Enterprise to NYC???

[mrhenniger]

Can someone expound on just which museum in LA is getting the shuttle. LA Science, is that the name of the museum?

It is the Science Museum...
Aerial Visuals - Location Dossier - California Science Center - 10 airframes
I visited in 2009. I was impressed by their display of their Lockheed A-12 Blackbird.

Mike

[gary1954]

WOW ! NMUSAF was snubbed !

Maybe they were asked, but the 28 MILLION bucks to transport was a little steep .
The one going to California (like the state can afford this) shouldn't be there long.
It will probably be repossessed for non-payment of transport fees and possibly scrapped for cash to make a payment on the fee.

[k5083]

And the one in LA is going into a bad part of town.

You may not be familiar with LA. For others who also aren't, let me correct that. The facility in question is part of a complex that includes, among other things, the University of Southern California; the LA Coliseum sports complex; the Museum of Natural History; the Museum of Science and Industry; the California African American Museum; the Shrine auditorium, where the Oscars etc. are sometimes held; and some nice parks. I confess being a bit partial to that part of town, having gone to USC for 5 years. The neighborhood is not one of the best in L.A. but also not one of the worst. There are some terrific places to eat around there. It's at the junction of two freeways 5 minutes from downtown, easily accessible to everything to the admittedly limited extent that anything in L.A. is easily accessible. There is no issue with the safety of artifacts.

To not give one to the MOF and to the NMUSAF is just crazy. More people use the john at the NMUSAF than go to that museum in LA.

Incorrect. About 1.5 million visit the California Science Center each year. It is predicted that the shuttle may bump that to 2 million. The adjacent museums also put up decent numbers although obviously there is a lot of overlap because this site offers one-stop shopping for museum goers and is the main museum-cultural complex of L.A, indeed of Southern California.

The NMUSAF is, in the scheme of things, a museum with a small, specialized audience. The people who visit NMUSAF are airplane and military nuts like us; hardly any normal person would make the trip, and heaven knows there's nothing else in that part of Ohio to interest them. I also suspect that the million people who visit NMUSAF each year are about 500,000 people, many of them 2 or 3 times each.

So for those who think outside the airplane-military box and recognize the shuttle's importance to the general public, the case for L.A. is pretty solid. I'm not saying it's unquestionably the best choice, but it's a reasonable one.

August

[Misterg97]

The NMUSAF is, in the scheme of things, a museum with a small, specialized audience. The people who visit NMUSAF are airplane and military nuts like us; hardly any normal person would make the trip, and heaven knows there's nothing else in that part of Ohio to interest them. I also suspect that the million people who visit NMUSAF each year are about 500,000 people, many of them 2 or 3 times each.

I'm sure glad to hear that you know so much about NMUSAF and what type of visitors we have each year ...

[mustangdriver]

August, my quote about the part of town came to me from someone that lives in LA.

Keep in mind this museum has an A-12 Blackbird that the last time I looked was still outdoors in a garden area. The SHuttle going to this museum is noting more than politics, and to be honest it will be nothing more than a decoration there. Where at MOF , NMUSAF, and the other aviation museums, it would serve a more fitting role. More discussion would go into the building, testing, and missions flown than it will here. I have volunteered at both the NMUSAF and a Science Center. Trust me, it will be nothing more than a decoration.

I also have an issue with one going to NYC. The USS Intrepid Museum has issues with taking care of the single engine jet fighters it has in the collection, and now they have a Shuttle to take care of? Everyone keeps pointing to the fact that Well they have the Concorde. The Concorrde was also damaged under there care. I know accidents happen, but it still happened.

Now in terms of spacing them out, you have DC and NYC just a few hours away. One in LA that no one actually interested in the Shuttle is going to see, and one in FL that I don't argue with.

That Museum in LA gets 1.5 million visitors? If that is true, and that is a big if, I would put money down that 1.2 million of those are school field trips where the kids go just because it is better than school for the day.

I am not speaking as a pissed off NMUSAF member, I am speaking as a pissed off aviation nut. In the words of Howard Hughes, "I care very much about aviation." NASA screwed the pooch with this trying to be PC. But then again that is what they do best.

[mustangdriver]

The NMUSAF is, in the scheme of things, a museum with a small, specialized audience. The people who visit NMUSAF are airplane and military nuts like us; hardly any normal person would make the trip, and heaven knows there's nothing else in that part of Ohio to interest them. I also suspect that the million people who visit NMUSAF each year are about 500,000 people, many of them 2 or 3 times each.


That is more than likely the most incorrect thing I have ever heard you say.

[Nathan]

I think the choices made were for political gain. No thought about historical value. "Just where can we put the shuttles that will give "us" the most money".



Nathan(the stressed with a hard life)

Last edited by Nathan on Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[muddyboots]

fOR GOD'S SAKE IF YOU'RE GOING TO WHINE ABOUT SOMETHING POLITICAL MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. This is about a 1 on the give a darn meter for the vast majority of America. THe choices are made. Quit yer bitching and move on. Nothing to see here people.

[The Inspector]

Some seem to have lost sight of the fact that the Shuttle is a NASA program which is technically 'Civilian Program' not military. so except for the DoD taking a couple of joy rides in the Shuttle for, as Terry Thomas would say 'veddy hush-hush' missions (nothing going on here, just listen to the lyre music and disregard the flames), so there's no reason for the NMUSAF to get a Shuttle nor to expect one. It's equivalent would be like displaying an East German TRABANT in the NHRA Museum in L.A.
Personally. I'm glad the Shuttles are going to areas where they were most prominent, the L.A. area where it was built (OK, Antelope Valley) and @ the Cape where it flew from (wonder what ever happened to the plan to fly it from Vandenberg?) and let NYC have Enterprise. The Shuttle, while one would have been nice here, would be out of place @ MoF. Something equal or better will come along.

[StangStung]

What Muddy Boots said. While politics may play a minor role (i.e., Mayor so and so goes to Washington to lobby for a shuttle), I doubt anyone on either side of the fence seriously believes that in November 2012 anyone is going to pull a lever for anyone based upon whether a shuttle orbiter was put in their back yard. And if that's the one issue you take with you to the polls, then you're living in a blissful world sans other problems. Most of the world simply doesn't care where they wind up. The brief blips in the headlines about where the shuttles will go are fluff pieces. I haven't seen C-SPAN covering the debates on where the shuttles are going...

Moreover, political rewards are not surplus govt. hardware. Which is what the shuttles are (and warbirds for that matter), no matter how fond of them we are. Real cash money (via programs, etc.) are political rewards. So the whole counting of electoral votes for shuttle orbiters seems a bit silly.

Kennedy and NASM were going to get one each, simple. That leaves two. It was incumbent upon the bidders to show why their particular local deserved a shuttle. When it comes down to brass tacks, someone from LA and someone from Intrepid probably but on a better dog and pony show than the NMUSAF or Houston for that matter. How LA got one over Seattle, I'll never know, but I'm going with population and proximity to other tourist attractions. But if you look at the proposals, Intrepid's looks pretty cool:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911b.html

I can see how they got there from here. And now the honchos at NASA can go back to lobbying to explain their existance and chase real money for real programs, rather than get bogged down in debates about what to do with their leftovers.

[mustangdriver]

Let's not forget the fact that without the USAF the Shuttle would have never been built. How many Shuttle pilots came from the USAF?

[Mike Bates]

Let's not forget the fact that without the USAF the Shuttle would have never been built. How many Shuttle pilots came from the USAF?

I read yesterday the the Air Force invested $8B in the development of the shuttle.

Someone said the Intrepid museum gets more vistors than Dayton. From what I have found online they get about 900K which is about 300K less than Dayton.

If getting more of the public to see them was so important why put 2 so close together?

Also there has already been a call for an investigation from someone in congress.
*edit. found mention of it here http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/day ... 34589.html *

What happens if LA or NY don't raise the money needed?

Mike

[CH2Tdriver]

Let's not forget the fact that without the USAF the Shuttle would have never been built. How many Shuttle pilots came from the USAF?

And what about all the Naval Aviators who flew the Shuttle? Why not display it at Pensacola then at the world class NMNA?

Yes it's true that the without the USAF funding at the beginning, the shuttle program was at a risk of getting canceled. BUT, do not forget about the fact that the USAF really did not want to be involved at all! In 1969 the USAF MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory space station) which was actually a manned spy platform, was cancelled. The new spy satelites coming on line could do the job, and once data link transmission of real time photos matured, and replaced the need to parachute film back to earth, they came into there own. The USAF did not want or need the shuttle, they wanted to spend the money on other programs, but in the end they bowed to pressure.

There was a big drawback to this. NASA ended up with a vehicle that was bigger, and more complex then they ever planned on. The Air Force dictated the design basically. They insisted on the 15 by 60 foot cargo bay in order to accomodate their biggest spy satelites coming online. They also insisted on launching in a polar orbit from VAFB, with the option to just do one orbit to launch a satelite or perhaps grab an enemy one and then land. Problem is that unlike launching from KSC in Florida due easterly, launching from CA to the south poses a problem. When you do one orbit your landing site has moved. That resulted in the shuttle requiring a large crossrange capability of at least 1500 miles. This results in a delta wing configuration, with higher re-entry speeds and the requirement for a more robust TPS requirement, the famous tiles.

This all resulted in the vehicle we have relied on for the past 30 years. The large size dictated that it had to be a side mount with the problematic tiles which gave it the "glass spaceship" nickname. As we know the history, this configuration has resulted in the loss of two of them. Ice/debris from the ET damaging tiles, and the segmented strap on SRB's with the burn through. If you research the early shuttle history, you will see they originally planned on a much smaller, lighter and cheaper vehicle with an almost X-15 like shape that could be mounted to the top of a rocket, and would have had much lower re-entry speeds. The result would have been a totally different vehicle and launcher that most likely would have negated the reasons behind what brought the two shuttle down.

The USAF involvement did not do the program any favors. Also don't forget the fact that after the loss of Challenger, the USAF took the opportunity to bail out of the program totally. There were a few NRO flights but most of the assets were launched on rockets. VAFB was scrapped and funding was cut.

If you want further evidence of the USAF attitude to the shuttle, I recommend the book 'Riding Rockets' by Mike Mullane. Mullane was an Air Force WSO on F-4's in Vietnam and was selected as a shuttle mission specialist in 1978. His second flight was an NRO mission and afterward the crew was invited to a private ceremony at the Pentagon for citations. Hoot Gibson was the CMD and he describes they white glove treatment they received from the Navy Admirals and staff when they were presented the awards. They then proceeded to the Air Force office to meet the General who would cite Mullane. You have to read his account to believe it. A very cool reception that was embarrasing after what they had just been greeted with. Mullane throughout his book uses more examples to illustrate how the Air Force was not a fan of manned space flight.

In any case that book was a great read and I highly recommend it for a real frank and humorous look inside the closed doors of the space program that the public doesn't see.

Last edited by CH2Tdriver on Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Franklin]

I'm surprised at all the attention to the shuttle selection process here on WIX. Frankly I could care less, last I heard a shuttle is not a warbird. Do I dislike NASA's shuttle program? not at all, just not interested in whether the NMUSAF got one or not. Frankly I would never go to the NMUSAF to see a shuttle, I would go to Huntsville, AL to see one since NASA hangs out there. And I actually did some consulting work at the Huntsville site once. I also did some work at Vandenberg AFB in California so I have a connection to the shuttle program, albiet a small one. Put a bomb bay and some guns, or lazer ray on one, go kill some foreign satelites or space aliens, then slap one in the NMUSAF and I'll go see it. Other than that, who cares where they stick em ... other than the folks who collect the revenue from non-warbird enthusiasts who will pay $50.00 to see them.

[mustangdriver]

I actuallyfeel that the NMNA is a much better location for a Shuttle than the LA and NYC options.