Fighting Over Retired Orbiters

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

radarredux

Guest
It looks like the fight has started as to where the orbiters will go upon retirement.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>May 9<br /> <br />California Politician Seeks Display Rights for Atlantis Orbiter<br /><br />California Assemblywoman Sharon Runner has introduced a Joint Resolution that, if passed, would transmit an official request to the President and leaders of Congress to grant Palmdale as the future and permanent home of space shuttle Atlantis.<br /> <br />Runner's resolution is the result of a NASA briefing that suggested it will ground Atlantis in 2008, rather than put it through a required maintenance period that could exceed the end of the shuttle program in 2010. As it is written however, the bill would appear to neglect existing requirements for how NASA must dispose of artifacts and its agreement for their transfer to the Smithsonian.<br /> <br />Runner's reasons outlined in the bill for Atlantis to move to Palmdale include the city's history as where all of NASA's orbiters were first assembled, and to allocate room at Kennedy Space Center for future exploration vehicles. "It just makes sense for Atlantis to return home to Palmdale," said Runner. "This resolution is an important step in the process. It will demonstrate that California is united behind Palmdale as the proper location."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html
 
J

john_316

Guest
I hope they get one of them besides the Smithsonian doesnt need all 4 of them...<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
Q

qso1

Guest
There are only three left! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
How would they get them there? The 1st stage is the width of an eight lane freeway. NASA moved both the 1st and 2nd stages by barge from where they were built to Kennedy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
I would really like to see Enterprise moved out to Edwards. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
Wherever they end up, the orbiters need to be displayed indoors from the start or they will rapidly decay. The Smithsonian has indoor space at Dulles. Palmdale, and whatever third place is selected, should only be allowed to happen if there is available indoor space.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
 
M

mikejz

Guest
Any word on if the shuttle carrier 747s will also be retired?
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
"Any word on if the shuttle carrier 747s will also be retired? "<br /><br />Well if the shuttles are not flying there is absolutely no reason to keep the 747s.
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Pretty dramatic for a museum to display a shuttle on the shuttle carrier aircraft!<br /><br />Don't suppose that would happen. Maybe Enterprise could be so mounted, when the Smithsonian gets another orbiter.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well if the shuttles are not flying there is absolutely no reason to keep the 747s.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Bear in mind, they're already recycled; in a former life, both 747s flew commercially as airliners. They could be refit to serve another function still, and NASA is nothing if not inventive with its aircraft. They may find something else to do with them, or they might sell them off as cargo planes. They could also be useful as tracking planes (the 747 is a long-range aircraft, so they can orbit quite a while in a designated tracking area) or to carry atmospheric research equipment.<br /><br />Or they could be retired and put into museums as well. It'll be interesting to see what happens. If nothing else, they will at least be called into service to deliver the Orbiters to their final homes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
My museum pet peeve is when aircraft are no displayed at eye level. Furthermore, with something the size of an orbiter, it would help if the inside could be displayed too somehow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>they might sell them off as cargo planes<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yeah, with a really big external capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Alas, I don't think that'll be a huge sellar. Mryia, the Soviet-era equivalent (but a much larger and in many ways far more capable airplane) is working commercially as a cargo vehicle, but I don't think it's carried a single external load since the last time it ferried a Buran (the actual vehicle or a test article). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

mikejz

Guest
I could see using the carrier to take one of the orbiters and make it a traveling attraction. If they could build an adapter that would allow a tradition crane to raise and lower the orbiter from the on top of the 747. It would be nice to have one make a stop at airshows throughout the country/world.
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
The orbiters should have their leases auctioned by the smithsonian or NASA. If congressman X wants it in their museum, they'll have to pony up for it directly. That will ensure the orbiters go to the best museums. I'd rather have them accessible than out in the desert.
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
Heres my list of where I think they should go.<br /><br />Enterprise - DFRC<br />Atlantis - Smithsonian (When it retires they move Enterprise to Edwards and Atlantis in its place)<br />Endeavour - KSC<br />Discovery - JSC <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
>No. They would simply go to who ever had the most money. Money and quality are not equivalent. <br /><br />The concept of supply and demand ensuring that goods end up going to their best use is the underpinning of our entire economy. Doling things out abitrarially is why NASA spends 10 times as much as a private company to do anything. Heaven forbid one end up a lawn orniment outside a field center, they should at least be indoors somewhere.
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
I think I'd be surprised if one didn't go to Johnson and one stayed at KSC. That only leaves one for an alternate location. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
J

john_316

Guest
Those 747's can be sold to the USAF or USA (Army) either as military transports for troops and cargo or for modified launch vehicles for launching an SS-2 like ship into orbit for the USAF...<br /><br /><br />Just a suggestion that is...<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />
 
H

halcyondays

Guest
I'd frankly be somewhat surprised if the 747 SCAs had a new role with commercial operators - they're both early 747-100s (30-plus years old), and I'd expect they are close to their fatigue expiry limits. They would have taken a beating as SCAs, even if their cycles and hours are fairly low. For example, they fly relatively low, eg. 15,000 feet or so, I think.
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
I would not be surprised if one or more of the following are more critical in their survival:<br /><br />* How often all that weight was shifted from the undercarriage to the wings and back. (Called a "cycle" in the industry.)<br />* How often orbiters were transfered onto and off of the plane. (Probably proportional to the cycles.)<br />* The turbulence while carrying an orbiter. This is why both have all the extra tail surfaces. Furthermore, one had to carry Enterprise on at least one flight without the tail cone. That resulted in even more turbulence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
H

halcyondays

Guest
A cycle is usually taken to refer to pressurization/depressurization cycles, and their impact on the fatigue life of the airframe, rather than undercarriage movement, but I guess the number is pretty much the same !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts