Wayne Hale says that it’s because they didn’t care enough.
While I’m sure he’s right that they could have made a lot more of an effort, and did have a sense of entitlement about it, I’m not sure that even if they’d fought for it they’d have gotten one.
The key indicator for me was that New York got one. I can’t think of many states with less of a claim. (Well, Proxmire’s Wisconsin. New York was a slap in the face; Wisconsin would have been a kick in the gonads. )
That’s exactly right, DJ. It’s going to a city many of whose representatives worked at great length against NASA in general. Nothing in Texas is getting anything of value from this administration.
With all due respect to Mr. Hale, I’ll put my fellow Angelenos’ indifference up against Houston’s any time; yet we got one anyway. And, strictly speaking, it wasn’t New York that got a shuttle, it was the Intrepid museum that got one. New York as a whole may not be much more enthused than Houston or L.A., but the Intrepid’s boosters have demonstrated their tenacity and savvy in going after display hardware before and this is just the latest evidence that even a modest quantity of concentrated, and competent, enthusiasm can get results even amidst a sea of general indifference. But I think the biggest reason Texas got no shuttle was the all but openly declared war the Obama administration has been running against our most economically yeasty, politically Red and demographically growing state. The only real surprise is that Chicago didn’t get a shuttle.
As a Chicagoan and a space enthusiast, I’m much happier with the outcome we got: we’re getting one of the simulators, and I think the odds of informative and educational access to the simulator is better than access to the Shuttle. They were going to hang the shuttle well out of reach for all to gaze at, whereas it has already been suggested by the president of the Adler Planetarium that the simulator exhibit will be at least somewhat hands-on, although how hands-on has yet to be determined.
Actually New York City does have an important connection to the space Program that most folks today forget. The American Rocket Society was founded there in 1930 and its was the base for Willy Ley who worked tirelessly to promote space flight in the 1930’s and 1940’s when folks thought it was nuts, while the first public talks (ancestors of all the space conferences since…) on space were at the Hayden Planetarium and AMNH starting in the 1930’s. So you could say the dream was born there many, many years ago…
Hopefully as part of the display they will include displays on the American Rocket Society, Willy Ley and the Collier articles that give birth in America to the Dream that led to the Moon, the Shuttle and beyond. A neat display would be a model of the Spaceplane from Colliers next to the one of the Shuttle.
It should also be noted that New York City was also the birthplace to modern American Science Fiction as well with the numerous pulp magazines published there, editors like John Campbell and of course the Futurians including Issac Asimov. So its fitting that the birth place of the dream has one to display.
As for Houston, I seem to recall the Saturn V they had at JSC was basically left to rot for decades. I know it looked pretty bad when I saw it last in 2004. At least NY has a place to to put it indoors and will likely provide better care for it.
Thomas,
Did you know someone is trying to turn the Collier articles into a movie?
http://manconquersspace.com/
The key indicator for me was that New York got one. I can’t think of many states with less of a claim.
Did you all even look at the process?
Museums that wanted orbiters had to write proposals, develop plans, and raise money to display them. It wasn’t just a matter of filing a “claim” or having political connections.
Johnson Space Center does not have a runway. Getting the orbiter down the highway from Ellington Field would be a major undertaking. Someone would have to pay for that, and it was hard enough just to raise the money for the shed over the Saturn V. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if JSC’s proposal was less than competitive.
Getting the Enterprise to the Intrepid Museum is a bit easier because it can be barged down the river. The Intrepid Museum is also privately owned so they can be a bit more flexible in terms of fundraising, and they probably get a lot more visitors than Space Center Houston.
If you want to talk about museums that lost out, I’d say the Museum of Flight in Seattle is the real surprise. It’s probably the best aerospace museum in the country, after the NASM and the Air Force Museum, it has support from Boeing, and it was already building an $11-million addition to house the orbiter while others only had plans.
I live a couple of miles from JSC and I am glad we didn’t get one. It will be a massive boondoggle for whoever has to babysit it, forever. I disagree with Edward Wright on the ease of getting it here. It can be floated on a barge right up to the federally owned dock, next to the Hilton, directly across the street from JSC. That’s how they got the Saturn V hardware to JSC.
I’m honestly surprised the USAF Museum didn’t get one, especially with the request for $14 million to cover the costs that was supposedly tucked into the Air Force’s 2012 budget and the $5 million donation they just got from Boeing for a new building to house it.
Perhaps this fight isn’t quite over yet.
It can be floated on a barge right up to the federally owned dock, next to the Hilton, directly across the street from JSC.
Sure, as long as someone digs a barge canal out to Ellington Field. The last time I checked, it was landlocked.
Chris,
It won’t be the first. George Pal (of Destination Moon fame) made one in 1955 based on the 1949 book, Conquest of Space, that helped inspire the articles.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047947/
It will be interesting to compare the two. Hopefully the new movie will leave out the religious debate and focus on the technology envisioned.
I’m honestly surprised the USAF Museum didn’t get one, especially with the request for $14 million to cover the costs that was supposedly tucked into the Air Force’s 2012 budget and the $5 million donation they just got from Boeing for a new building to house it.
The estimated cost to safe, prepare, and deliver an orbiter is $28.8 million. $14 million might have been enough for Enterprise, which presumably will be quite a bit cheaper to prepare.
Edward Wright,
You don’t need to fly it here at all. You can float it all the way from KSC to Clear Lake. Perhaps you thought it was to be displayed at Ellington and not JSC.
You don’t need to fly it here at all. You can float it all the way from KSC to Clear Lake.
No, you would need to fly it, at least part way. The Enterprise (which I was discussing) isn’t at KSC. It’s at Dulles Airport in Virginia, which isn’t on the water.
I think you said: “Getting the Enterprise to the Intrepid Museum is a bit easier because it can be barged down the river.” And I said the same is true for JSC… whatever.
Edward Wright’s explanation makes a lot of sense, but I can’t rule out the sheer vindictiveness of the Obama administration towards red states. The ban on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico caused real economic harm to the states in the area, and I don’t believe that was an accident. I note that New York and California are deep blue states, while Florida is an important swing state.
Obama cut his political teeth in Chicago, and this kind of rewarding supporters and punishing enemies is par for the course.
I think you said: “Getting the Enterprise to the Intrepid Museum is a bit easier because it can be barged down the river.” And I said the same is true for JSC…
No, the same is not true for JSC. LaGuardia is 30 miles from the Intrepid. KSC is nearly a thousand miles from JSC. The two are not equivalent. Spaceport Houston is not “directly across the street” from the Hilton as you stated. It’s about two miles down the road. That means an overland trek, closing streets, etc. The Intrepid, on the other hand, is on the water. Logistics is a matter of details, not hand waving and “whatever.”
This site has some images from the various proposals.
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032911b.html
If these images reflect the quality of the overall proposal, it’s pretty obvious why Houston didn’t win.
Interesting link. It looks like some of the proposals included pictures drawn by preschool kids with crayons.
If you want to talk about museums that lost out, I’d say the Museum of Flight in Seattle is the real surprise. It’s probably the best aerospace museum in the country, after the NASM and the Air Force Museum, it has support from Boeing, and it was already building an $11-million addition to house the orbiter while others only had plans.
I have to agree with your statement about the Seattle Museum of Flight. It is superb. I personally rank museums by the rareness of their displays. You can see an F-86 just about anywhere but some planes are literally one of a kind, so if a museum has one of those, it gets a lot of bonus points from me.
I personally rank the best aerospace museum as the Smithsonian’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles followed by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum on the mall, the Air Force Museum and Seattle.
There’s an excellent aviation museum in McMinneville, OR and I’ve heard the EAA Museum at Oshkosh is very good for those of us who love small planes.
Why the hell does Edward Wright think the Orbiter has to be flown part way? It can be taken over to the ET dock at KSC and floated to JSC, but that’s still not how I’d do it. You can fly it into Galveston and float it over (just like it would be easier to fly to Newark and float over to Intepid). You can also drive it down Highway 3, which will be far easier than ways the Orbiter was transported down roads in the past. If you think Houston can’t figure out how to transport a large structure across land, then you need see what the various oil companies transport around here, and how they do it.
NY keeping it classy
“When people from Paris, Beijing, Tokyo and Amsterdam start saying they want to go to Houston, maybe then they’ll get a shuttle,” Schumer told the Daily News. “I’d say to Texas, don’t mess with New York.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/04/15/2011-04-15_rep_calls_for_houston_to_get_nasa_shuttle_enterprise_not_intrepid_schumer_says_f.html#ixzz1JcDZaXdl
Chucky needs to look up flight schedules for Air France, Air China, United, and KLM. He might even look up Emirates and British Airways too. No surprise someone so ignorant about events outside of NY represents NY.
Why the hell does Edward Wright think the Orbiter has to be flown part way? It can be taken over to the ET dock at KSC and floated to JSC
Because Edward Wright read the Space Center Houston proposal, while you are reading purple unicorn farts.
Once again, the Enterprise is not located at KSC. It’s at the NASM’s Udvar Hazy Center at Dulles Airport. It’s 700 miles from the ET dock at KSC. You can’t just “take it over” to the dock, however you imagine that would work.
Of course, Space Center Houston never proposed to move the Enterprise, or any other orbiter, by barge. That’s an Internet fantasy.
The actual proposal called for NASA to fly an orbiter to Ellington Field and place it in temporary storage while Space Center Houston built a new facility to house it.
Space Center Houston estimated that it would take 30 months to raise the money for the new building.
Other museums had already raised their money and, in the case of Seattle, completed a large part of the construction. It’s no great mystery why Houston lost, if you care about facts rather than your sense of civic entitlement.
Why restrict the space exploration promotional opportunities to just a couple of cities, where only a few tourists will ever visit it? I think we should devote one of the Shuttles to a permanent moving display. Just devote one of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft full-time to ferrying the Shuttle from airshow to airshow. Forever.
Better still, let’s build a few dozen more orbiters for display purposes only… it will make a great jobs program!
The actual proposal called for NASA to fly an orbiter to Ellington Field and place it in temporary storage while Space Center Houston built a new facility to house it.
Wright, you brought up the barges. Do you really think it is so much easier to put something on a barge for a 30 mile trip than it is to load it on a flatbed for 8 miles? Again, I ask why you think this is difficult. I said it was easy to transport it over roads as well barges if that was needed. You seem to think that’s a difficult if not improbable concept. I see no where in the SCH proposal that says it can’t be done. Indeed, they suggest the 8 mile land route. Why do you doubt this?
And yes, Enterprise is at Dulles. I used the term Orbiter. It’s a minor point, but one you should consider next time. If you want to play the game your way, Enterprise is at Dulles and not La Guardia, and New York wanted one of the other Orbiters, not Enterprise. My point in this thread was your arguments seemed invalid, and nothing you provided seems to have suggested I was wrong.
Personally, I agree with Wayne Hale, except that his complaints seem more like sour grapes over general JSC funding (where I have less issue) than just the shuttle. I haven’t argued for Houston to get a shuttle, because I think we haven’t done enough for the things we have. I haven’t argued all those issues here, because it is unnecessary.
Wright, you brought up the barges. Do you really think it is so much easier to put something on a barge for a 30 mile trip than it is to load it on a flatbed for 8 miles?
I was talking about barging the Enterprise to the Intrepid. You and Jardinero brought up the fictitious nonsense about barging it from KSC to Houston. Which is a lot more than 30 miles, Mr. Leland.
Why do you doubt this?
Because I’ve worked on large transportation projects. You’re working on pure imagination. Everything is “easy” when you don’t actually have to do it.
And yes, Enterprise is at Dulles. I used the term Orbiter. It’s a minor point, but one you should consider next time.
No, it’s not a minor point. If you could read a simple declarative English sentence without distorting its meaning, you would know that D. J. Moore and I were talking about the Enterprise. There aren’t any other “Orbiters” that are going to New York City.
New York wanted one of the other Orbiters, not Enterprise.
New York didn’t get one of the other Orbiters, it got the Enterprise. At least, in the real world. I don’t know about unicorn fartland. 🙂
Thomas, I’ve heard of this movie, though I’ve never been able to find it. The movie I’m talking about is going to be a mock documentary. It’s a look at what might have been had Von Braun and company gotten their way.
If you could read a simple declarative English sentence without distorting its meaning, you would know that D. J. Moore and I were talking about the Enterprise. There aren’t any other “Orbiters” that are going to New York City.
And I and Jardinero were talking about an Orbiter for Houston. We only mentioned barging because you said it couldn’t be done. The only argument going for you is New York got Enterprise, so it is one hop from Dulles to La Guardia. What doesn’t work for you is New York wasn’t trying to get Enterprise. They wanted an Orbiter. You’d do better to drop the transportation argument and try realistic arguments like even Matula brought up, such as JSC doesn’t have a great history protecting previous artifacts.
Because I’ve worked on large transportation projects. You’re working on pure imagination.
Apparently not too large, because you still think this is hard: Getting the orbiter down the highway from Ellington Field would be a major undertaking. It’s obvious you have no idea what projects I’ve worked.
Chris L.
I found the entire “Conquest of Space” is on YouTube. Its possible that the copyright has expired, given its from the mid-1950’s.
Thomas, thanks I’ll check it out.
What doesn’t work for you is New York wasn’t trying to get Enterprise. They wanted an Orbiter.
Enterprise is an Orbiter, Leland. It’s serial number OV-101.
Your arguments would be greatly improved if you did a little research.
If “New York” didn’t want the Enterprise, what is all the whining about? If New York didn’t get what it wanted, that would undermine the argument for big political conspiracy to favor New York. (And as Dick points out, it wasn’t “New York” that got the orbiter, it was a private museum that happens to be located in New York City.)
Apparently not too large, because you still think this is hard: Getting the orbiter down the highway from Ellington Field would be a major undertaking. It’s obvious you have no idea what projects I’ve worked.
True, the largest highway project I’ve worked on was a bit over one billion dollars, adjusted for inflation. I’m sure yours cost at least a trillion unicorn farts.
If you watch “Mega Movers” on the History Channel, you will get some appreciation for the problems other people have moving large objects.
If you think everything is so easy, you should have submitted your own proposal.
Your arguments would be greatly improved if you did a little research.
When did I say Enterprise wasn’t an Orbiter? Perhaps you can do the research and find the claim.
If “New York” didn’t want the Enterprise, what is all the whining about?
I don’t know, perhaps you can write a letter to the editor of the New York Post.
If New York didn’t get what it wanted, that would undermine the argument for big political conspiracy to favor New York.
I admit that I fail to see your logic. This makes as much sense as Chuck Schumer’s ridiculous comments.
If you watch “Mega Movers” on the History Channel
Seriously? I love how you claim to have experience in a highway project (yes, large trusses are usually built elsewhere and transported to work sites), but tend to ignore points I’ve already made (a large truss may be long, but it is skinny; try moving a refinery cooling tower). Instead, you keep asserting I’m making stuff up, yet you have consistently failed to back up any comment you made with facts. The best you’ve done was link to a website where you claim to have read all the official proposals. Yeah, you can get to the SCH proposal if you dig deep enough, but the LA proposal is nothing but children’s drawings and for a facility at March AFB (which is not the winning location). There is also no information on that site about New York funding that you claim is vested (the only rational argument I think you made, and it’s not backed up). So thanks for at least admitting that really you just watch TV.
When did I say Enterprise wasn’t an Orbiter? Perhaps you can do the research and find the claim.
On April 16th, 2011 at 4:01 am. It doesn’t take much research, if you simply read your own posts.
If “New York” didn’t want the Enterprise, what is all the whining about?
I don’t know, perhaps you can write a letter to the editor of the New York Post.
Exactly. You don’t know because you haven’t read the news reports or even, apparently, this discussion.
It isn’t the editor of the New York Post who’s whining.
It’s some folks down in Houston who are whining about Enterprise going to Intrepid instead of Space Center Houston. Several Congressmen are even threatening to launch a Congressional investigation into why Enterprise is going there.
This is specifically about Enterprise. It is not about any other orbiter, nor is it about some non-existant plan to barge an orbiter from KSC to Texas.
you keep asserting I’m making stuff up
Because you *are* making stuff up. Proposals to barge an orbiter from KSC to Texas, the editor of the New York Post whining, Enterprise is not an orbiter, and stuff you claim I said. Like this one:
The best you’ve done was link to a website where you claim to have read all the official proposals.
I never claimed I had read all of the proposals. This is the latest bit of fantasy fiction.
I have read enough of the Space Center Houston proposal to see valid reasons why they might have lost.
The proposals aren’t on the website I linked to. As I stated, “This site has some images from the various proposals.” Emphasis added for your benefit.
Do you think a proposal is nothing but a picture, Leland? Well, it isn’t.
the LA proposal is nothing but children’s drawings and for a facility at March AFB (which is not the winning location).
There was no “LA proposal” — nor was there a “Houston” proposal or a “New York” proposal.
You still don’t understand the process. Cities didn’t submit proposals. Institutions (generally museums) did. Dick Eagleson explained that above.
The California Science Center submitted one proposal, and the March AFB museum submitted another.
March AFB is not in Los Angeles, it’s east of Los Angeles closer to Riverside.
As for your remark about “children’s drawings,” do you think that because a drawing is done in pastel crayons it must be done by children? Conceptual artwork is frequently done in pastels. Many of the concept artists at Disney and Pixar work in that medium. No, they are not children.
Of course, that’s irrelevant because the whiners aren’t complaining about the orbiter going to the California Science Center, they’re complaining about the one going to the Intrepid Museum in New York.
Apart from getting every detail wrong, you have some terrific arguments. 🙂
FYI, Leland, the last major transportation proposal I worked on ran to hundreds of pages. If you don’t know the difference between a picture and a proposal, it makes your claims about project experience a bit humorous.
No one is going to disassemble orbiters into trusses in order to move them, either.