiasm, I'm not sure there's any point in protesting this decision. Do they really think NASA will change its mind? One other thought: I'd agree with one of the earlier posts that the Air Force Museum didn't do itself any favors with its proposed display. Just parking the orbiter among the other aircraft isn't very inspiring or very educational. For comparison, KSC's proposal was fantastic. I'll look forward to seeing that in person some time. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-15-2011 11:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by kr4mula:
One might argue that Enterprise, without any international crewmembers, won't be much of a draw in this respect.
However, Enterprise is the only orbiter that was shown outside the U.S. The 747 SCA refueled in Canada and brought Enterprise at least to France and the UK.
|
Constellation One
Member Posts: 119
From: Lorain, Ohio, USA
Registered: Aug 2008
|
posted 04-15-2011 04:42 PM
...sums it all up for me. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-15-2011 06:05 PM
My friend Michael Grabois, who for 20 years has worked for the space shuttle program as a contractor employee in Houston, offers his opinion as to why Houston did not receive an orbiter in a guest editorial for the Houston Chronicle. It's easy to look at NASA awarding the soon-to-be-retired space shuttles to places other than Houston, home of the Johnson Space Center, in purely political terms. After all, hasn't the President shown contempt for the state of Texas in the past? Isn't Texas a "red state", and didn't the President lose here twice in 2008 (first to Hillary Clinton in the primary, then to the Republicans in the national election)? Isn't this just another example of how politicized everything is, that he took the opportunity to thumb his nose at us? Well, maybe. But if you can look past the politics just for a moment, there are several good reasons why NASA may have done what it did. There's a lot of speculation in here - I have no knowledge whatsoever of the bid process, I haven't seen any of the bids, and I haven't talked to anyone else involved - but no wild leaps to unfounded conclusions... |
chenry
Member Posts: 60
From: Zionsville, IN 46077
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-17-2011 07:22 AM
The question should also have been, where will they get the best level of dare I say it "preservation". The USS Intrepid is already displaying concern about their ability to preserve and display it. That is also on top of the fact that they had the Concorde damages awhile back and had a hard time getting it repaired. I have been a volunteer at both a Science Center and several air museums including the NMUSAF, and can tell you that it would be better off at the air museums. At the science center, it will be nothing more than a decoration. |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 04-17-2011 11:41 AM
I too heard that the Concorde at USS Intrepid has NOT been well cared for. Sending Enterprise there was in my opinion a mistake and I hope the challenge that would bring Endeavour to JSC and send Enterprise to California succeeds. Robert's comments however would suggest the chances of this happening are slim to nil!!! |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-17-2011 12:01 PM
With all due respect, JSC doesn't have the best track record in terms of preservation, with regards to their Saturn V... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-17-2011 01:39 PM
It is probably helpful to keep organizations separate. Space Center Houston, a private entity, had been vying for an orbiter, not Johnson Space Center. The Saturn V at JSC belongs to the Smithsonian, the building surrounding it and its associated exhibits belongs to NASA. Space Center Houston has permission to tour its visitors through the rocket park, but that's the extent of their involvement. So when judging Houston's orbiter bid, you should be looking at Space Center Houston and its exhibits, and not to the Saturn V or JSC rocket park. |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 04-17-2011 03:15 PM
Thanks for the clarification Robert. |
Murph
Member Posts: 108
From: New York, NY USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 04-17-2011 07:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Mulheirn:
I too heard that the Concorde at USS Intrepid has NOT been well cared for.
I was at the USS Intrepid this week, both inside and underneath the Concorde, and it is in beautiful condition. Statements otherwise are baseless rumors, and mean-spirited gossip.Some others, as well, believe the Enterprise belongs on the Intrepid, and that things will be just fine, including a man who flew it: Retired Navy Vice Adm. Richard Truly, a two-time astronaut and former NASA administrator, said the Intrepid is by far the best place for the Enterprise to call home. "The Intrepid is just a beautiful place for it," said Truly, who piloted the Enterprise test flights -- and who also made more than 100 carrier landings on the Intrepid. |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 04-18-2011 04:27 AM
Murph, I suspect the state of Concorde is a matter of timing. My comments were based on a viewing of the aircraft a little while back by a friend of mine well placed to know. He is a British Airways pilot. |
chenry
Member Posts: 60
From: Zionsville, IN 46077
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 04-18-2011 06:20 AM
My comment came from a present employee that works on the aircraft. Also do NOT be fooled by a paint job as paint can hide a lot as far as corrosion. Giving something a new paint job makes it look nice, but is not preservation. The Concorde was damaged by a truck, and it took them forever to get it fixed. |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 04-18-2011 10:54 AM
I have pondered Michael Grabois’s comments that Houston was not chosen to house an orbiter because of purely political concerns due to Obama’s perceived contempt for Texas. All I can say is that in all of my youthful sarcasm, irony and cynicism for American politics I never even imagined that as a reason for the choices.Now I feel like the comedian Lewis Black when he has an epiphany such that no matter how dark I thought my thinking could go, I can only scratch the surface of reality. I thought I was just imagining this, but a clear thinking level headed friend of mine insists that in his opinion it is in fact all political. I checked and noted that all the proposed locations for the orbiters voted “blue” in 2008. Washington Sate and Ohio voted blue too, so maybe they still have a dog in the fight.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-18-2011 11:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
I have pondered Michael Grabois’s comments that Houston was not chosen to house an orbiter because of purely political concerns due to Obama's perceived contempt for Texas.
I think you missed Michael's point, Doug. If you read his full editorial, you'll see that he doesn't put much credence in the political claims (nor for that matter does anyone who has followed the selection process over the past three years) and demonstrates that are a number of other (non-partisan) explanations for Houston to be passed over for an orbiter... |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 04-18-2011 11:33 AM
Robert, I read where he gave it the old, well maybe... To be honest I hadn't really believed it would go along those lines, but reading his words left we pondering whether or not it could have happened. Maybe down the road when it all shakes out we might understand better why Houston lost out and another site might have won.I am not complaining, I love that LA gets an orbiter. I was just surprised like everyone else and left wondering why the chips fell where they did. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-18-2011 04:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It is probably helpful to keep organizations separate. Space Center Houston, a private entity, had been vying for an orbiter, not Johnson Space Center.
Ah, OK. Because there are some who say it is JSC which is vying for an orbiter. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-18-2011 04:31 PM
Most people refer to Space Center Houston as Johnson Space Center (JSC) just as they do Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex for KSC. The important difference is that NASA owns the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, whereas Space Center Houston is a privately-owned facility. NASA has identified Space Center Houston as organization that responded to its request for information, not Johnson Space Center. |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 04-18-2011 04:39 PM
Is there a reason why Johnson Space Center did not put in a request?If Space Center Houston put in a request, then I can somewhat understand why they didn't get an orbiter. They would have to do a total overhaul of that place to make it even close to the elite air and space museums. Personally, it would have been something else if JSC put in a bid, won it, and had the Saturn V and Space Shuttle together. Now THAT would have been awesome. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-18-2011 04:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MrSpace86:
Is there a reason why Johnson Space Center did not put in a request?
It's only a guess, but Johnson Space Center's exhibits department does not have the resources necessary to meet the requirements set forth by the selection process. For example, they presently cannot afford to replace the temporary building protecting/displaying the Saturn V, let alone construct a new building for an orbiter. |
astro-nut
Member Posts: 946
From: Washington, IL
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 04-18-2011 05:59 PM
Just my opinion but it would of have been neat to see a shuttle orbiter at the NASA space centers. Shuttle Discovery at KSC, Enterprise at Edwards Air Force Base, Endeavour at JSC and Atlantis at the Smithsonian Museum. Like I said, just my opinion. Thank you. |
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 04-19-2011 11:09 AM
According to a USA Today article, President Obama vehemently denied to Texas reporters that the White House had anything to do with the shuttle allocations. Obama also bristled at claims that his administration skipped Houston in the award of space shuttle orbiters and favored states that could help his re-election."That's wrong," the president stated. "That had nothing to do with it; the White House had nothing to do with it." When Watson persisted, Obama said, "I just said that was wrong," and, later, "I just said that wasn't true." |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-19-2011 12:14 PM
That interview is going to become infamous for very different reasons.  On this perceived political connection, I just don't see it. Bolden has publicly taken full responsibility for the decision on where the orbiters will go. Now maybe that's true or maybe it's not. But if Obama really wanted to garner political support from states he'd like to win in 2012, I think Ohio would have been at the top of the list. And Texas is a predominantly Republican state, a point this reporter made when questioning the President on the decision. Wouldn't he love to have a Right Stuff "Looky what I brought you..." moment down there? Apparently he does not. When it comes right down to it, the general public will have many more concerns on their minds when they go vote in a few months than whether or not their state got a retired space shuttle. Aside from those facilities hosting the orbiters who stand to benefit from the increased tourist revenue, I don't see this being a major influence. For those interested in, employed in, or benefiting from the NASA infrastructure in states like Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama, the gift of an orbiter would be a small consolation for the hardships they will now face. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-25-2011 02:25 PM
Former shuttle astronaut Mark Brown suggests building one at Dayton. Supporters of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force are suggesting that the community could get involved in helping to build the body of a space shuttle orbiter to incorporate the historic pieces that NASA intends to transfer to the museum.Mark Brown, a Dayton business executive and former shuttle astronaut, said he thinks it could be a morale booster for the community and help create excitement about the Air Force museum. He has suggested it to others, as well as museum officials. |
pokey
Member Posts: 361
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-25-2011 07:16 PM
About the same time as Bolden made his annoucement as to what shuttle will go where many were gathered at the JSC front gate dedicating an oak to Maxime Faget. A few days afterwards I wondered what Max would have thought about Houston not getting a shuttle. I think he would have said, "We will build even more wonderous spacecraft so that museums will have all they could possibly need!" Since the future US (NASA/commercial) space vehicles won't be reuseable there will be a larger supply of flown vehicles not all that long from now. |
isaacada1
Member Posts: 47
From: Greater Seattle, WA USA
Registered: Mar 2011
|
posted 04-28-2011 02:01 PM
They're still doing stories in Ohio about New York. This story brings video and background on the Intrepid Museum. |
Cozmosis22
Member Posts: 968
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 05-28-2011 04:07 PM
Have seen no discussion regarding leaving the remaining shuttles in orbit rather than relegating them to dusty old museums. They could be linked together as a free flying space platform or they could be attached to the ISS. We could even send one to the moon as a pre-supply mission. Just seems like such a waste to ground these perfectly good spaceships simply for economic expediency? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-28-2011 04:25 PM
The orbiters were not designed to stay in orbit for longer than a couple of weeks at a time. Their power generation systems require consumables (cryogenic liquid oxygen and hydrogen) as do their maneuvering engines, and their reaction control system uses propellant that will gradually erode its own plumbing. They also cannot leave Earth orbit, as they lack the propellent to reignite their main engines (the liquid oxygen and hydrogen used to fuel the SSMEs is depleted with the external tank). |
Cozmosis22
Member Posts: 968
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 05-28-2011 04:58 PM
Thanks. Indeed it was decided after the 51L accident that the shuttle would not be used as a long duration vehicle. Before that there were studies done regarding outfitting the orbiter for 4-6 week missions because the US had no space station and the Russians had their Mir. The huge cargo bay (which was, for a variety of political reasons, almost never fully utilized) could be retrofitted with the small amount of propellant needed to break orbit and head toward the moon. Know it won't happen now... and still think it's a bit of shame to see these marvelous birds get mothballed. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-28-2011 05:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Cozmosis22:
...still think it's a bit of shame to see these marvelous birds get mothballed.
They are not being mothballed; they are beginning a new mission of inspiring and educating present and future generations about living and working in space. They will serve as engineering reference examples for future spacecraft designers and stand as testaments to the many satellites, planetary probes and two space stations they serviced (which could not return to Earth, at least not intact). And they will serve as monuments to the thousands of people who oversaw their successful and safe flight as the world's first reusable crewed orbital spacecraft. |
advertisement