Houston Takes Another Shot at New York Over Shuttle Exhibit

Houston & Co.:

...and this attitude somehow... helps... your case? Explain that to me, would you?

Confused, n.:|

tinker

Well lets see now-we've learned in the last few days that the Smithsonian refused to send the Enterprise to NYC, so an unusual and probably illegal transfer of ownership had to be arranged from the Smithsonian back to NASA so that the Administration would make the decision to send the Enterprise to NYC, and now we find out that the entire NYC proposal was a sham and that they now have to find someplace else to put the Shuttle since the first location is not technically acceptable.

Whether or not the Shuttle were to go to Houston, the people in the entire midsection of the country (that includes the USAF Museum, Ohio and Chicago, Illinois) should also be outraged that a pure and simple political decision sent the Shuttle where it is not needed.

More than just one of the winners are not ready "as advertised"

Its becoming more apparent as time rolls on that there were plenty of political implications involved with the decisions on where the shuttles final resting places would be.

Spiff.........

It was absolutely obvious at the time that the Obama Administration was never going to allow a shuttle to go to Texas. With luck that decision will have sufficient flaws to allow it to be overturned and an orbiter to be placed at JSC.

Folks:

"Leave no stone left unturned" seems to be the clarion cry of the politicians concerning the troubled space program. How about; "If it moves, shoot it!".

If the space program (or, in this case, it's aftermath) is so damned important why (oh why) does politics always stand in it's way to success? Politics gave us an inadequate Space Transportation System ('Space Shuttle' for you youngsters) in the first place. Now they're fighting over the scraps thirty years later? Shameful.

tinker

Politics aside, a space-flown orbiter is not right for Houston because it's not part of their story.

A museum should exist for one of two reasons:

1) To present artifacts and history as a collection of national or world culture in one place to educate visitors. This is the principal mission of national museums like the Smithsonian, the Louvre, and the British Museum.

2) To educate visitors in the role that an area played or plays in the writing of history. In the space program, numerous museums do this job. The KSC Visitors Center brings visitors up close to the past and present facilities and vehicles that send people and satellites to space. The JPL Museum, small as it is, displays the probes and research that continue to teach us about the outer reaches of the solar system. The oft-forgotten but still impressive New Mexico Museum of Space History lacks much of the big rockets and facilities that the more popular space museums have. However this small museum does an excellent job of telling the story of the rocket sled and early rocket engine testing that were performed in the New Mexico desert.

The issue with bringing an orbiter to Space Center Houston is that the vehicles, though inextricably a part of human spaceflight, are not part of Houston's role in the space program. In truth and in the public eye, Houston's main role is to train and support the astronauts and their pioneering of space. In the first moments of the Moon landing, the first word sent back to Earth from the surface of the Moon was "Houston." This was spoken by Neil Armstrong who was trained at and lived in Houston. When I visit Space Center Houston, this is the history I want to experience. I want to see the astronaut training facilities, Neutral Buoyancy Lab and Mission Control. I want to meet real astronauts. I want to have answers to the big questions of "How do you train and support people to live and work in space?" and "What was and is done here?"

As I can personally attest, any orbiter (spaceflown or not) is a sight to behold, but it does not fit into the story that Space Center Houston needs to tell about its ongoing role in our exploration of space.

"Houston's main role is to train and support the astronauts and their pioneering of space."

You seem to have forgotten that before it was the Johnson Space Center, it was the Manned Spacecraft Center, and that Houston has led the development of every manned spacecraft the country has flown to date.

You do not seem to be alone in having forgotten or not known this-lots of the people working in Houston the last dozen years thought that all JSC was, was an 'operations center'; too many years of George Abbey, astronauts, and Mission Control directors in charge, which also explains a lot about why human space flight is in the disorder it is in.

Thank you!

That was a superb explanation!

In my opinion a shuttle at the Intrepid Air & Space museum would be and is nothing more than a "Tourist" attraction.

I felt very strongly that the Air Force museum in Dayton should have gotten an orbiter.

Dayton/Air Force have a world class museum already in place.

The Air Force has both past and present history in regards to space and NASA.

Dayton's Air Force museum has over 1 million + visitors every year.

The Air Force museum already has the ability to house an orbiter and was only a few million short of the required funds to pay for orbiter transport.

New York has neither the land, the facility nor the funding to house an orbiter--all of which was a requirement in order to make the short list to get an orbiter.

Somethings rotten in Denmark.....I mean Dayton.

Spiff...........................Out

A bunch of sore losers in here.

Hello good people,

I can tell you that these Space Shuttles need a home soon. There temporary arrangement to keep them at least two that I know of, in the Vertical Assembly Building is not what I call adequate and in keeping with their fantastic service they have given us and most importantly those who lost their lives during this program.

I find all of this continued "politics" disgraceful in light that a lot of reviews and careful study was done to award "a" Space Shuttle to a location where they can store and be able to display each so all of us can visit them.

For those that do not know, the Vertical Assembly Building (VAB) is not a place where a Space Craft can be maintained for too long, no matter if it will be launch again or not. Yes, it is a large building with large doors and Florida has very humid conditions, at times small bats fly around inside this building and other creatures. In order words it is not a fitting place for one of our past national treasures, if those in charge still consider them that way?

Let us all contact our representatives and tell them that we need to quickly move these Space Shuttle Orbiters out from the VAB and into those places that have been selected. Should there be any issue then, I would hope to see a speedy resolution, and considering what I see in Washington D.C., it is not going to be easy nor smart.

Just disgraceful....

I don't think the Air force should have anything to do with the shuttle after the Air Force's disgraceful abandonment of the shuttle in the middle of the program. Period. End of story.

I agree that it is disgraceful that the selection process wound up with the Orbiter in this situation. First they should not have shut down the program with the current precarious situation of US human space flight. It would have been quite easy to extend out the time between missions 2 or 3 years ago and we would have kept flying. But when the Museum of Flight and the Air Force Museum already had suitable housing for the Orbiters, it was ridiculous to be setting up some other locations in the hopes they would get their act together.

As far as the Air Force, I am not sure why Ralphy thinks the Air Force pulled out. The Air Force always had a small role in the program and it really did not change significantly from beginning to end. The decision to diversify the US launch system infrastructure after the Challenger accident was done for national security reasons and at that point it wasn't cost effective to operate a Shuttle out of the west coast.

Point the fingers squarely at Obama and Bolden as far as where the Orbiters are going. They made the decisions they did and they made them for purely political reasons.

You obviously don't know very much about the NASA/Airforce relationship.

The Airforce didn't go anywhere, they just diversified to assure access to space after the vulnerabilities of the space shuttle showed up on the front page.

Then, take what you think you know and double it to cover the classified side of the house.

The Air Force and their money didn't go anywhere!

Spiff..........................Out

The Houston Chronicle article stated:

"(Enterprise) took part in 14 suborbital tests in the 1970s"

Using that logic all of the airline flights that we make would also be considered suborbital. I wonder if Houston Chronicle considers us all to be astronauts.