Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/147541/

Topic: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: eksath
Posted 2012-10-09 16:19:21 and read 6663 times.

Why did California get a shuttle?

I have heard a lot of comments/complaints about where the shuttles should have/should not have been retired to.

There was really only one in play- Endeavour. Smithsonian was always getting one and so was KSC.

The following puts the case for Endeavour going to LA in good focus.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ers-20121009,0,600268.story?page=1


I am sure this debate will arise next week again when the move starts. I hope this helps settle the argument.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: alberchico
Posted 2012-10-09 16:39:05 and read 6649 times.

The fact that its located in a high population area like New York dosen't hurt either. Even NASA admitted that one of the key factors were locations where as many people as possible could see the shuttles. That's why as a result of that criteria Houston and Dayton lost....

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-10-09 20:27:25 and read 6557 times.

Quoting eksath (Thread starter):
Why did California get a shuttle?

Well California was home to the plants which manufactured the orbiters and the SSME's and is home to Edwards, where nearly half of shuttle flights ended

Tugg

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: NBGSkyGod
Posted 2012-10-10 07:14:21 and read 6402 times.

The LA area was once home to an aerospace industrial complex that rivaled the Silicon Valley's computer complex. All of the major manufacturers of aircraft and spacecraft had factories there: Hughes, Rockwell, Lockheed, Honeywell, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, etc. It is only reasonable that an area that contributed so much to the program would get a shuttle when it retired.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-10-10 16:24:40 and read 6196 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
Well California was home to the plants which manufactured the orbiters

No, not quite. The FAL was at Palmdale, which is a USAF facility nearly all Californians cannot get into. The parts for the shuttles were manufactured in nearly every US state.

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 3):
All of the major manufacturers of aircraft and spacecraft had factories there: Hughes, Rockwell, Lockheed, Honeywell, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, etc. It is only reasonable that an area that contributed so much to the program would get a shuttle when it retired.

Their all gone, except Boeing Long Beach, which will be closing in the next few years after the last C-17 is delivered.

California got a real shuttle, New York got the prototype purely for political reasons. Houston got a mock-up of a toy. Houston ran EVERY shuttle mission, none were run from California. In fact the once built west coast shuttle launch site at VBG was never used by a shuttle, except for the test fits by Enterprise. SLC-6 is only used to launch Delta IV.

Politics was the ONLY consideration in selecting the final homes for the shuttle fleet. The selections were made by the White House and not by NASA.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-10-10 17:48:17 and read 6171 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
No, not quite. The FAL was at Palmdale, which is a USAF facility nearly all Californians cannot get into. The parts for the shuttles were manufactured in nearly every US state.

Well I understand that. But Seattle (and now SC) is still where people consider Boeing's to to be built. California contributed a hell of a lot to the shuttle program and I see no need to diminish that.

I can see that you are upset at how things turned out but it doesn't change that "California" is deserving of getting a Space Shuttle. I was just pointing out why California was worthy of such and honor, not saying anywhere else was not.

Tugg

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: Flighty
Posted 2012-10-10 18:11:44 and read 6162 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The selections were made by the White House and not by NASA.

Israel is probably outraged they didn't get one!

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-10-10 18:52:47 and read 6151 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Politics was the ONLY consideration in selecting the final homes for the shuttle fleet. The selections were made by the White House and not by NASA.

Prove it.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-10-10 20:44:35 and read 6113 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 5):
California contributed a hell of a lot to the shuttle program and I see no need to diminish that.

Califiornia contributed, and still contributes, a hell of a lot to TONS of aerospace programs, whether they are NASA, armed forces, private, whatever.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

To be honest, I don't understand why people say SoCal shouldn't have one. Between the orbiters being built here and landing here on many missions, and TONS of aerospace industry here (which pumped a lot of parts and such into the program, I'm sure), it seems a fitting location.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
No, not quite. The FAL was at Palmdale, which is a USAF facility nearly all Californians cannot get into.

Which part are you saying "not quite" to? Palmdale is in SoCal. Of course components get manufactured elsewhere. Boeing doesn't put together every last component in Seattle, either.

Would you rather the Shuttle be at AF Plant 42, which, as you say, nearly all Californians cannot get into?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Their all gone, except Boeing Long Beach, which will be closing in the next few years after the last C-17 is delivered.

They may not all be factories, but Boeing, Northrop, Raytheon, Honeywell, SpaceX, Aerospace Corp., Lockheed, Gulfstream, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, NASA, and hundreds of other companies still have a large presence in SoCal.

Just because SoCal isn't a focus of final assembly anymore doesn't mean it doesn't have a large aerospace sector.

Quoting alberchico (Reply 1):
That's why as a result of that criteria Houston and Dayton lost....

You know Houston is the 4th most populous city in the country, right? And the focus of the 5th most populous metro area?

I really can't see NYC getting a Shuttle over Houston.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: NBGSkyGod
Posted 2012-10-11 03:32:38 and read 6049 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Their all gone, except Boeing Long Beach, which will be closing in the next few years after the last C-17 is delivered.

Yup, I still remember having Boy Scout meetings at the Rockwell plant in Downey, with a full shuttle mockup inside.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8):

Califiornia contributed, and still contributes, a hell of a lot to TONS of aerospace programs, whether they are NASA, armed forces, private, whatever.

This is true, but it is only a shell of its former self. Although Boeing Space (formerly MDC Space) still has its main building in Huntington Beach, just off the Seal Beach Navy Base.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-10-11 06:36:44 and read 6021 times.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 7):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):Politics was the ONLY consideration in selecting the final homes for the shuttle fleet. The selections were made by the White House and not by NASA.
Prove it.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/04...-in-bid-for-retired-space-shuttle/

http://www.rv-103.com/charlie-bolden...r-obama-here-have-a-space-shuttle/

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):Their all gone, except Boeing Long Beach, which will be closing in the next few years after the last C-17 is delivered.
They may not all be factories, but Boeing, Northrop, Raytheon, Honeywell, SpaceX, Aerospace Corp., Lockheed, Gulfstream, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, NASA, and hundreds of other companies still have a large presence in SoCal.

Just because SoCal isn't a focus of final assembly anymore doesn't mean it doesn't have a large aerospace sector.
Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 9):
This is true, but it is only a shell of its former self.

Yeap, In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s SoCal was pounding out hundreds of DC-8s, DC-9s, DC-10s, and L-1011s, along with many other airplanes and space vehicles. SoCal has been loosing its aerospace industry since the 1990s due to the unfriendly tax on businesses to states like Washington, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and others. The same can be said for New York State, which once had a large and proud aerospace industry, too. Engineers have left California by the hundreds of thousands in the last 20 + years. No state, except maybe Florida, has a longer and more proud tradition in space than Texas. Yes, SoCal did have a large space and flight testing program, mostly at EDW and NID which are in SoCal because of the high desert and weather, and for no other reason. PMD started out as a USAAF Field training B-25 crews during WWII, It later was opened for commerical operations by several aerospace companies for FAL of many projects there for civilian, military, and space programs. The L-1011 was built there, as was the SR-71, F-117, and currently the Global Hawk.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-10-11 07:58:08 and read 5997 times.

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 9):

This is true, but it is only a shell of its former self.

A shell of it's former self still equals a larger aerospace industry than probably every other city in the US....probably some states, too.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-10-11 08:43:46 and read 5979 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
http://www.rv-103.com/charlie-bolden...r-obama-here-have-a-space-shuttle/

I'd like to believe you're joking, rather than believe you think an angry rant is somehow proof.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: JeffSFO
Posted 2012-10-11 09:54:33 and read 5952 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Politics was the ONLY consideration in selecting the final homes for the shuttle fleet. The selections were made by the White House and not by NASA.

The irony is rich there. Why are NASA operations in Houston at all and not just Florida? Politics. Specifically because of LBJ. Where did I learn that? Well, aside from history, it was publicly stated by the tour guide who led our group at KSC. So to kvetch about Houston not getting a Shuttle is just sour grapes.

That said, huge amounts of development for the Space Shuttle program were done in southern California. Don't take my word for it, for a great in-depth set of lectures by those who designed, built, managed, and also flew the Shuttle, I recommend this series of lectures from MIT:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronauti...aft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/

Quote:

Course Highlights
This course was administrated by shuttle astronaut and MIT Professor Jeff Hoffman and Professor Aaron Cohen, who was the Space Shuttle Orbiter Project Manager. Guest speakers provide the majority of the content in video lectures, discussing topics such as system design, accident investigation, and the future of NASA's space mission.

Course Description
16.885J offers a holistic view of the aircraft as a system, covering: basic systems engineering; cost and weight estimation; basic aircraft performance; safety and reliability; lifecycle topics; aircraft subsystems; risk analysis and management; and system realization. Small student teams retrospectively analyze an existing aircraft covering: key design drivers and decisions; aircraft attributes and subsystems; and operational experience. Oral and written versions of the case study are delivered. For the Fall 2005 term, the class focuses on a systems engineering analysis of the Space Shuttle. It offers study of both design and operations of the shuttle, with frequent lectures by outside experts. Students choose specific shuttle systems for detailed analysis and develop new subsystem designs using state of the art technology.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: Areopagus
Posted 2012-10-11 10:49:09 and read 5937 times.

I think the above arguments for Florida, Houston, LA, and the Smithsonian are very strong. The real issue is, why should one be posted in NYC, less than 250 miles away from the Smithsonian, when the country is so big? Houston would help to bring a much bigger swath of the US within driving range of a shuttle. Putting one in New York doesn't make any sense.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-10-11 12:02:43 and read 5908 times.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 14):
Putting one in New York doesn't make any sense.

I agree-- their criteria sucked. What didn't happen is political intervention when those criteria delivered a stupid result.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: nickh
Posted 2012-10-11 19:35:29 and read 5815 times.

I live in Houston, TX, and I did some work out at KSC on STS-67/Endeavour back in the mid 1990s (comm/up-downlink), so it was a personal thing for me when Endeavour did a fly-by on the Shuttle Transporter 747 -- near my office, several days ago, and landed at Ellington Field in Clear Lake (Houston) for a refueling, show & tell.

I saw the fly-by through my office window. I tried to run outside to catch the tail-end, but it was too late.

So WHY did Mission Control/JSC in Houston *not* get a shuttle? Incompetent politicians. Simple as that.

Almost makes you want to not vote any more - it only encourages the b*stards.

.

-Nick

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-10-12 06:44:13 and read 5743 times.

I would so much love to see this... a Space Shuttle parading through city streets!
What an awesome sight this must be!!!

     

The Space Shuttle Endeavour began its first-ever parade through city streets late Thursday, and anyone in the Los Angeles area can get a front-row seat.
The retired craft is on its way to a Los Angeles museum where it will spend its retirement.

Endeavour, which made its last trip to space in May 2011, is soon set to join the ranks of museum displays at the California Science Center (CSC).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49380316/ns/technology_and_science-space/

I hope this most unusual Space Shuttle road trip will be turned into a giant party!

Those who happen to be in the area please get us some nice pictures!

              

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-10-12 07:47:42 and read 5728 times.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 17):
I hope this most unusual Space Shuttle road trip will be turned into a giant party!

They already put a pretty big damper on that:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...uttle-anger-20121005,0,98874.story

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-10-13 05:35:16 and read 5598 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
http://www.rv-103.com/charlie-bolden...r-obama-here-have-a-space-shuttle/

That's your proof? What partisan crap!

Why New York and not Houston? Because tourists flock to New York. What else is in Houston that anyone would want to see? The tallest building that's not in a downtown area? Wow, I'M impressed!    They're just pissed that we pronounce our street Howston, not Youston.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-10-13 05:49:24 and read 5596 times.

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 13):
Why are NASA operations in Houston at all and not just Florida? Politics. Specifically because of LBJ. Where did I learn that? Well, aside from history, it was publicly stated by the tour guide who led our group at KSC.

That is correct. Then President Kennedy put (then) VP Johnson in charge of the flrdling space program.

Quoting nickh (Reply 16):
So WHY did Mission Control/JSC in Houston *not* get a shuttle? Incompetent politicians. Simple as that.

Correct.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 17):
I hope this most unusual Space Shuttle road trip will be turned into a giant party!

Yeah they can create bon fires from all the trees that had to be cut down along the route. LOL

The fact is the CSC is a small museum when it comes to their air and space exhibits, compared to the space museum at Houston and the USAF museum at Dayton. They only have 6 airplanes or airplane replices and 5 space exhibits, including the Apollo 16 space suit from a moon mission.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-10-13 05:58:00 and read 5594 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
flrdling

Did you mean 'fledgling'?

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: eksath
Posted 2012-10-13 06:41:54 and read 5591 times.

You guys do know that that the OV-101 is merely a prototype that is far removed from the orbiters that actually flew in space?

101 was deemed to too structurally different to be economical fitted as an space worthy orbiter very early on (hence Challenger was born). Again, after the Challenger incident, 101 was passed up for Endeavour's creation.

There is also nothing really inside her when one compares with the real thing. She is pretty bare inside for example her flight deck just a frame with everything that was used in the approach and landing tests removed. Big empty holes fill the flight deck where things would have been. She lacks many of the subsystems and components that one would expect to be inside. i.e. the shape and her history in the ALT testing and fit testing is what one is looking at. Hey payload bay is no different.

Just thought i would put it in there as people equate her with the space worthy fleet by merely looking at the outside shape.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-10-13 08:24:16 and read 5570 times.

Quoting eksath (Reply 22):
She is pretty bare inside for example her flight deck just a frame with everything that was used in the approach and landing tests removed. Big empty holes fill the flight deck where things would have been. She lacks many of the subsystems and components that one would expect to be inside. i.e. the shape and her history in the ALT testing and fit testing is what one is looking at. Hey payload bay is no different.

About the same as Concorde G-BOAB at Heathrow, an almost empty shell with piles of British Airways magazines stacked up inside her, yet still as beautiful looking as the first day, as if she was ready to taxi and align on the runway for flight.

     

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-10-13 10:30:29 and read 5550 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Quoting nickh (Reply 16):
So WHY did Mission Control/JSC in Houston *not* get a shuttle? Incompetent politicians. Simple as that.

Correct.

You could name names. Who do you have in mind? Mayor of Houston? The Texas delegation in Congress? Who simply assumed they'd get one and sat on their hands?

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-10-13 16:37:45 and read 5596 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
The fact is the CSC is a small museum when it comes to their air and space exhibits, compared to the space museum at Houston and the USAF museum at Dayton. They only have 6 airplanes or airplane replices and 5 space exhibits, including the Apollo 16 space suit from a moon mission.

The fact is that this small museum's air and space exhibit is growing.

You know, cause they just got a Space Shuttle.

That's what museums do......

Quoting eksath (Reply 22):
Just thought i would put it in there as people equate her with the space worthy fleet by merely looking at the outside shape.

Was still used for approach testing and such. Still better than a plywood replica.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-10-13 16:51:38 and read 5593 times.

^ Enterprise did the fit check at Vanderburg. NYC should be whingeing about getting the fake Shuttle that CA deserved.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: NBGSkyGod
Posted 2012-10-13 17:22:31 and read 5610 times.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 26):
^ Enterprise did the fit check at Vanderburg. NYC should be whingeing about getting the fake Shuttle that CA deserved.

I suppose the fact that they were built here doesn't matter much then.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-10-15 07:49:13 and read 5357 times.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 26):
Enterprise did the fit check at Vanderburg. NYC should be whingeing about getting the fake Shuttle that CA deserved.

That makes absolutely no sense. You haven't read the rest of the posts, I take it.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-10-15 10:04:51 and read 5319 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 28):
That makes absolutely no sense. You haven't read the rest of the posts, I take it.

It was a joke making light of the abject seriousness which ya'll take the arguments about which place was more entitled to which shuttle. I don't generally use the very "whinge" except sarcastically.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-10-15 18:50:49 and read 5224 times.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 29):
It was a joke making light of the abject seriousness which ya'll take the arguments about which place was more entitled to which shuttle. I don't generally use the very "whinge" except sarcastically.

Guilty as charged, I suppose. My bad.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-10-16 01:14:57 and read 5199 times.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 25):
The fact is that this small museum's air and space exhibit is growing.

You know, cause they just got a Space Shuttle.

That's what museums do......

I just hope they will be able to raise enough money so they can provide Space Shuttle Endeavour proper 'maintenance'. through the years. Also it seems that the museum will have to pay for replanting the trees that had to be taken down and probably more of the LAX to Museum site voyage expanses.

I suppose this museum is living off private funds only or do they get money from the State of California at all? They probably will charge an admission fee for visitors and not rely on donations only, like the Udvar Hazy at Dulles Airport.

I hope what is now the "California Space Shuttle" will attract a lot of visitors. Not sure if the visit is feasible between flights like at Dulles Airport.

  

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: 135mech
Posted 2012-10-18 12:44:02 and read 5002 times.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 14):
I think the above arguments for Florida, Houston, LA, and the Smithsonian are very strong. The real issue is, why should one be posted in NYC, less than 250 miles away from the Smithsonian, when the country is so big? Houston would help to bring a much bigger swath of the US within driving range of a shuttle. Putting one in New York doesn't make any sense.

Defnately, NY has other things to "have" and with the Udvar-Hazy being that close... there was no need for NYC. No offense to any New Yorkers, just that the middle of the country doesn't have one at all and you have 2 in such a short distance.

135Mech

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: seachaz
Posted 2012-10-18 17:00:35 and read 4955 times.

I get the sentimental reasons people feel slighted but looks like they pretty much followed the tourists. According to the Forbes list of most visited cities in 2010:
1. Orlando
2. NYC
3. Chicago
4. Anaheim/Orange County

Chicago might be only one with room to complain or was their bid lacking?

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-10-18 21:53:52 and read 4920 times.

Quoting seachaz (Reply 33):
Chicago might be only one with room to complain or was their bid lacking?

I don't know for sure, but I would bet a fair amount of money that the metro LA area in general gets far more tourists than metro Chicago.

In fact I'd wager it gets more tourists than metro New York as well, though I could be wrong.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-10-19 00:14:21 and read 4893 times.

Chicago did complain.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: CplKlinger
Posted 2012-10-19 11:23:59 and read 4821 times.

As much as I might be tempted to complain that Dayton didn't get one (as I'm about an hour and 20 mins away), they got something just as exciting to me in the cabin crew trainer. The designs for the exhibit they are building (see http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123317030 ) look much more exciting to me that just getting to see a shuttle that went into space. Getting to view the inside of the trainer that many astronauts used to train for missions makes me happy. That, and an SR-71, XB-70, X-15 and all the other insane things they have. I can't wait for (and have donated what little I could) their upcoming expansion which will allow this rarer pieces they have (X-15, Air Force One, XB-70) to come back to the main museum.

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: seachaz
Posted 2012-10-19 16:16:50 and read 4784 times.

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 36):
look much more exciting to me that just getting to see a shuttle that went into space.

That's a good point - will you be able to do more then merely view the exterior of Discovery/Atlantis/Endeavor at their respective locations?

Topic: RE: Why Did California Get A Shuttle?
Username: vikkyvik
Posted 2012-10-20 20:30:16 and read 4673 times.

Quoting seachaz (Reply 37):
That's a good point - will you be able to do more then merely view the exterior of Discovery/Atlantis/Endeavor at their respective locations?

Don't know, but this is all I saw of Endeavour on my way to the USC game today, and I was really freaking excited about seeing that little sliver!

http://www.vksphoto.com/photos/i-SZzD8cD/0/XL/i-SZzD8cD-XL.jpg


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/