Start Saving To Buy Your Space Shuttle Now

stoolpigeon writes "With the retirement of the shuttle drawing near, NASA has begun to plan for museums that may want a used orbiter of their own. The Orlando Sentinel reports that NASA issued an RFI to US educational institutions, science museums and other organizations to see if they would be interested in the orbiter while also able to cover the estimated $42 million cost of 'safeing' the shuttle and transporting it."

Comments

So uh...

[sysusr]

Are there any export restrictions?

Re:So uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any export restrictions?

Dude, that makes about as much sense as an uncircumcised Jew eating a ham sandwich.

Re:So uh...

[CrazyTalk]

Actually, an uncircumcised Jew WOULD be likely to eat a ham sandwich, since they are probably not religious.

Re:So uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, an uncircumcised Jew WOULD be likely to eat a ham sandwich, since they are probably not religious.

So by that logic would a pregnant nun be likely to drink a beer too?

Re:So uh...

[Vampo]

Not sure about that but I'm sure that a drunk nun would be more likely to get pregnant

Re:So uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all I have to say.....

Re:So uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

correlation != causation

Would a Jew who is uncircumsized be likely to eat a ham sandwich?

Would a beer-drinking nun be likely to get pregnant?
Maybe...

Re:So uh...

[LrdDimwit]

As long as you don't give it to any alien nationals you should probably be alright.

Re:So uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

But would a Jew who eats a ham sandwich would be more likely to get uncircumcised?

Can you get uncircumcised?

Does any of this make sense?

eh...

[girlintraining]

They're selling the space shuttle--But why? There's already a glut of novelty ashtrays on the market. They won't get much for it.

Re:eh...

[Anonymous Coward]

But doesn't the shuttle come with ashtrays built into the console?

Re:eh...

[CarpetShark]

Ahh, but this particular style of ashtray has roared into the sky, exploded, killed people, and shocked a nation. Not to mention costing a fortune, causing endless controversy, and having really crap tiles.

you would only be dissapointed

[NotQuiteReal]

Most military and government equipment only looks cool from afar. Up close, it looks like hammered dog meat.

If you don't want to shatter the illusion that high tech stuff has the fit and finish of a fine automobile, you really don't want to see it up close and personal.

On the other hand the sense of history can't be duplicated...

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[girlintraining]

Most military and government equipment only looks cool from afar. Up close, it looks like hammered dog meat.

Maybe it'll get some proper respect to the risks those people took climbing into it with several thousand tons of rocket fuel burning at their ass. I rather doubt many people would have the guts to fly the first airplane either once they realized they could put their foot through the wing without any effort.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[MichaelSmith]

Most military and government equipment only looks cool from afar. Up close, it looks like hammered dog meat.

I think a lot of pilots and engineers would appreciate the lived in look of the shuttle flight deck.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Gordonjcp]

I rather doubt many people would have the guts to fly the first airplane either once they realized they could put their foot through the wing without any effort.

Yeah. I don't want it "safed". I want it complete, and capable of being restored to flying condition. Fly a space shuttle? Myself? Damn straight.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[peragrin]

at several hundred million a launch you won't take it out very often.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Zackbass]

It only looks like hammered dog meat if you don't know what you're looking at. I'm sure all the engineers that see the stuff are both amazed by the audacity of most of these designs and by the fact that they ever even approached the reliability they have with such complexity. On the other hand, I'm sure most of the same engineers have gripes about almost all of the design details.

You've still got to admire the complete absurdity of such machines though.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[_Sprocket_]

My team and I were getting set up to work in a phased maintenance hanger. I was a new troop and this was my first Real Duty Assignment. Were were in the shadow of a real aircraft. I was drinking it all in. I look up at the tail of the bird we were about to take to task.

"Alright," I say, "I know the big numbers are the squadron and the tail number for the aircraft. But what are those two small numbers in front of the tail number?" My boss looks over and replies, "oh - that's the year of manufacture."

"Woah," I say in awe, "this thing is older than I am!" My boss turns to me... looks me over and sighs, "I'm getting too old."

It's not that these aircraft aren't well maintained. But they are well used. And they consist of very dated (if effective) technology that tends to be utilitarian in design to begin with.

But having said that - sitting in the seat of a jet fighter is an impressive sight. Even if you know the history of the technology in front of you. There's a cool factor that only a small percentage of people have enough exposure to eventually wear off.

I've never set foot on an actual shuttle. But I imagine the training mockups are close enough. And they impressed the same cool factor I got from both real and training mockups (we used to log unbooked time in the trainers) for the fighters I used to maintain.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[afidel]

Sorry but the fit is pretty good on the shuttle,it has to be or that plasma problem Columbia had would be a lot more common.... Not to mention that whole keeping the atmosphere in against the vacuum of space thing.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of engineers that see it will laugh at how crazy and outdated most of it is.

The rest will have fond memories of the "good old days".

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Dzimas]

In the real world, we refer to "that plasma problem Columbia had" as a gaping hole. It had nothing to do with the fit of the shuttle and everything to do with a nasty and unpredictable projectile striking the ship.

What the op was referring to is the fact that the interior of a spacecraft is worlds away from the fit and finish of a mass-produced commercial jetliner. Every component of the shuttle was built in very small numbers - they're essentially prototype vehicles, hence the ridiculous cost of each ship. Any engineer will tell you that prototypes are the coolest part of any project, because they're 3 dimensional reflections of the imagination of a vast team.Of course, imagination is often flawed and in need of some Rube Goldbergesque fixes. Hence the rolls of duct tape taken along on every flight of these beautiful prototypes...

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[hey!]

That's the expense to put it in orbit. It wouldn't cost as much to just to fly the thing.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[girlintraining]

That's the expense to put it in orbit. It wouldn't cost as much to just to fly the thing.

"flight" is a relative term when dealing with the shuttle. It doesn't fly so much as fall in a controlled fashion.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Kemanorel]

I believe the quote from shuttle pilots was something along the lines of, "it flies like a brick with wings."

If I recall correctly, it doesn't so much fly on its own. It merely glides from about as high altitude as we typically get these days to a rather ungainly landing while shedding enough speed to turn gasses in the atmosphere into plasma due to the friction. And then there's still the excess speed on the runway that requires drag chutes to stop before it gets the the end of the landing zone.

Don't get me wrong, even knowing the risks and seeing the Challenger explosion live while in 3rd grade, I'd love to take a trip to LEO or further in it and back. Even if I didn't make it back, I'd be loving the part of the ride I did get to experience.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Kemanorel]

Damn it... Get out of my head. ;-)

You beat me to it while I was previewing.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[OneFix]

I am pretty sure you're joking, but you know the shuttle has the flight characteristics of a "flying brick", right?

The wings on the thing are just on there to help control the descent and serve as fuel storage.

I hesitate to call the shuttle a "glider", but that's pretty much what it is.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[stephenhawking]

The fit and finish of a fine automobile is nothing compared to an orbiter or even the older Apollo spacecraft, which are still marvels to behold. I know, I've traveled around to see all the ones that are available for viewing. I don't think you grasp the complexity of these machines whatsoever.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Chris Burke]

I'm sure all the engineers that see the stuff are both amazed by the audacity of most of these designs and by the fact that they ever even approached the reliability they have with such complexity.

Exactly. I look at the space shuttle and I don't just see kludge of unfortunate design trade offs. I see the huge, hairy balls of the engineers who not only thought they could make it work, but actually did it.

Of course, this means I have no interest in buying a Shuttle even if I could afford one, cus who wants that imagery in their head all the time?

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[quanticle]

And they consist of very dated (if effective) technology that tends to be utilitarian in design to begin with.

Well, not always dated, necessarily. Take the B-52, for example. Yeah, the airframe is old, but the avionics and control systems have been significantly upgraded since the planes were originally built. As I understand it, the space shuttle has also gone through multiple upgrade cycles.

Frankly, I don't know who to admire more - the engineers who build these things, or the engineers who have to go back over them and upgrade the designs.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Zackbass]

You sure of that? All the new electrical engineers I know (quite a few) hold a ton of respect for all the crazy things that were done with vacuum tubes back in the old days. The mechanical engineers (of which I am one) all love the old mechanical computers. Just because the new stuff is newer doesn't make the old stuff quaint or simple, in fact, most of the advances we have have made our jobs easier (and all of us less badass engineers). Those guys were taking on unbelievable problems with green CRTs, slide rules, and drafting tables.

The fact that those things exist, let alone work, should leave you slack-jawed.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[YrWrstNtmr]

The first time I sat in a 'front line' fighter jet, I was amazed at how 'beat' it was. F-111E, England, mid 70's. Some of you can figure out what base it was.
But yes...those things are well used, but well-maintained. And very, very cool.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[mortonda]

I've been to the Kansas Cosmosphere where they have several space vehicles on display, including the Apollo 13 module - it's a great museum.

I don't know if they have the kind of budget to try for this but I hope they can. They are also one of the premier shops when it comes to restoring such items; They actually did the work for the spacecraft in the Apollo 13 movie.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[hey!]

Indeed I do.

There are much better ways to spend your money if you want the thrill of flight. There are probably better ways of spending your money if you want the thrill of space flight. I'm presuming its the thrill of operating a piece of history that is the relevant question here. That's a lot more subjective.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Hal_Porter]

The first time I sat in a 'front line' fighter jet, I was amazed at how 'beat' it was. F-111E, England, mid 70's. Some of you can figure out what base it was.

RAF Upper Heyford?

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[quacking duck]

I saw a shuttle launch in high-def for the first time last year. I would swear that in some close-up shots prior to launch you could make out individual tiles and just see the serial numbers or that identify where each one goes (couldn't read them of course, but it was obvious they were there).

It's probably just the techy in me, but though I like the fine polish of car, I can certainly appreciate the rougherer construction around raw engineering.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[YrWrstNtmr]

RAF Upper Heyford?

You get a cookie.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[vought]

The wings on the thing are just on there to help control the descent and serve as fuel storage.

Shuttle keeps fuel in the wings, hunh? That's a new one. Here I was, all these years, thinking that's what the big orange tank was for.

The wings on the shuttle do not provide lift; the entire shape of the shuttle does. Do a search for "NASA lifting body tests".

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, you could say the same thing about any aircraft.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[Hal_Porter]

Can I has F-111E?

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[bitrex]

I believe there may be some fuel storage tanks in the wings of the shuttle, but obviously not for storing SSME fuel as the grandparent poster believed. The fuel storage tanks onboard the orbiter are hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for the maneuvering thrusters; the hydrazine is also used to power the shuttle's APUs. Among other functions the APUs provide power for the hydraulics that actuate the orbiter's flight controls during descent. You can often see the exhaust from the APU's after a Shuttle landing; the Shuttle sits on the runway and "chuffs" for quite a while before being approached by ground personnel. A great cutaway view of the Orbiter is here: http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/images/tech_overview/hi_res_images/blueprint.htm

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[ion.simon.c]

I rather doubt many people would have the guts to fly the first airplane either once they realized they could put their foot through the wing without any effort.

Aye. This is probably true. Most people probably wouldn't hop in the Wright Flyer, even after they'd been told how and why it works.

Most people are fools. :/

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[bitrex]

Some of the failings of the Shuttle's design can be placed squarely upon the DOD requirements for the vehicle that hamstrung the engineers. The original plan for the Shuttle was for it to have much smaller wings than the current design - indeed one of the Shuttle's engineers who spoke at an MIT lecture on aeronautical engineering stated that originally the Shuttle was either going to be a straight lifting body (like the X-23), or have a set of straight, narrow auxiliary wings.

However, one of the Defense Department's requirements was that the orbiter have a 1000 mile crossrange, i.e. that in a time of crisis the Shuttle could lift off from Vandenberg AFB, dump a DOD payload (read: spy satellite or orbital bombardment system) into orbit, and return and land at Vandenberg, without waiting for more than one orbit for the Earth to rotate into a more favorable position (or long enough for an enemy to calculate the payload's orbit). Without military support the Shuttle project would go nowhere, so the large delta wings that proved so vulnerable to foam strikes were there to stay.

The MIT lectures concerning this design compromise and many others are available on iTunes U. Another interesting fact is that apparently the lack of sophisticated CAD programs at the time of the Shuttle's design caused the engineers to settle on a less-than-optimal routing scheme for the main engine plumbing: if there were computers that could have calculated a better routing topology the engine system could have been designed as a modular unit that pulled in and out of the orbiter like a giant PCI card, shaving weeks off the turnaround time.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[PieceofLavalamp]

Its falling with style dammit, get it right.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[_Sprocket_]

Well, not always dated, necessarily. Take the B-52, for example. Yeah, the airframe is old, but the avionics and control systems have been significantly upgraded since the planes were originally built. As I understand it, the space shuttle has also gone through multiple upgrade cycles.

You're right. I didn't mean to imply that all tech on any given airframe remains static since the date of manufacture. These systems do get upgraded over time - almost everything is modular. In fact, one of the systems I worked on wasn't produced until 1986 and the airframe manufacture date was 1969.

Frankly, I don't know who to admire more - the engineers who build these things, or the engineers who have to go back over them and upgrade the designs.

I know I cursed the engineers more than a few times while squeezing in to tight spaces trying to replace FRUs that had been tucked away in cavities never designed for the equipment in question. Not that I envied their job.

Re:you would only be dissapointed

[NotmyNick]

I presume you're talking about the bureau number. The two digit dash four to six digit number? The two digits are the year that the money was allocated by Congress, not necessarily the year it was built. The six digits are a generally sequential serial for the service in question(USAF, Navy/Marines, Army, Coast Guard). There are exceptions for the serial portion usually dealing with inter-branch transfers and if significant modifications are done the craft could wind up with a whole new number. The two F-5s that became X-37s went from 63-8372 to 82-0003 and 65-10573 changed to 82-0049. Also they became Grummans

Rendered Safe

[_Sprocket_]

"What do you mean, 'where are the keys for it?' Awwww man..."

Re:Rendered Safe

[thatskinnyguy]

Didn't Shatner tell you? Space ships don't have keys!

One coming locally

[djupedal]

Evergreen Aviation and Space Musuem, in McMinnville, west of Portland OR, has already erected 'coming soon' billboards and made space indoors for one of the retired Shuttle's...will be a nice bookend to their Titan II missle that stands upright in the newest exhibit hall.

Re:One coming locally

[MichaelSmith]

Evergreen Aviation and Space Musuem, in McMinnville, west of Portland OR, has already erected 'coming soon' billboards and made space indoors for one of the retired Shuttle's...will be a nice bookend to their Titan II missle that stands upright in the newest exhibit hall.

Hmmm I wonder if a fueled up Titan II can lift a shuttle orbiter?

Corporate Grab

[Sponge Bath]

Apple should buy it and put it on display at 1 Infinite Loop.
They could paint it many colors with a dancing silhouette on the side
and giant ugly white ear buds around the cockpit.

Re:Corporate Grab

[winphreak]

I know you're joking, but sadly, I could picture it happening.

Hope one ends up close by

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Speaking on behalf of all midwestern /.ers, I hope one ends up in the Kansas Cosmosphere Probably won't happen, though. They're affiliated with the Smithsonian institute, and, while they'll probably get one for the Air and Space Museum in DC, they probably won't buy 2.

Re:Hope one ends up close by

[mongoose(!no)]

Actually, at their museum extension out in Dulles, Va, about an hour from downtown DC, they already have the Enterprise. I'd expect if they were to buy a new one, the Enterprise might go somewhere else, or they'll put it at an affiliated museum. And since NASM is probably one of the best funded air and space museum in the country, they might consider picking one up. Who knows, it might end up out in Kansas.

Re:Hope one ends up close by

[djupedal]

> they already have the Enterprise.

Which is basically a movie prop - no engines, no heatshield, rejected wing design, never flown and incapable of flight due to prohibitive retrofit expense, if nothing else.

Re:Hope one ends up close by

[El_Oscuro]

Which is basically a movie prop - no engines, no heatshield, rejected wing design, never flown and incapable of flight due to prohibitive retrofit expense, if nothing else.

Actually, it did fly once. It just never went into space. Launched on the back of a 747, it was the first shuttle to land. I remember watching it live on TV.

Re:Hope one ends up close by

[grumbel]

This looks like flight to me, sure not space flight, but flight none the less. Now Pathfinder on the other side comes much closer to a movie prop.

Re:Hope one ends up close by

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Never flown -- in space. It was used for glide testing.

Re:Hope one ends up close by

[CompMD]

I agree, it would be great to have a shuttle at the Cosmosphere. They have the outdoor space, they have the political pull, and they have a well established collection already. Currently, they have the Apollo 13 command module and the Mercury 7 Liberty Bell. Getting an orbiter is entirely possible.

I wonder how much for the Buran?

[Neanderthal Ninny]

I comparison, I wonder how much will the Russians charge for getting a Buran?

Re:I wonder how much for the Buran?

[lee1026]

Considering that this money is to transport the craft safely, probably a lot more.

Re:I wonder how much for the Buran?

[spice guru]

You have to factor in the cost of the permanently attached hangar that crushed it.

Re:I wonder how much for the Buran?

[dunkelfalke]

there is one, sitting at the Technikmuseum Speyer. the museum states that the whole price (together with transport from bahrain) was about 10 million euros.

Do the math...

[djupedal]

A Titan II can lift a 4,200 pound payload - a Shuttle weighs 4.5 million pounds with a maximum payload weight of approximately 50,000 pounds.

Re:Do the math...

[icebrain]

a Shuttle weighs 4.5 million pounds with a maximum payload weight of approximately 50,000 pounds

That's for the entire stack - orbiter, boosters, and full external tank. The orbiter itself has an empty weight of about 180,000 lb. So you're looking for a launcher that can put 200,000lb or so into orbit; there are only a couple: Saturn V, Energia, and the shuttle (remember, the orbiter goes into orbit too, plus whatever it's carrying).

Re:Do the math...

[MichaelSmith]

a Shuttle weighs 4.5 million pounds with a maximum payload weight of approximately 50,000 pounds

That's for the entire stack - orbiter, boosters, and full external tank. The orbiter itself has an empty weight of about 180,000 lb. So you're looking for a launcher that can put 200,000lb or so into orbit; there are only a couple: Saturn V, Energia, and the shuttle (remember, the orbiter goes into orbit too, plus whatever it's carrying).

Well there is that Saturn V on the lawn somewhere. Houston I think.

Re:Do the math...

[djupedal]

> So you're looking for a launcher that can put 200,000lb or so into orbit

A bare Shuttle weighs 230,000 lbs - add in a 50,000 lb payload and the entire package comes in at 280,000 lbs.

Saturn V payload is too low at 260,000 lbs. Energia lifts even less.

Re:Do the math...

[iluvcapra]

Is that 4200 pounds to LEO or geostationary?

Re:Do the math...

[djupedal]

>Is that 4200 pounds to LEO or geostationary?

Payload to LEO: 3,600 kg
Payload to 10,000 km sub-orbital trajectory: 3,700 kg
Payload to Polar LEO: 2,177 kg Payload to Escape: 227 kg (500 lb)

Re:Do the math...

[dgatwood]

Yes, but part of that weight is used for things like engines that you'd strip out if it were on top of a stack. The engines are about 20,000 lbs of that. Also 180k estimate is a little high; the heaviest orbiter was Columbia at about 178k with engines; Challenger was about 175k, the rest are about 171k-172k. Without engines, the empty weight of the three remaining shuttles is only about 151000 lbs.

That said, if those weight ratings are right, the Titan III can't even lift a full size cargo van into a reasonable orbit, much less anything actually usable as a crew habitat and descent vehicle.... It's pretty much a lightweight as launch vehicles go.

Re:Do the math...

[icebrain]

A bare Shuttle weighs 230,000 lbs - add in a 50,000 lb payload and the entire package comes in at 280,000 lbs.

No, according to NASA:

Atlantis is commonly refered to as OV-104, for Orbiter Vehicle-104. Empty Weight was 151,315 lbs at rollout and 171,000 lbs with main engines installed.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/atlantis.html

Discovery and Endeavour are about the same; Challenger was around 175k and Columbia was about 178k.

Re:Do the math...

[Anonymous Coward]

Titan II is an old vehicle. It was directly derived from the old Titan ICBM.

Now the Titan IV on the other hand, was a beast. It could launch about 25 tons into orbit. The shuttle was still bigger, though. A Titan IV couldn't get it into orbit, but it could lift it off the ground and make for quite and airshow... ;)

Re:Do the math...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Titan II was sufficient to launch a manned Gemini into orbit -- 10 times.

Re:Do the math...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Plus two unmanned launches (GT-1 and GT-2).

Re:Do the math...

[The Redster!]

"Supposin' two Saturn V's carried it together!"
"Naww, they'd have to have it on a line!"

Re:Do the math...

[vought]

Well there is that Saturn V on the lawn somewhere. Houston I think.

One in Houston, two in Huntsville.

Re:Do the math...

[dgatwood]

Like I said, pretty much lifting a large automobile. That's a pretty cramped environment even for two people.

BTW, the Gemini payload (not counting the rocket or people) weight over 8,000 pounds. BTW, according to the specs, Titan II can't even make a stable LEO with that big a payload (though it's probably within the margin of error for Wikipedia).... Putting a two-person vehicle into LEO and putting a usable space environment for several people into proper orbit are two very different things. :-)

Re:Do the math...

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressive! I didn't know Titan II could be used again even once, but total 10 launches! And not one of the shuttles has launched a Gemini capsule even once.

Re:Do the math...

[Anonymous Coward]

Payload to Escape: 227 kg (500 lb)

Hmm, what can I get in 227kg... Me, Natalie Portman, and a couple of days of food and air?

Hotwire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hotwiring a car from the 70's/80's isn't all that hard. How much harder could it be for a space shuttle?

Re:Hotwire?

[dgatwood]

Not too much. The only problem is that it doesn't come with a free gas card good for a couple of tanks.... That and the fact that some cheap b*stard at NASA decided it would be fun to steal the engine(s).

Learn from the Russians

[pnevin]

Use some of that $42M to build a really, really good roof.

Do they take Paypal?

[Voyager529]

...and how much does it cost to ship it?

Re:Do they take Paypal?

[BZWingZero]

I know I shouldn't have, like any good /.er, but I read the article. The $42 million includes shipping from KSC to the airport nearest the purchasing museum. You still have to pay to get it from the airport to the display site.

Re:Do they take Paypal?

[stoolpigeon]

From the article I think the estimate shipping at 6 million but that's included in the 42. I don't know if NASA will take paypal - but I am quite sure paypal would be happy to take your millions.

Re:Do they take Paypal?

[YrWrstNtmr]

...and how much does it cost to ship it?

If you have to ask...

Simple Solution....

[ArcadeNut]

On the last mission, just land it at the new owners place.

How hard could that possibly be?

Re:Simple Solution....

[afidel]

That's to get rid of all the nasties onboard, primarily the hydrazine from the thrusters I would imagine though the asbestos in the caulk between the heat tiles might need to go too depending on its mobility (some aircraft have it pulled, some have it encased in place if it's not an exposure hazard).

Who wants a Space Shuttle for $42 million?

[Orion Blastar]

Richard Branson can build you a space ship for less than that, he did it to win the X-Prize. Next I suppose he will be selling the space ships as part of the commercialization of space.

Besides I found plans for building a model 30 TARDIS on the Internet, it will be a fun project. :)

My Pirate Corsair crashed and burned, and it needs repair for the time drive and jump drive, but I think I can get the maneuver drives working for $3M. :)

Re:Who wants a Space Shuttle for $42 million?

[McGruber]

Richard Branson can build you a space ship for less than that,

Yeah, but when it comes to reaching orbit, Branson's company will remain a virgin.

Re:Who wants a Space Shuttle for $42 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, SpaceShipOne was funded by Paul Allen. Richard Branson got into the business after that. He owns part of The Spaceship Company, which is building SpaceShipTwo, but the design belongs to Scaled Composites, itself now a subsidiary of Northrop-Grumman.

Branson's suborbital toys are about as useful as a roller coaster compared to the space shuttle.

Re:Who wants a Space Shuttle for $42 million?

[Eric Smith]

Richard Branson didn't win the X-Prize.

Re:Who wants a Space Shuttle for $42 million?

[ShinmaWa]

Richard Branson can build you a space ship for less than that, he did it to win the X-Prize.

I think that Paul Allen and Burt Rutan might take issue with that statement.

Re:Who wants a Space Shuttle for $42 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides I found plans for building a model 30 TARDIS on the Internet, it will be a fun project. :)

Would those be the supposed TARDIS plans from "MASTER DAH LEK"? I got suspcious of those plans when I noticed the large number of ray guns that were supposed to be mounted to point at the operator of the TARDIS console.

When I searched resellerratings.com, I found that DAH LEK's ratings were 10.0/10.0, with user comments such as "THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO EX-TER-MIN-ATE THE ENEMIES OF THE DALEKS, YET!!!".

Re:Who wants a Space Shuttle for $42 million?

[Bearhouse]

Urm. The only thing that Branson is good at making is money.

The person who built SpaceShipOne was Burt Rutan, a man who not only dreams up crazy shit but then actually goes out and makes it work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan#Spacecraft

Bullshit

[gregbot9000]

I saw the Saturn-5 at the L.B.J. space center when I was five, I still cite it as one of the coolest things I've ever seen. You could touch it thats how close to it you are.

I've been inside of tanks, B-52's, subs, air-craft carriers and SR-17's that were decommissioned and beat to hell but were pretty awesome. No body gives a shit about the High Tech gloss, they care about the awesome engineering feats they are. Most people who are interested in the science and engineering of some of mankind's greatest projects don't really care about the fact that it's covered in oil.

If you go see the shuttle up close and your first thought is that it has a bad paint job, maybe you should just stick to playing with dolls.

Re:Bullshit

[girlintraining]

If you go see the shuttle up close and your first thought is that it has a bad paint job, maybe you should just stick to playing with dolls.

Or maybe you should be less of a douchebag. The fact that something is an engineering marvel doesn't mean much to some people, but that doesn't mean that lessens the impact it has for them. Who hasn't looked up at a bird in the sky and wanted to journey? Who hasn't seen the stars and wished upon them? When I look at the shuttle, I don't see an engineering marvel. I see the realization of over twenty thousand years of human beings dreaming of having their own wings and flying through the heavens. And you know what -- I think I'm allowed to say it does have a bad paint job, and I could care less about the mechanical guts of it. That's not why it's beautiful.

Tanks, bombers, subs, and all that jazz you like--You can love them if you want, call them awesome. They're not special to me, they're just made so some people can kill other people. I'll stick with my dolls, and if you don't mind terribly, I'll be doing it in that badly painted bird over there that was built with hopes and dreams, instead of fears and insecurities.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who are interested in the science and engineering of some of mankind's greatest projects don't really care about the fact that it's covered in oil.

I don't think most people, even those supposedly interested in science and engineering, are interested much beyond the gee-whiz factor, and tv and movies have associated matte black finish and stylish corners with the gee-whiz factor. Without an understanding of math and physics there really isn't much else to be impressed with in the actual vehicles themselves.

Re:Bullshit

[actionbastard]

"I think I'm allowed to say it does have a bad paint job, and I could care less about the mechanical guts of it. That's not why it's beautiful."

Even you miss the point of the 'beauty' of a machine like this. The nicks, dents, and worn paint are the testament to the bravery of the people, both men and women, who have flown in these machines -and the vision and hard work of those who created the 'mechanical guts' which allowed them to do what they have done- in the quest to extend the boundaries of human knowledge. The scars are history come alive, preserved for all to see. To be able to touch, or perhaps, to sit in the seat of one of these vehicles, brings one that much closer to the reality of that achievement. If you wish to ignore the 'mechanical guts', you ignore the thousands of technicians and engineers who made the 'realization' possible. You ignore the thousands who lifted the few on their shoulders to be able to make such an achievement.

"...maybe you should be less of a douchebag."

Re:Bullshit

[girlintraining]

... And yet just two posts ago you were saying that I should go play with my dolls if I noticed any of this. O_o You're going to give us all whiplash if you keep it up.

Re:Bullshit

[Hal_Porter]

Or maybe you should be less of a douchebag. The fact that something is an engineering marvel doesn't mean much to some people, but that doesn't mean that lessens the impact it has for them. Who hasn't looked up at a bird in the sky and wanted to journey? Who hasn't seen the stars and wished upon them? When I look at the shuttle, I don't see an engineering marvel. I see the realization of over twenty thousand years of human beings dreaming of having their own wings and flying through the heavens. And you know what -- I think I'm allowed to say it does have a bad paint job, and I could care less about the mechanical guts of it. That's not why it's beautiful.

Tanks, bombers, subs, and all that jazz you like--You can love them if you want, call them awesome. They're not special to me, they're just made so some people can kill other people. I'll stick with my dolls, and if you don't mind terribly, I'll be doing it in that badly painted bird over there that was built with hopes and dreams, instead of fears and insecurities.

Those tanks and bombers are the reason we don't have to stop being douchebags. As someone said "An MLRS means never having to say you're sorry".

Re:Bullshit

[girlintraining]

Those tanks and bombers are the reason we don't have to stop being douchebags. As someone said "An MLRS means never having to say you're sorry".

Those tanks and bombers are also the reason you can only afford Budweiser, ramen noodles, and live in your mother's basement.

Re:Bullshit

[ZosX]

Impossible! We know that can't possibly be true as it has been proven that nobody can possibly get fat on ramen noodles! As multiple studies have shown, geeks who live in their mother's basement are always morbidly obese. Here is an extremely rare picture of a slashdotter in the wild. Note the cheery decor of their humble basement abode.

http://www.carnagecorp.com/pub/pictures/fat_geek.jpg

To summarize: Your insulting reply made little in the way of sense and was clearly based upon pseudoscience. Thankfully I live in a country that places a great value on weapons of mass destruction and has invested a great deal of its fortunes in their development. It is these very weapons of mass destruction that has kept my country more or less at peace with the civilized world. Like it or not, the threat of retaliation has kept countries with aspirations of conquest from knocking at my countries doorstep. Oh yeah, that, and that evil world trade movement. I hope we build stronger and more destructive tanks, planes and other assorted weapons, especially a missile shield. To all the countries and peoples of those countries that are jealous my country offers the following: an extended middle finger, and if you don't like that well then, hey, fuck you!

Re:Bullshit

[ZosX]

See. You missed the fact that two different posters responded to your original post. The other person was backing up the first and I agree. You missed the point entirely and then started your rebuttal with an insult. Not the best way to gain the intellectual upper hand. Maybe you need some more training?

Re:Bullshit

[Hal_Porter]

Ha, actually I'm English and not exactly poor. The UK only spends about 2-4% of its GDP on defence now, and if we hadn't spent it we would have ended up being invaded by the Nazis next to a hostile Europe controlled by the Communists. Seems like a bargain to me.

I can think of lots of worse things that governments spend money on.

Re:Bullshit

[gregbot9000]

I'm sorry for my language, but that persons example was pretty lame. People don't go to the Museum of Science and Industry to see shiny space things, they go because the interplay of force vectors, Kilo newtons and tensile strength interest them and it's nice to see what they can do. That is excluding the family on a day trip. BTW I don't love weapons of war, I like engineering, Hoover dam, Golden Gate and Palomar observatory are inspiring pieces of engineering, as is the USS Nimitz. It's just that people rarely feel the need to lay down everything and build something awesome unless they think their ass is on the line. Or their god-king starts whipping them.

Re:Bullshit

[berend botje]

The notion that other countries are jealous of yours are only the result of indoctrination of your children. See, that whole "pledge of allegiance" thing works wonders with the gullible minds of youngsters.

The fact is that the world is roughly divided in three parts:

- The USA, who thinks they are all that.
- The underdeveloped countries that don't like you because you meddle in their internal affairs to much.
- And lastly the rest of the developed world that feels slightly embarrassed by you guys, as you remind us of the retarded kid at the party last week.

But hey, keep fooling yourselves. And stock up on those noodles because soon enough you can't afford real food. Man, are you guys in for a reality check...

Re:Bullshit

[WindBourne]

I've been inside of tanks, B-52's, subs, air-craft carriers and SR-17's that were decommissioned
You were inside a pontoon boat or a nutrient aid?????

Seriously though, I have only been able to see the one at Boeing up close. And the interesting stuff is gone from it (or hidden).

Re:Bullshit

[gregbot9000]

This is why I love the people across the pond. The average intelligence is no greater, but they can still always look down on the USA.

The fact is you don't know shit about geopolitics. Read something other than Noam Chomsky. If you're trying to prove how bad ass other countries are it doesn't help your case when you say other countries are better than the USA mainly because the USA thinks it's better than everyone else.

42 million in delivery costs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they delivering it with the crawler?

Why don't we just all split the cost?

[Shag]

Slashdot UIDs are somewhere over 1.27 million now... even if there are fewer than 500,000 active users, I'd chip in $100 toward buying a Space Shuttle...

Re:Why don't we just all split the cost?

[guyminuslife]

But it did make the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.

Re:Why don't we just all split the cost?

[Sabz5150]

I wouldn't, because it's a piece of shit of a spacecraft.

And your other choices for multi-passenger, multi-ton payload carrying orbiters would be...

Re:Why don't we just all split the cost?

[Shag]

And your other choices for multi-passenger, multi-ton payload carrying orbiters would be...

There's gotta be a "CowboyNeal" choice, right? Or "pie" maybe? (Oops wrong site)

Re:Why don't we just all split the cost?

[Blimey85]

Don't forget we'll also need a way to launch it. And how do we decide who gets to fly first? It holds what, 7 people at a time? 500,000 co-owners... knowing my luck I'd be in the one of the last groups... I'd die of old age before I ever got a turn. And lets not even consider how much it would cost to launch it... nor the logistics of the whole thing. Sure, having a shuttle would be damn cool, but getting to fly the shuttle you just paid mega bucks for would be freakin amazing!!!

Re:Why don't we just all split the cost?

[bgarcia]

Slashdot UIDs are somewhere over 1.27 million now... even if there are fewer than 500,000 active users, I'd chip in $100 toward buying a Space Shuttle...

But the trolls who have 100 UIDs each probably aren't willing to invest $10,000.

Re:Why don't we just all split the cost?

[Neon Aardvark]

As much fun as it is, and as much money as it generates for pork-barrel states, I don't think there's an enormous amount of point ferrying multi-passengers to LEO. I think we've explored it many, many decades ago.

But the shuttle kept doing it (it had to be used for something). At ridiculous expense. With massively complex maintenance. Entirely replacing one system (Saturn V-esque rockets) utterly pointlessly, not save a dime (quite the reverse). Starving genuine innovation (unmanned vehicles) of funding.

NASA are replacing the shuttle style of launching. What does that tell you?

The shuttle is a testament to failure as much as Saturn V was a testament to success and courage.

So, no mods, it wasn't "flamebait" - the shuttle really is a piece of shit.

Re:Why don't we just all split the cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would control it?

[] NewYorkCountryLawyer
[] Rob Malda
[] SourceForge
[] rand() % 1270000
[] Direct democracy
[] CowboyNeal

Passing around the donation plate

[thegrassyknowl]

I want one, please deposit your financial donations on the plate. If 41,999,999 people each give me one dollar... and I chip in the remainder...

Re:Passing around the donation plate

[sskagent]

I know! We'll store the money in a bank in Nigeria!

Re:Passing around the donation plate

[NickyGotz22]

Why even use their bank, i got an email from a former prince from Nigeria that wants to give me enough to buy two space shuttles. All he needs in my bank account #....

Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[iamlucky13]

I can't find the original information, but I'm pretty sure the allocation of the shuttles won't be soley based on cash, but also on perceived value to the public for receiving one and consistency with the general mission of the museum. Keep in mind, the $42 million is supposedly for refurbishment for display, not to raise additional money. This first of all will mean cleaning up any potential hazards, like residues of hydrazine manuevering fuel. Of course, they get fairly weathered by each launch and re-entry, so there'll be some polishing to be done, and undoubtably ITAR-sensitive or high value equipment like the main engines will be removed and replaced with detailed replicas where applicable.

There's three orbiters surviving (Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor). I suspect Kennedy Space Center will keep one and house it near their Saturn V that's on display. This is consistent with another article that says two orbiters and six engine display kits will be made available according to the RFI. With public accessibility being a likely major consideration, the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is almost guaranteed one of the actual orbiters, to replace the Enterprise aerodynamic test vehicle which is currently housed there.

That's going to make it a tough grab for the remaining orbiter. Because McMinneville is roughly an hour-long drive from the relatively small and aerospace-vacant city of Portland, I think their chances of getting an orbiter are relatively slim, even though they have a great facility and can probably afford it.

The Intrepid Museum in New York Harbor is certainly prominent enough, but they would need to make a rather substantial addition to protect the shuttle from the elements. It probably wouldn't be possible to deliver it to the waterfront an SCA flight to New York, but if they wanted to put it on a barge like the Concorde they have on site, they may be able to float it straight up from Florida that way. I think they're also at a disadvantage because there will already probably be two shuttles on the East Coast (Florida and DC).

I think Johnson Space Center in Houstan and Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville are the two most likely locations not on one of the major coasts. Both of them already host two of the three remaining Saturn V's (the third is at Kennedy). On the west coast, I think the lead option is Boeing's museum of flight, partially because of their accessibility and ability to host a space shuttle, but also because of their involvement with the shuttle program (although that is due to their acquisition of Rockwell).

I would bet one of these three locations will get the third orbiter. That still leaves Enterprise after it leaves the Smithsonian, which only did glider and procedural tests, but would still be a major attraction. Maybe Evergreen has a chance at getting Enterprise, but I think more likely a second of the above three will get her. There is also a ground-test mockup called Pathfinder currently at MSFC in Huntsville that would likely get a new home if one of the orbiters went there, but it's only externally representative of the flight vehicles.

A commenter on another site had a fantastic idea, in my opinion: before sending the last of the orbiters to a musuem, use the SCA to take it on a tour of the US. This would be a great opportunity for millions to see it and the modified 747 together.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[davidphogan74]

They do have the Spruce Goose, and are becoming one of the hot things to see in the Pacific NW. It's not that far-fetched that they might be able to arrange to get a shuttle. It's something they've publicly been discussing for a few years now.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[iamlucky13]

Absolutely...I don't think it's at all far-fetched. They genuinely have a great museum, and I'm sure with the addition of the space exhibit hall (new since I've last been there) it's even better. Between that and their active leadership they'll likely end up on the short list of candidates. But my personal opinion is that NASA will ultimately choose museuems with a more direct tie-in to space exploration (Evergreen Aviation itself is just a small air freight company) and more conveniently located for a larger number of people.

Of course, since I live in Portland, I would be ecstatic if Evergreen were granted even Enterprise, much more so for one of the operational orbiters.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[Overtone]

A commenter on another site had a fantastic idea, in my opinion: before sending the last of the orbiters to a musuem, use the SCA to take it on a tour of the US. This would be a great opportunity for millions to see it and the modified 747 together.

Wow, that brings back memories. The Enterprise went on a tour like that back in the early 80s. I saw it at Dulles airport, where they parked it out back of the terminal still mounted on the SAC. The crowd was so big they closed one of the runways and turned it into a parking lot. (My VW bus broke down in the heat and I had to call a tow truck out to the runway!) The Concorde took off on its flight to London, and got special permission to flyby overhead. When the pilot waggled his wings in honor of the shuttle, it was the loudest thing I'd ever heard.

Doubt you'd get that much of a crowd these days, and of course the Concorde is gone, but it would still be a trip to see it again.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[systemeng]

There is a concord in the Udvar-Hazy wing of The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum out at Dulles. The Shuttle Enterprise is on static display at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[systemeng]

Oops. Pathfinder is at the space and rocket center.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[blincoln]

Don't forget the Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. I imagine the Air Force has a lot of pull with NASA, and that museum has managed to score a *ton* of incredible pieces of aerospace history, including a huge number of one-of-a-kind vehicles. They've got the last Valkyrie, Boeing's Bird of Prey, the static test B-2 airframe, the YF-22 prototype, the "Streak Eagle" F-15, etc.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[ErkDemon]

whoa. Just had a visual flash of the Spruce Goose fitted with a couple of shuttle SRBMs ...

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[afidel]

Although NASA split off from the Airforce a long time ago I think the Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright Patterson would be a good home. They have plenty of room, a fairly serious space collection (bigger than the Smithsonian's I believe), and are a mecca for airplane and space buffs.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the National USAF Museum at Wright Patterson in Dayton Ohio is aiming for one as well. The USAF spent alot of money on the shuttle project, and 42 million is a drop in the bucket to them. They're working on building a new Space and Test flight hangar, that will be the largest single space-related museum gallery in the world.

Re:Unlikely that Evergreen will get one

[Anonymous Coward]

X-15A2, an Apollo, Mercury and Gemini, capsules, Bell X-2, the X-24A and B lifting bodies that contributed to much of the aerodynamic science behind the shuttles, a big gallery of ICBMs and boosters, Man-High Gondolas, an immense amount of history there- I'm definitely thinking the USAF Museum will get one.

Is the Enterprise sound enough still to be flown on the 747 vehicle? You have to have mounting and dismounting equipment to move shuttles off the 747 carrier... I'd expect Udvar Hazy to keep the Enterprise, and one of the two shuttles to go to Dayton, and the other to Kennedy. Followed by the third being available 10-15 years later.

I would buy it...

[yog]

If I had the money, I'd buy the thing, set up a launch pad and a refueling station, and rent flights out to NASA. After all, they're retiring the shuttle five years too soon, so I figure I can make a few billion in rentals until the Orion starts up.

Except it sounds like Obama wants to kill the Orion project.

I can't understand how they could be so keen on throwing $500 billion at failed banks and mortgage deadbeats, yet they have no problem cutting NASA's $30 billion budget. And then there's Obama's national health insurance which is bound to cost a few hundred billion, if not a trillion or two when it's up and running.

Here's an idea: don't bail out the banks that made bad loans and investments, and let the mortgage deadbeats be foreclosed. That's the way our system is supposed to work. And take about $100 billion of that bailout money and put it into R&D, including space exploration. In the medium to long term, we will reap much richer economic rewards for such an investment.
 

Re:I would buy it...

[geckipede]

Anybody trying to run a second hand shuttle would probably be told that it had to be recertified safe for human use. I can't say for sure, but I bet there's a rule somewhere for precisely this that allows man-rating to be removed if maintanence, storage environment, launch facilities, booster refitting... etc. are changed.

Refuelling the shuttle isn't as simple as just hooking up the cryotanks and shoving a load of liquid hydrogen into it, the solid fuel boosters are incredibly complicated despite being overgrown fireworks. Half of the vehicle needs to be rebuilt almost from scratch after each flight.

Re:I would buy it...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there's Obama's national health insurance which is bound to cost a few hundred billion, if not a trillion or two when it's up and running.

Here's the secret candidates hide while they're campaigning: The President doesn't really have the power to implement most of the things they are promising you.

Congress will never pass Obama's health insurance plan.

Re:I would buy it...

[172pilot]

AMEN.. Especially the part about letting the deadbeats get foreclosed on... I love your idea of buying the shuttle and renting it back. It's PERFECT, ESPECIALLY if Obama kills Orion.. They'll need to rent it back for 20 or so more years.. Of course, dont get into any fixed-cost contracts, because with them printing new money like they are doing, inflation WILL go up... -Steve www.bothsidesarewrong.com Dont blame me - I wrote in Ron Paul...

Re:I would buy it...

[shadowbearer]

If I had the money, I'd buy the thing, set up a launch pad and a refueling station, and rent flights out to NASA.

  Do you have any idea how much it costs to turn around a shuttle for relaunch? Or to build the infrastructure capable of refurbishing and relaunching it? Apparently not. We're not talking about paltry hundreds of millions here.

  The rest of your rant is offtopic, but I'll note one thing - Obama is hardly the person to pick on about the bailouts. According to some sources I've seen, we've already spent nearly five trillion, and that decision wasn't his. So take your rabid partisanship and shove it. It's inappropriate in this discussion.

  Personally, I think it's great that NASA is at least willing to go to the effort to prep a shuttle for a museum. No, it won't be cheap - it's not like they could just hand one over without making sure it is cleaned up. I'll bet the Smithsonian will go for it. Fifty mill is reasonable.

  SB

Re:I would buy it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it sounds like Obama wants to kill [wsj.com] the Orion project.

Orion will not be killed. And the Shuttle will not stop flying in 2010.

If anything, I'd lay even money on Ares I getting the axe. As the biggest engineering problem in the Constellation program, Ares has the potential to become another Space Shuttle-type of boondoggle. Sure, it'll work if you pour enough money into it, but why, when there are other launchers already operational that can be man-rated and lift Orion for much, much less?

Re:I would buy it...

[timeOday]

Yup, the initial $42 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the shuttle: "the average cost per flight has been about $1.3 billion over the life of the program and about $750 million over its most recent five years of operations." (cite). I don't know whether that $1.3 billion is inflation adjusted - a very real consideration when a fair amount of the cost was up front in the late 1970s.

Re:I would buy it...

[ErkDemon]

There are some people who'd want to buy one just to leave it parked outside their mansion. Maybe use it as a poolhouse.

One upmanship. Your neighbours have a collection of classic half-million-quid Ferraris, you have a space shuttle.

Re:I would buy it...

[vought]

Do you have any idea how much it costs to turn around a shuttle for relaunch? Or to build the infrastructure capable of refurbishing and relaunching it?

Of course not. Anyone with even a passing familiarity of the overhaul each shuttle gets when it reaches the OPF knows that only Governments, Microsoft, and Google have the resources to launch a shuttle.

Boeing and Lockheed (A.k.a. USA) might have a passing chance at operating the shuttle privately, but with the vehicle's inherent limitations, dangers, and cost, no one would be crazy enough to lend them the operating capitol, including their parent companies.

Anytime I want to read pie-in-the-sky conjecture about the space program from people who have little to no idea what they're talking about, I come to Slashdot.

Re:I would buy it...

[shadowbearer]

The last decent figure I saw - this was some time ago - was about a half billion per launch. Of course this doesn't include infrastructure.

  Anytime I want to read pie-in-the-sky conjecture about the space program from people who have little to no idea what they're talking about, I come to Slashdot.

  I don't know why I bother to even read this site anymore.

SB

Re:I would buy it...

[osu-neko]

Except it sounds like Obama wants to kill the Orion project.

I can't understand how they could be so keen on throwing $500 billion at failed banks and mortgage deadbeats, yet they have no problem cutting NASA's $30 billion budget.

Did you actually read the article you linked to? There's nothing in it that suggests Obama wants to kill the Orion project. Indeed, if he's looking at the cost of alternatives to the Ares rocket, it strongly suggests he plans to continue Orion. You don't need an Ares alternative if you're just going to kill Orion.

There's also no suggestion in the article that he has any intention of cutting NASA's budget.

...And take about $100 billion of that bailout money and put it into R&D, including space exploration. In the medium to long term, we will reap much richer economic rewards for such an investment.

Personally, I'd love to see NASA ax Orion and instead spend the money on space exploration, but make up your mind. Should we be spending money on space exploration, or spending a lot of money sending people somewhere we've already been?

I'm hoping we don't get into the same situation we got into back in the 80s where we spend immense amounts of money on the shuttle program and spend almost nothing at all on space exploration...

Re:I would buy it...

[Digicrat]

I'll bet the Smithsonian will go for it.

Probably not, given that they already have one -- The Enterprise nonetheless.

I could see Disney taking one to put in Epcot though...$50 mil would be nothing for them, and realistically, more people visit the Disney parks than most museums.

Re:I would buy it...

[yog]

Thanks for the correction, I meant of course the Ares booster rocket and not the Orion craft itself.

I do question why Obama's team sees itself as fit to decide that an existing booster (Delta, Atlas) is more suitable than the upcoming Ares. As the article points out, these existing boosters are not really suitable for manned missions. It sounds like business as usual in Washington D.C., politicians meddling in technical matters. Wasn't Obama going to bring about a change to business as usual?

Getting back to space travel--clearly the Shuttle system, while spectacular in 1981, was a one trick pony. Yes, it's neat to have a craft that can return most of itself to land, but having accomplished this amazing feat, NASA should really have stepped back and taken a hard look at the economics before building a fleet of four ships (two of which were to blow up spectacularly, taking their crews with them). Having one shuttle system and many single use systems such as Apollo might have been a wiser compromise that gave the public its cool spaceship and gave NASA more flexibility.

I would agree with the poster above that space exploration should not rely on manned ships, but to cease manned flight would simply relinquish space to other global powers, notably Russia and China. Americans will be going to space fifty years from now; we'll either be doing it with our own ships or we'll be 2nd class passengers aboard foreign vessels, to go and visit the Chinese outposts on the Moon and in orbit. I'd rather stay in the game and be one of the leaders.

Re:I would buy it...

[Nyeerrmm]

There not saying they're qualified to make the decision themeselves, that's why they're trying to ask around from people who are qualified. Unfortunately Griffin is being so overprotective of his pet project that its making a mockery of the transition process, which on all other fronts seems to be the most graceful thing Bush has ever done.

I've ranted a few times about why I think cutting Ares (particularly Ares 1) is a good idea... put simply its a mishmash that ignored the actual purpose of the Vision that was laid out, and it is designed to look shuttle-derived while almost all of it is having to be reengineered. I'm not sure about the EELV option, but Ares looks like its going to be over-cost and will under-perform... if the Falcon 9 tests go better than the Falcon 1, that *may* be our best bet.

My semi-informed opinion is that scrapping Ares, going to something like Jupiter and giving COTS a chance is a more responsible choice. And I think that all the concern over the transition team is overblown, they're simply practicing due diligence and studying all the options... the two that I know much about on the team are strong proponents of continued manned flight.

Re:I would buy it...

[dgatwood]

The last decent figure I saw - this was some time ago - was about a half billion per launch. Of course this doesn't include infrastructure.

The good news is with the recently reduced fed rate, you could launch one for an interest-only loan of only 1.25 million dollars. :-D

Re:I would buy it...

[Arrawa]

I can't understand how they could be so keen on throwing $500 billion at failed banks and mortgage deadbeats, yet they have no problem cutting NASA's $30 billion budget. And then there's Obama's national health insurance which is bound to cost a few hundred billion, if not a trillion or two when it's up and running.

NASA isn't crucial for running the country nor for saving lives (directly).

Re:I would buy it...

[Iridium_Hack]

I would also agree that investing the money in research would be a better idea. But their choice shows who got many of them elected as well as who they are financially in bed with. I'm also skeptical of bailing out the auto industry. But at least the auto industry didn't cause many of the problems. Perhaps bailing out total waste is what our government economic leadership is all about these days.

Re:I would buy it...

[ckaminski]

Since the Ares craft are going to be nearly new vehicles anyway, why not start with vehicles with a known success rate, the EELV (Atlas, Delta).

Re:I would buy it...

[nabsltd]

I can see it now...the new "rich white trash" with space shuttles sitting on concrete blocks in the front yard.

Re:I would buy it...

[fermion]

If you want to fly it, you will need about a million dollars extra for each main engine. They are not included.

This is in addition to what everyone else is saying. Although the the fantasy is nice, I don't think anyone is going to have a homebrewed lauch complex any time soon.

On the other thing, I think that the moon flight was as well thought out as the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq. In probably sounded good at the frat house when everyon was wasted on trash can punch, but the next morning, no one quite knew how to handle the consequences.

The fact is we are down to three shuttles. The fact is we are likely not going to flying if we get down to two. The fact is we have wasted the past 8 years has been wasted. We have known we need to replace shuttle for 5 years. Fact is that the shuttle itself was designed over an eight year period, with the first fully functional vehicle appearing a few years later. One can't just wake up on morning and say, ooh, I want a space program. Not any more. There is too much history. If Orion is not a point where a vehicle can be built, maybe it should be killed. What we need is a reliable heavy lifter, which we have. What we need is a reliable manned spacecraft, which we can build. What we need is a space station, which we have but let politics get in the way of. Then we can have shuttle from LEO to the moon, mars, wherever. Mopst of all, we need to look at how to do this effeceiently.

Re:I would buy it...

[dopaz]

Seeing the Enterprise at Udvar-Hazy is truly a sight to behold. When you walk in the front doors of the museum you see a SR-71 Blackbird in the foreground, and the Enterprise in the background.

Re:I would buy it...

[CarpetShark]

Our system is "supposed" to foreclose on people only while they have a reasonable chance of making it, but don't work hard enough. The idea is to push people a little, so everyone works for the benefit of others, instead of lying in bed. Essentially, it's a big, fun game, that we all agree to play.

BUT, when someone gets so anal about the rules that people stop having fun in the game, then one of two things can happen: a) we all get real and treat each other decently again b) the underdogs get pissed off and show the rest exactly what they can do with their game. You (probably) don't want a society of millions or a global society of billions that suddenly decides to stop playing. Not unless you're tired of capitalism, and in favor of some years of chaos until a better system is agreed on, at least.

A little early?

[Anonymous Coward]

The shuttle is supposed to be retired in 2010, yes, but the way the work is going along on the replacement it very well might turn out to be even later then we expect it to be. What if there's a national need for space access in the meantime before the new system is up and ready? We're fucked then. Maybe they should consider keeping it around until we're sure we'll get the next system up and going.

I know there are proposals to keep the shuttle going a little longer if we need it, but if we get rid of it it will be up shit creek if it turns out we need it again. Imagine if they give away the shuttles in 2010 and then in 2012 the Ares explodes on launch.

I think we should keep it at least in storage until we're dead certain that the new project will work out.

Re:A little early?

[amabbi]

The shuttle is supposed to be retired in 2010, yes, but the way the work is going along on the replacement it very well might turn out to be even later then we expect it to be. What if there's a national need for space access in the meantime before the new system is up and ready? We're fucked then. Maybe they should consider keeping it around until we're sure we'll get the next system up and going.

I know there are proposals to keep the shuttle going a little longer if we need it, but if we get rid of it it will be up shit creek if it turns out we need it again. Imagine if they give away the shuttles in 2010 and then in 2012 the Ares explodes on launch.

I think we should keep it at least in storage until we're dead certain that the new project will work out.

That's why COTS exist- Commercial Orbital Transportation System.... to fill the gap between the end of shuttle flights and the beginning of Ares/Orion/whatever they're calling it now.

Re:A little early?

[Eric Smith]

Keeping it in case Project Constellation doesn't work isn't an option, because all the infrastructure that is necessary to support the Shuttle will already be gone; a non-trivial part of it is *already* gone. They pulled the handle a few years ago, and it would cost tens of billions of dollars to start the program up again. The contracts to build parts such as external tanks have already been completed, and building more of anything Shuttle-related is not as simple as just putting out another contract for bids. Many of skills necessary would have to be redeveloped, and everything would have to be completely requalified.

What if there's a national need for space access in the meantime before the new system is up and ready? We're fucked then.

There isn't any "national need for space access" that we can't meet without the Shuttle.

All this can be yours...

[Anonymous Coward]

All this can be yours for just 2 million easy payments of $19.99!

Credit card?

[TheDarkMaster]

NASA accepts international credit card? I will like to buy one... Is my chance to have a 1:1 full detailed Shuttle model!

Re:Credit card?

[Tacvek]

I'm sorry to report that the it is not a complete shuttle. Only an oribiter, and one that has been stripped down by NASA too! If you really want your own, I suggest stowing away on the next flight, and then space-jacking it. Please be warned that doing so would be considered an act of war (Grand Theft Spacecraft, space piracy, kidnapping and unlawful detention of US military personnel, kidnapping and unlawful detention of US Citizens, etc.), so be sure you have your militarized satellite system full operational in time. ;D

Re:Credit card?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an excellent movie in the making ... think about it ... snakes on a space shuttle.

If I Can Have Your Kind Attention.....

[Vinegar Joe]

My name is Dr. Kunta Kinte and I am the Director General of the Nigerian Aero and Space Administraion (NASA). Recently, I came into possession of a used (very sightly) SPACE VEHICLE worth approximately £27,106,757GDP or $42,000,000USD.........

Safety==lawyers

[Iamthecheese]

As a child, I saw the landing pod from an Apollo mission at a museum. I got to climb inside, but I was severely disappointed: Everything had been welded in place and covered with layers of plastic and padding! I could not have been more disappointed or less inspired. Remove the batteries, toxic compounds, sure. Drain every last drop of fuel and other stored things, sure. Depressurize the tanks, of course. Even fill the hidden parts of the engine with inerts but for God's sake don't "safe" it until it's impossible for a kiddy to climb into the seat and play pilot!

Let the control column move! Let the switches switch! Will it really cost so much to replace the occasional switch and clean it out sometimes? Sure some kid might climb somewhere, fall, and get hurt. That's what parents are for. Hell, I'll even let you pad the places kids might fall but not too safe, okay!?

Re:Safety==lawyers

[YrWrstNtmr]

Let the control column move! Let the switches switch! Will it really cost so much to replace the occasional switch and clean it out sometimes?

And have a broken flight stick, etc every week. Not 'once in a while'. Once a week. Some kids are idiots, and will break stuff.

Re:Safety==lawyers

[systemeng]

Of course, there are a number of pc based simulators that will let you run the apollo flight computer software and enter the override sequence used to save one of the apollo missions from a malfunctioning abort switch. Kind of powerful to see ~40 year old software work

Re:Safety==lawyers

[gzipped_tar]

> Some kids are idiots, and will break stuff.

Kids break stuff because they are kids, not because they are idiots.

Re:Safety==lawyers

[MrNiceguy_KS]

> Some kids are idiots, and will break stuff.

Kids break stuff because they are kids, not because they are idiots.

Some kids break stuff accidentally by being careless - in other words, because they are kids. Some kids break stuff deliberately because they are destructive little shits with no respect for other people - in other words, because their parents are idiots.

I can easily see needing to replace the control stick on a regular basis because of the first type, though. I know if I had been in an Apollo capsule at age 6, I would have jerked the crap out of that thing. I think that the idea of a kid-friendly, hands-on space capsule is great, but might have to sacrifice a bit of authenticity in exchange for durability.

What exactly do you get for $42,000,000?

[damn_registrars]

It looks like the $42 million does not include the booster rockets that you need to actually launch the shuttle into orbit or higher.

Which means that if you really wanted to buy it and fly it, you would end up spending quite a bit more.

China!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe those knockoff companies in China can gather up enough money and buy one. Then they can do their thing, and in a couple of years everybody could buy their own knockoff shuttle for uh.. $3,442.

Would that be the same Cosmosphere

[Ellis D. Tripp]

where the former director was convicted on 12 counts of stealing artifacts on loan from NASA and selling them for his own gain?

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-110603a.html

leave it in space

[ErkDemon]

Next time they send one up to the ISS, shouldn't they just leave it up there?

That way the ISS gets extra accomodation, emergency toilets, emergency life support, and an emergency escape vehicle, all in one. Plus, a cool vehicle parked out the front.

It costs a small fortune to send a shuttle into space. That's where its most useful. If its on its last mission, and its never going to be relaunched, why bother bringing the thing all the way back, just to be decomissioned?

Leave it up there, where it's useful and happy!

Re:leave it in space

[vought]

"If its on its last mission, and its never going to be relaunched, why bother bringing the thing all the way back, just to be decomissioned?"

Heat, power, air, maintainability. Not to mention that the ISS crew rotating out would need a way to get home and the trip is free.

The ISS was built to store/supply all these things for months at a time. The shuttle was never meant to.

Another factor - drag - shouldn't be discounted either. While the drag at ISS altitude is very tiny, it does exist.

Re:leave it in space

[Nefarious Wheel]

Another factor - drag - shouldn't be discounted either. While the drag at ISS altitude is very tiny, it does exist.

Are you implying the Shuttle is less streamlined than, say, a solar panel?

Re:leave it in space

[digitalchinky]

Those capsules, they don't have wings. Inside all they get are a few switches and dials to make the 'pilot' feel like he is contributing his little bit to the mission. The shuttle, that has rows and rows of dignitary fascination panels, lots of lights, switches, dials, and little TV's everywhere. It even has a sun roof. It's not meant to fall like a brick, and sure it probably has an autopilot, but it's a tad more complicated than typing KSFO in to flightgear.

You'd have to maintain several rather long runways for that 'just in case' scenario, not to mention training the 'spaceflight participants' to know which switches are good, and which are bad.

Re:leave it in space

[Chep]

when in the proper orientation, sure, it's streamlined. Now tilt the nose 90deg downwards, keeping the same v-vector. oops.

Re:leave it in space

[Richard_at_work]

The Shuttle is not designed for long term spaceflight - it has a limited life power source and leaks like hell (much more than the ISS wants to sustain over a long period of time).

Re:leave it in space

[jkerman]

Well, the bottom is made of glass for one......

Re:leave it in space

[f18delta]

"Are you implying the Shuttle is less streamlined than, say, a solar panel?" African or European?

Re:leave it in space

[Anonymous Coward]

Another factor - drag - shouldn't be discounted either. While the drag at ISS altitude is very tiny, it does exist.

I guess I'm not a physicist, BUT:

Drag is an aerodynamic phenomenon, which requires atmosphere. I think you mean MASS. The added MASS of the shuttle would tend to cause the space station to drift closer to the earth (i.e. out of orbit). Things with mass (the earth) have gravity and tend to attract other things of lesser mass.

At the altitude that the space station is oribiting, there is no atmosphere, and thus no drag per se.

Though like I said, I'm not a physicist.

Re:leave it in space

[vought]

At the altitude that the space station is oribiting, there is no atmosphere, and thus no drag per se.

I beg to differ. From SpaceRef.com:

"As a further consequence of ISS attitude, the station's daily orbital decay has been at its lowest (~20 m/day). Orbital decay is a function of atmospheric density at the orbit altitude and the station's cross-sectional ("frontal" or "ram") area, which creates the drag. Depending on attitude, ISS drag area can vary between a low of 390 square meters (where it is currently) and a high of 670 sq.m."

Re:leave it in space

[Puffy Director Pants]

It's probably less functional, which is even more important.

Space shuttle is old

[AmigaHeretic]

April 1981 was the first space shuttle flight.


The Delorean they used in Back to the Future wasn't even made yet.

It wasn't till a year later, August, 1982, that the Commodore 64 with 64kilobytes of ram came out.

I know the space shuttles have been upgraded, but still... It's old.

Re:Space shuttle is old

[bitrex]

Endeavour wasn't delivered until 1991 - it's still a spry teenager!

Invest in the future of space, not the past

[Nefarious Wheel]

What would that $50 M net you over the long term if you invested in, say, Virgin Galactic?

Imagine what the STS would look like if Burt Rutan had designed it. First stage might have been fancloth and diamond straws, rather than Lego and fireworks. Hard to say what a fresh mind like that could do with a budget like NASA's.

Re:Invest in the future of space, not the past

[bitrex]

When Burt Rutan's company puts a single kilogram into Earth orbit, I think at that point one might consider the possibility of calling Virgin Galactic the future of space flight. As it stands now Rutan's crafts, as impressive as they are, are essentially high-flying aircraft and are covering territory NASA explored in about 1959.

Re:Invest in the future of space, not the past

[dougmc]

Of course, the USSR put Sputnik into orbit in 1957. (Though it wasn't a single kilogram -- it was about 80 of them.) (The US put up Explorer 1 four months later in 1958.)

To put a `single kilogram' into orbit is significantly easier than what Rutan's company has already done. The problem is that they need to put many kilograms up there, and then they need to bring it back down again, safely, and they need to do it in a cost effective manner.

Lucky it's not on ebay

[liquiddark]

If this were an ebay auction, the $42 million would be just the shipping, m i rite?

I guess you missed it

[Shivetya]

the looters have won.

Still I figure after the magic has worn off Obama will have just as low ratings as Bush does now, I don't think it will take him as many years to get there. We just cannot afford to continue using the US Taxpayer as an unlimited source of money for failed institutions and failed people.

Just so that you know

[WindBourne]

Constellation is the project. Not likely it will not be killed.
Orion is the capsule. It will not be killed as that is used to carry ppl.
Ares are the Launch Vehicles. They are looking I, IV, and V. THESE may undergo changes. For example, it is POSSIBLE, that Obama will push Direct instead (cheaper up front). My guess is what WSJ is saying; Kill Ares I and use one of the EELVs after being human rated. It will cost a fraction of the money. Ares IV and V may actually be accelerated to get us back to the moon.

Keep in mind that Constellation MIGHT be killed. Obama may decide to go to pure private launchers and use COT all the way. With SpaceX causing a lot of consternation, it is possible that the big boys will reconsider what is going on. And for those of you saying that SpaceX is not causing issues, then I will point to the postings in here. Several of you WORK for l-mart. I know that you look down on SpaceX. But everytime I see that attitude, it is just before the fall esp. when a monopoly is not in effect. COTs breaks the monopoly.

!ineedone??

[HPXX]

You obviously mean 'ineedone'. The ! shouldn't be there.

Rat Rods

[tekrat]

There are all kinds of tastes in this world. Some people don't care about the fit and finish of a fine automobile (although we can appreciate it). But there are those who actually prefer the rough edges, we're happy building our own cars out of whatever materials are at hand, and the results are often surprising and exciting, even if the fit and finish is nowhere close to a high-end car.

The purpose of a shuttle, or any other government built equipment isn't to look nice. It's to get the job done, and usually, be tough as nails about it as well.

Let's see how fine your car is after it's been launched at Mach 25 and been heated to plasma temps, and put a few million miles on it. That's why it looks like hammered dog meat, but frankly, I like the look of hammered dog meat.

There's a culture of people that make "Rat Rods" and trust me when I say that I find these vehicles beautiful, even up close.

The point is, it's all a matter of taste. I like utilitarian, visible welds, and patina. You can't get that "character" from a fine car (unless that fine car is a Deusenberg).

Eve

[WeeLad]

How many hours do I have to train in Eve Online before I can fly it?

Re:Eve

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

Not many, but you'll get blown to bits (and probably podded) in unsecured space by pirate kiddies going "lolollol ZERG RUSH kekekekeke!!1". The Shuttle has no weapons or shields. And no warp drive.

Re:Eve

[WeeLad]

Not many, but you'll get blown to bits (and probably podded) in unsecured space by pirate kiddies going "lolollol ZERG RUSH kekekekeke!!1". The Shuttle has no weapons or shields. And no warp drive.

No, but I hear the Tech II foam can be pretty dangerous.

Send it on an interplanetary mission

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

to Titan. Though the picture on the cover looks more like the Soviet Buran shuttle.

Hrm... Maybe they should dig the only space-worthy Buran ever built out of the rubble of that collapsed hanger in Kazakhstan. Outfit it and one of the Space Shuttles with weapons. Launch simultaneously and test space combat techniques. The winning team gets to come home, or at least fly around in space until their air runs out if they've taken too much damage to survive reentry. Afterwords Hollywood can make a big-budget movie about it.