Enterprise to NYC???

[Garth]

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.

As I said earlier, the political issue here isn't driven by electoral politics, but by power politics.

NASA simply took the path of least resistance, making choices based on who they preferred to have upset over the matter. If you are the NASA Director and selection committee, who would YOU rather have ticked off at you: Chuck Schumer (Senator from NY) or Sherrod Brown (Senator from OH)? Feinstein and Boxer (from CA) or Murray and Cantwell (from WA)?

US Senators are amongst the most egotistical, grudge-holding, long-memoried people on this planet. And to be honest (I know I'm running up against the no-politics threshold, and hope that I'm not crossing over it) Chuck Schumer is just about the worst of the bunch in that regard (long standing DC joke: Q: Where's the most dangerous place in Washington DC? A: Between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera). In retrospect it should have been obvious that Intrepid was going to get one.

[Garth]

... last I heard a shuttle is not a warbird.

Define "warbird" ...

The shuttles, iirc, were designed significantly to military specs to carry out military missions. And although the vast majority of their missions were civilian in nature, there were a number military ones.

[Pat Carry]

If there are any questions about just how the Enterprise will arrive at the USS Intrepid, that has been solved. It will land in the Hudson River and just float over to CV-11.

[Franklin]

... last I heard a shuttle is not a warbird.

Define "warbird" ...

The shuttles, iirc, were designed significantly to military specs to carry out military missions. And although the vast majority of their missions were civilian in nature, there were a number military ones.

There's arguments for both "is" and "isn't" a warbird .... Below may either help or hinder the debate.

A warbird is an airplane that was once used by the armed forces of any country, and is now privately owned.

Many hundreds of ex-military aircraft from around the the world have been saved from destruction and given new life by devoted men and women who enjoy preserving history. These brave people involve themselves with these historic aircraft not only for the love of flying and the look, sound, feel and smell of the aircraft themselves, but also for the historical significance these aircraft played in the shaping of their respective nations.

Whether a docile training airplane, a large cargo transport, a low-and-slow observation plane, a four-engine bomber, a nimble piston-engine fighter, a supersonic jet or a rescue helicopter, warbirds helped make history. They served over the jungles of Vietnam, in the deserts of North Africa, over the bloody battlefields of Europe, in the snows of Korea, and at countless training bases at home and abroad. They provided food and supplies to soldiers and civilians alike, transported Presidents and Generals, and saved countless lives, both in war and peacetime. They have been a major part of some of the most significant events of the 20th Century.

But most of all, they have provided the "brute force" that nations needed when diplomacy failed. Almost every nation on earth has at least a small air force which serves as an important instrument of their national security. The use of the airplane as a weapon of war was developed almost concurrently with its use as a mode of transportation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every once in a while, someone attends their home-town airshow, notices a couple of old warplanes flying around, and gets the idea that by putting them on public display, the plane's owners and pilots are somehow "idolizing" war and war machines. Nothing could be further from the truth. No soldier has ever wanted war. An effective fighting force is one whose very strength and fighting capability deters the enemy from fighting in the first place. However, conflicts are not always resolved so easily, and when a nation commits its air forces to combat, it does it with the knowledge that human lives (on both sides) are at stake.

The men and women who fight for their country are, and have always been, the finest people a society has to offer. No other endeavor requires its participants to confront their own mortality in such blunt terms, and no other career field expects its members to sacrifice so much.

Regardless of your personal opinions about war and its role in modern society, the fact is that we are all here because of the sacrifices made by past generations. A "Warbird" aircraft is a living tribute to those men and women who long ago sacrificed everything for the defense of their nation. It is a "living, breathing," visible link to those earlier times of conflict, and it reminds us all how very precious our peace is.

[Franklin]

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

The only argument I could make about LA and NYC over NMUSAF and NMNA ... Larger number of world wide tourists, non-warbird tourists, non-military tourists? just a non-political guess, and how I got dragged into this debate? ... ????? ... Do you like gloss or flat paint schemes on your shuttles?

[mustangdriver]

The ones going to NYC and LA will need glossy paint. Also I love the ideaa that a few helicopters together will airlift the Shuttle to the LA Museum.

[k5083]

Hee! This is fun! I'm mostly just funnin' the NMUSAF supporters; I really don't much care where the shuttles go and wouldn't begrudge Dayton one. However it is a fact, and if you deny it you really need a reality check, that the NMUSAF is a niche-interest museum located in a backwater. Same goes for the NMNA except change backwater to armpit. They're great places for niche-interest artifacts like Swoose and Memphis Belle. When an artifact has broader appeal to the general public and folks from around the world, the arguments are good for a big metro area.

Come to think of it, the arguments for Toronto are about as good as Dayton. After all, the shuttles would have been almost useless without the Canadarms used from mission #2 on. And admit it, the Enterprise, which is almost a mock-up, would look cool next to the CF-105 mock-up. I wonder if Toronto put a bid in. I hope they at least get a space-flown arm.

August

[Franklin]

I'm mostly just funnin' the NMUSAF supporters

A group hug is in order for those poor folks. If they collect all the tears they'll probably have enough rain water to wash both P-82's

[muddyboots]

franklin that was mean. Yuo should beashamed of yourself for making fun of those poor people.

[Franklin]

Actually I do have an admirable amount of respect and support for the NMUSAF. I had a relative who flew one of their displays. Just solve the poor lighting in the place. taking any quality photos is almost impossible.

[APG85]

Actually I do have an admirable amount of respect and support for the NMUSAF. I had a relative who flew one of their displays. Just solve the poor lighting in the place. taking any quality photos is almost impossible.

It's all about the camera and settings. Cannon T2I is all it takes!

[kjoyce1026]

Why should L.A not get a Shuttle? The major assemblies for the shuttles were built by Rockwell which was in Downey, Ca. Only 25 miles from Downtown L.A. The Shuttles were assembeled in Palmdale, Ca. only 60 miles from L.A. They were tested at Edwards AFB, only 75 miles from L.A. So again why should a Shuttle not come to L.A?

[JohnB]

Why should L.A not get a Shuttle? The major assemblies for the shuttles were built by Rockwell which was in Downey, Ca. Only 25 miles from Downtown L.A. The Shuttles were assembeled in Palmdale, Ca. only 60 miles from L.A. They were tested at Edwards AFB, only 75 miles from L.A. So again why should a Shuttle not come to L.A?

Hard to arugue with that.

And concerning the Canadian arm (with the well-placed flag on it) did NASA buy that or was it a gift..or a "good deal", i.e. discount?
If it was a commercial transaction then Canada shouldn't have gotten a shuttle....or had their name and flag on the arm...after all we don't see builders names anywhere else on the ship. And I'm sure the U.S. could have built one if it had to.

[Nathan]

I don't think the shuttle can be classified as a warbird. Unless because it was partly funded by the military.

[Franklin]

I don't think the shuttle can be classified as a warbird. Unless because it was partly funded by the military.

I'll say it again, hopefully without starting a flame war, IMHO the shuttle is not a warbird because the shuttles, even though they may have performed military missions at times, are not privately owned. See my post above for the definition of the word warbird (edit: not my definition, found it with a little googling, but it seems to fit IMO)

I do have to say that even though I had little interest in this thread at first, I find it a bit more entertaining now. As long as it stays civil I'd like to hear opinions from other WIXers on the shuttle being a warbird, not warbird debate.

Last edited by Franklin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.