NASA Announces Final Homes of Shuttle Fleet

Bittersweet... by nebaz · 2011-04-12 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's good that we have a museum to put these historic artifacts into, but I would prefer that we have something to replace them with. That feeling is more intense when I see either a Saturn V or a LEM at one of the museums.

--
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story

Re:Bittersweet... by Scottingham · 2011-04-12 07:52 · Score: 1

http://www.spacex.com/
Re:Bittersweet... by jd · 2011-04-12 07:54 · Score: 1

We're lucky to have those in museums. The only "complete" Saturn V was left out in the rain with zero protection and zero maintenance. It is getting a major overhaul now, but we nearly lost irreplaceable history there. (Next time someone in the US says that it has less history than other countries, stop and consider how close we came to losing one of the most significant pieces in the 20th century. Then consider how much has indeed been lost through negligence or lack of resources. Then consider slapping the person because it's in believing there's nothing historically important that there's so very little historically important left.)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Bittersweet... by elrous0 · 2011-04-12 08:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sadly, it costs money to preserve. And politicians don't like to give money to projects unless they can get some present-day political mileage out of them.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Bittersweet... by Nyeerrmm · 2011-04-12 08:37 · Score: 1

Boeing CST-100, Lockheed Orion, SpaceX Dragon, and Sierra Nevada DreamChaser.
Not only are we replacing it, we're getting multiple options so a catastrophic failure on one doesn't ground us.
Re:Bittersweet... by jd · 2011-04-12 08:54 · Score: 1

So very true and so very problematical.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Bittersweet... by vlm · 2011-04-12 09:21 · Score: 1

Sadly, it costs money to preserve. And politicians don't like to give money to projects unless they can get some present-day political mileage out of them.
Hire 50 guys from 50 different states to each do a tiny little bit of the restoration work. Thats how business is done, at least in the senate. Getting it thru the house requires somewhat more contractors of course.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Bittersweet... by beanball75 · 2011-04-12 09:23 · Score: 1

The people of Houston are up in arms about not getting a Shuttle. Considering we are the city that did that to the Saturn V, which needed private money to save it, I don't know what they're complaining about. We don't want to spend a dime on anything here -- we cut the fat, then continue on to the bone.
Re:Bittersweet... by jburroug · 2011-04-12 09:29 · Score: 1

We're lucky to have those in museums. The only "complete" Saturn V was left out in the rain with zero protection and zero maintenance. It is getting a major overhaul now, but we nearly lost irreplaceable history there. (Next time someone in the US says that it has less history than other countries, stop and consider how close we came to losing one of the most significant pieces in the 20th century. Then consider how much has indeed been lost through negligence or lack of resources. Then consider slapping the person because it's in believing there's nothing historically important that there's so very little historically important left.)
Which is probably why Houston didn't get one of the retired shuttles or the Enterprise. JSC does indeed play an important role in manned spaceflight operations but Space Center Houston is a bit sad compared the Air and Space Museum or Kennedy Space Center. When I first moved down here - please someone help me escape! - I was shocked to see the Saturn V just sitting out by the side of the road falling apart. It's in better shape now but the hangar they built for it looks like a very large pre-fab "Tuff Shed" from the home improvement store, not really what I'd call inspiring. The rest of the Space Center's visitor activities are likewise in pretty sad shape and most of it of Springfield Elementary School field trip grade to begin with.

--
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Re:Bittersweet... by Miamicanes · 2011-04-12 12:01 · Score: 1

I really, really hope Atlantis ends up inside a structure that's at least as strong as my house (confession: reinforced concrete, including the roof and second floor suspended slab, with 80mph large-missile impact-glass windows), and not on a display stand like a statue out in the open. In case anybody's forgotten, about 12 years ago (give or take) the entire east coast of Florida almost got shredded like grass under a weedeater by Hurricane Floyd (a huge category 4 hurricane whose strongest winds missed Florida by about 50 miles).

RIP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-12 07:14 · Score: 1

The height of human achievement is now just a fading memory. We're so worried about our tax rates and privatization, that we don't even see what we're throwing it all away. Whatever avoids the chopping block will be a parody of itself, a case of "Let's play pretend."

Re:RIP by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-12 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

The formula since the mid-'70s in almost every Western country has been as follows:
Make service bureaucratic and inefficient -> observe cost increase -> reduce service levels rather than bureaucracy -> observe service level reduction -> announce that partnership with private sector will improve service provision -> observe cost increase -> reduce service levels rather than profits -> observe service level reduction -> announce that government is a failure -> sell off everything -> announce record deficit reduction -> declare that your country is free from the tyranny of government -> end up with no service at all.
Enjoy your corporations.
Re:RIP by IrquiM · 2011-04-12 08:22 · Score: 1

The Shuttles never were the height of human achievements.

--
This is blinging
Re:RIP by Nyeerrmm · 2011-04-12 08:51 · Score: 1

What are we throwing away? A 40 year old design that never lived up to expectations?
Personally, I think US-based human space flight is looking more interesting than it has in as long as I can remember (I'm 25). We have multiple legitimate hardware designs with estimated deliveries in a 2-5 years. These are low-cost modern designs that take advantage not only of modern technology but also modern manufacturing techniques. They will enable modular missions that can be formulated and executed in that magical 8-year time period, without risking our continued access to LEO.
I'm excited.
Re:RIP by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-12 09:25 · Score: 2

It all starts when the will to benefit everyone in the long term turns into the will to make short term personal profit at all costs.
If you think even US success thus far is based on the latter, you ought to read the Constitution. The bits about the purpose and nature of copyrights and patents should be particularly enlightening.
And today we have an easily influenced lockstep generation which has been convinced that man is so degenerate that he is unable to be productive without the incentive of shiny trinkets. Are you one of that generation, mangu? Because people will carry on advancing long after that attitude and the empire which now worships it have enjoyed a well-deserved Ozymandian death.
Re:RIP by mangu · 2011-04-12 12:11 · Score: 1

It all starts when the will to benefit everyone in the long term turns into the will to make short term personal profit at all costs.

That "at all costs" is what makes me distrustful of any government intervention. It seems that people who favor such intervention believe everyone who has any doubt about such intervention is a greedy bastard who wants to kill widows and orphans to fleece them and sell their skins in the OMG!!! PLEASE NO!! FREE MARKET, ARGGHH!!!
See how ridiculous you become when you try to mock free market? Here's some advice: don't overdo it...
I believe we should always try to maximize personal liberty. I see nothing wrong with letting everyone do anything that does not harm others. That includes letting people buy and sell goods and services freely. I don't agree with taxing people to create goods and services that could be provided voluntarily.
There's a long, long, long distance from this point of view to "make short term personal profit at all costs".
Please, try to understand how other people feel before judging them from your own prejudices. Perhaps it's yourself who would like to make short term personal profit at all costs.
And write this down carefully, read it and try to understand it: It's only through GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION that copyrights and patents exist. It was through LEGISLATION that copyright extensions have been applied time and time again. If legislators are corrupt (and they are!) that's just one more reason to be distrustful of government intervention.
Re:RIP by PyroMosh · 2011-04-12 16:39 · Score: 1

Presidents have been trying to re-capture Kennedy's "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" speech since Reagan.

"America is too great for small dreams.... We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic and scientific gain. Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade."
President Ronald Reagan - January 25, 1984

"From the voyages of Columbus, to the Oregon Trail, to the journey to the moon itself, history proves that we have never lost by pressing the limits of our frontiers. We must commit ourselves anew to a sustained program of manned exploration of the solar system and yes - a manned mission to Mars."
President George H. W. Bush - July 20, 1989
(President Clinton cut NASA's budget and made no friends there, not did he give any pretty speeches about Manifest Space-Destiny)

"Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.
With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond."
President George W. Bush - Jan. 14, 2004

"By 2025 we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first ever crew missions beyond the Moon into deep space.
So, we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to earth, and a landing on Mars will follow."
President Barack Obama - April 15, 2010
You're right though. None of those "challenges" have been followed by significant funding increases to match them. In fact, if I recall correctly, only George H.W. Bush gave ANY increase (which was trivial to the goal).

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Re:RIP by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-12 19:57 · Score: 1

See how ridiculous you become when you try to mock free market?
No. You might as well box the first two paragraphs of your post and caption them "straw man".

I see nothing wrong with letting everyone do anything that does not harm others.
The catch here will be how you define "does not harm others".

I don't agree with taxing people to create goods and services that could be provided voluntarily.
Government and its services are provided voluntarily. How many people are forced to work in government? Or do you mean funded voluntarily? Because the people choose to use what income you regard simplistically as "mine, all mine!" but which is only yours because the same people have decided that you are entitled to some of it.

It's only through GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION that copyrights and patents exist.
It's only through GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION (caps, bold and "write this down carefully" make you sound like an insane zealot) that (i) any sort of property is recognised; and (ii) the scope of property is limited. The free market in pre-Civil War southern states, for example, resulted in the view that some humans could be regarded as property.
Go away, read this, then argue with the people who contributed to it. Your opinions and their foundations have been heard and refuted a thousand times.
Re:RIP by chispito · 2011-04-13 07:25 · Score: 1

Because people will carry on advancing long after that attitude and the empire which now worships it have enjoyed a well-deserved Ozymandian death.
Which death is that again? The psychic squid or the glowing blue naked guy?

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!

Ex Astris, Scientia by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-12 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Enterprise should go to San Fransisco. Future Starfleet Academy Cadets could use it for training & simulations.

Houston has a problem. by sajuuk · 2011-04-12 07:18 · Score: 1

And the problem is that they've gotten snubbed due to politics. Being reminded that the USS Intrepid (on display in NYC) was involved in the early days of the space program, I can understand one going to NYC. But the closest thing LA has to being involved is the fact that it is near Vandenburg AFB, where the shuttle almost launched from. Any claim about "locations being chosen for their value to the american public" is a load of bull. The entire middle of the country is nowhere near any of the shuttles with these chosen locations.

Re:Houston has a problem. by sajuuk · 2011-04-12 07:29 · Score: 1

I admit my mistake. I forgot that the shuttles and engines were assembled in the LA area. Nerdrage got the better of me. There's still no reason to snub Houston though. I still smell the dirty hand of politics in this decision.
Re:Houston has a problem. by Brett+Buck · 2011-04-12 07:34 · Score: 2

Nonsense. The shuttle were built in Southern California and it's a tribute to those who did it.
Re:Houston has a problem. by MightyYar · 2011-04-12 08:06 · Score: 1

And the problem is that they've gotten snubbed due to politics.
When you have more demand than supply, how else do you decide? I suppose they could auction them, but then people would complain about how that favors the richer facilities - and really it just amounts to another political decision. A lotto might have worked, but then you risk some location out in the sticks getting one. Maybe a lotto combined with high entrance requirements... but then politics would be involved in the entrance requirements.
I think I would have favored putting one at the Smithsonian, and then anyone who could put enough money in escrow to transport and store the thing could enter a lotto for the remaining shuttles.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Houston has a problem. by damiangerous · 2011-04-12 08:19 · Score: 2

But the closest thing LA has to being involved is the fact that it is near Vandenburg AFB, where the shuttle almost launched from
Endeavor was built in LA.
Re:Houston has a problem. by fermion · 2011-04-12 09:12 · Score: 2

It is sad that the right wing wacko lobby has come full out to prove that Houston and the surrounding are a bunch of gun crazed paranoid conspiracy theorists, but it is not true. True Clear Lake, the are that houses NASA, pretty much depends on government handouts for it's livelihood, and out politicians do sometime puts faith over common sense, I would like to assert that it does not reflect the general population.
There were many possible locations, and a few shuttles to go around. We need to put these machines where they are going to be seen, not just where we feel they are deserved. This is why the US is so messed up. We think certain people deserve the money, so they get, while people who can put it to good use, like food, are told they don't deserve it. Like the congressman who said $175K is salary is not that much because he had several kids. Somehow he deserved the money, while his constituents did not.
I have been to Space Center Houston several time over the years, since the year it was built. It is a joke. Cape Canaveral is not a joke. I don't the shuttle sitting at space center houston where no one sees it. I don't want some faith based arguments saying if we had the shuttle people would come by and see it. We have artifacts in houston. We have a saturn rocket. We have a capsule. The capsule is hidden where no one can see it. The rocket is hidden where few can see it. We do not leverage what we have, just complain when someone is not going to give us cookies.
I am sad the shuttle is not going to be houston, but am happy they will where many people will see. Many of these people have never seen it before. Being in the area I have seen it launch(closeup) in Florida. I have seen it on transport in wellington. I have seen the astronauts in transit in ellingotn. I have been in the training centers. I am lucky to live where I get ot see all these things.
I know am happy because people who have not been able to see what I have seen can at least see the artifacts. let the rest of country enjoy them in the retirement. I don't even like that Florida has one. Why can't one go the midwest? Let the rest of country see why we live in wonder at the wonderful piece of machinery.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Houston has a problem. by the_other_chewey · 2011-04-12 11:45 · Score: 1

Endeavor was built in LA.
There is no Space Shuttle with that name ;-).
Endeavour (British spelling because it is named after James Cook's ship),
however, was indeed built there.

Re:Politics... by Ogive17 · 2011-04-12 07:19 · Score: 2

What about Dayton? Ohio went to Obama.

All 4 end up on the coast, such a travesty. There was no need for NY to get one considering DC was guarenteed one.

Houston didn't get one because they had little to complement a shuttle, in relation to some of the other sites.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."

I'd like to take a minute to say by WiglyWorm · 2011-04-12 07:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

NASA needs to be given autonomy... they need to be given a long term goal (a generic one like "set up a moon colony as a dry run for a mars colony, then get to Mars", or "set up a mining outpost in the asteroid belt") and then left alone to decide the best way to achieve that. Having every president wanting to leave their mark on outer space like Kenedy did is irresponsible and leaves them with ever changing goals and a rotating set of tools to do the job. We've changed what vehicles they're supposed to be using two or three times now since they declared the end of the space shuttle. At this rate, an American vessel may never lift an astronaut in to space again. That's not even bringing congressional funding issues in to the mix...

Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by Starmac · 2011-04-12 07:41 · Score: 1

>>NASA needs to be given autonomy... they need to be given a long term goal (a generic one like "set up a moon colony as a dry run for a mars colony, then get to Mars", or "set up a mining outpost in the asteroid belt") and then left alone to decide the best way to achieve that Sorry friend, can't agree with you on this one. NASA has always had a political component; they know who's buttering their bread. And why shouldn't NASA, like practically everyone else, report to the electorate? We've all heard the "science first" routine and then seen the internal positioning and squabbling result in unbelievable cost overruns, a la Livermore and the DOE. Even IF every employee was altruistic, without oversight the results can have unintended consequences, such as the Fed's manipulation of the market. "Experts" told they know better than the public, hold the public in disdain. Not how it's supposed to be. Think I'm wrong? How does your local DOT set the speed limits? It is supposed to be the 85th percentile of what drivers operate at, not what a traffic expert decides will produce the greatest revenue opportunities for their municipality.
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by WiglyWorm · 2011-04-12 07:46 · Score: 1

And why shouldn't NASA, like practically everyone else, report to the electorate? We've all heard the "science first" routine and then seen the internal positioning and squabbling result in unbelievable cost overruns, a la Livermore and the DOE

Is this somehow better or worse than spending billions on W.'s launch vehicle only to have it scrapped and sent back to the drawing board by Obama?
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by jd · 2011-04-12 07:47 · Score: 1

I'd suggest something akin to the Charter system that the BBC in the UK operates under: freedom to do what the hell they like with such-and-such as the objective of the charter, no Governmental interference (other than charter renewal), none of the restrictions Government departments would normally operate under (such as copyright and patent restrictions, civil service rules, etc etc) and the right to hire the top brass without imposition of a selected appointee.
This system of a para-public organization (a hybrid of public and private) actually works quite impressively - you've the resources only a Government can amass combined with much of the efficiency you get in the private sector, with enough influence from both camps to limit the corruption either would bring on its own.
Yes, it does also have quite a few drawbacks (the BBC is effectively answerable only for charter violatations - it is otherwise a State in miniature unto itself - with the upshot that it's incredibly hard to beat the stupids out of it).
There's also the political consequences. In the US, I cannot imagine the military being thrilled with the idea of NASA becoming a virtual State with all the power and authority (and autonomy) that implies. I can't imagine the political parties being too happy either. Besides, if NASA were to become independent in such a manner and do so successfully, other Federally-funded activities might be inclined to join suit. You could end up with half of any given budget being contractually obligated with no room for political posturing.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by JaneTheIgnorantSlut · 2011-04-12 08:14 · Score: 1

And Kennedy's "get a man to the moon and get back safely in this decade" was not a long term goal?
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by Chris+Burke · 2011-04-12 08:20 · Score: 1

Having every president wanting to leave their mark on outer space like Kenedy did is irresponsible and leaves them with ever changing goals and a rotating set of tools to do the job. We've changed what vehicles they're supposed to be using two or three times now since they declared the end of the space shuttle.
Solution: Instead of trying to "leave their mark" by creating an immensely difficult goal that requires tons of task-specific development and a huge vehicle to accomplish in the time allotted (and then gets canned with nothing to show for it), instead develop a large number of more manageable and general purpose capabilities and technologies, that will make future missions easier.
You know, what we're doing.

At this rate, an American vessel may never lift an astronaut in to space again.
Er, no, at this rate we'll have an American vessel lifting astronauts to space in a few years.

That's not even bringing congressional funding issues in to the mix...
The biggest danger from Congress, besides them simply slashing the budget, is their insistence on having a NASA in-house gigantic useless boondoggle vehicle, perpetuating the problem.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by Jafafa+Hots · 2011-04-12 08:38 · Score: 2

It's sad that in this country, 8 years is seen as "long term."

--
This space available.
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by Starmac · 2011-04-12 09:26 · Score: 1

And why shouldn't NASA, like practically everyone else, report to the electorate? We've all heard the "science first" routine and then seen the internal positioning and squabbling result in unbelievable cost overruns, a la Livermore and the DOE
Is this somehow better or worse than spending billions on W.'s launch vehicle only to have it scrapped and sent back to the drawing board by Obama?
No, it's not. The process stinks at the moment, and there's a ton of waste this way too. There has to be a better way *with* congressional oversight. NASA shouldn't be a president's legacy builder... or jobs program either. But since the sums of money involved are staggering, the people footing the bill should have a lot of input, and the final say. Say what you will about the Apollo project, the public was squarely behind it (Yeah, I witnessed every mission along the path) As I see it, the difficulty began with the lack of foresight to leverage the accomplishment into the next goal. Going from a 250,000 mile journey to low earth orbit was a definite let-down for most of the populace. There was more interest in the naming of the prototype than that of most missions. I practically belted a customer when arriving onsite still shell shocked at the loss of Challenger and the response was "So..?"
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by khallow · 2011-04-12 12:05 · Score: 1

NASA needs to be given autonomy...
They aren't going to get it because they are a government agency. A public corporation or a non-profit might have sufficient independence to do as you say, depending what strings were attached to their funding. But that wouldn't be NASA, but an entirely new beast.
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by FragHARD · 2011-04-12 16:07 · Score: 1

So.... I take it you don't like 0bama's plan for NASA to seek out new muslim life forms????

--
FragHARD or don't frag at all
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by zippthorne · 2011-04-12 16:31 · Score: 1

The problem is with the phrase,

you'd have the resources only a government can amass...
It's easy to get caught up thinking of things to spend the money on if we can only get hold of the great purse-strings of the nation, and that's what makes it easy to forget that the government doesn't have its own money. Nearly everything it has, it has taken from someone under the threat of violence.
If NASA wouldn't survive on its own, completely segregated from public funding and forced to support itself by selling services to scientists and others and accepting donations from interested parties, and any other voluntary means of support, then we should think long and hard about whether or not it should continue to exist at all.
And I don't mean to single out NASA by any means. They're just a typical example of a program that is immensely popular... or maybe not: if people won't vote for something with their own dollars, maybe they're not as interested as was thought.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:I'd like to take a minute to say by fishbowl · 2011-04-12 17:01 · Score: 1

I wonder what it would cost to get to the moon if the *only* costs were market prices for raw materials and reasonable hourly rates for labor, and nothing else.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Re:East Coast Space Program by RollingThunder · 2011-04-12 07:24 · Score: 1

It's almost like the bulk of the US population is on the eastern seaboard!

Re:Politics... by cobrausn · 2011-04-12 07:24 · Score: 2

I'll just quote an article I found from a local news station.

Richard Allen, the president and chief executive officer of Space Center Houston, wanted to bring a shuttle home.

"The orbiter itself is a national treasure," Allen said. "To be able to house a national treasure anywhere would certainly be a great thing for any organization. It has particular meaning for Houston because of our relationship with the space program."

U.S. Rep. John Culberson (R) said the decision for a shuttle to not be granted to Houston was politically motivated.

"It is sad and unfortunate that politics played such an obvious role in the placement of theses retiring orbiters," Culberson said. "The thought of an orbiter not coming home to rest at Space Center Houston is truly tragic. It is analogous to Detroit without a Model-T, or Florence without a da Vinci."

Houston Mayor Annise Parker (D) also believes the decision to not give Houston a shuttle was all about politics.

"This is certainly disappointing, but not entirely unexpected as the administration has been hinting that Houston would not be a winner in this political competition," Parker said. "I am disappointed for Houston, the Johnson Space Center family and the survivors of the Columbia and Challenger missions who paid the ultimate price for the advancement of space exploration. There was no other city with our history of human space flight or more deserving of a retiring orbiter. It is unfortunate that political calculations have prevailed in the final decision."

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?

Re:Politics... by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-04-12 07:26 · Score: 1

All 4 end up on the coast, such a travesty. There was no need for NY to get one considering DC was guarenteed one.

They're probably on the coasts because that's where the tourist dollars go to. A majority of visitors to the US go to the large cities on the east & west coasts. The museums will draw a much bigger crowd (and probably charge extra) for the Shuttle exhibits.

Crap by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-04-12 07:27 · Score: 1

I *told* them I'd have my garage cleared out in time. Screw you, Bolden!

That's the last time I buy hookers for a government official.

Re:Politics... by cobrausn · 2011-04-12 07:27 · Score: 1

You're such an idiot I would love to just ignore you, but I cant. We have more than our share of 'anti-science' folks, but to label the entire state as anti-science, especially considering our numerous contributions to science and engineering in this country, is to show just how fucking ignorant you are.

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?

Re:Politics... by stating_the_obvious · 2011-04-12 07:28 · Score: 1

You're sampling too short of time period. Texas blew all it's political capital on Johnson originally locating the MSC in Houston.

Re:Politics... by necro81 · 2011-04-12 07:30 · Score: 1

Yes, the voters of California, New York, Florida, and DC are being rewarded for going for Barack Obama, while Texas is being punished for going to McCain.

Are you nuts?

This is an imbecilic notion if for no other reason than the simple fact that politicians are much more concerned with the elections still to come than the ones in the past. Politicians are in the game of making promises for the future, not delivering on the past. In other words, if politics was the big motivating factor, why was the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, in Ohio, a key battleground for 2012, not chosen?

Orders of magnitude more tourists are going to see the shuttles in Los Angeles, Washington DC, and New York City than they are in Houston. and while mission control is in Houston, the shuttle was assembled, launched from, and usually returned to the Cape. I don't need to search around for nefarious reasons why the shuttles are being allocated this way: these choices make sense.

Re:Politics... by eleuthero · 2011-04-12 07:30 · Score: 1

They are going to free museums. The coasts are also where the majority of the population lives--of course, the people living in the MidWest, South (no, like most people, I don't include Florida here), most of the Southwest, and Northwest kind of suffer ... hmmm.

Re:East Coast Space Program by pavon · 2011-04-12 07:33 · Score: 2

No kidding. NY shouldn't have gotten one. They are just a stone's throw away from the Smithsonian, and had little to do with the space program. Houston or Huntsville would have been better choices for historic reasons, and Houston or Chicago for most widespread access to the public.

Re:Politics... by nharmon · 2011-04-12 07:33 · Score: 1

I think all but one site made sense. The Smithsonian because that is where we normally house things of great historical importance. Kennedy Space Center because that was where the shuttles were launched. Los Angeles because the Shuttles were built in Palmdale and a west coast location would allow more people to see one.

But New York City? It seems a strange choice for a couple of reasons. What contribution did they make to the Shuttle program?

Second, where are they planning on putting it? It was my understanding that any potential location would need to have a climate-controlled facility so as to preserve the shuttles for many years. But where in the vicinity of the USS Intrepid is there a place to put Enterprise? I mean, they can't just throw it on a barge like they did with the Concorde and call it a day (unless they have some serious political power behind them).

It makes me sad that so-called "flyover country" will have to go to the coast to see one of these things.

NYC Gets a Space Shuttle (Ok, not a SPACE shuttle) by tedlistens · 2011-04-12 07:33 · Score: 1

Not much of a space shuttle, now is it. Not that NYC deserved a shuttle or anything. There's a video here, and info on the consolation prizes: http://motherboard.tv/2011/4/12/new-york-city-just-got-a-space-shuttle-okay-not-a-space-shuttle-but

Re:Politics... by ahecht · 2011-04-12 07:39 · Score: 1

They are building a glass enclosure for the shuttle where the Concord now sits. It will be inside and climate controlled. You can see concept art at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42555086/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Re:Politics... by akh · 2011-04-12 07:40 · Score: 1

The Intrepid is definitely not free (unless you count viewing from the highway),

--
Accept Eris as your Fnord and personally sate her

Re:Politics... by cobrausn · 2011-04-12 07:41 · Score: 1

The New York choice is precisely the one that made me suspicous of political maneuvering.

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?

Re:Politics... by MaxBooger · 2011-04-12 07:42 · Score: 1

Texas is anti-science. Texas is where anti-science text books get rubber stamped for use in schools across the country. I'm rather glad we aren't sending historical artifacts from when we led in Science and Engineering to the state that most directly destroys science education in this country.

Wheeeee! Don't you just digg the new /.?

Re:Politics... by PyroMosh · 2011-04-12 07:43 · Score: 2

I just got back from seeing a Shuttle launch. The KSC visitor center is ATTACHED to KSC, but is privately operated. It's not free.

I haven't been to the center in LA since I was 12, so I can't comment. I just don't remember.

The Smithsonian center in DC is free. I just saw Enterprise earlier this year.

The U.S.S. Intrepid is not free either. I was just there a year ago.

Both KSC and Intrepid are well worth the price of admission, but neither are free. So that certainly wasn't part of the criteria.

I live in NJ, so DC and NYC both an easy trip for me. That said, it seems sort of unfair to have two in such close proximity. I just finished listening to the NASA press conference and all the reporters from the Chicago and Houston areas were livid.

Wright-Patterson thought they might get one too, though I understand why NASA avoided a military museum.

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.

Re:Politics... by perpenso · 2011-04-12 07:43 · Score: 1

Take a look: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08 Then look again at the list of cities getting a shuttle. Still surprised Houston wasn't chosen? I'm not normally one to read politics into everything, but this...

I certainly agree that political payback is an ongoing problem but lets look at the locations.

Florida, Kennedy Space Center: The launch site for all US manned missions and NASA's premier tourist attraction.
Virginia, Smithsonian: The county's premier Air and Space museum.
How could shuttles not go to these locations?

Los Angeles: At least one west coast site seems necessary and the shuttle was assembled there.
New York: OK, the east cost is already represented and the central regions of the country have been left out so far. However you could argue that population density suggests the north east over the north west or the center regions. That is as plausible as politics. Now consider that New York City is the most popular tourist destination in the US. Now add that the Sea, Air and Space museum is the WW2 aircraft carrier the USS Intrepid. The Intrepid once fought along side an Enterprise, now she will carry one. I think compelling non-political arguments can be made for NYC/Intrepid.

Enterprise exposed to the elements? by quacking+duck · 2011-04-12 07:43 · Score: 1

I was worried that the Enterprise's new home would be parked outside and exposed to the elements and harsh smog of NYC. Thankfully, from the artist renderings it looks like she'll be enclosed in a glass visitor's building.

Re:Enterprise exposed to the elements? by Maximum+Prophet · 2011-04-12 07:50 · Score: 1

For a few years she was parked off the runway at Dulles Airport until they got Udvar-Hazy built.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Enterprise exposed to the elements? by 6Yankee · 2011-04-12 23:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, they said that about their Concorde too.

Space City gets snubbed by Zhrakkan · 2011-04-12 07:44 · Score: 1

I trully think its a dis-service to the populace of the Gulf Coast. Houston has handled the Mission Control for all space flights for 50 years. Even before the shuttles they were there. Every part of the shuttle service was handled as some point from Houston... Sad sad sad....

Crap! by NEDHead · 2011-04-12 07:45 · Score: 1

Now my wife is going to be all over my ass about that huge concrete pad I poured out back.

So what happens to the Concorde? by damn_registrars · 2011-04-12 07:46 · Score: 1

The shuttle headed for NYC is supposed to sit on the pier next to the Intrepid currently occupied by a Concorde. I haven't seen yet what is supposed to happen to the Concorde... I would consider flying out to NYC to see those two aircraft in the same museum.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:So what happens to the Concorde? by Maximum+Prophet · 2011-04-12 07:59 · Score: 1

There's already a Concorde and a Space Shuttle (Enterprise) at the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly Virginia. (As well as a ton of other aircraft. From Udvar-Hazy you can catch a shuttle that goes to the Smithsonian Air and Space museum in DC (I think you have to go to Dulles Airport, then to the Metro). http://www.nasm.si.edu/udvarhazy/

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:So what happens to the Concorde? by MightyYar · 2011-04-12 08:10 · Score: 1

They also have the Enola Gay and an SR-71. Very cool museum - well worth the trip out there if you are in the DC area.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:So what happens to the Concorde? by jarbrewer · 2011-04-12 08:16 · Score: 1

If you want to see both, the Udvar-Hazy Center currently has both. With the added bonus of an SR-71 and the Enola Gay. You don't even have to leave the airport, assuming you fly into Dulles that is.
Re:So what happens to the Concorde? by demonbug · 2011-04-12 08:37 · Score: 1

They also have the Enola Gay and an SR-71. Very cool museum - well worth the trip out there if you are in the DC area.
Second that. It is an incredible museum. I remember being wowed by the Air and Space museum on the mall as a kid, then being a little disappointed when I went back as an adult. The Udvar-Hazy is the grown-up version of the Air and Space museum. Really an amazing, cavernous space filled with cool and interesting aircraft.
Re:So what happens to the Concorde? by Skater · 2011-04-12 12:43 · Score: 2

I love Udvar-Hazy. My wife and I had our first date there. :) But the Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio, and the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, AZ are both must-sees too, if you haven't already and are interested in aircraft. If you haven't been to Dayton, imagine Udvar-Hazy 3 times larger... plus two additional hangars for Presidential and Experimental aircraft (Valkyrie, anyone?). Pima is huge and you can walk right up to the aircraft. They also give tours of the military boneyard next door. Air & Space, Air Force, and Pima are the three largest airplane museums in the country, and all three are very much worth visiting.
Re:So what happens to the Concorde? by MachineShedFred · 2011-04-13 01:19 · Score: 1

Evergreen Aviation in Oregon, who was trying to get a Shuttle, would have had it in the same museum as a SR-71, a Titan-II rocket, a Mercury space capsule, and the Spruce Goose; among a myriad of other aircraft.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Re:Politics... by PseudononymousCoward · 2011-04-12 07:46 · Score: 1

They are going to free museums.

What? The Udvar-Hazy is free (though parking is $10 or $15 per car), but the Intrepid museum and the Kennedy Space Center Museum are both definitely not free, and are both, in fact, private organizations. Kennedy is here: http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/buy-tickets-admission-hours.aspx Intrepid's site seems not to be responding. I don't know anything about the LA location. But having taken the family to Intrepid, Kennedy, Udvar-Hazy, and Air Force museum; I can assure you that 'free' had nothing to do with the site selection. In fact, as the museums must now pay NASA $28m (except for the Smithsonian), I'd say that the free museums were at a disadvantage.

Re:East Coast Space Program by hedwards · 2011-04-12 07:48 · Score: 1

Yes, but that's not really an appropriate way of making the decision. Seattle has been incredibly important to the history of aviation, and yet what we get is a hand me down trainer. Not to mention that the northwest is more or less completely unrepresented. Not to mention the many astronauts that we've produced.

It's pretty screwed up given that NYC got one, and we didn't. And people wonder why we on the West Coast feel so resentful of the East Coasters. It's this sort of spoiled entitlement crap that really gets old. At least we here in Seattle have a meaningful connection to aviation.

Re:Politics... by peragrin · 2011-04-12 07:50 · Score: 1

Yes and no. one must remember something like 60% of the population of the USA lives on the eastern seaboard.

That said, while I am not surprised I really wished one of them was heading to europe to show them that reaching for the stars is possible.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Houston... by damn_registrars · 2011-04-12 07:51 · Score: 1

FWIW they recently elected an openly homosexual mayor. While Texas itself is still very much in the cultural stone age, some regions are gradually starting to learn how to smelt copper...

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:Houston... by cobrausn · 2011-04-12 08:02 · Score: 1

Right, because electing a homosexual == culture. Sigh.

Despite the fact that it seems like half of us are completely enamored with the idea of living ideologically backwards, the other half of us are so awesome as to take that as our starting point and forge the 15th largest economy in the world. The same kind of pragmatic people who will elect a homosexual mayor because she is the best choice among the candidates, not because she is or is not homosexual, as that doesn't actually matter.

Keep trolling though, I hear it's cathartic.

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Re:Houston... by Gravatron · 2011-04-12 08:15 · Score: 1

Here in Texas, that indeed matters. Most of the rual areas seem to be massively anti-gay and neoconservative as can be. Back when the gay marriage amendment was passed, I knew plenty of people who spoke that failing to pass the ban was tantamount to surrendering the state 'to the gays'. Heck, the State GOP wants to make sodomy a crime again, and declare that the courts cannot review the law.
Re:Houston... by cobrausn · 2011-04-12 08:28 · Score: 1

Yes, but you are once again falling into the trap of labeling all Texans the same because of vocal (idiot) politicians, most of which are from rural areas where a few thousand people decide state representatives. It obviously matters to some people, but obviously didn't matter enough in the biggest city in Texas - Anise Parker won by a significant margin. Don't mix all the same flavors of GOP voters (one time or repeated) in the same bag - a lot of them are as neoconservative as it gets, but most I know are just pragmatic and could care less about 'the gays' or a lot of other neocon social issues. I know quote a few who voted for Anise because she was the more fiscally conservative of the two democrat choices.

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?

Seattle wanted one...But still gets a win by BearRanger · 2011-04-12 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

For the Museum of Flight's new space wing, which is pretty much finished, with an available space for a Shuttle. But instead the museum will be getting a full fuselage Shuttle trainer. In a way this is actually better. The Shuttle can't be touched. However visitors will be able to go inside the trainer. Just as every astronaut who has ever flown the Shuttle has done.

Re:Seattle wanted one...But still gets a win by proslack · 2011-04-12 08:52 · Score: 1

How do you know this? They are just as likely to plexiglass a trainer as a real shuttle. You can touch a piece of lunar rock (or at least the grime and grease of millions of fingers coating it) in Houston and Florida, I imagine they'll let people "touch a tile" or something like that. Alternately, you could just just buy yourself a chunk of meteorite for less than the cost of a family pass to KSC http://compare.ebay.com/like/230209530807?var=binlv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&rvr_id=224679782523&crlp=1_263602_324952&UA=WXF%3F&GUID=49f3655312f0a026824779e7ff56401d&itemid=230209530807&ff4=263602_324952 . Besides, every astronaut has also bought gas at the Hess station just south of KSC, but they aren't putting the gas pumps in a museum. (Most) people want the real thing, not a "trainer".

--

Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
Re:Seattle wanted one...But still gets a win by BearRanger · 2011-04-12 09:03 · Score: 1

You have a unique negative outlook on this. OK, maybe not so unique.
See here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014751898_shuttledecision13m.html
The trainer/simulator is one of a kind. People will be allowed to walk through it. The real Shuttles will be on view, but not allowed to be touched. I'll grant that people want to see the real thing, which is why the Museum of Flight wanted one. They didn't get one, but that's no reason to be negative or unhappy about what they DID get.
Re:Seattle wanted one...But still gets a win by beanball75 · 2011-04-12 09:25 · Score: 1

Not only did Houston NOT get a Shuttle for the Johnson Space Center, we lose our trainer too.
Re:Seattle wanted one...But still gets a win by gmhowell · 2011-04-12 11:26 · Score: 1

Learn to take care of the toys you have and maybe we won't have to take them away from you.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Politics... by dotsandlines · 2011-04-12 07:59 · Score: 1

Um, yeah but the Columbia broke up over Texas and Louisiana.

Re:NYC Gets a Space Shuttle (Ok, not a SPACE shutt by PyroMosh · 2011-04-12 08:04 · Score: 2

Calling Enterprise "not a space shuttle" depends largely on how you look at it.

When it rolled off the assembly line, NASA had every intention of flying Enterprise in space. She *was* a spacecraft. She only lacked engines (Main Engines, OMS thrusters, and RCS jets), and thermal protection system, and a few minor internal components.

Unfortunately, between Enterprise's completion, and Columbia's completion, some internal structural design changes were made.

It was realized that making the necessary changes to Enterprise would be too costly, so they retrofitted the Shuttle Test Article STA-99 instead. That "not a space shuttle" became Challenger.

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.

Re:East Coast Space Program by Ogive17 · 2011-04-12 08:05 · Score: 2

It's pretty screwed up given that NYC got one, and we didn't. And people wonder why we on the West Coast feel so resentful of the East Coasters. It's this sort of spoiled entitlement crap that really gets old. At least we here in Seattle have a meaningful connection to aviation.

At least the west coast got 1 shuttle and a trainer. The middle of the country got NOTHING.

I think those of us in "fly over country" should stop exporting our food products, use it as leverage to get someone to throw us a frickin' bone once in awhile.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."

Re:Politics... by PyroMosh · 2011-04-12 08:10 · Score: 1

This is my concern as well.

I just found the answer though:

The Intrepid plans to build a glass hangar on neighboring Pier 86 to protect the shuttle from the elements. The enclosure would include multiple platforms to give visitors different perspectives on the shuttle.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/12/intrepid-will-get-space-shuttle-enterprise/

So at least that's taken care of. Good for me, bad for the middle of the country. DC and NYC really are too close to call this decision totally fair.
/ :

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.

Re:Politics... by Gravatron · 2011-04-12 08:11 · Score: 2

It's close to DC, sure, but also a massive tourist attraction. Easy access to millions of international tourists is an obvious plus.

More on USS Intrepid ... by perpenso · 2011-04-12 08:16 · Score: 1

New York: OK, the east cost is already represented and the central regions of the country have been left out so far. However you could argue that population density suggests the north east over the north west or the center regions. That is as plausible as politics. Now consider that New York City is the most popular tourist destination in the US. Now add that the Sea, Air and Space museum is the WW2 aircraft carrier the USS Intrepid. The Intrepid once fought along side an Enterprise, now she will carry one. I think compelling non-political arguments can be made for NYC/Intrepid.

I should have mentioned that the USS Intrepid also recovered some astronauts returning from space.

I was mistaken with respect to "carrying" the shuttle. Apparently the shuttle will have its own enclosure alongside the Intrepid.

That said, I wish the central regions of the country were getting something too. I am not arguing that NYC was the best choice, just that NYC/Intrepid is a very plausible choice and that politics is not a given.

Re:More on USS Intrepid ... by TargetBoy · 2011-04-12 09:05 · Score: 1

Not to mention they have an SR-71 at the Intrepid. Shuttle makes a nice addition to that.
Re:More on USS Intrepid ... by PyroMosh · 2011-04-12 15:26 · Score: 1

Totally a nit-pick, but Intrepid actually has an A-12, not an SR-71.
The SR-71 evolved from the A-12, and it's totally a common mistake to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.

Re:Politics... by Coren22 · 2011-04-12 08:18 · Score: 1

The Smithsonian center in DC is free. I just saw Enterprise earlier this year.

I would say when you pay for parking however, that the museum is not free.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Politics... by MBGMorden · 2011-04-12 08:19 · Score: 1

Huh? Yes it was a troll post, and Challenger did blow up over the Atlantic after takeoff, but Columbia disintegrated on reentry and threw debris over a lot of the central US, including Texas.

Poor taste yes, but his info wasn't really "wrong".

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain

Re:Politics... by IrquiM · 2011-04-12 08:20 · Score: 1

Honestly? I'm more surprised Stavanger, Illinois didn't get one...

--
This is blinging

Re:Titan by IrquiM · 2011-04-12 08:21 · Score: 1

Because they can't get out of LEO

--
This is blinging

Re:Politics... by dgatwood · 2011-04-12 08:22 · Score: 1

Agreed.

A much more reasonable place to put it, IMO, would have been the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL, where they have lots of space-related exhibits all together in one place. Putting a single shuttle in NYC by itself in a city that has basically no other space-related exhibits makes little sense.

--

Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Re:Politics... by MBGMorden · 2011-04-12 08:24 · Score: 1

Most of the states that comprise the south (even if you leave out Florida) are still coastal states (as long as we're allowed to count the Gulf Coast too). In reality too most of the the South has FAIRLY close access to either Florida or DC, so distance isn't much of a problem.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain

Better suggestion by PunditGuy · 2011-04-12 08:26 · Score: 1

Should just fire one off in some random direction into deep space for the one in a googolplex chance of confusing the hell out of some ETs.

Re:Politics... by cobrausn · 2011-04-12 08:30 · Score: 1

Huh? Yes it was a troll post, and Challenger did blow up over the Atlantic after takeoff, but Columbia disintegrated on reentry and threw debris over a lot of the central US, including Texas.

Poor taste yes, but his info wasn't really "wrong".

My mistake. Troll on then, AC, Troll on.

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?

Re:Politics... by mr_mischief · 2011-04-12 08:30 · Score: 1

I might digg it a little more with just a bit more redditing.

Re:Politics... by elrous0 · 2011-04-12 08:31 · Score: 1

The real politics is the Cold War politics here. How about NASA scheduling the first shuttle launch of the 20th anniversary of Yuri Gragarin's first flight into space--just so they could forever obscure any celebration of his anniversary flight with their own. Such a petty and sad move.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Hutchinson, Kansas by CompMD · 2011-04-12 08:38 · Score: 2

deserved one more than NYC did.

Re:Hutchinson, Kansas by CompMD · 2011-04-13 06:20 · Score: 1

Hutchinson is home to one of the most famous and high profile space museums in the country, their collection includes an SR-71, the Mercury 7, and Apollo 13, and the largest collection of Russian space equipment outside of Russia.

Re:Politics... by demonbug · 2011-04-12 08:50 · Score: 1

The Smithsonian center in DC is free. I just saw Enterprise earlier this year.

I would say when you pay for parking however, that the museum is not free.

Parking is expensive, but then it's an airport - if they didn't charge a lot you would probably have people parking at the museum to catch their flights. Still a lot cheaper than the daily garage at the airport (I'm guessing here - $15 is cheaper than the daily rate at nearby airports here, anyway), and only a short shuttle ride to the terminals...

Also, you can take mass transit to get there. I was there three or four years ago, as I recall it was a short bus ride to the nearest metro station, and I think they were planning a dedicated (free?) shuttle to the museum on the mall.

Dayton got screwed. by ultraexactzz · 2011-04-12 08:54 · Score: 1

The Air Force deserved to get one of the shuttles, even if it was the Enterprise. We still have the Apollo 15 CM, though - and that's something.

--
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein

Re:Dayton got screwed. by Starmac · 2011-04-12 09:30 · Score: 1

The Air Force deserved to get one of the shuttles, even if it was the Enterprise. We still have the Apollo 15 CM, though - and that's something.
Not to start a flame war, but why should the AF deserve one more than Naval Air? Both services contributed to the shuttles' success.
Re:Dayton got screwed. by Y-Crate · 2011-04-12 09:34 · Score: 1

The Air Force deserved to get one of the shuttles, even if it was the Enterprise. We still have the Apollo 15 CM, though - and that's something.
The Air Force is the reason the design got compromised in the first place.

Re:Politics... by Coren22 · 2011-04-12 09:02 · Score: 1

I don't disagree with them charging, but I do disagree with calling it a free museum. When you charge for parking, the word free just doesn't mean the same thing.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Leave one in orbit? by TomGreenhaw · 2011-04-12 09:05 · Score: 1

Why not take two up and bring both crews back on one leaving the other stocked with survival supplies in orbit. We always talk about the fact that there is no viable lifeboat in the event a spacecraft becomes damaged. I'm sure there are a bunch of technical challenges, but if there were food, water, oxygen, etc. in orbit that could be a mission and lifesaver for the ISA and future programs. Maybe the orbiter could even be remotely operated to salvage, deorbit or even repair damaged satellites.

--
Greed is the root of all evil.

Re:Leave one in orbit? by Mercano · 2011-04-12 09:22 · Score: 1

Shuttles can only last about two weeks in orbit before they run out of reactants for the fuel cells. They wouldn't last much longer, even if you cut power consumption, because the hydrogen in the fuel tanks would continue to boil off whether your using it or not. Soyuz can stay in orbit much longer due to the fact it gets its power from solar panels and, when docked, directly from the space station.

--
#include <signature.h>
Re:Leave one in orbit? by Anonymous+Freak · 2011-04-12 10:25 · Score: 1

That would be nice, to have one in orbit for a future in-space museum. But logistically too difficult. It would add a lot of dead weight to the Space Station, and there's no reasonable other choice for storage. (The 'dead weight' comes into play for the occasional orbit re-boosts the station has to do.)
Although it seems like it would be a bonus to slap Spacelab (the 'space station module' that sits in the Shuttle bay, was used fairly often before ISS was started,) in and use it as an extra module for the ISS. Probably wouldn't be too hard to reconfigure it (Spacelab) to power it from ISS instead of the Shuttle. Reconfiguring the SHUTTLE to accept ISS power, though, would probably be more work than it's worth.

--
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Re:Leave one in orbit? by Truth+is+life · 2011-04-13 02:09 · Score: 1

Already done.

Re:Politics... by cobrausn · 2011-04-12 09:16 · Score: 1

Ah, to argue with the AC or not to argue with the AC...

Here, just read my other comment (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080778&cid=35798092). I don't feel like restating it to people who can't be bothered to do even a minimum amount of research before trolling as AC.

--
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?

Re:Politics... by vlm · 2011-04-12 09:24 · Score: 1

They can't put one at both Houston and KSC... one hurricane could take both out. No one is complaining that New Orleans didn't get one.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Love it! by Jawnn · 2011-04-12 09:37 · Score: 1

The feds have extended their middle finger to Texas. As much as I may feel for all those fine NASA folks in Houston (no, seriously...) this raises my MQ (mirth quotient) to new levels. Maybe now that state will have enough reason to actually act on their petulant, empty threats to secede. Please?

Re:Politics... by PFI_Optix · 2011-04-12 09:42 · Score: 1

I live on the border of Texas and Louisiana. Kennedy is a 16+ hour drive for me, and the closest of the four locations.

Johnson and Kennedy should have been obvious to anyone. The Smithsonian as well. And LA just makes sense if you want to put one out west. Yay for politics!

--
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.

Re:Politics... by PFI_Optix · 2011-04-12 09:43 · Score: 1

As someone who grew up in the Texas school system, I'm happy to report you're woefully misinformed.

--
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.

Re:Politics... by PFI_Optix · 2011-04-12 09:49 · Score: 1

Is the point of it to put it in front of as many faces as possible, or to put it somewhere it will actually contribute to space education?

Johnson Space Center has been instrumental in the education of a LOT of young people. I spent time there several times as a student (I grew up 3 hours from it). I would say that making the shuttle part of an education program instead of a mere tourist attraction would be more fitting to NASA's goals.

But hey, it's all about impressing the visitors, right?

--
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.

Re:East Coast Space Program by Starmac · 2011-04-12 09:50 · Score: 1

Yes, but that's not really an appropriate way of making the decision. Seattle has been incredibly important to the history of aviation, and yet what we get is a hand me down trainer. Not to mention that the northwest is more or less completely unrepresented. Not to mention the many astronauts that we've produced.

It's pretty screwed up given that NYC got one, and we didn't. And people wonder why we on the West Coast feel so resentful of the East Coasters. It's this sort of spoiled entitlement crap that really gets old. At least we here in Seattle have a meaningful connection to aviation.

Yes, but that's not really an appropriate way of making the decision. Seattle has been incredibly important to the history of aviation, and yet what we get is a hand me down trainer. Not to mention that the northwest is more or less completely unrepresented. Not to mention the many astronauts that we've produced.

At least we here in Seattle have a meaningful connection to aviation.

Yes, Seattle is and has for a long time been important to aviation. Thank God for Boeing! Still, I believe very few seem to realize the connection the NY area has to aviation because those firms from the NY area, particularly Long Island, relocated to the west coast shortly after WWII. Many of the most storied names in aviation started on LI, unfortunately they are but a memory, and a dim one at that; remembered mostly as the name of a shopping center or mall. (shakes head). Perhaps the shuttles should have gone on tour of the country first, then been placed on permanent display. Personally I don't much care where in the US, just somewhere they're more desired and appreciated than the fate of the F-14 sitting in a field at NAS Atlanta, along with several others that are now rotting hulks.

Cosmosphere by GweeDo · 2011-04-12 09:51 · Score: 2

Ah, this will be the first NASA ship that won't be at the Cosmosphere. They have Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Capsules. They have a few Russian capsules (not sure which exactly). They have an actual Titan rocket even. To bad :(

--
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck

Re:East Coast Space Program by Starmac · 2011-04-12 09:59 · Score: 1

No kidding. NY shouldn't have gotten one. They are just a stone's throw away from the Smithsonian, and had little to do with the space program. Houston or Huntsville would have been better choices for historic reasons, and Houston or Chicago for most widespread access to the public.

I guess designing, manufacturing, and delivering a product that performed better than specification is little to do with the space program? Perhaps you've heard of a small firm named "Grumman Aerospace"? They designed and built the LEM that not only actually touched down on the Moon, but saved the crew of Apollo 13, and did so with humor and pluck. They proudly spoofed VW's "It's ugly but it gets you there" ads with a full page for the LEM, and with tongue-in-cheek, produced a six-figure "towing bill" for the feat.

Re:Politics...Houston has a problem? by JudgeFurious · 2011-04-12 10:07 · Score: 1

I'm in Texas, Houston actually and I'm not happy. I think the one that's going to NYC should have come here. I don't see any point in worrying about politics or the opinions of trolls regarding Texas merit. I just keep thinking that if we'd been a little more careful and done a better job we'd have two more shuttles to disperse. It's unfortunate.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.

Heartland Got Shafted by Tablizer · 2011-04-12 10:19 · Score: 1

I agree; there should be a mid-country location. NY and DC are close enough already. The heartland got shafted and should be pissed.

If not Texas, then how about Colorado?

--
Table-ized A.I.

NYC? WTF? by SpleenVenter · 2011-04-12 10:25 · Score: 1

How the fuck do you decide that NYC gets a shuttle instead of Houston? That's so screwed up I don't even know where to start. What the hell has NYC contributed to the shuttle program (or anything to do with space)?

Re:Politics... by geekoid · 2011-04-12 10:25 · Score: 1

Actually it's money. There was bidding and everything.

So, no.