Start Saving To Buy Your Space Shuttle Now 197
stoolpigeon writes "With the retirement of the shuttle drawing near, NASA has begun to plan for museums that may want a used orbiter of their own. The Orlando Sentinel reports that NASA issued an RFI to US educational institutions, science museums and other organizations to see if they would be interested in the orbiter while also able to cover the estimated $42 million cost of 'safeing' the shuttle and transporting it."
you would only be dissapointed (Score:2, Interesting)
If you don't want to shatter the illusion that high tech stuff has the fit and finish of a fine automobile, you really don't want to see it up close and personal.
On the other hand the sense of history can't be duplicated...
Re:you would only be dissapointed (Score:3, Interesting)
It only looks like hammered dog meat if you don't know what you're looking at. I'm sure all the engineers that see the stuff are both amazed by the audacity of most of these designs and by the fact that they ever even approached the reliability they have with such complexity. On the other hand, I'm sure most of the same engineers have gripes about almost all of the design details.
You've still got to admire the complete absurdity of such machines though.
Re:you would only be dissapointed (Score:5, Interesting)
My team and I were getting set up to work in a phased maintenance hanger. I was a new troop and this was my first Real Duty Assignment. Were were in the shadow of a real aircraft. I was drinking it all in. I look up at the tail of the bird we were about to take to task.
"Alright," I say, "I know the big numbers are the squadron and the tail number for the aircraft. But what are those two small numbers in front of the tail number?" My boss looks over and replies, "oh - that's the year of manufacture."
"Woah," I say in awe, "this thing is older than I am!" My boss turns to me... looks me over and sighs, "I'm getting too old."
It's not that these aircraft aren't well maintained. But they are well used. And they consist of very dated (if effective) technology that tends to be utilitarian in design to begin with.
But having said that - sitting in the seat of a jet fighter is an impressive sight. Even if you know the history of the technology in front of you. There's a cool factor that only a small percentage of people have enough exposure to eventually wear off.
I've never set foot on an actual shuttle. But I imagine the training mockups are close enough. And they impressed the same cool factor I got from both real and training mockups (we used to log unbooked time in the trainers) for the fighters I used to maintain.
Do they take Paypal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been inside of tanks, B-52's, subs, air-craft carriers and SR-17's that were decommissioned and beat to hell but were pretty awesome. No body gives a shit about the High Tech gloss, they care about the awesome engineering feats they are. Most people who are interested in the science and engineering of some of mankind's greatest projects don't really care about the fact that it's covered in oil.
If you go see the shuttle up close and your first thought is that it has a bad paint job, maybe you should just stick to playing with dolls.
Why don't we just all split the cost? (Score:4, Interesting)
Slashdot UIDs are somewhere over 1.27 million now... even if there are fewer than 500,000 active users, I'd chip in $100 toward buying a Space Shuttle...
leave it in space (Score:4, Interesting)
That way the ISS gets extra accomodation, emergency toilets, emergency life support, and an emergency escape vehicle, all in one. Plus, a cool vehicle parked out the front.
It costs a small fortune to send a shuttle into space. That's where its most useful. If its on its last mission, and its never going to be relaunched, why bother bringing the thing all the way back, just to be decomissioned?
Leave it up there, where it's useful and happy!
Re:I would buy it... (Score:3, Interesting)
There not saying they're qualified to make the decision themeselves, that's why they're trying to ask around from people who are qualified. Unfortunately Griffin is being so overprotective of his pet project that its making a mockery of the transition process, which on all other fronts seems to be the most graceful thing Bush has ever done.
I've ranted a few times about why I think cutting Ares (particularly Ares 1) is a good idea... put simply its a mishmash that ignored the actual purpose of the Vision that was laid out, and it is designed to look shuttle-derived while almost all of it is having to be reengineered. I'm not sure about the EELV option, but Ares looks like its going to be over-cost and will under-perform... if the Falcon 9 tests go better than the Falcon 1, that *may* be our best bet.
My semi-informed opinion is that scrapping Ares, going to something like Jupiter and giving COTS a chance is a more responsible choice. And I think that all the concern over the transition team is overblown, they're simply practicing due diligence and studying all the options... the two that I know much about on the team are strong proponents of continued manned flight.
Re:you would only be dissapointed (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of the failings of the Shuttle's design can be placed squarely upon the DOD requirements for the vehicle that hamstrung the engineers. The original plan for the Shuttle was for it to have much smaller wings than the current design - indeed one of the Shuttle's engineers who spoke at an MIT lecture on aeronautical engineering stated that originally the Shuttle was either going to be a straight lifting body (like the X-23), or have a set of straight, narrow auxiliary wings.
However, one of the Defense Department's requirements was that the orbiter have a 1000 mile crossrange, i.e. that in a time of crisis the Shuttle could lift off from Vandenberg AFB, dump a DOD payload (read: spy satellite or orbital bombardment system) into orbit, and return and land at Vandenberg, without waiting for more than one orbit for the Earth to rotate into a more favorable position (or long enough for an enemy to calculate the payload's orbit). Without military support the Shuttle project would go nowhere, so the large delta wings that proved so vulnerable to foam strikes were there to stay.
The MIT lectures concerning this design compromise and many others are available on iTunes U. Another interesting fact is that apparently the lack of sophisticated CAD programs at the time of the Shuttle's design caused the engineers to settle on a less-than-optimal routing scheme for the main engine plumbing: if there were computers that could have calculated a better routing topology the engine system could have been designed as a modular unit that pulled in and out of the orbiter like a giant PCI card, shaving weeks off the turnaround time.
Rat Rods (Score:3, Interesting)
There are all kinds of tastes in this world. Some people don't care about the fit and finish of a fine automobile (although we can appreciate it). But there are those who actually prefer the rough edges, we're happy building our own cars out of whatever materials are at hand, and the results are often surprising and exciting, even if the fit and finish is nowhere close to a high-end car.
The purpose of a shuttle, or any other government built equipment isn't to look nice. It's to get the job done, and usually, be tough as nails about it as well.
Let's see how fine your car is after it's been launched at Mach 25 and been heated to plasma temps, and put a few million miles on it. That's why it looks like hammered dog meat, but frankly, I like the look of hammered dog meat.
There's a culture of people that make "Rat Rods" and trust me when I say that I find these vehicles beautiful, even up close.
The point is, it's all a matter of taste. I like utilitarian, visible welds, and patina. You can't get that "character" from a fine car (unless that fine car is a Deusenberg).