Lacking Buyers, NASA Cuts Prices On Shuttles and Old Engines 131
Hugh Pickens writes "Russia's Space Shuttle, Buran, ended its days at a theme park in Moscow and was once offered for sale on the Internet for 3 million dollars. Now the NY Times reports that when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration put out the call in December 2008 seeking buyers for US shuttles from museums, schools and elsewhere, the agency didn't get as much interest as expected, so now NASA has slashed the price of the 1970s-era spaceships, available for sale this fall once their flying days are over, from $42 million to just $28.8 million apiece. 'We're confident that we'll get other takers,' says agency spokesman Mike Curie. The Discovery is already promised to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum but the Atlantis and the Endeavour are still up for grabs and it is possible that the Enterprise, a shuttle prototype that never made it to space, will also be available. The lower price is based on NASA's estimate of the cost for transporting a shuttle from Kennedy Space Center to a major airport, and for displaying it indoors in a climate-controlled building. As for the space shuttle main engines, those are now free. NASA advertised them in December 2008 for $400,000 to $800,000 each, but no one expressed interest. So now the engines are available, along with other shuttle artifacts, for the cost of transportation and handling."
More than one Buran out there... (Score:3, Informative)
The summary seems to imply otherwise. And not only almost finished or barely finished orbiters, also models for static tests, etc. Those also ended up as tourist attractions or in museums (or rusting in scrapyard)
In fact, the Buran, the one that made orbital flight, was probably destroyed by a hangar collapse in 2002... (along with the remaining Energia mock-up on which it was laid to rest...)
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur90.jpg [buran.ru]
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur89.jpg [buran.ru]
BTW, Should we really count Enterprise as a prototype? It couldn't made it into space...Columbia seems more appropriate. Or, if insisting on rules lax enough to include Enterprise, Endeavor seems a better choice as the "first", actually. Since it's a rebuild structural "airframe" that was used for static tests (so likely before Enterprise), to replenish the fleet with fully capable orbiter after Challenger disaster.
PS. Free Shuttle parts for the cost of transport?! Please, will somebody in the know confirm you don't have to be some large educational institution or venerable museum? ;)
What about already submitted proposals? (Score:4, Informative)
National Museum of the United States Air Force, Dayton OH
Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum, NYC
Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Space Center Houston
Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum, Oregon
Tulsa Air and Space Museum
Museum of Flight, Seattle
Columbia Memorial Space Science Learning Center, Downey CA
Air Force Flight Test Center Museum, Edwards AFB, CA
San Diego Air and Space Museum
Palmdale Plant 42, CA
Re:Hollywood? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More than one Buran out there... (Score:1, Informative)
Endeavor seems a better choice as the "first", actually. Since it's a rebuild structural "airframe" that was used for static tests (so likely before Enterprise), to replenish the fleet with fully capable orbiter after Challenger disaster.
That is incorrect, you have conflated the histories of two different orbiters. Challenger was built out of a Static Test Article (STA-099). Endeavour (with a 'u') was built to replace Challenger and was made out of structural spares left over from the construction of Discovery and Atlantis. You are also forgetting the Space Shuttle Pathfinder, the first prototype.
For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_Vehicle_Designation
Re:MythBusters (Score:1, Informative)
You have the names the wrong way around. Jamie is the serious guy, Adam is the spazz.
Re:Keep them for reference (Score:4, Informative)
How could I scrap one of these shuttles
I don't know about this specific deal, but I do know about several artifact deals like this, and generally you never own it. You just have a semi-perpetual lease. The lease voids and you must return the artifact unless certain conditions are met, like the artifact must be generally accessible to the public, must be indoors in a climate controlled environment, must be maintained by professional conservators (not the janitor or handyman), must submit an annual report meeting the satisfaction of some military historical/conservation office, etc. Often there are restrictions on control by for-profit companies, and restrictions on commercial advertising, especially if the focus of the advertising is the artifact or there is any insinuation of government approval of the advertiser. And then there are the insurance requirements.
You're not going to be allowed to part the thing out on ebay for fundraising, without really weird special permission. Maybe, if one of the tires goes flat, you could get permission from congress to chop it up, attach sq cm pieces to wood plaques, and sell the plaques, maybe, and it would help if you gave relevant congressmen some free samples.
I've seen strange word drift with other "ownership" words, the word "owning" means nothing anymore. The majority of the people whom claim they "own" a house are actually renting from the bank via a mortgage. For a good laugh, if you think you "own" your land, try not paying rent (aka property tax) to your local govt for a couple years, and see who really owns "your" land. Then there are the people that say "I built my home" merely meaning they purchased it from the builder as opposed to purchasing from a real estate agent. In some parts of the country, "an apartment" is a rental and in other parts "an apartment" is what most people call a condo, "buying an apartment" is an oxymoron because by definition an apartment is a place you rent. Some places call a condo a "home", in other areas only a free standing single family shack is called a "home".
Same deal with the shuttles. You're not "buying a shuttle" you're getting a "free" lease with a thousand special conditions, and only paying for delivery. The govt will repossess, at your expense, if you try to do something unapproved with the artifact, or something they'll repossess just because they feel like it.
Re:There would be international buyers I am sure (Score:3, Informative)
Easier for them to just buy one of the successors of Russian RD-170 (the most powerful liquid-fueled rocket engine that ever existed); which, while most likely much simpler, have remarkable efficiency.
Plenty of places use those too, so there shouldn't be much a problem with finding one...
As a matter of fact, even US actively uses them: "Another variant, the RD-180 used on the Atlas V, replaced the three engines used on early Atlas rockets with a single engine and achieved significant payload and performance gains." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-170_(rocket_engine) [wikipedia.org] )
Re:Paid by the tax payer .... (Score:3, Informative)
And private collectors are not invited: "Organizations responding to this RFI must be: 1) a U.S. museum, institution, or organization dedicated to education or educational outreach, including NASA Visitor Centers; 2) a U.S. Federal agency, State, Commonwealth, or U.S. possession or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof; or 3) the District of Columbia."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/transition/home/int_orbiter_rfi.html [nasa.gov]
Re:More than one Buran out there... (Score:5, Informative)
The vehicle designators reveal the original plans for the orbiters and test articles. They are:
MPTA-098 non-flight worthy mockup Pathfinder (Its current appearance is largely decoration added after the fact)
STA-099 became OV-099 Challenger
OV-101 Enterprise (The first of the orbital vehicle series. Originally intended to undergo the conversion STA-099 went through)
OV-102 Columbia
OV-103 Discovery
OV-104 Atlantis
OV-105 Endeavour
It was determined that it would be cheaper to make Challenger out of STA-099 rather than perform the necessary upgrades to bring Enterprise up to space flight worthiness. Only cost concerns prevented it from becoming an operational shuttle.
Re:It's a trap (Score:4, Informative)
Heinlein did it first, and better, in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He threw multi-ton canisters of rock at earth.
Re:Hollywood? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you could get a little something done if, instead of using a Panavision or Arri body, you used a Canon 7D or 5DmkII (or RED Scarlett, whenever those become available), since its body and lenses are small enough to move around. But you need to have a minimum of like 10 people on the set at any one time, to act, direct, operate camera, pull focus, makeup, production design, grip, and light, and then you actually have to have proper lights for the scenes; it's complicated. You could only make it work if you were doing something verite or Dogma-95 style, and those movies generally don't make enough money to cover the $20 million you spent buying the thing :)
Re:Hollywood? (Score:3, Informative)
Regarding focus pulling, when you can't get more than about three or four feet away, you'll be using such a wide angle lens for even a simple two shot that I'd expect your depth of field to be almost infinite no matter what you do....
Your director, PD people, etc. can be physically outside the shuttle watching the feeds on a monitor. Think of it as being much like shooting a scene in a restroom stall. All the people are watching it on a screen because the camera operator is blocking the view of the entire set. :-)
You're also not going to have much room for lighting in that space, as you alluded to earlier. You could try using natural lighting for authenticity, though you'd probably get some pretty high contrast images that way.... You'd probably end up hanging a couple of LED panel lights in appropriate places with velcro or something---you know, the ones that are half an inch thick and wouldn't hurt much if they fell down on your head. Either way, it's an entirely different kind of lighting, and it's going to pretty much have to be "set it and forget it". By the time the camera person walks in the room, the lighting people would have to be out. It can be done, though.
Makeup people? Again, off the set. Actors walk out the airlock, makeup people work on them in the cargo bay.
In short, all the problems are solvable if you don't mind your entire cast and crew hating you for all eternity. It would lend itself best to a much smaller than normal crew, e.g. three people---the director/camera/lighting engineer, the audio/lighting engineer, and the makeup person. Or at the very least, lighting people who don't have a cow when the camera operator moves the LED panel three inches lower to get rid of a shadow for one shot.