posted 10-30-2012 12:07 PM               

When I first heard about the dome, I was wondering why they didn't go with their first plan for storage, which was to store Enterprise at a hangar at one of the major airports until its permanent home was finished (busing tours there periodically), then take it by barge to the site and move it in. But I guess somebody had it in their head that they wanted Enterprise AT the Intrepid ASAP so they could generate funds from ticket sales to offset the expense costs for getting it. I don't think the money they made off those sales is going to pay for all this.

Now they have to do something to contain the damage, try to come up with a plan to repair what they can (in a spot not ideal for fixing something the size of a commercial airliner several stories above a pier) and rebuild the surrounding structure. And they have to do this before the first major snowfall or ice melting and refreezing inside those wings is going to start popping tiles off of it. More than likely they will focus on fixing the dome first, that way they can at least get the rest of the orbiter protected. But the top of the dome won't make patching the tail easy to do.

posted 10-30-2012 02:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
I am simply of the opinion that in an area prone to hurricanes and heavy snow fall that perhaps they might have opted for something a bit more rigid to protect a national treasure.

---

posted 10-30-2012 02:55 PM               

I would want to know what plan was in effect in the days leading up to the storm, including the removal of the orbiter from the flight deck, to ensure the protection of Enterprise, or was there simply a "hope for the best" approach? Regardless of what could have been done, I feel strongly that the current arrangement is completely unsatisfactory for the future.

Intrepid officials have learned a hard lesson, and once the essential recovery efforts are taken care of, need to relocate Enterprise to a solid enclosed structure off site until such time that funding can be found for their own permanent display building.

posted 10-30-2012 02:56 PM               

I would want to know what plan was in effect in the days leading up to the storm, including the removal of the orbiter from the flight deck, to ensure the protection of Enterprise, or was there simply a "hope for the best" approach? Regardless of what could have been done, I feel strongly that the current arrangement is completely unsatisfactory for the future.

Intrepid officials have learned a hard lesson, and once the essential recovery efforts are taken care of, need to relocate Enterprise to a solid enclosed structure off site until such time that funding can be found for their own permanent display building.

posted 10-30-2012 03:19 PM            

Was the building in Los Angeles rated to withstand the worst earthquake imaginable before the Endeavour was handed over? Was the new building in Florida rated to withstand the worst hurricane imaginable before NASA sent Atlantis over? Did Intrepid have, well, a building before Enterprise was handed over?

I can only answer the last question, which was clearly a "no."

Enterprise had previously been in the custody of the National Air and Space Museum. Maybe they should have been more firm with Intrepid before handing Enterprise over to them?

You have to remember that the shuttles are probably going to stay at their present locations forever, barring something extraordinary. I would certainly hope the folks in Los Angeles have earthquake-proofed their building using only the finest state-of-the-art building designs and techniques, just like I hope the folks in Florida hurricane-proofed their building. After all, those shuttles are probably the most rare and priceless things within their respective metro areas.

posted 10-30-2012 05:49 PM               

The inflatable pavilion was an incredibly bad idea to allow for the storage of Enterprise. If you have any doubt, just go to Youtube and watch all of the inflatable dome structures that have deflated due to severe inclement weather conditions (causing damage to structures and loss of life). This was definitely not an unforseen incident!

Likewise, while hurricane Sandy was a huge storm, historically it is not unprecedented. A similarly sized hurricane caused significant damage to Long Island in the early 20th Century. Hurricane forcasters have long been warning that this type of storm was overdue in the New England/New York area. Hurricane Irene last year, prior to the delivery of the Shuttle Enterprise, should have been caution enough to Intrepid museam management that the temporary structure was ill advised.

The Space Shuttle Enterprise should have been stored as originally planned in a more secure hanger, with a better chance to survive the storm than place in glorified bubble wrap! Unfortunately, dollars had more to do with this decision than common sense.

Yes, Enterprise has spent considerable time stored in the outdoors over its nearly four decades in service. However, much of that time was at Dryden Flight Research Center or further inland at Dulles airport. Storing it outside at Dulles Airport was not a good idea either and the Smithsonian was lucky that they did not have a similar accident.

posted 10-30-2012 05:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
It is absolutely inexcusable that Enterprise has now been damaged twice in the few short months it has been in the care of the Intrepid museum.

---

The decision to display Enterprise on the flight deck was driven by a desire to make the orbiter available to the public sooner. If you recall, the Smithsonian kept Enterprise hidden, stored in a non-climate controlled hangar, for close to 20 years. The Intrepid did not want to put Enterprise back into a closed hangar (New York's airports made it clear that due to security concerns, public access would not have been possible).

Under the normal weather conditions for New York City, Enterprise would have been fine inside the pavilion. It was rated to withstand snow storms, and had come through a severe hail and rain storm at its opening without damage.

You cannot protect for everything. No one predicted a storm of Sandy's breadth and strength, as evident by how many were caught off guard by its aftermath.

All things considered, Enterprise could have sustained far more damage than it did. And, at this point, we're all assessing the damage from afar and without details.

posted 10-30-2012 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by p51:
I know it's a moot point but I have to wonder, would Intrepid have gotten the Enterprise had this storm rolled in before the delivery?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The decision to display Enterprise on the flight deck was driven by a desire to make the orbiter available to the public sooner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
You cannot protect for everything. No one predicted a storm of Sandy's breadth and strength, as evident by how many were caught off guard by its aftermath.

---

posted 10-30-2012 09:51 PM               

And then obviously after the bubble deflated, the wind ripped it apart against the orbiter.

While you can argue that some buildings were damaged, if Enterprise was put in a building properly engineered to survive storms and high winds, this wouldn't have happened. It's a civil engineer's job to account for such thing. Obviously whoever designed the bubble did not.

posted 10-30-2012 09:56 PM               

The rise in the Hudson River due to Hurricane Sandy caused flooding and damage to Pier 86. The pier was designed to withstand the 100 year storm. However, the unprecented levels of water flooded the main electrical transformers and both of our backup generators. As a result, power issues caused the Space Shuttle pavilion to deflate. The shuttle sustained only minor damage.

We currently are assessing the situation. The safety of our employees is most important, and when our teams are able to safely work on site, we will begin to rebuild the areas of our complex that have been affected.

We are eager to reopen our doors to the public, but as of now, the Museum will be closed until further notice. Please visit our website for updates.

posted 10-31-2012 02:55 PM               

I had my doubts and worries of another New York incident, but they really have treated her with respect all the way from LAX. So what if New York had to house it at JFK safely in a hanger out of view? That would just encourage them to build an enclosure sooner rather than putting it under an inflatable bubble on the deck. I'm glad they didn't get the plywood trainer that we have in Seattle, that would have been damaged much worse if they had it.

Of course human lives and homes have to come first in disasters, but if the museum had a proper enclosure, this wouldn't have been an issue.

posted 10-31-2012 03:52 PM               

As far as the structural abilities for this structure, it is proven technology and this type of weather is a tough situation for all places. I guess we could say the subway should have been water tight as well as I believe that the folks of New York have a long road ahead of them when it comes to those systems. Both situations are a bad result of some very bad weather both would drive enormous costs into a place that can not afford those costs. The decision was made to allow the shuttle to be placed in this building and I am sure there will be a number of criticisms of both.

posted 10-31-2012 04:07 PM               

The issue here seems to be cost cutting... A higher safety factor is more expensive. Intrepid went with an inflatable as a cost-cutting method (rather than building a whole new building, as Seattle and Los Angeles did). I am glad they didn't build a temporary rigid structure though because given their record of cost cutting, it probably would have been a shoddy building. And a rigid building collapse would have done significantly more damage.

posted 10-31-2012 04:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
The damage to Enterprise, based on what we see so far, appears relatively minor and can be repaired. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for dozens of lives and thousands of homes along the east coast.

---

posted 10-31-2012 05:03 PM               

Maybe somebody could call it a perfect storm of circumstances, but was already pointed out, an electrical interruption is enough to cut off the blowers which give structural integrity to the dome. Maybe it is unfair to single out Intrepid for this failure given the storm was a bit more powerful than anticipated. But, a very weak link in their support chain was exposed.

Normal buildings aren't as dependent. If they lose power, you have no lights. But you still typically have four walls and a roof left. A hospital in New York City also lost backup power capability and had to have its patients evacuated to other locations. So they had a backup for the backup. Backup electrical generators also depend on a good fuel supply for them. If the fuel in the gas tank gets contaminated with water or something else, they end up just as useless when they are needed the most.

I am willing to cut Intrepid a little slack given it was a major storm that caused this. But, they really, really, REALLY need to rethink this whole deck display situation in the first place. Original predictions were what, three years of having Enterprise on the deck before the new facility is ready? Well, California Science Center is building a new facility for Endeavour which if I recall will take about five years and they already have land earmarked for it.

Intrepid is still having to wait for re-zoning of the area before they can even offer to buy the land from what I can recall. Most of us know from either anecdotal or direct experience that government bureaucracy can take a long time to do anything (look how long rebuilding at the World Trade Center site has taken, even though that is a special case).

Only silver lining I see to the Sandy situation is it might light a fire under somebody's rear to fast track the process, but in terms of what New York City needs right this instant in the aftermath of the storm, a new permanent home for a space shuttle is going to be very low on the priority. Once the steps are in place, only then can construction begin on the new facility.

One of my early concerns was that in museum displays, temporary exhibits have an annoying habit of becoming permanent. The lofty goals of executive directors and curators tend to get cut down to size when the budget numbers are crunched. So announced plans for spending money on permanent exhibits tend to get quietly shelved as the money goes to more pressing needs of keeping the museum going day to day as tourist dollars shrink and expenses go up (something every museum in the country is experiencing).

Intrepid had a plan in place initially in their proposal (i.e. the "greenhouse" built on the pier itself, which I was not too crazy about either due to other concerns) and after the announcement was made that they had won Enterprise, things changed. But apparently the decision to give it to Intrepid was final, so they were still getting an orbiter as the "title" was signed over to them. If Intrepid had said during their original pitch that Enterprise was going to be housed in a temporary dome on the deck of the ship, I doubt they would even have been in the running due to failure of at least one of the original criteria for consideration.

I know, I know. I'm rehashing old ground that has been covered before and could be accused of "preaching to the choir". But my original concerns about the Intrepid situation weren't due to any grumbling about a museum near where I live not getting a shuttle. It was due to this suspicion I had that Intrepid potentially had bitten off more than it could chew and I don't think they fully took into account the pitfalls and expenses required to display an orbiter properly and instead only considered the benefits.

posted 10-31-2012 06:21 PM               

But passion is not a substitute for the facts, and I fear some mistruths and misconceptions are being cited as part of this discussion and others online. I would strongly caution against making assumptions based on appearances and suggest that if you are not absolutely certain of what you write, it is best not written.

The pavilion was not the cheaper option; it was also not the less advisable option. I would suggest re-reading Fred's (GACspaceguy) reply, as he has the engineering background and experience to comment accurately about the structural questions raised.

NASA didn't review or approve display designs. Any of the renderings that you saw prior to the museums being selected were visual aids, not requirements for the selection. All of the museums that were selected, the Smithsonian included, had to alter their display plans after being chosen, as it was only afterwards that they met with NASA and were briefed on what was and wasn't possible with the vehicles.

That said, the pavilion aboard the Intrepid did receive NASA's endorsement, and was, prior to this storm, a fitting and appropriate temporary display for Enterprise.

The selection process is over. The Intrepid owns Enterprise. It is their vehicle, their artifact, and their curatorial staff takes a great deal of pride in that, which they should. They would never purposely put Enterprise in harm's way, and as much concern as was raised here, I am certain they feel it that much more.

posted 11-09-2012 03:11 PM               

Sorry we have been quiet — communication hasn't been easy since the storm.

As we reported, our entire pier and Welcome Center were flooded during Hurricane Sandy, knocking out our main electrical transformers. Our team is working 24/7 to restore the power, but we expect to be closed throughout November.

The Intrepid, our aircraft collection including Concorde, and the Growler submarine were not damaged. And while the Space Shuttle Pavilion did deflate, Enterprise sustained only minor damaged.

We will continue to update everyone here on Facebook so keep checking back for information on our reopening date.