posted 04-12-2011 03:47 PM               

Perhaps the transportation of Enterprise to NYC was part of the consideration. I have seen here that while it can be flown on the 747 again, the route from JFK to Manhattan might be an issue. Is it possible that it will be flown into EWR and barged from the port nearby. Other locations may not have had reasonable access.

I have not been to the LA museum, so cannot comment on how suitable a place it is, but when one considers the ties to the orbiter construction it makes more sense than Seattle, and tourism numbers are likely much higher.

Dayton was never a good choice in my opinion, and while I feel bad for those involved in trying to get it there, I think some of these interactive exhibits involving the full cabin sims will be equally impressive, especially for the youngsters.

posted 04-12-2011 04:18 PM               

I realistically didn't expect Seattle to get one, although Enterprise would have been a nice tie-in with Boeing and the 747... Enterprise should have gone to California.

No matter how hard I try I cannot (other than Grumman who is defunct) connect the space shuttle to an aircraft carrier floating in salt water. I can't imagine even with a protective cover that Intrepid could be a safe place to store anything, especially a priceless one of a kind artifact.

posted 04-12-2011 05:20 PM               

Requirements for the Museum....

...a sufficiently long enough runway on which to land the 747 that will carry the Shuttles to their ultimate destinations.

posted 04-12-2011 05:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tegwilym:
What runway is that?

---

posted 04-12-2011 05:44 PM               

NYC, though, was a major surprise for me. Apparently it was deemed more important for people on the East Coast to have better access to TWO shuttles than for anyone away from a coast to have access to ONE.

I've seen reports that a major tipping factor was that all of the locations will provide easy access for "international visitors." Well, gee, that's nice, but it seems strange for that to outweigh access for U.S. citizens.

posted 04-12-2011 05:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by canyon42:
NYC, Apparently it was deemed more important for people on the East Coast to have better access to TWO shuttles than for anyone away from a coast to have access to ONE.

---

quote:

---

I've seen reports that a major tipping factor was that all of the locations will provide easy access for "international visitors."

---

posted 04-12-2011 06:00 PM               

For selfish reasons I would have liked to see one of the shuttles end up at the U.S Air Force Museum, a seven hour drive from my home.

posted 04-12-2011 06:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tegwilym:

...a sufficiently long enough runway on which to land the 747 that will carry the Shuttles to their ultimate destinations.

What runway is that?

---

I think many don't realize that JFK and New York City are on the ocean (Jamaica Bay, specifically, for the airport).

posted 04-12-2011 07:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Specifically I am referring to Intrepid. Part of what made me hesitate when I heard NYC was bidding was the fact that the Concorde they got a few years ago had its nose knocked off by a careless delivery driver who made a wrong turn.

---

Well, the Concorde had been moved to Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, in a rather unprotected area, during the time that incident occurred. That neglect, which occurred during the two-year period in which the Intrepid was hauled to NJ to be completely refurbished, was uncalled for and certainly would not happen again I'm sure.

posted 04-12-2011 07:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
There isn't much that could keep me away from Dulles the day that orbiter flies for the last time.

---

posted 04-12-2011 07:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by drjeffbang:
Will the general public be able to view it when it flies in? If so, we will be there!

---

My guess is that the museum will want some photos taken of the orbiter/747 inflight with the museum in the background, so a few passes down Runway 1R will be in order!

posted 04-12-2011 08:34 PM               

Make your case, that you should have gotten one? No.

Try to make a case that someone else should not have gotten theirs... yes.

Make up problems that may not even exist. Yes.

posted 04-12-2011 08:52 PM               

As for Chicago...and Denver? The heartland has less connection than NY if you want to take that route, however small.

posted 04-12-2011 08:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Murph:
That's whats going on here. Bad sports... sour grapes... bitter recriminations.

---

posted 04-12-2011 09:02 PM               

Unfortunately, there are only three spaceflight orbiters and one prototype. There aren't the score and then some capsules from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo/Skylab/ASTP.

posted 04-12-2011 09:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ben:
I'm not saying I completely agree with the decisions, as I myself felt JSC was the one deserving overall, but perhaps money is involved... just something to think about.

---

posted 04-12-2011 09:15 PM               

Personally, I have nothing at all specifically against the Intrepid museum EXCEPT that it is so close to Washington (relatively speaking). As far as I'm concerned, once the Smithsonian was considered an automatic choice, then nowhere else within a travel time of less than six or so hours should have even been considered.

You want specifics on why a site SHOULD have been chosen? Fine. For the Museum of the Air Force, I'll cite these without even getting into the Air Force's involvement with the space program:

1. It has higher attendance than the Udvar-Hazy center (as of 2007, latest attendance figures I could find online). Can't say about the other three spots, because I couldn't locate reliable figures for them.

2. It is FREE -- free admission, AND free parking. Udvar-Hazy is free, but with a $15 parking fee. Intrepid is over 20 bucks per adult, and heaven only knows what it costs to park somewhere in the region. We all know the costs involved with KSC. It looks as though general admission is free to the LA site, but with a parking fee (feel free to correct any of that if you have better info).

3. The AF museum is nowhere near anywhere else that will have a shuttle -- again, my one and only beef with the Intrepid Museum. This decision basically says that if you live in Chicago, or Indianapolis, or Cincinnati, or Cleveland, or St. Louis, or Columbus, well, you having access doesn't matter as much as the East Coast, which needs THREE shuttles somehow, two of them in close proximity.

4. At the AF museum, a shuttle would be a major draw in and of itself. Some might disagree, but I firmly believe that in NYC, LA, and Florida, after a time the shuttles will each just be one more thing lost amid a thousand other "tourist attractions."

posted 04-12-2011 09:26 PM               

I am a big fan of the USAF Museum, being a USAF veteran myself. But I knew NASA would never give them one, I thought it was obvious. It would be just another aircraft there, lumped into the collection with the rest. Not special, not a standout. And too much bad blood.

I do believe there should have been one more accessible to the center of the country.

posted 04-12-2011 10:14 PM               

If anything, I have a bigger issue with LA. Did they really pull this off without even making their plans for transporting, installing and displaying an orbiter available for public consumption?

posted 04-12-2011 10:26 PM               

It was Charlie's decision.

posted 04-12-2011 11:42 PM               

Statement From Johnson Space Center Director Concerning Announcement of Space Shuttle Orbiter Display Locations

NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Director Michael L. Coats made the following comments today concerning the announcement that facilities in Washington, Los Angeles, New York and Cape Canaveral, Fla., will be the permanent homes of the space shuttle orbiters following their retirement:

"The NASA administrator had a difficult decision to make and evaluated the numerous proposals against several criteria, including geographic distribution," Coats said. "Although the orbiters were built in California and launched in Florida, I am personally disappointed that the Houston area was not awarded one of the space shuttle orbiters. Houston had a strong case: the Space Shuttle Program has been located here at JSC since its inception, the astronauts live and train here, and of course all the shuttle missions have been controlled from our Mission Control Center."

"Regardless of today’s outcome, JSC -- along with our partners at Space Center Houston -- will continue to share the excitement of human spaceflight for decades to come."

posted 04-13-2011 06:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tegwilym:
Not knowing about the LA museum I looked up the location. This again brings up the question about the "nearby runway." So they plan on hauling it through LA on a truck from LAX?

---

Just to lighten things up: The only practical way to bring Enterprise to Intrepid is by barge. So maybe they'll get Capt. Sully to land Enterprise on the Intrepid.

posted 04-13-2011 06:27 AM               

I thought your comment that at the AF Museum a shuttle would be just another craft, not a "standout," was interesting. That is essentially one of my thoughts regarding all three of the East Coast sites. For the Midwest, I think a shuttle would actually be a destination for some, and draw some folks to the museum who might not otherwise have come. I have a hard time imagining that very many people who were not already visiting (outside of us "hardcore" folks) will be making special trips to Florida, NYC, or Washington just because of the shuttle. We shall see, I suppose.

posted 04-13-2011 07:59 AM               

quote:

---

DC is about, what, an hour's train ride south from Manhattan? You'd spend longer than that in New York traffic trying to get to the Intrepid.

---

Longer than an hour. An hour's train ride would put it literally in my backyard in NJ. Which, on second thought, would not be a bad idea.

posted 04-13-2011 08:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
An hour's train ride would put it literally in my backyard (NJ).

---

posted 04-13-2011 08:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by canyon42:
I have a hard time imagining that very many people who were not already visiting (outside of us "hardcore" folks) will be making special trips to Florida, NYC, or Washington just because of the shuttle. We shall see, I suppose.

I am curious what you meant exactly by "bad blood." Were you referring to a Navy/Air Force rivalry there (yes, Bolden is a former Marine, but he was graduated from the Naval Academy, I believe), or did you mean that in a political sense?

---

I think you've hit the nail on the head about the visitors. How many people will make a trip to NY or LA specifically to see one of the shuttles? Aside from the space fanatics, I'm guessing that it won't be many. As a result, I don't think you'll see overall tourism in NYC or LA go up at all. In both cases, I wonder how much either museum will see a bump in tourism. Both cities are already saturated with tourist destinations, meaning that even with a large number of visitors, those numbers are diluted because of everything else there is to see and do.

I'm from NY and love the city, so I have nothing against it, but there are some legitimate questions about this selection. Geography is the biggest one, in my opinion. As Ohio's senator put it, the "geographic diversity consists of which exit off I-95 you use." 200ish miles from another orbiter, in another city that has just as many foreign visitors? Clearly size, not relevance, was the sole criteria here. I've never been to the Intrepid Museum, so I can't knowledgeably comment on it.

As for LA, the geography at least makes a bit of sense: the orbiters were mostly built nearby, the region has an undeniable connection to the aerospace industry, the proximity of Edwards, and the desirability of a West Coast location (Seattle works, too!). My issue is the choice of venue. How many of us have even heard of this museum, much less visited it? And many of us are fairly knowledgeable about these things. When their website mentions that the aerospace building/wing/display is closed due to weather-related issues (i.e. a leaky building damaging its displays), it is hard to imagine that as an appropriate home to one of the rarest of all space artifacts. I can't imagine the Smithsonian, for example, even choosing to send a historically significant aircraft (of any sort) there because of that issue alone. If you look at their collection, it is decidedly middling at best. Regional museums in much smaller cities have more significant collections than they do. If someone goes to see Endeavour, what else will they see there? Not much. I was wondering if they teamed up with the Palmdale group or something. Can anyone shed light on this?

In interest of fairness, Dayton had its issues, again mainly geography. I think we lost because Dayton is a third-rate city with a first-rate museum. The NMUSAF would have been a no-brainer if it was located in a major city like Chicago, or perhaps even Columbus or Indianapolis. No one comes here unless they have a specific reason. However, for 1.3 million people last year, that reason was the Air Force Museum. Conservative estimates put that number at 2 million+ if we got a shuttle. Will the LA or Intrepid Museums see those numbers? In the end, it doesn't matter how many people visit the cities the orbiter is in. What matters is how many people actually go see the shuttles. And, as an American tax payer, I think we should worry about showcasing them to those of us who paid for them and will pay for future NASA programs, not to international visitors.

So in the end, it seems that putting them in big cities is all that really mattered. That sucks for any of us that don't live within a few miles of an ocean. As an aside, Bolden couldn't help but send one to at least one NASA facility and KSC was the obvious choice (as much as I love Houston when I worked for JSC). Congrats to them, and to the others.

As for the "bad blood," I'm assuming he meant between the Air Force and NASA. As some of us discussed a few pages back, that relationship has always been rocky and the shuttle's history is perhaps the shining example of that. My opinion then, and now, is that that story makes for some great history to tell instead of just celebrating what a cool machine the shuttle is.

posted 04-13-2011 09:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by isaacada1:
Full Throttle, why do you believe Enterprise should have gone to California instead of Endeavor?

---

The "sour grapes" comment is a stretch considering that there are TWO shuttles within 250 miles from each other. I did some mapquesting and there are spots in the USA where you'd have to go well over 1500 miles to see an orbiter.

Now, for me personally, a FLOWN orbiter going to L.A. means that I'm more likely to get to see it. Yet I still don't see the light as to why its going there.

I thought Texas was a shoe-in for a shuttle, considering that other than Florida they had more to do with the Shuttle program than anywhere else...