posted 08-25-2011 12:18 PM               

NASA chose right museums for retired space shuttles, report finds

NASA's selection of display locations for retired space shuttles in California, Florida, New York and Virginia was implemented fairly and without improper influence, federal investigators reported Aug. 25.

NASA's Office of Inspector General (OIG), which provides independent oversight for the agency, reviewed NASA's selection process as a result of concerns being raised by politicians and by some of the museums who missed out on receiving one of the four prized orbiters for their state or facility.

"Disappointed applicants and some members of Congress questioned whether the agency's selection process had complied with federal law or was influenced by improper political considerations," OIG investigative counsel James Mitzelfeld said in a video released with the 26-page report. "To answer these questions, [OIG] examined the agency's process for choosing permanent display locations for the shuttle orbiters."

posted 08-26-2011 05:23 AM               

My point, though, was simply this — why bother with the entire selection process, if what Bolden says is true — that he would have awarded shuttles to New York and California anyway over Dayton, because of these handpicked criteria of his?

posted 08-26-2011 11:46 AM               

The Cradle, and you will never see a more beautiful aviation museum, has neither the room or funding, as could be said of The American Air Power Museum, also in Long Island. All three have awesome collections, including a lunar module, jet fighters and WWII vintage aircraft. Several years ago I flew on a B-17 which often visits the Air Power Museum, which has an active runway. Beautiful places, all.

But only the Intrepid was prepared to raise the necessary money in these tough economic times. And Long Island is not New York City. My office is less than two miles from the Cradle, I have been there many times,and attended their lectures and dinners; they simply do not get the visitors or opportunity for exposure that NASA wanted for a shuttle.

posted 08-26-2011 01:45 PM               

What strikes me is this passage from the report:

Bolden told the Team that he did not believe a location’s connection to the Space Shuttle Program or to NASA generally should be a consideration in deciding where to place the Orbiters. Rather, it was Bolden’s preference that the Agency choose locations where the Orbiters would be seen by the largest number of visitors and thus serve NASA’s goal of expanding outreach and education efforts to spur interest in science, technology, and space exploration. Accordingly, he instructed the Recommendation Team that in addition to the criteria of attendance and regional population, NASA should also consider a location’s access to international visitors and place the most emphasis on these three factors. According to a written summary of the meeting by one Team member, '[s]trongest preference cited a geographic placement that offers the greatest potential foot traffic, regional and international access.'

I find it ridiculous that Bolden kept these things under wraps. He basically disqualified any place but where the orbiters ended up going. I guess as the old aerospace adage goes, if you get to write the specs, you get the answer you want.

It seems to me that regional population is irrelevant if you consider attendance. Why does it matter if you have a billion people near the site if no one actually goes to your facility? As I (and others have pointed out) the largest cities with the largest number of international visitors (a criteria I won't even get into this time) have so many attractions that the pool of visitors is extremely diluted.

Interestingly, the initial chart shows that only the NMUSAF and KSC scored a 15 in actual attendance, meaning more people would see the orbiters there than any place else. That was inexplicably revised on the later chart.

The report notes that it had difficulty finding a "final" chart, which appeared mysteriously later with the NMUSAF mistakenly scored lower and with some changes in favor of the winning museums. Conspiracy? Of course, one might question future KSC visitor numbers in the post-shuttle lull, but that's getting off track.

posted 08-27-2011 02:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kr4mula:
...by not getting involved in the process.

---