Author
|
Topic: Exhibiting SRBs and other artifacts from the shuttle program
|
mjanovec Member Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-26-2010 04:23 PM
Another discussion has been taking place regarding the display of the three orbiters once they have been retired. However, I don't recall reading much discussion about the potential display of SRBs, external tanks (or tank parts), or other associated hardware for the shuttle program.I know that there is a possibility that some of the SRB segments or part could still be employed for future spacecraft, but I would also assume that there are enough segments that have reached the end of their useful life that they could be assembled for display. Ideally, it would be nice to have at least one assembled SRB (without fuel, of course) at the same locations chosen for the displayed orbiters. The same goes for any remaining tanks or tank parts that are not utilized. |
chenry Member Posts: 60 From: Zionsville, IN 46077 Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-27-2010 10:28 AM
One of the things being discussed at the NMUSAF in Dayton is that if they get one, they want to explore displaying it on top of the shuttle carrier 747. |
kr4mula Member Posts: 642 From: Cinci, OH Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 10-27-2010 11:25 AM
quote: Originally posted by chenry: One of the things being discussed at the NMUSAF in Dayton is that if they get one, they want to explore displaying it on top of the shuttle carrier 747.
LOL. I heard they were having problems figuring out how to get the SCA to takeoff from the museum runway once it dropped off the shuttle, so I guess keeping the SCA, too, solves that problem! While it sounds like a cool idea, I think it would give visitors a worse view/perspective on the orbiter itself, unless some sort of gantry was included. |
Fezman92 Member Posts: 1031 From: New Jersey, USA Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 10-27-2010 11:27 AM
They might have a gantry. The cool thing to do is have a ramp that goes up to the SCA and into it and then have it go out and around the shuttle. Or something with that in mind. |
chenry Member Posts: 60 From: Zionsville, IN 46077 Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-27-2010 12:17 PM
Yeah I am not sure. That was just a rumor I heard in the hangar there one day. I like the idea though. |
onesmallstep Member Posts: 1310 From: Staten Island, New York USA Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 10-27-2010 03:50 PM
If they are considering keeping a SCA in Dayton together with an orbiter, why not drop off Discovery at the Udvar-Hazy, pickup Enterprise, and deliver both to the NMUSAF and exhibit the complete 'set' as the ALT configuration? Makes more sense, unless alternate sites like Dryden/Edwards get in the mix. An inert SRB would be nice; two would be better-one intact, the other cut-away/disassembled to show 'mockup' solid fuel, joints and other components. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-27-2010 04:33 PM
Last I inquired with NASA (which granted, was some time ago), both shuttle carrier aircraft are expected to find continued use supporting other programs. As for the solid rocket boosters, according to ATK all of their canisters are still in usable condition and at least for the foreseeable future will be retained for NASA's shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle and/or other projects. (For similar reasons, NASA is retaining all of the space shuttle main engines.) One external tank, ET-94, remains more or less intact at Michoud, having been used as a testbed for safety improvements. It too could serve as a testbed for a shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle. |
Shuttleman Member Posts: 117 From: Huntsville, Al. USA Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 10-27-2010 09:18 PM
Space Shuttle Flying Museum Idea Paper Dated: 7/3/07 By: Scott PhillipsIdea: Make a mobile museum out of the Space Shuttle Transport 747 Specifics: Permanently mount a retired Space Shuttle to the 747 transport plane Outfit the interior of plane to accommodate people to walk through a mini-museum of shuttle artifacts Benefits: Use as a NASA Public Relations platform to motivate national and international audiences for the new space vision Unique Advantages: - Use of existing hardware
- Air-show attraction (i.e. Paris)
- A lasting monument to the American engineering spirit
- Highly mobile (able to visit many area’s of the world)
- No winners or losers in the cities vying for a limited amount of shuttles after program
- Provides a backdrop and/or (graceful exit) to retired astronauts and shuttle engineers to tell their stories to the public (astronauts/engineers live in every state in the union and could give autographs and inspiration to the youth throughout every state the museum would land)
- Commercial support (sale of NASA merchandise etc.)
- Educational tool
- A lasting memorial to the ones who lost their lives in the pursuit of space
|
Fezman92 Member Posts: 1031 From: New Jersey, USA Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 10-27-2010 10:36 PM
Where to store it? |
GACspaceguy Member Posts: 2476 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 10-28-2010 04:40 AM
I think it is a great idea, even if the shuttle is only installed for a time. It would be great for smaller communities that can support the landing of the SCA. |
KSCartist Member Posts: 2896 From: Titusville, FL USA Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 10-28-2010 05:02 AM
It's the best idea I've heard in a long time. They could even continue to do this even after all shuttles are in their new homes by mounting a hi-fidelity mock-up on top of the SCA. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2010 07:54 AM
A traveling exhibit would indeed offer many more the opportunity to see the space shuttle, but it would add wear and tear to the orbiter, as well as introduce a increased risk of loss of the vehicle in an accident.For those reasons, were an idea like this to go forward, I would only advocate the use of Enterprise, if not something more like Pathfinder on display at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center. Just as no one would suggest the outside display of a flown Apollo command module or other historic spacecraft, I feel the orbiters should be equally protected for future generations. |
chenry Member Posts: 60 From: Zionsville, IN 46077 Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-28-2010 12:01 PM
I agree with Robert. One of the things troubling the NMUSAF is just how to get the shuttle to the museum. The runway outside of the museum is 7,000 feet I believe. I think that the 747 needs more than that. Now the Wright Patterson AFB is right there, but they would have to find a way to move the shuttle over to there with out taking components apart. Something I heard NASA was against. It will be interesting to see where they end up. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo Member Posts: 3445 From: Toms River, NJ Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 10-29-2010 09:31 AM
If they can land a U-2 on an aircraft carrier... why not land a 747 with a shuttle on the Intrepid? [duck, grin] |
cv1701 Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 11-02-2010 07:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by chenry: I agree with Robert. One of the things troubling the NMUSAF is just how to get the shuttle to the museum. The runway outside of the museum is 7,000 feet I believe. I think that the 747 needs more than that. Now the Wright Patterson AFB is right there, but they would have to find a way to move the shuttle over to there with out taking components apart. Something I heard NASA was against. It will be interesting to see where they end up.
Isn't the Udvar-Hazy Center the only prime museum candidate (well, I guess for them it's a given that they'll get a shuttle) that has an airport linked directly to the museum? If one stayed at KSC... I'm trying to remember the layout of the visitor center, but I don't remember there being a wide-open hole in the perimeter where one could pass. Wherever the other shuttles end up, there's probably going to be light poles and traffic signals that will need to be uninstalled in order to get the shuttle to it's final destination. |
cv1701 Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 11-02-2010 07:46 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: A traveling exhibit would indeed offer many more the opportunity to see the space shuttle, but it would add wear and tear to the orbiter, as well as introduce a increased risk of loss of the vehicle in an accident.
And it would be incredibly expensive to transport it from one place to another. The cost to ferry a shuttle from Edwards to KSC is reportedly close to $2 million. Of course, that expense also includes the cost of actually putting the shuttle on the back of the 747, which a traveling exhibit would only have to theoretically do once... until something breaks and then they have to take it off... Probably better off using that money to build a climate-controlled hanger for it. |
Rob Joyner Member Posts: 1308 From: GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 11-02-2010 09:39 PM
Instead of having a particular orbiter as an ongoing traveling exhibit, why not have it moved to a different location every few years? All of the participating venues could pool together the costs of transfer and display. This would lessen the chance of accidents, give the venues ample time to ready a secure and proper display area, guarantee more overall exposure and keep the shuttle legacy in the public eye whenever the orbiter is moved.For safety and preservation of the fleet I think Enterprise should stay at Udvar-Hazy and two of the orbiters be permanently enclosed and displayed at KSC and Space Center Houston. The remaining orbiter could then be refitted to be safely displayed at various locations throughout the country. |
ilbasso Member Posts: 1522 From: Greensboro, NC USA Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 11-03-2010 08:11 AM
Rob, I think the safety issue would be better addressed by having Enterprise be the traveling Shuttle and keeping the others in museums. If there were a crash or some other catastrophe during the road show, then you haven't lost a "flown" Shuttle. There are also many fewer parts and "dangly bits" to worry about with Enterprise. |
cv1701 Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 11-03-2010 12:07 PM
I think there is a sense of naivety in regards to having a traveling shuttle exhibit. You have to address the tremendous cost to move a shuttle from one place to another and display it, as well as think about the wear and tear on the vehicle itself. If it's a traveling exhibit, who would take ownership of the shuttle? It would have to be a museum or organization that would be fronting the bill to do that. NASA certainly has no desire to do it. Their job is to go into space, not run an exhibition. The KSC Visitor Center? It isn't NASA that runs it, it's Delaware North, a for-profit company. And if the KSC Visitor Center (or any other museum) got their hands on one, it's more profitable for them to keep it in one place. The Smithsonian? It's having enough trouble coming up with the money just to get Discovery, let alone be able to finance a traveling exhibition that you need a specially modified 747 for (a plane that only NASA has and is reportedly going to hang on to). Having a shuttle be shuttled around the country for the foreseeable future is irresponsible to the preservation of the vehicle. It would place unnecessary wear and tear on the shuttle and expose it to the elements. "But the shuttles are tough! They went into space and have been carried on the back of 747s many times!" Yeah, but all these years they've been doing that, millions upon millions of dollars have been spent constantly refurbishing them. The Discovery that sits on the pad is not the same Discovery that first flew in 1984. When the shuttles retire, they need to be preserved in the condition they are in. It would be irresponsible to say, "Oh, let's haul one of them around the country and then have to restore it and fix all the damage we've done to it in 15 or 20 years." And yes, even Enterprise needs to be preserved, not sacrificed in the name of making it more convenient for people to see one. Folks, if you don't live near where one the shuttles ends up, don't ask it to come to you. Go buy a plane ticket and go see it where it rests in preservation.
|
OV-105 Member Posts: 816 From: Ridgecrest, CA Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 11-03-2010 07:44 PM
I have a feeling that they are going to be sitting in the OPFs for a few years after the last flight. Too bad the public will not get to see them in there. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-03-2010 09:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by OV-105: ...they are going to be sitting in the OPFs for a few years
According to NASA, this is less likely an option, as the agency does not have the funds to maintain the OPFs beyond six months after the space shuttle program ends. |
Fezman92 Member Posts: 1031 From: New Jersey, USA Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 11-04-2010 10:27 AM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: ...the agency does not have the funds to maintain the OPFs beyond six months after the space shuttle program ends.
What will happen to the OPFs after those six months are up? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-04-2010 11:14 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fezman92: What will happen to the OPFs after those six months are up?
To quote the answer NASA gave me to a very similar question, "you are asking questions for which there are no answers... yet." Under the former program, the plan was demolish the OPFs, as they were not of use to Constellation. What happens now is yet to be seen. |
OV-105 Member Posts: 816 From: Ridgecrest, CA Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 11-04-2010 11:03 PM
Since no place has the money to get one of the orbiters right now, plus no place to put one other than than the Udvar-Hazy this could get very interesting once/if 135 flies. |
Fezman92 Member Posts: 1031 From: New Jersey, USA Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 11-06-2010 06:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: Under the former program, the plan was demolish the OPFs, as they were not of use to Constellation.
That would be a shame. If NASA isn't going to use them anymore, they should offer tours of them as part of the general KSC tour. |
kr4mula Member Posts: 642 From: Cinci, OH Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 11-08-2010 11:20 AM
quote: Originally posted by OV-105: Since no place has the money to get one of the orbiters right now, plus no place to put one other than than the Udvar-Hazy this could get very interesting once/if 135 flies.
This isn't true. The Air Force museum has plenty of room to store (and display) the shuttle in its existing hangars while their planned one is being built. I also learned last week that the STA/orbiter was cleared to land on the Museum's runway, so getting it in wouldn't be a problem. They have made significant headway for raising funds for the permanent new hangar. As for the money, there is still some debate over what payments, if any, would be necessary to transfer the orbiter from one federal entity to another. In other words, if the orbiters were retired today, the NMUSAF could take one with no problems. |
OV-105 Member Posts: 816 From: Ridgecrest, CA Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 11-08-2010 01:01 PM
If this is going through the federal excess property program one of my Captains ran the program for our department. I wonder if he could screen one of the orbiters? Our county is a contract county and gets to screen stuff on the federal level. Only problem is getting it back to CA from FL. The Air Force Museum would still have to pay to get the orbiter to the museum. |