 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / March 2008Who owns the Space Shuttle (or rather, Shuttle(s)) after retirement?
I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this area. Who will have access to owning the hardware and associated IP of the shuttle orbiter system after it is retired? Of course the logical answer is the 'taxpayers of the United States'. But I am sure that the process of chopping up the orbiter into 200 odd million pieces (is that the total number of taxpayers in the US?) and sending them out in the mail is beyond imagination. "Here is a piece of history and a reminder of your contribution." If defies engineering principles to retire the orbiter completely. Of course, it can be argued that if one were shown the actual figures of the economic advantage of retiring the shuttle vs. the Constellation concept, it is obvious that the Constellation(Orion) concept holds quicker results over the short term - which one cannot argue against. But I have seen project estimation and accounting systems before that totally ignore the unquantifiable in the system, mainly that of vision and intangible results. Kris Kraft recently said it best recently at a MIT lecture (and I am paraphrasing here), NASA is taking the two components from shuttle system, the solid rocket boosters and the external tank, and applying that technology to the CEV concept, ignoring the one system that hasn't had a critical failure, the orbiter. If I could draw a analogy to a biological system - the notion of vestigial organs and features. One should ask why animals contain such strange phenomenon in their genetic makeup. I believe one answer is related to system energy conservation. It takes a great deal of energy over many generations for attributes and survival features to appear in the genetic stream of a species. Sometimes these features become obsolete, but the species maintains them anyway. Why? The energy requirement to develop the feature through natural process is large, and for some inexplicable reason (I am sure the science isn't completely written on this yet) the species will hold the organ or feature 'in reserve' for possible reuse. The shuttle is a vestigial organ, it needs to exist to reduce the energy requirements on the space society as a whole for the long term. Besides, I believe most design data of the shuttle is not in electronic form, a couple more generations and paper only data will be inaccessible to the digital driven populace. An organic concept for a high-tech problem. Keep the shuttle going, change the hydraulics to electric, redo the control processors, de-rate the SSMEs and look at a radical booster- external tank configuration. Could a private group of companies do this? I now await for posting redirection to the sci.space.shuttle.obituary group (If it doesn't exist, I am sure some one will create it.) Todd Saharchuk, AScT. Well, I bet the Chinese could do it cheaper.... Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! >I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on > sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Todd Saharchuk, AScT. > Well, I bet the Chinese ... You might be right :-/ SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com nasa auctioned off some interesting hardware after apollo ended. theres a apollo capsule at a dairy queen near oil city pa. the owner is a strange fellow, apparently concerned the government might want it back. although he bought it at a auction. theres wiring inside that capsule, i felt the wires thru a hole. would love to borrow a scope and take a quick look in the winter when the DQ is closed. it appears to be one of the few capsules not in a museum. it bugs me it sits out in the weather all these years > Well, I bet the Chinese could do it cheaper.... > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Brian . . . You may be right, but doing anything complicated is always harder the first time. v/r John I hope the current plans go to the garbafe where threy belong. I would love to see ads 39A and 39B made into permanent museum displays. keep one in shuttle configuration, stack the enterprise and allow the public to get up and close to those pads for the very first time. stack the other pad with a apollo mock up and return the pad to the apollo appearance. install walkways at both pads so the public can get up close and personal cover both pads with plexiglass bubbles........ tourism wise a big winner........... On Mar 14, 9:16 am, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > stack the other pad with a apollo mock up and return the pad to the > apollo appearance. Huh? Would have to rebuild a LUT. none exist >> stack the other pad with a apollo mock up and return the pad to the >> apollo appearance. > >Huh? Would have to rebuild a LUT. none exist And hope Hurricane Jeane II doesn't come along! Brian >>> stack the other pad with a apollo mock up and return the pad to the >>> apollo appearance. >> >>Huh? Would have to rebuild a LUT. none exist Actually, one LUT does exist - the one used by A11 was dismantled and tossed into a field awaiting who knows what. >And hope Hurricane Jeane II doesn't come along! Yup. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > >On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:23:09 -0700 (PDT), charliexmur...@yahoo.com > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Actually, one LUT does exist - the one used by A11 was dismantled and > tossed into a field awaiting who knows what. Wrong. It was disposed of a few years ago. Drive by the site every work day > I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on > sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Of course the logical answer is the 'taxpayers of the United States'. Since you know the logical answer, why not ask your congress-persons? In my opinion, you are a bit premature. When the Apollo program ended during the Nixon administration, in favor of an undeveloped capability to merely orbit humans, no other nation had our capability to land humans on the moon. If we now abandon our capability to orbit humans, the situation will be different. China has demonstrated the capability to orbit humans, and Russia has long had such a capability. Our current generation of aerospace engineers will be staring at their feet for awhile. So why rush to embalment talk for the space shuttle? JTM On Mar 13, 11:57 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > In my opinion, you are a bit premature. When the Apollo program ended > during the Nixon administration, in favor of an undeveloped capability > to merely orbit humans, no other nation had our capability to land > humans on the moon. To further my point on system energy requirements, the Apollo program was designed to push for the moon with minimal system energy consumption (The system in this case is the NASA group and the taxpayers), somewhat akin to a one-off ascent of an unclimbed peak. The early withdrawal of the program is an artifact of the purpose of the mission. But the Space Shuttle had the offering of a long-term, evolutionary platform with would develop the fundamental science and engineering necessary to achieve economic and ubiquitous space travel. The fact that NASA was severely short of its promised requirements implies an technological evolutionary system. If the Space Shuttle design and engineering milestones are only 25% towards a economically viable design. Should we not iterate the system another 75%? As well, although it is energizing, a country shouldn't compete against other countries' actions, that is simply reactive. It is much better to compete against oneself, that leaves the other countries not knowing where you will be in ten years. And to be definite on this point, space is a national arena of competition - for economic reasons as well. Todd Saharchuk, AScT. > And to be definite on this > point, space is a national arena of competition - for economic reasons > as well. I correct myself, 'space is an international arena of competition'. Todd Saharchuk, AScT. The US Government owns it. Most likely the orbiters will be sent to museums. In general the disposal process will be like what the government does with any other major asset (i.e. battleship, aircraft carrier, naval base> >I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on > sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this > area. > > Who will have access to owning the hardware and associated IP of the > shuttle orbiter system after it is retired? > Keep the shuttle going, change the hydraulics to electric, redo the > control processors, de-rate the SSMEs and look at a radical booster- > external tank configuration. Could a private group of companies do > this? Only if they wnt to go broke. > I now await for posting redirection to the sci.space.shuttle.obituary > group (If it doesn't exist, I am sure some one will create it.) > > Todd Saharchuk, AScT. > SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html > The US Government owns it. > > Most likely the orbiters will be sent to museums. > > In general the disposal process will be like what the government does with > any other major asset (i.e. battleship, aircraft carrier, naval base> NASA artifacts go to the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum (NASM). This is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NASA and NASM - there is no law saying they must. In principle, that does give NASA some leverage on where the NASM displays the artifacts, and I consider it at least somewhat likely that NASA will use that leverage to ensure that the NASA centers most heavily involved with the orbiter project (JSC and KSC) will get retired orbiters. > NASA artifacts go to the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum > (NASM). This is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > leverage to ensure that the NASA centers most heavily involved with the > orbiter project (JSC and KSC) will get retired orbiters. Any bets on who'll get which vehicle? SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen >> NASA will use that >> leverage to ensure that the NASA centers most heavily involved with the >> orbiter project (JSC and KSC) will get retired orbiters. > >Any bets on who'll get which vehicle? NASM Dulles: Discovery USAF Museum: Atlantis KSC: Endeavour DFRC: Enterprise with NASA905 Unless they find a way to get one to JSC and JSC actually produces a decent plan to display one (unlike their rotted-away Saturn V.) Brian "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >The US Government owns it. > >Most likely the orbiters will be sent to museums. > >In general the disposal process will be like what the government does with >any other major asset (i.e. battleship, aircraft carrier, naval base> Probably not - NASA hasn't, in the past, shown any tendency to use the normal bidding procedure as would be used for a warship. (Bases are usually more-or-less given to the adjacent community.) They seem to simply assign them outright or hand 'em over to the first person who asks. The only 'rule' seems to be that the NASM gets priority. For the Shuttle trifecta? Disneyland Canaveral gets one, and Pioneer goes somewhere else are a booby prize. The NASM gets one to set beside Enterprise. The third is the real question - Wright Pat or Boeing comes to mind. (Whichever of those two doesn't get a real orbiter gets Pioneer I bet.) Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. Boeing and wright pat won't get one. Bet on it. NASM, JSC and KSC get the real one and MSFC gets Enterprise. JSC has the political pull and that is where the program was run from. The same places have Saturn Vs >> Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. Huntsville is, I think, but fifth on the list and there are only four to go around. >Boeing and wright pat won't get one. Bet on it. Wright-Pat will get one, bet on it. :-) One of the biggest things Smithsonian will look at is "can the Orbiter be taken care of and displayed properly?" and the USAF Museum will be close to the top of that criteria. They reportedly really, really, REALLY want Discovery, but I'm betting NASM does, too, and guess who will win that fight. They'll get Atlantis, which flew more military missions anyway. >NASM, JSC and KSC get the real one and MSFC gets Enterprise. JSC will be close to the bottom of the priorities list, due to big difficulties getting the Orbiter to JSC now, and their abysmal care of their Saturn V. MSFC and DFRC will be neck and neck, but I think DFRC will win, so that the Smithsonian can have one Orbiter somewhere out west. >JSC has the political pull and that is where the program was run from. But no money and a sad history of neglect. >The same places have Saturn Vs The path that it took to get to JSC is now blocked by a bridge. Brian >>> Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. > >Huntsville is, I think, but fifth on the list and there are only four >to go around. Three. NASM isn't going to give up Enterprise. >MSFC and DFRC will be neck and neck, but I think DFRC will win, so >that the Smithsonian can have one Orbiter somewhere out west. Thats why I think Boeing gets the Pioneer as a booby prize. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>>> Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. >> >>Huntsville is, I think, but fifth on the list and there are only four >>to go around. > >Three. NASM isn't going to give up Enterprise. They'll almost certainly replace Enterprise with space-flown Orbiter. Brian > >>> Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thats why I think Boeing gets the Pioneer as a booby prize. That is not NASA's nor the NASMs >>> Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wright-Pat will get one, bet on it. :-) One of the biggest things > Smithsonian will look at is... Remember what I wrote earlier: there is no law requiring NASA to hand the orbiters over to the Smithsonian. Only an MOU. In practice, that means that the Smithsonian will send the orbiters where NASA wants them to go. > "can the Orbiter be taken care of and > displayed properly?" and the USAF Museum will be close to the top of > that criteria. They reportedly really, really, REALLY want Discovery, > but I'm betting NASM does, too, and guess who will win that fight. > They'll get Atlantis, which flew more military missions anyway. Reportedly, the selection of Atlantis for the final HST mission clinched it for Udvar-Hazy. My bet would be that NASM ships Enterprise to the DoD, either to DFRC or Wright-Patt (I'd like the former, I suspect the latter). JSC and KSC get the other two. >> NASM, JSC and KSC get the real one and MSFC gets Enterprise. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > MSFC and DFRC will be neck and neck, but I think DFRC will win, so > that the Smithsonian can have one Orbiter somewhere out west. MSFC had very little connection to the orbiter. Their involvement with the shuttle program was mainly the SSME, ET, and SRB. Flaws in the latter two cost us two orbiters. The most appropriate orbiter to send to MSFC, quite honestly, is the Challenger debris. With a note attached reading, "if you guys had done the right thing, you'd *have* an intact orbiter to display." >> The same places have Saturn Vs > > The path that it took to get to JSC is now blocked by a bridge. I took a boat under the Kemah bridge last week; contrary to my previous impressions driving over it, the main span is more than wide and tall enough for an orbiter. >>> Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Brian I think i would take Discovery if i was Wright Patt because of john Glenn Flying on it and he is from Ohio, i would drive 45 minutes to see a space shuttle on display, they have space stuff on display at Wright Patt. angela Lets HOPE the shuttle get more respect than the left over Apollo hardware, most of which was left to rot in the outdoors...... > Lets HOPE the shuttle get more respect than the left over Apollo > hardware, most of which was left to rot in the outdoors...... For those who are trying to learn FACTS, not crap like Bob here, If you're talking mass, most of the Apollo program landed in the ocean. If you're talking available hardware, it's all here and can be seen. In fact I may go see a LM later today. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html On Mar 15, 8:16�am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > > hardware, most of which was left to rot in the outdoors...... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > SQL Server DBA Consulting � � � � � Remote and Onsite available! > Email: sql �(at) �greenms.com � � � � �http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html well lets see the KSC apollo stack sat out in the salt air till it was near collapse before the saturn center was built with private money the houston apollo stack suffered much the same way, and they are working on it there was one other apollo stack wasnt it scraped? birds nests and salt air are tough on what should be national monuments./ You going to look at the KSC LM, it hangs above a gift shop. is that really appropiate? granted these stacks werent flight flown but many stages were flight qualified. so what ever happened to the skylab simulator, or the clean room for apollo? i believe both were sat outside to weather away/ even enterprise sat for many years outside, perhaps it got some tarps? good thing too its been canabilized for parts to keep the fleet flying. so is this really how we should treat irreplaceable parts of our early flight programs? and dont get me started, i still think a attempt should of been made to save the apollo 11 LM upper stage, it was left in lunar orbit to crash. might have been possible to carry it out of lunar orbit and release into earth or heliospheric orbit. snoopy is believed to be heliospheric but no one is sure they didnt bother tracking it........... no one cared. yep nasa and our government really tried ...... NOTT:( > For the Shuttle trifecta? Disneyland Canaveral gets one, and Pioneer > goes somewhere else are a booby prize. The NASM gets one to set [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Huntsville and Houston aren't in the running to my mind. Why not? Take a look at where the Saturn V's are located. I'd guess Houston would get one because they have a lot to do with the manned space program, what being Mission Control and all... I'd think that DOD would want one, but in the big scheme of things, there were actually few dedicated DOD shuttle missions. So, I'm not sure that NASA would want one to go to DOD. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on > sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sending them out in the mail is beyond imagination. "Here is a piece > of history and a reminder of your contribution." ... all that stuff and IP belong to USA (United Space Alliance) ;-))) Regards Adam Przybyla >> I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on >> sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Regards > Adam Przybyla I don't believe any of that belongs to United Space Alliance. USA was contracted to run operations, but they never took ownership. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.