BigWNFan From United States, joined Feb 2006, 18 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3872 times:
On NASA's website, a Request for Information has been issued by the agency to help identify locations where the orbiters can be placed after retirement. Very interesting all the requirements an institution must meet to get an orbiter.
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3872 times:
I suspect the National Air & Space Museum will have little problem meeting the requirements. It'd be a shame for them not to get one for their collection. NASA's Houston, Texas facility ought to be another place to see a retired shuttle and Huntsville, Alabama ought to be another. If NASA sets the display standards, they ought to be able to meet them at their own facilities. Cape Kennedy ought to be a natural shuttle display site as well.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1921 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3775 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1): I suspect the National Air & Space Museum will have little problem meeting the requirements
Per the RFI NASM has already been selected to receive one....
"NASA’s current plan is to transfer one flown Orbiter to the National Air and Space
Museum. The remaining two flown Orbiters would be placed in storage at the John F.
Kennedy Space Center until final placement decisions are made. The Orbiters would be
available for donation no earlier than September 30, 2011. NASA desires to ferry the
Orbiters to their final destinations no later than May 31, 2012. Assembled SSMEs will
not be installed in, nor included with, the Orbiters."
Eksath From United States, joined Aug 2004, 778 posts, RR: 29 Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3672 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 2): I suspect the National Air & Space Museum will have little problem meeting the requirements.
OV-103 is promised ( or significant conversations to this effect) to NASM.
One will probably remain at KSC and become part of the standard NASA tour. It is a lot easier and relevant to add a new stop on the visitor tour. It will be in the best interest of NASA to have one at KSC.
Given the extreme price tag and constraints, I doubt many can afford to display this item.
Moose135 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1116 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3674 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 2): Per the RFI NASM has already been selected to receive one....
They currently have Enterprise at Udvar-Hazy, I wonder if that will end up being moved elsewhere? When I was out to the AF Museum at Wright-Patt last year, they said they are in line to receive one (Atlantis, maybe? One that was used on most military missions...) They have plans to add another large gallery building to house a shuttle, as well as several other large aircraft they plan to put on indoor display.
Eksath From United States, joined Aug 2004, 778 posts, RR: 29 Reply 6, posted (11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3573 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 5): As a U.S. taxpayer I'd prefer they remain in the U.S..... but if one is going overseas the British Science Museum would seem to be ideal.
I am about 99% sure ( I will recheck the document) but the RFi expressively states it has to be owned by a US organization (no foreign entity or person). SO I would say this proposal would be dead in the water.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1921 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3561 times:
Quoting Eksath (Reply 6): I am about 99% sure ( I will recheck the document) but the RFi expressively states it has to be owned by a US organization (no foreign entity or person). SO I would say this proposal would be dead in the water.
Good point.
As I read the document I don't see anything that prohibits a foreign entity from displaying an Orbiter - provided the entity is approved by the State dept in reagrds to ITAR...
The RFI DOES prohibit foreign entities from responding to the RFI...
"Organizations responding to this RFI must be: 1) a U.S. museum, institution, or
organization dedicated to education or educational outreach, including NASA Visitor
Centers; 2) a U.S. Federal agency, State, Commonwealth, or U.S. possession or any
municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof; or 3) the District of Columbia."
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
TexL1649 From United States, joined Aug 2007, 228 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3552 times:
As a testament to a failed program kept alive 20 years too long with billions wasted for "access" to space, I think it fitting we allow the Brits to buy one.
The space shuttle program never achieved what it's limited objectives were objectives were in the 70's, in cost or frequency. It has been a dangerous, expensive, and outdated government program for at least 25 years, and I'd hope we could find a way to get some cash out of it at this point.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1921 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3546 times:
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 8): The space shuttle program never achieved what it's limited objectives were objectives were in the 70's, in cost or frequency. It has been a dangerous, expensive, and outdated government program for at least 25 years, and I'd hope we could find a way to get some cash out of it at this point.
They aren't selling the shuttle. The costs quoted are solely for cleanup, prep, delivery, and setup.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Srbmod From United States, joined Mar 2001, 14224 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3541 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 5): As a U.S. taxpayer I'd prefer they remain in the U.S..... but if one is going overseas the British Science Museum would seem to be ideal.
Perhaps they could send the Enterprise over there since the only "flights" it ever made were landing tests.
Considering the role ESA played in the Shuttle program over the years, it would be fitting for a Shuttle to be displayed somewhere in Europe.
The US Space & Rocket Center does currently exhibit "Pathfinder", which was a mock up used to test facilities in preparations for the first flights. Since "Pathfinder" was built at Marshall, it is appropriate that it is displayed in Huntsville.
The NASM is definitely worthy of one since they do have historical spacecraft like the Apollo 11 command model, Friendship 7, and Gemini 4 on display there. Swapping the Enterprise for Discovery is going to happen.
As for Atlantis and Endeavour, I'd fully expect one of them to remain at KSC and the other ending up at either the USAF Museum or perhaps the USS Intrepid museum (although perhaps the Enterprise could end up there).
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2755 posts, RR: 30 Reply 11, posted (11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3531 times:
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 10): Considering the role ESA played in the Shuttle program over the years, it would be fitting for a Shuttle to be displayed somewhere in Europe.
I'd say place it next to Buran in Speyer, Germany. In Sinsheim they also have the concorde next to the Tu-144...
But I think, keeping it in the US is not a bad idea, there are simply only 3 around, after Columbia tragically broke up...
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1921 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3520 times:
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 10): As for Atlantis and Endeavour, I'd fully expect one of them to remain at KSC and the other ending up at either the USAF Museum or perhaps the USS Intrepid museum (although perhaps the Enterprise could end up there).
I've got to vote thumbs down on the Intrepid. No indoor storage that I'm aware of and that's a prerequisite. Look what they did to Concorde.....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3474 times:
Quoting Srbmod (Reply 10): Considering the role ESA played in the Shuttle program over the years
The ESA developed payloads and in return NASA flew them and ESA astronauts. Given the fact that ESA didn't pay for any of the development or operational costs of the Space Shuttle program, that alone was very generous IMO. I don't think we "owe" the ESA anything.
The Space Shuttle was a solidly American program. No offense to our European friends, but I would be upset if one of the Orbiters went overseas.
SLCPilot From United States, joined Aug 2003, 370 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (11 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3448 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 11): I'd say place it next to Buran in Speyer, Germany. In Sinsheim they also have the concorde next to the Tu-144...
It seems like they have placed the Buran inside, but DO NOT let it be wasted outside like the Concorde/TU-144 exibit in Sinsheim. In 30 years they won't even have the budget to take the remaining corroded hulks off the posts!
Just an opinion. (and to be honest, it seems like NASA will dictate good homes to the airframes, even though they allowed the Saturn to rot in Houston)
Cheers!
SLCPilot
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3352 times:
I'm fairly certain NASA already knows exactly where the Shuttles will go after retirement. The
only thing really new here is that they've figured out a price that the designated locations will have to pay.
Discovery, now the senior Shuttle, will replaced Enterprise at NASM Udvar-Hazy in Washington. (It was originally intended Columbia would get this slot.)
Atlantis will go to the Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio (Atlantis flew the most military missions.)
Endeavour will stay at Kennedy Space Center.
Enterprise will go to Johnson Space Center in Houston. JSC will really want a spaceflown Orbiter, but there aren't enough to go around and JSC has the worst record of maintaining their space exhibits, so the Smithsonian isn't all that impressed with them.
Of course, it is now very unlikely this will happen in 2010. Its all but official that the Shuttle program will be extended at least two years.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3206 times:
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 8): As a testament to a failed program kept alive 20 years too long with billions wasted for "access" to space, I think it fitting we allow the Brits to buy one.
The space shuttle program never achieved what it's limited objectives were objectives were in the 70's, in cost or frequency. It has been a dangerous, expensive, and outdated government program for at least 25 years, and I'd hope we could find a way to get some cash out of it at this point.
Price per launch seem to be 1,32 Billion US$, if the planned 9 more launches are done and no more.
Why not sell it, money is money, something NASA won´t have unlimited of in the future.
Sinlock From United States, joined Dec 2000, 1474 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 12): I've got to vote thumbs down on the Intrepid. No indoor storage that I'm aware of and that's a prerequisite. Look what they did to Concorde.....
No need to Vote on that... Part of the RFI states that the Orbiter or SSME must be indoors and climate controlled.
I'd like to see the shuttles displayed in a way to best capture their history. Like one with doing some type of payload deployment. or possible change "Explorer" at KSC into a Stacked config. KSC is likely the only place that would have any chance to stacked shuttle due the likelihood that the Shuttle there will likely have a complex much like Apollo.
Fanofjets From United States, joined Apr 2000, 1729 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 13): Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 12):
I've got to vote thumbs down on the Intrepid. No indoor storage that I'm aware of and that's a prerequisite
You're right, there wouldn't be room for an indoor display on the Intrepid.
According to a May 14, 2009, press release on the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Web site, the museum and the City of New York "are hoping that when the NASA Space Shuttle fleet is retired, currently scheduled for 2012, that one of the classic white and black orbiters will make its home at the Hudson River Park Pier 86, the location of the newly reopened Museum." A museum illustration shows the spacecraft encased in a glass dome.
I agree with previous posts about their disappointment over Concorde G-BOAD and hope they take better care of this artifact than they did with the Concorde, which was besmirched with grafitti and looking rather forlorn out in the open - are there plans to give this aircraft the shelter it deserves?
On the bright side, the Intrepid - even just before its overhaul, when I last visited her - is a vast improvement over the monstrosity of a museum it was back in the late 1980s!
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Moose135 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1116 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1644 times:
Quoting Fanofjets (Reply 19): I agree with previous posts about their disappointment over Concorde G-BOAD and hope they take better care of this artifact than they did with the Concorde, which was besmirched with grafitti and looking rather forlorn out in the open - are there plans to give this aircraft the shelter it deserves?
G-BOAD did not have any graffiti on her, and the Intrepid Museum was not responsible for the accident which damaged her during the Intrepid's restoration. Maybe you're confusing her with F-WTSA, which was defaced while on display in her home country?
BTW, in that museum illustration, the glass dome for the shuttle is located in the spot where G-BOAD currently resided, but they seem to have forgotten to include her in the picture...
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10017 posts, RR: 29 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
Quoting Eksath (Reply 6): I am about 99% sure ( I will recheck the document) but the RFi expressively states it has to be owned by a US organization (no foreign entity or person). SO I would say this proposal would be dead in the water.
They can probably find a way. Get a US corporate sponsor to put their name on the request for example, who then donates it to the Museum.
Would probably not get approved, but that's not an uncommon way to get past such requirements.
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 8): As a testament to a failed program kept alive 20 years too long with billions wasted for "access" to space, I think it fitting we allow the Brits to buy one.
Well said, on both accounts. The SSTS was designed as a stop-gap measure until a more mature vehicle could enter service in the 1980s, a more mature vehicle that never saw the light of day.
We should have have VentureStar by now, the prototype of which was 95% ready when the Clinton administration cancelled it.
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4261 posts, RR: 54 Reply 22, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1581 times:
Has there been any suggestion on what will happen with the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? It would be great to see one on display with an Orbiter - maybe Enterprise would be the best example?
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1921 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1553 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 22): Has there been any suggestion on what will happen with the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? It would be great to see one on display with an Orbiter - maybe Enterprise would be the best example?
Would be tough to keep such a large outdoor display looking good. Nasa will insist that the orbiter be kept indoors for that reason and a display with the orbiter on top of the SCA would require a very large building.
Look at the tough time the Museum of Flight has keeping the prototype 747 looking good...
HaveBlue From United States, joined Jan 2004, 1448 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 22): Has there been any suggestion on what will happen with the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? It would be great to see one on display with an Orbiter - maybe Enterprise would be the best example?
V/F
That would be awesome and I think it should be done, however impractical that may be.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10017 posts, RR: 29 Reply 25, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1524 times:
The 747s will likely be converted to carry other outsize loads, like rocket components.
Soviets did that with some Bisons, worked well enough (apart from the Bison being a bear to fly, stability problems).
I wish I were flying
26 TheSonntag: However the 747s, while low on cycles, are really old already. I somewhat guess they might be scrapped sooner than we think.
28 Jwenting: Age doesn't matter, cycles do. C-47s are still flying commercial service in some areas, those planes are 65+ years old. Those 747s have quite a few y
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Feb 2006, 18 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2755 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10017 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4261 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
