collectSPACE: Messages - Reply to Topic

Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

Forum:	Space Places
Topic:	Cape Canaveral launch complexes and facilities

Want to register?

Who Can Post?	Any registered users may post a reply.
About Registration	You must be registered in order to post a topic or reply in this forum.
Your UserName:
Your Password:	Forget your password?
Your Reply: HTML is ON UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend	[QUOTE]Originally posted by YankeeClipper: [B]I have yet to hear what NASA intends to put in the place of [i]Hangar S[/i]. I would understand the drive to demolish if they intended to build a state-of-the-art cleanroom facility, technical bay etc. But this seems to be an accounting exercise. Going full circle back to the [i]Florida Today[/i] article: <BLOCKQUOTE>[i]"Unfortunately, there are some buildings that aren't sustainable anymore, some that we can't really afford to maintain," said Tom Engler, deputy manager of the Center Planning and Development Office at KSC. "This is a 60-plus-year-old building. It has a lot of maintenance issues, and it's actually beneficial to the center to put them on the abandon list and then eventually demolish them because they are too expensive for us to maintain." The annual operating cost at Hangar S: $148,000.[/i]</BLOCKQUOTE> For the cost of [i]one dime[/i] on each KSCVC admission ticket you have the maintenance budget for the structure. Make it [i]one quarter[/i] per ticket and you have factored in incremental increase in the budget. [i]One dollar[/i] per ticket and you easily have some financial firepower to devote to restoration and preservation for [b]multiple[/b] sites. Let's also not forget that restoration costs are a one-off expense not recurring. NASA are already going to have to tender, screen, guard, and pay contractors coming to demolish [i]Hangar S[/i]. Instead of demolition why not restoration? Contractors will be onsite for a reason - why not make that a positive reason. The argument has been repeatedly advanced that CCAFS is an industrial complex and tours of [i]Hangar S[/i] would somehow violate OPSEC or be too disruptive. If the base were truly that sensitive then no public tours of any description would be permitted. PERIOD. Not CCAFS Public Affairs Tours and certainly not KSCVC Public Tours. But public tours are in progress on a regular basis indicating that they are permitted albeit restricted. If buses are already driving by the hangar, are you telling me it is utterly inconceivable for them to stop there? There would be nothing sensitive to see at [i]Hangar S[/i]. Base tour participants are already escorted. I have already explained in a previous post how you secure the perimeter of [i]Hangar S[/i]. I would understand if a building is structurally unsound and technically impossible to maintain. That would be a clear and valid case for demolition. I would understand if there was a brand new facility earmarked for the location. But if the grand masterplan is just a vacant lot to save on the maintenance budget, then it's down to a lack of will. Show us the structural engineering analysis and the NASA site plan for the hangar and I will be open to reconsideration.[/B][/QUOTE]
Options	Disable Smilies in This Post. Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.
*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

<A HREF="http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum41/HTML/000474.html" target=_blank> *** Click here to review this topic. ***</A>

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.47a