Slashdot Mirror


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."

30 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. So uh... by sysusr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are there any export restrictions?

    --
    \x72\x6D\x20\x2D\x72\x66
    1. Re:So uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

  2. eh... by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:eh... by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

  3. you would only be dissapointed by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:you would only be dissapointed by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:you would only be dissapointed by Zackbass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    3. Re:you would only be dissapointed by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:you would only be dissapointed by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:you would only be dissapointed by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:you would only be dissapointed by quanticle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    7. Re:you would only be dissapointed by bitrex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  4. Rendered Safe by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  5. Re:Do the math... by icebrain · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  6. Do they take Paypal? by Voyager529 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Do they take Paypal? by BZWingZero · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  7. Bullshit by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Why don't we just all split the cost? by Shag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  9. Unlikely that Evergreen will get one by iamlucky13 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  10. I would buy it... by yog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
     

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    1. Re:I would buy it... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:I would buy it... by vought · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I would buy it... by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:I would buy it... by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:I would buy it... by Arrawa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

  11. leave it in space by ErkDemon · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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!

    1. Re:leave it in space by vought · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

    2. Re:leave it in space by f18delta · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    3. Re:leave it in space by vought · · Score: 2, Informative

      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."

  12. Rat Rods by tekrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.