Slashdot Mirror


Thanks To the Private Space Industry, Things Are Looking Up For Space City USA

gallifreyan99 writes When the shuttle program was ended, and manned space exploration was put on hold, the people of Titusville, Florida were left in big trouble. "Just 20 miles northwest of Kennedy Space Center in Florida, it used to have a proud nickname: Space City USA. The dizzying boom of the 1950s and '60s helped create myriad jobs by giving work to nearby aerospace companies. Unfortunately, the past 15 years have seen everything dry up By December 2010, Titusville had one of the America's highest unemployment rates, 13.8 percent." But even though there's been plenty of bad news recently, the city hopes that the private space industry can save it from destruction.

47 comments

  1. Titusville, Florida by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: Titusville, Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you've never been to New Jersey.

    2. Re:Titusville, Florida by CeasedCaring · · Score: 1

      You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

      I thought that was Mojave Spaceport?

    3. Re:Titusville, Florida by almondo · · Score: 1

      And you have F.O.S. tattooed on your forehead.

  2. moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    i always thought space city USA should be the name of the first lunar colony

    1. Re:moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you perhaps mean Space City, China?

  3. Let's sing! by Roblimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Two boosters for every boy!

    I bought a 67 Soyuz and we call it a capsule
    (Space City, here we come)
    You know it's not very cherry, it's an oldie but a goody
    (Space City, here we come)
    Well, it ain't got a back seat or a rear window
    But it gets me in orbit where I wanna go
    And we're goin' to Space City, 'cause it's two to one
    You know we're goin' to Space City, gonna have some fun
    Ya, we're goin' to Space City, 'cause it's two to one
    You know we're goin' to Space City, gonna have some fun, now
    SpaceX is hiring every girl and boy...

    And if my Soyuz breaks down on me somewhere out in orbit
    (Space City, here we come)
    I'll strap my oxy tanks to my back and hitch a ride in my spacesuit
    (Space City, here we come)
    And when I get to Space City I'll be shootin' the horizon
    And checkin' out the parties for a surfer girl
    And we're goin' to Space City, 'cause it's two to one
    You know we're goin' to Space City, gonna have some fun
    Ya, we're goin' to Space City, 'cause it's two to one
    Ya, we're goin' to Space City, gonna have some fun, now
    Two boosters for every
    Two SpaceX launches for every girl and boy...

    Tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    Ignore the lyrics on that one. They're WRONG!

  4. Bring back the shuttles. by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

    For all its faults, I still rue the fact the Shuttle program was canned. They where great little spacecraft, and really should have just been upgraded rather than canned.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    1. Re:Bring back the shuttles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The shuttle was a great experimental testbed.

      It verified quite effectively that a reusable, rapid-turnaround heavy launch vehicle is a delusional fantasy:
      * The only part that's reusable is the orbiter
      * And given the insane amount of inspection and refit required it's not 100% clear that the orbiter itself passes the ship-of-theseus test
      * Speaking of inspection and refit, we never did get those weekly/monthly shuttle launches we were promised
      * Original promise of 4 nines reliability turned out to be closer to 2 like most other rockets
      * Big dumb boosters can carry more and heavier things: The entire ISS could've been put into orbit by four Saturn V launches to LEO. Masswise, a Saturn V could eat an entire shuttle AND its payload and deliver both to orbit.

      Look up what the shuttle was originally supposed to deliver, then what it did deliver, then wonder why the hell we went through with that thing after it became clear that single-use LVs are an economically superior proposition.

    2. Re:Bring back the shuttles. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      I think part of the problem was that instead of treating it more like an experimental craft, learning from it and implementing changes based on those teachings, they treated it like a final every day working product. Like it was the end goal. There is no way you build the first 'reusable' space craft ever and it actually meets that goal. That is not wishful thinking, it's stupid. But in all the years I haven't seen or heard of much if anything that they say they could do better to improve on it. Maybe because they would have felt obliged to actually do something with it.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    3. Re:Bring back the shuttles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It verified quite effectively that a reusable, rapid-turnaround heavy launch vehicle is a delusional fantasy:"

      It verified something that was pretty much known before it flew for the first time.

      http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

      But mention "space" and otherwise sane and rational adults become gibbering mental wrecks. Space Derangement Syndrome is real, and it's caused by NASA propaganda.

    4. Re:Bring back the shuttles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got to say... I've appreciated reading Gregg Easterbrook since I learned of him around 2005 -- but that's just flat out amazing.

    5. Re:Bring back the shuttles. by almondo · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Are you still running LSI11 platforms in your datacenter? People who don't know the issues with the shuttle are imagining they can drive from the trunk with no camera. I could make a 69 Cadillac Eldorado into a hybrid with a range of about 10 blocks as long as it is not up hill either way.

  5. Ads in Slashdot HTML Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Fuck Slashdot.

    Hit CTRL+U and browse the wonderful HTML source code ads.

    Unbelievable that the site has stooped so low.

    I'm off to Pipedot.

    1. Re:Ads in Slashdot HTML Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS: The HTML source ads are on the main page, not article pages like this one.

    2. Re:Ads in Slashdot HTML Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey!! If all internet advertising were like that it would be a great thing! We need to get everybody to switch over to ads as HTML comments. I wouldn't even block those.

      Captcha: hilarity

  6. Private is the wrong way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space travel will always need huge public subsidy. It will never be the economic option to delegate the responsibility to the private sector. Expect to see a few more crashes, and attempts to blame anyone but themselves.
    Look at other examples of taking complex state functions, and delegating them to the private sector eg. healthcare - the US has the worst healthcare system of any developed nation, and it is privately run. Look at privatisation of energy, telecoms and gas in Europe. Prices went up, and service levels down. Also the poor people who worked for these companies became, well, poor.

    1. Re:Private is the wrong way to go by SourceFrog · · Score: 2

      I think the best approach would be a hybrid one. Though healthcare sector is NOT any sort of 'role model'. Companies like SpaceX clearly have a lot to bring to the table in terms of innovation and bringing costs down, but to achieve large, visionary goals for man, will probably be helped a lot by government funding.

      There is a myth though that anything to do with space is hideously unaffordably expensive. If you look at the actual numbers, this isn't really true. E.g. NASA's annual budget is just 0.5% of the money we blew on the Iraq War.

      American healthcare system is not really "private" unless you consider a fasco-Corporatist system with government-protected cartels and monopolies and protections an example of a "private" system. I don't.

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
    2. Re:Private is the wrong way to go by SourceFrog · · Score: 2

      I know everyone likes to criticize NASA, but they have pulled off some extraordinary research on their really tight budgets. E.g. the initial cost for the Kepler Spacecraft mission was just something like $600million - and that project has quietly and with little fanfare achieved some of the most potentially history-changing research in the history of astronomy. (Why? Because for the first time in human history we are not only discovering many potentially 'earth-like' worlds, but actually basically starting to build the first "maps" of the planets in our galaxy - these are basically the first maps that will be used when we start sending probes to, and then later traveling to and colonizing other star systems - historians of the future will understand the significance in hindsight in a way few seem to grasp today.)

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
    3. Re:Private is the wrong way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at privatisation of energy, telecoms and gas in Europe.

      Prices for telecoms dropped tremendously and service quality increased enormously after privatisation. DSL, FTTC and mobile internet would probably not have existed if telecoms were still a government monopoly and prices would be as high or higher than before privatisation. Consumer electricity and gas prices rose due to steeply increased taxation, but gross electricity prices actually decreased, even though the oil price increased. Governments are generally not very good at performing services that belong in the free market. They tend to be inefficient and to ignore the actual demands of their customers. Economies of scale are great, but without competition, the consumer loses out.

      The US health care system is indeed terrible. Not because it is private, but because it is just a very bad system. Many private or mostly-private systems around the world work fine.

      Maybe you should learn to question the propaganda from socialists and social democrats a bit more.

    4. Re:Private is the wrong way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering you think we're consumers and not citizens, I wonder who is the real sock puppet here?

    5. Re:Private is the wrong way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizens who consume products and services are, by definition, consumers.

      I wonder who is the real sock puppet here?

      You?

  7. Huh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tittiesville. Heh heh.

  8. And yet... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    the US has the worst healthcare system of any developed nation, and it is privately run.

    And yet, where do people want to be treated when they contract Ebola? What nations have active R&D for an Ebola vaccine? A Malaria vaccine? And in India, who actually uses the state run healthcare when private is an option? And in the U.K., how do you skip the NHS wait queue for something like hernia surgery? And in Canada, where do you go when the government health care system refuses to fix your knee because you're a computer programmer, and having a working knee is not necessary to your job function?

    I guess there is room for a *little* privatization...

    1. Re:And yet... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      The main Ebola drugs/vaccines that are in play were developed in Canada at the publicly funded National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Some money came from private companies, but much was public funds; and who paid for the lab in the first place? (That's a rhetorical question if you didn't get it.) Level 4-containment microbiology labs aren't cheap, it's why there are only a handful in the world and why they are publicly funded, not privately... there is normally no profit in them. I am one who has no problem pointing out the folly and poor performance (it has hurt me personally) of Canada's "public only" healthcare system. I like the public/private funding paradigm that Europe seems to have and which Obamacare seems to be moving towards, and would like to see that adopted here (that is another topic altogether). But I am very against the "private only" healthcare system that many fake Christians in the U.S. want. I have seen it hurt too many people. And this is also a case where we can see that private isn't always better either.

      Next question?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    2. Re:And yet... by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If money is no object the US has the best medical facilities in the world. For everyone else you'd probably be better off going to Cuba - they have a truly awesome healthcare system that revolves around delivering the best possible care for as little money as possible, and they deliver impressively. For most common conditions their outcomes compare favorably with any wealthy nation, and at a tiny fraction of the expense.

      I'd love to see the US adopt a two-tiered medical system: Cuban-style healthcare as the first tier, handling the 90+% of common injuries and ailments that can be cheaply and reliably treated without expensive high technology, along with all the regular house calls, follow-ups, lifestyle advice, etc,etc,etc. that doctors of old delivered. Remove the profit from the maintenance of basic health - *everyone* benefits from having a healthy, productive populace, and there's no reason that the healthcare system should be milking people for tens of thousands of dollars for outcomes which that can delivered at double-digit expense. Let's bring back doctors who are respected by their community and don't fleece their patients at every opportunity

      Only if you are diagnosed with something that needs high-tech intervention do you get referred (without kickbacks) to the second tier, where specialists thrive in well-equipped hospitals - but you'd you'd better have insurance if you want to be able to afford their services.

      I think such a system would be at least a wonderful "first draft" way to make sure no American ever has to suffer from a condition that could be treated for a few dollars at any decent 3rd-world clinic, while also maintaining the incentive structure that has led us to develop the cutting-edge treatments that made our medical services the preferred choice for the wealthiest people in the world.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:And yet... by drew870mitchell · · Score: 1

      It's important to consider the economics of the second tier. How much should catastrophic-only insurance cost? And do we let people drop dead when they get catastrophic illness and didn't buy insurance?

      Also keep in mind that a lot of the cost difference between the US and Cuba is the Americans are getting paid living wages (to live in America). When you say "a condition that could be treated for a few dollars at any decent 3rd-world clinic," let's get real, that probably translates to about $30 (or $300 even) in the US, even with the same penny pinching attitude.

    4. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you mean mean room to expand the socialised services to provide more comprehensive and timely care, I agree.

      None of the options you list are available to anyone who isn't rich.

    5. Re:And yet... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Why not continue operating the catastrophic insurance exactly the way we are now? Don't touch the existing system *AT ALL*, except to remove the "trivial" cases to a medical triage organization whose incentives have been crafted to promote efficiency and efficacy.

      Yes, that will mean that second-tier care will be more expensive without the ability to subsidize itself with inflated first-tier profits. On the other hand the resulting much cheaper first-tier care will almost certainly mean that far fewer people allow a problem to develop to the point where expensive second-tier treatments are needed before seeking help. There's also the fact that insurance is all about distributed risk - first and second tier actual expenses are already worked into your monthly insurance premium. Nothing fundamentally changes if 80% of the payouts now go directly to the second-tier treatments instead of being shuffled around in the hospital's books to get there anyway - except that the insurance provider has a better idea of the actual relative expenses.

      Yes, it does throw into stark relief some very difficult questions about exactly how much "second tier" medicine you should have access to if you refuse to pay for insurance, but those questions are already *very* much a fact of life: Unless you're a member of the 1% you already don't have access to anywhere near the sorts of medical miracles that make this nation a medical destination for billionaires around the world. Why not at least separate out the easy answers - such as affordable "good maintenance and basic repair" medical care for everyone, so that they don't get sacrificed as leverage by the ugly realities of end-of-life medicine? Even in the worst case, if second-tier (or third, etc) care was refused, that doesn't have to mean yo get *nothing*, just only the best care available with first-tier resources. ...and as I read that back I think I see a major problem - that kind of "at least they get..." sentiment seems ripe for exploitation. Hmm, may have to think on this one some more.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  9. Global Warming by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    ...Unfortunately, the past 15 years have seen everything dry up...

    It's Florida, and they're on the coast. Global warming should fix this by the time a few decades are up. If I were them I'd sell everything now and get what I could, then move north to the hills in Georgia. It'll be beach front by the next century. At least their decedents can enjoy it if they can keep the property in the family.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Global Warming by Miamicanes · · Score: 0

      Bzzzt. Florida is probably in the best position of any state (besides MAYBE New York) to deal with climate change. Why? Because we haven't had anything that vaguely resembles a natural river or coastline in almost a century. Our coastline is ALREADY fortified against flooding. Drive to South Beach sometime, and notice that West Avenue (the road along the western edge of the island) is already a few feet higher than the surrounding terrain. Then observe that there's another huge berm sitting between Ocean Drive and the ocean itself (the one covered in sea oats with boardwalks over it).

      Then, while you're at it, take a peek at the western edge of urban Dade & Broward counties. Notice the HUGE-ass dike that keeps the "Everglades" side underwater, and the "human" side dry & suitable for condos, office parks, and golf courses.

      It's the same as the Netherlands. Everyone likes to point to it as a country that's in peril of being submerged, but it's probably the *least* likely country in Europe to even *notice* rising sea levels, because the barriers around it were all solidly over-engineered with plenty of wiggle room to spare. And when the time comes to rebuild them in a century or so, they'll just get rebuilt a few feet higher.

    2. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having dealt with flooding issues growing up in Florida, several times including not just from hurricane storm serge, no, Florida is not well protected from a rise in sea level. There are a lot of places that are miles from the coast, but still only a couple feet above sea level. And while they wouldn't be permanently underwater any time soon, lowering that elevation greatly increases the chance of problems from storms. Heck, the number of times that highway A1A has to be repaired due to damage currently from washouts of sand and flooding issues in storms is pretty bad.

    3. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you forget that the kardashians like miami, not osceola, or St. Augustine. So the beach is built up there to protect their bikini area. Cannot wear a bikini in atlantic city year round. Too damn cold, that would be wrinkles and such not tips of nips.

  10. So "are" is now the future injunctive tense? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    I can certainly see why they might *hope* for such things, but "things are looking up" would suggest that they're *already* starting to take form, and I saw no evidence of that when skimming the article.

    And personally, if I were preparing to go to space I'd rather not have my last days planet-side be spent grounded by bad weather, feeding voracious mosquito swarms, and trying to find some way to shed heat in the oppressive humidity.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  11. manned space exploration?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering we're going nowhere and space has been mapped out from the ground, what does "manned space exploration" actually mean? Test pilot spam-in-a-can in Low Earth orbit?

  12. I lived there by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    I lived in Titusville for two years covering the end of the space shuttle program and the private space industry is not going to save that area. Most of T'ville's problems are self-inflicted and, even as businesses continue to close and young people can't move away fast enough, government leaders are not investing the kind of money in the type of projects it would take to attract new businesses.

    For decades T'ville was anti-growth and most of the policies still cling to the dying relic of the area, which is a study in decay and abandonment. Titusville is a craphole and there's little to recommend the area. It's ironic they're still looking for space-industry solutions to save them.

    Titusville is not yet Detroit, a city verging on complete decay.

    The author obviously didn't spend much time there because that whole area is decaying. The restaurant he was talking about is called Dixie Crossroads down on Garden and it's not a place locals frequent, not that there are a lot of options.

    And I'm still not convinced that NASA is the right organization to define the future of space travel, but that's a different discussion.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:I lived there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I go down to KSC (I live in Gainesville), I'm always sure to visit Dixie Crossroads. I love what they can do with rock shrimp.

      Some locals must go there: I've heard some say the restaurant used to be better. It brings me back every time though.

      There's another restaurant down there where I go. I keep forgetting the name; Google says it's Shiloh's Steak and Seafood, but I think it had a different name when I took the main-screen-background photo on my phone of the VAB and STS-135 on the launchpad. That was 12 miles from launchpad 39A and an azimuth slightly to the north.

      There you go. When one commenter complained about Titusville's being due west of KSC, that's where the idea comes from. On the other hand, the KSC's main gate is 9 miles to the southeast of Titusville.

  13. My two cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As we know, helping the unemployed is only going to keep them in the cycle of being unemployed, if we have http://touch.sun-sentinel.com/... to go off of.

    "I'm not satisfied with having a cycle of homeless in city of Fort Lauderdale," said Seiler. "Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive."

    But I don't agree with the above. Whether it's homelessness, being unemployed, whatever, I think we should have a negative income tax or guaranteed income in this country.

  14. You got that right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got that right. At the end NASA was flying perfect shuttles. If it was so dangerous it could have continued to fly unmanned. Two times now America's space program has endured a major technical discontinuity. With Apollo and now with the shuttle. Now a large launcher will be invented a 3rd time with SLS. Imagine if America had spent the last 40 years upgrading the Saturn launch vehicles. Our space program is a wreck.

  15. Bad Geography by nurbles · · Score: 2

    Full disclosure: I lived at Patrick AFB in the 1980s, in Cape Canaveral for the 1990s and have lived in Rockledge (20 mi South of Titusville) since 2000. But I don't work in the space industry.

    Apparently the author of the linked article can't read a map (or GPS). Titusville is just over 9 (yes, NINE) miles DUE WEST of the VAB and just over 10 miles North-West of the main cluster of NASA admin and misc buildings, Titusville is only 20 miles NW of the waters outside Port Canaveral.

    As for the reduction in unemployment from about ~13% to ~6%, it appears to be almost entirely from population loss rather than any form of job growth. One of the ex-NASA folks I was talking to believes that the private space companies are bad for the area because they bring their own people from out-of-town to work their launches instead of hiring experienced locals. I don't know if that's true, but everyone else I ever knew that worked at the space center moved away after everything shut down.

  16. Stayed there for final shuttle launch by tekrat · · Score: 1

    The hotel I stayed at was literally the worst hotel I have ever stayed at, and I've been to some crapholes. My friend with me wouldn't even sleep in the bed unless we first ran to a store and bought all kinds of bug sprays and disinfectants. Even the clean towels were dirty. Half the buildings were already boarded up.

    And it was all worth is because we had a good time at the Space Park (which was like $65 to get in), and the launch of STS135 was awesome, even if it was a bit cloudy. There's a nice Air Museum there, we got to fly in the Military version of the DC-3 (C-47?), which gave us a nice aerial view of NASA.

    But Titusville itself? The craphole of crapholes. There was almost nothing left to the town when I was there and that was more than 2 years ago. My guess was the hotel was going to be burned down after we left to claim the insurance. Another guest found a 9mm pistol in the parking lot and asked us if she should turn it in to the police -- as if that was a question!

    It seems to me that the entire town depends upon tourism, and there simply isn't anything there other than NASA, which is now a shadow of it's former self. And tourism isn't something a town should depend upon, just ask those towns along Route 66.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  17. Public Private Hybrid by sjbe · · Score: 1

    healthcare - the US has the worst healthcare system of any developed nation, and it is privately run

    Only deluded ideologues think that the US health care system is privately run. Yes it has elements that are privately run but you cannot ignore Medicare or Medicaid because they are the 800lb gorilla in the system. Insurance companies generally follow whatever pricing Medicare sets. Our more conservative leaning citizens often like to live with the illusion that private always equals better (sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't) and that our system is a private system but in reality is it is a public/private hybrid system with the public parts (Medicare mostly) leading the private parts on pricing.

    As for the "worst healthcare system" comment, that is nonsense. Most expensive? No argument. But expensive != worst at least not by itself. Guess where all that nifty technology that the rest of the world gets to use is developed? More often than not, right here in the US - and we incur a lot of the cost for it. The US healthcare system has economic problems but the actual ability to treat disease is second to none. While I certainly won't argue that the overall US health care system is the best in the world (it clearly is not) I would absolutely argue that it isn't the worst either.

    1. Re:Public Private Hybrid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, public private is what we had. The public pays either way. The insurance companies are there to make money, not lose money. A private hospital is there to make money, not treat patients. So the customer loses either way. Government is there to not make money, but to create rules on how the companies can screw the client. They cannot stop them from screwing you, your only problem is to pay the bills, if you survive. That is the american way health care system till obamacare/romneycare came into being. The part that upsets dem/repugs is that 80% was scheduled to pay the bills. Everyone wanted less, except the patients. I expect to modifications like taking off the outlay amount, opening up the "survival" rate to lower effeciency numbers, and Insurance companies smile all the way to the bank.

  18. I live there, just a small town by Smilodon · · Score: 3, Informative

    I guess I *have* to post something, since I have lived in Titusville for a while, and also lived in the region for a shorter time in the early shuttle program days.

    I have worked on the shuttle program and currently work in commercial space.

    Titusville is just a small town in Florida, always has been, and almost certainly always will be. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if that is what you are looking for.

    And, as others have mentioned, has been famously "anti-growth" during many periods in history. Which probably hasn't been that helpful when growth was a little more active around here.

    The city has had a complex relationship with the space program and the tourist industry in Florida. Most of the "decay" are overly ambitious structures from the Apollo days (IE malls and large resort hotels). They were pretty run down even in the early "boom" days of the shuttle program. They have only suffered more under the extreme impact of the shuttle program shutdown.

    In some cases, this was turned around into finally demolishing these structures and replacing them with something more appropriate for the area. There are newer hotels of the normal "big box" type on the interstate exits now, and most of the riverfront "resorts" are gone or converted to other purposes.

    Like every town (in Florida particularly), attempts are made to attract tourism. There have been a number of failed schemes since the Apollo days. Before my time, there was a jungle park owned by Johnny Weismuller of "Tarzan" fame, there was a tacky "JFK" museum in the shuttle days, etc. etc. It all looks so good when you are surrounded by "big tourism". Orlando to the west, Daytona Beach and St. Augustine to the north, the Cape Canaveral cruise ports to the east. But, it's just those places that mean you are generally bypassed for activities that they all do better.

    The space center is a huge tourist attraction, but you mostly get tourists from Orlando who just come out to the center and then head back.

    And remember, Titusville is a "river front" town, not "ocean front". That makes a huge difference.

    On the plus side, We do have access to unspoiled beach and wildlife in the national parks north of the space center. It is a great locale for fishing and boating. In spite of them letting *me* in, lots of smart and industrious folks live here (either retired or still active from the space center). It is a short drive to just about any tourist activity you would like to participate in (beaches, theme parks, etc.). But, like most small towns, it is short on great night spots, trendy food places, hip hotels and boutique shopping. But it has tiny, small-town versions of most of this stuff too.

    Not a town booster, but it's really a pretty routine place of its type, just twisted a bit with all the big ups and downs of the biggest local industry. Any improvements in the employment numbers can't help but be a boost to the community (and others in the region). That isn't much of a mystery when you took the hit of the shuttle shutdown.

    1. Re:I live there, just a small town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the perspective.

      Yeah, as an occasional tourist myself, this is a frequent issue. If you're short on time, you hit the highlights and skip the modest stuff, no matter how worthy it might be. Here's the equation:

      Tourist. Know little to nothing about Florida, just looking for some fun and light education opportunities. I have 1 or 2 weeks tops. Do I go to Titusville, a place I've never heard of, and have no personal attachment to? Or do I visit Orlando, Cape Canaveral, Disney, and Miami Beach? Easy choice really.

      Once you have lots of time and perhaps an RV/camper, then you can afford to hit the secondary destinations.

    2. Re:I live there, just a small town by almondo · · Score: 1

      It's a great place to be. But then again I have never been the trendy/hip/boutique type. My small town on a river with the slow tide is fine with me. It's finally getting cold enough to go shrimping.

  19. Houston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is Space City.