Lawmakers Want a Space Shuttle In New York City 246
Hugh Pickens writes "Bloomberg reports that New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and a bipartisan delegation of 17 US representatives from New York and New Jersey have sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden calling for the agency to place a shuttle aboard the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York City. A former aircraft carrier, Intrepid served as one of NASA's recovery vehicles for early space flights. Intrepid officials have gathered almost 57,000 signatures on a petition to bring an orbiter to New York, and NASA is weighing 21 bids from visitors' centers, science museums and educational institutions eager to host one of the three aging space shuttles that will be retired this year. 'These are going to be like the Mona Lisa,' says space historian John Logsdon, referring to Leonardo da Vinci's iconic 1506 portrait of a woman in Florence that remains on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris. 'The primary criteria for the shuttles' location will be the stability of the site and whether the chosen institutions can exhibit them for the next 500 years.'"
500 years? (Score:2)
Are they serious? 500 years? Good night people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
quote from the submission which quoted from the fine article.
Re:500 years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but the Apollo/Saturn V center building was only completed in 1996. Prior to then, the rocket sat outside (near the VAB), and suffered severe damage from the salt air and weather exposure. The rocket was cosmetically restored prior to the opening of the new building.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah; last time I checked, there aren't *ANY* structures in North America that have been around for 500 years. (Some Southwestern Native American pueblos have sections that have been continuously occupied for longer than that, but not the same physical structure the whole time.)
Re: (Score:2)
They would like the institution to last 500 years, not the structure. It's not good for the historical items if the organisation who takes care of it goes belly up.
Then again, you could also argue that a 20th/21st century building is more likely to withstand 500 years of use than one from the 15th/16th century. Castles excepted, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Brick, hardwood and sandstone versus steel, glass and drywall...
I would bet on the 15th century buildings lasting longest.
Re: (Score:2)
There are thousands upon thousands of houses having more than 500 years in places where nobody threw bombs from the sky at us.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the cities (city?) carved into the cliff face somewhere in the USA? It's a long, long time since I visited, I don't remember what it was called.
I'm somewhat surprised how many thousand year old [wikipedia.org] buildings still exist. Seems like I should look round my own country some more...
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it more an example of surviving...cliff face or cavern?
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I was remembering: Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado [wikipedia.org]. It's only 800 years old, so technologically it's not very good in comparison to something like the Tower of London [wikipedia.org] (900 years old), but that made it more interesting to visit.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it more an example of surviving...cliff face or cavern?
No more so than a castle is surviving... quarry rocks.
These things aren't just natural caves that happen to look like homes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, by checking it up further - those are ruins; which were also partially rebuilt lately to more closely resemble their probable original look. Protected from the elements by building them under natural cover.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Teotihuacan [wikipedia.org]? The structures there have been around for about 2000 years. Admitted, they're no longer occupied.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for it.
Stick a sign in front of it:
Follies of th 20th century #7344
The Great White Elephant
Re: (Score:2)
I'd call it pink just to mess with their heads.
Re:500 years? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is just a knee-jerk reaction to what happened to the Russian space shuttle. After retirement (after one flight) it was stored in less-than-stable circumstances in Kazakhstan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)#Destruction [wikipedia.org]
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bbur89.jpg [buran.ru]
BTW, the Russian shuttle was largely a copy of the US shuttle, except they added some safety features. When the Russians start making safety improvements to your design, you know you have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wasn't a copy of the US shuttle - it didn't had thruster engines, only manoeuvre engines (thruster engines where on the Energia launch vehicle, which was a real launch vehicle unlike the US shuttle's fuel tank).
Re:500 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is quite strong consensus that it wasn't a copy, but independetly developed counterpart - and given the requirements for comparable missions and technology available at the time, the shape of Shuttle & Buran was pretty much the only sensible one...
Look at typical Airbus & Boeing aircraft. Or some biological examples [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I personally would not want to open a wormhole too close to a planet. Too many unknowns.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except this is kind of ridiculous. Who is going to care in even 150 years? While the Mona Lisa, as a work of art that moves the human imagination and touches something within each of us, is something truly special, the only thing special about the shuttle is the engineering that went into it (and for that we have the blue prints and videos).
Re: (Score:2)
The Mona Lisa is so well preserved because it's easy to preserve something that doesn't have multiple vectors of rot and decay, and it does not way something like 75 tons.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the space shuttle for ya. I'm not even sure the deck of the Intrepid can support something that heavy (I'm relatively certain that the SR-71 that was on its deck when I visited back around 1995 didn't way nearly that much).
Re: (Score:2)
The only reference, in both the submission and the article, to the Mona Lisa is in reference to how it should be stored (climate controlled, heavy security, etc.).
Hot Properties (Score:4, Interesting)
The Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinville, OR has a very nice collection of air and space exhibits. The "Spruce Goose," Howard Hughes' ill-fated wood composite transport plane, is on display there.
When the museum built a new hall, they designed it to hold a shuttle. The space isn't quite empty, but you can tell they really have a hole to fill.
I wonder what they'll do in what looks like the increasingly likely case that they won't get an orbiter? Maybe a Buran?
Re: (Score:2)
The Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinville, OR has a very nice collection of air and space exhibits.
McMinville Oregon you say? Why not just put the thing in Bumfuck Egypt [onlineslan...ionary.com]? It's slightly bigger than McMinville.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what they'll do in what looks like the increasingly likely case that they won't get an orbiter? Maybe a Buran?
Only if they have a lot of time to reconstruct one [bbc.co.uk]. While I do not know the ultimate fate of the Buran, but judging from the last [buran.ru] photos [buran.ru], I suspect it's in a landfill. Such a shame.
I'm going to miss the shuttle. I watched the first one go up on television at five years old. I had a copy the local newspaper proclaiming the launch in my room for decades. It is/was not a rocket, but an actual honest to god space ship. Yes it has it's problem. Yes, the requirements were repeatedly changed and made more s
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall an intact (maybe not every flying, just a sample/trial) buran got shipped to a museum in germany a couple years back.
link [life.com]
Don't suppose you could get them to give it up though.
Re: (Score:2)
The Buran was destroyed, but there are more "Burans proper" (actually orbiters); in various stages of completion (first one on the list below was almost completed)
http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-modele-102.php [buran-energia.com]
http://www.buran.ru/htm/2-01.htm [buran.ru]
http://www.k26.com/buran/Future/2.02/space_buran_2_02.html [k26.com]
And you know, pretty much all vehicles we use in space can be qualified as spacecraft / spaceships... I'd argue that things like Apollo, Soyuz, Progress, Shenzou or ATV (not to mention all deep
Re: (Score:2)
The Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinville, OR has a very nice collection of air and space exhibits. The "Spruce Goose," Howard Hughes' ill-fated wood composite transport plane, is on display there.
It's a superb museum, utter aerospace geek heaven. They've got a Blackbird. They've got a nuclear missile (no warhead), complete with control bunker. They've got a wonderful collection of aircraft engines. If you're in Portland (e.g., for OSCON [oscon.com]) then it's worth hiring a car and taking a trip out there.
Which Mona Lisa? (Score:5, Funny)
These are going to be like the Mona Lisa,' says space historian John Logsdon, referring to Leonardo da Vinci's iconic 1506 portrait of a woman in Florence that remains on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris
I'm glad he specified that. I wasn't sure what he was talking about with just a simple "Mona Lisa".
Get a book to see the Mona Lisa (Score:2)
Meh... maybe I am jaded, but half of these [google.com] more than give you the gist of what it is... being in front of it adds nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
From my research, it's not even the Mona Lisa that is the important painting in that hall. Rather it is the painting on the opposite wall that holds a clue to finding the Sangreal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh... maybe I am jaded, but half of these more than give you the gist of what it is... being in front of it adds nothing.
While I agree with the gist of the point you're making, I don't think you see realise the irony of pointing to a source with so many altered versions.
Anyone got a good link to a high res image of the original?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to answer my own question, Wikipedia to the rescue. High res original Mona Lisa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mona_Lisa.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Re:Which Mona Lisa? (Score:4, Insightful)
Little known fact: the name of that "woman" is also - Mona Lisa. What are the chances!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
referring to Leonardo da Vinci's iconic 1506 portrait of a woman in Florence that remains on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris
How do you know that the displayed shuttle is not a cheap copy made to save on the expense of displaying a real shuttle?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy...you press the "BLAST OFF" button to test.
Old news (Score:5, Interesting)
No one was interested when they saw the cost to transport, sanitize and decommission just one shuttle.
So what's happening now? Lawmakers= lobbiests for the NYC tourism board begging with the expectation the tax payers will foot the bill? A shuttle wouldn't last one year exposed to the elements on the deck of the Intrepid Sea. Might as well put them on Antiques Roadshow.
If anyone can afford it these days, it will be either Dubai or Shanghai.
Re: (Score:2)
Dubai is broke too. Had to borrow billions from Abu Dhabi.
Re:Old news (Score:4, Funny)
I'd go back to NYC just to see it (Score:4, Interesting)
The two are in the top echelon of most important aircraft of the latter half of the 20th century. I think it should be a no-brainer to put them in the same museum.
And for those who haven't been there yet - the Concorde does not sit on the deck of the Intrepid, it is on the Pier next to it. I don't know if there is room on the Pier for a Space Shuttle, but I suspect the staff there would find room for something of that importance.
Re:I'd go back to NYC just to see it (Score:4, Interesting)
If the goal is to make it last 500 years -- or even 100 -- it can't be outdoors, and you DEFINITELY won't be able to crawl around inside.
It seems to me that the Intrepid museum is a very poor choice for museum-quality long-term preservation. It doesn't have any real indoor climate-controlled space, does it?
Of the museums I've seen, the best choice I can think of would be the the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. The Chicago museum has more available indoor floorspace than any other museum of its kind I've seen. Just move one of their full-sized locomotives, or the 707, into the corner where the John Deere combines are.
Re: (Score:2)
The National Museum of the USAF [af.mil], located in Dayton, OH, seems like just as good of a choice.
It's about the same size (both claim to be about 1,000,000 square feet) as the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. And there's a request for petitioners (and money for another 200,000 square feet to house a shuttle) here [af.mil].
The shuttle, like other Air Force projects, belongs in a building next to the SR-71, F117A, an Apollo command module, a Mercury, a Gemini, and other fun stuff of that ilk. Placing it next to a
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, there is a reason for that...
Re:I'd go back to NYC just to see it (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. The Intrepid is a great museum, and one of my favorite places in the world. But it's very specifically a museum of durable things. Military aircraft and supersonic transports that are designed for all-weather.
The Space Shuttle is the very definition of a Hangar Queen. It takes tens of thousands of man hours of re-fitting for each flight. The tiles are delicate, and it's not really designed to be exposed to the elements long term. It might be able to be, but given it's track record, do we really want to risk it when there are only three remaining in existence?
Yes, they probably *could* get it into the hangar bay of the Intrepid, but given the shuttle's size, they may actually have to dismantle the ship to do so.
The Essex Class carrier has a deck elevator with dimensions of 60 ft x 34 ft [wapedia.mobi]. It's maximum load weight was 40,000 Lbs [globalsecurity.org]. The shuttle orbiter by comparison is 122.17 ft by 78.06 ft and weighs 151,205 lb. [wikipedia.org]
In other words, the orbiter weighs in (empty) at triple the capacity of the Intrepid's elevators. Even if they didn't use the elevators and used some kind of crane instead, it's still 78.06 ft on it's smaller dimension vs the deck opening's larger dimension which is 60 ft.
They'd have to dismantle either the Intrepid or the orbiter to get it inside. Even if they did, the hangar deck is hardly climate controlled to begin with...
To use the Intrepid site, they'd either have to dismantle part of the ship to get it inside, then extensively retrofit it to provide a climate controlled environment, or they'd have to build a new facility on the Pier along side Intrepid just to house the Shuttle. The Intrepid gets most of it's operating budget from admissions, memberships, and the occasional grant. I don't think it's going to go away tomorrow, but I do get the distinct impression that compared to the Smithsonian, or the Kennedy Space Center (both government funded), it's hanging on my the margins.
The 500 year rule makes sense to me. These are invaluable pieces of human history. The Apollo Command Modules are in the same class. The National Air And Space Museum in D.C. makes sense as a location for one. They already have the Columbia module from Apollo 11 [si.edu], which I assume we would want to maintain to the same standards. However, they also already have the orbiter prototype Enterprise, so it seems to make more sense to spread the three remaining orbiters to allow as many people as possible to have access to them as possible. Perhaps one one at Kennedy Space Center, and one in Houston, and one on the West Coast somewhere?
New York City would allow millions of people to have access. And Intrepid is the premier aerospace site in the city. But it's just not equipped or funded for something like this.
The Aerospace museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base [af.mil] may also be appropriate, but it has a distinct military aerospace bias.
Likewise Vandenberg Air Force Base in California could be a great site, as it was almost a second launch site for the Shuttle [wikipedia.org]. Having an orbiter wind up there permanently could be very apropos. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any museum or public exhibit at Vandenberg, which is a shame. Edwards Air Force Base [wikipedia.org] (Secondary shuttle landing site) and White Sands Space Harbor [nasa.gov] in New Mexico could be appropriate for similar reasons. But again, they're both military bases, and not terribl
You missed a big one. (Score:2)
You missed the US Space & Rocket Center [wikipedia.org] in Huntsville Alabama. It is located near to the NASA Marshall Space Center, and is where Space Camp occurs. It is one of the main museums from the von Braun era including original V2, Redstone, Jupiter and Saturn 1B and V rockets. It currently holds the shuttle mass-mock-up Pathfinder, but it would be awesome to have an actual retired shuttle at Space Camp.
My choices would be: Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, Kennedy Space Center and US Space and Rocket Center,
Re: (Score:2)
It has a huge indoor climate controlled space. The entire hangar deck is, atm, a nice, but somewhat sparse air-conditioned museum. I don't know the dimensions, though, it might be a tight squeeze, and it might not even be possible to get something the size of an orbiter in there without making temporary hull modifications to improve an opening.
The main problem I see with the Intrepid is.. it's a boat. It's not going to last 500 years, even if the HVAC keeps getting repaired. At some point you're going t
Ironic.... (Score:2, Insightful)
So it seems that the public and some elected representatives still have an enthusiasm for Space and NASA, even if legislators at the federal level don't.
L8r.
No... (Score:5, Insightful)
'These are going to be like the Mona Lisa,' says space historian John Logsdon
Not really. Despite how much we like to think that we've advanced since 1969, we really haven't. I think the shuttle will be remembered like the Pentium 4, interesting, useful, but a technological dead end. Perhaps things would be different if America actually had a vision of space, but since the cold war ended we've had the worst of all worlds. Lack of willingness for the government to fund public spaceflights and lack of government cooperation for private spaceflight. Apollo will be remembered like the Mona Lisa, it was a large achievement in spaceflight. The shuttle? Unless something -major- comes out of the development of it, I think we will remember it more for Challenger and Columbia than anything else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you except for this:
I think the shuttle will be remembered like the Pentium 4, interesting, useful, but a technological dead end.
Except that when Intel dropped the P4 they had something much better to replace it with. It was a planned and thought-out transition. The shuttle? No better replacement, no real plan.
I also don't see why you'd call the vehicle itself a dead end. Why can't the design be expanded and improved?
I think a better comparison could be between the shuttle and the Pentium 3. I
Re: (Score:2)
We do have something better than the shuttle to replace it with. Nothing. Many of us would jump at the chance to work for Nasa, but every dollar they spend is a dollar extracted from an american citizen under the threat of violence. What do they do that justifies it?
If a donation or for-profit manned-flight organization wouldn't work, then the people would vote with their dollars what they cannot vote with their votes: they don't want it.
Government waste sucks, even when they're wasting it on something I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shuttle can be considered a dead end because the characteristics profoundly influencing its design (ability to bring large cargo down, ability to return after few orbits to launching base, "reusability" of the EarthLEO vehicle) were found to be largely worthless. More efficient means for doing LEO while at the same time having a vehicle capable of beyond LEO operation is better (for the latter the Shuttle design is especially worthless; airframe characteristics even less useful)
Pentium 3 (which never really
Re: (Score:2)
But vehicle like Shuttle wasn't necessary for that - heck, ISS built heavily on Russian experiences (US even was eager to learn them via Mir...); yes, current Shuttle was required to build large part of ISS, but only because that part was designed with Shuttle in mind - major Russian modules performed autonomous rendezvouz; minor Russian, European and Japanese modules also do so.
NYC will be a bay in 500 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not put it somewhere that isn't nuclear terrorist target #1?
NYC exists on granite bedrock (Score:4, Interesting)
even if NYC were nuked, after they perfect the radiation eating nanobots in 2398, it will still be a nice place for a city, since most other coastal cities are built at river mouths on silt, and will mostly likely be sunk under water, or, if on the west coast, taking a ride to alaska on the san andreas fault express
nyc is actually one of the best natural places to have a city in terms of seismic stability, metereological stability, geological strength, stable high quality aquifer, geographic strategical location (the hudson river->erie canal->great lakes), political stability, etc
yes. one of the best municipal water in the world (Score:3)
in terms of taste, quality, quantity, and stability
and here's some breaking news for you on the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/science/earth/24drill.html [nytimes.com]
You want it to last 500 years? (Score:2)
Seal it up in transparent lucite panels. The smithsonian could probably do it and still make the vast majority of the ship viewable by visitors.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's no question the Smithsonian is getting one: the question is, where should the other two go?
Re: (Score:2)
The Enterprise doesn't count. It's more of a mockup than a prototype. Slightly more sophisticated than writing SPACE SHIP on the side of a cardboard box with Sharpie, but it ain't launchable hardware.
Mona Lisa- a good comparison or a bad one? (Score:2)
Not NTC: KSC, Houston And The Smithsonian Instead (Score:5, Insightful)
I really cannot think of why New York deserves one, the city made little to no real contribution to the Shuttle program. They are simply leveraging politics to get another tourist draw for nothing. That's not a good enough reason.
Instead of making one of the retiring orbiters a political kewpie doll, they should instead go to the following cities:
1) Kennedy Space Center.
It's where the launches and a large number of landings occurred, and that puts the spacecraft into context -- especially because there's a restored Saturn V hanging in the Apollo Center, the VAB and the launch pads are there, and a visitor will be able to see the launch site...not to mention ongoing space activities, whatever they are.
2) Houston
For many of the same reasons as KSC, Houston deserves an orbiter because it was the site of the bulk of training facilities, because it is the ongoing center for American manned space operations and because it too has a restored Saturn V to complement the orbiter.
3) The Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
This is the final resting place for most all of America's flighted space hardware, and an orbiter simply must join Apollo 11's capsule, the Mercury capsules, along with the other important space and aerospace artifacts. Yes, the Smithsonian currently has a flight-test body, but it could give that up in exchange for an orbiter.
Which in turn leads me to say that the Enterprise could go to New York, although I would prefer to see it go to the west coast to a museum there so that Shuttle hardware is located across the geography of the country.
Re:Not NTC: KSC, Houston And The Smithsonian Inste (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that New York is a piss-poor choice: as I've posted elsewhere, the Intrepid is a lousy place to preserve historically-significant machinery. Outdoors in the salt air? No.
No argument about the Smithsonian either: it's *the* federal museum.
But I'm not sure about KSC and Space Center Houston. They've got a lot of great stuff, but I consider their mission to be primarily the business of spaceflight, with tourism and museum projects second. Also, I'd like to see key space artifacts spread around the country, both so they can inspire a wider range of people, and so that a really nasty hurricane can't wipe out *all* of our space artifacts in one go.
Me, I'm voting for the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, which does a great job of preserving and displaying really big machinery, gets a *ton* of visitors, and could use a centerpiece like this.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what, that's probably the best answer I've seen after the Smithsonian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not NTC: KSC, Houston And The Smithsonian Inste (Score:2)
I'm 100% with your first and last choices. As far as I know, Discovery is already allocated to the NASM Udvar-Hazy Annex at Dulles, presumably to replace Enterprise (which could then be moved elsewhere). KSC is a complete no-brainer, IMHO: one of them must be there, where they spent so very much of their lives. I had a VIP tour through the Orbiter Processing Facility a few weeks ago and was almost in tears when I got to see Endeavour at extremely close quarters (and to actually touch it), thinking that thi
Re: (Score:2)
Houston's space museum is quite good, but also sort of out of the way in the suburbs. It has a large "rocket park" with a bunch of things, and has tours of one of the giant pools used for low-G training, the original Apollo mission-command room, and (when not in use) the current mission-command room. The cons are mainly that it's in suburban Houston. The pros are that there isn't much in Houston, so it actually gets quite a few visitors, because it's one of the main things a tourist does if they're in south
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with 1 and 3. Houston I'm not sold on. A lot more people would have the opportunity to see it in NYC than Houston.
Re: (Score:2)
former? (Score:2)
Former aircraft carrier? I am pretty sure it is still carrying aircraft. I guess you could say it is a "former aircraft" carrier, as the planes on her no longer fly.
Wall street bankers (Score:2)
JFK was an emergency landing site. (Score:2)
Attach them all to the space station (Score:2)
you let MIR die... (Score:2)
America, your make me sick.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
NY is a Poor choice - Cleopatra's Needle (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless they are going to put the Shuttle Indoors, this is a horrible decision. If you're ever in NY go check out Cleopatra's Needle, which has been in Central park since 1881, but were built in ancient Egypt in around 1450 BC out of solid granite.
According to the USGS [usgs.gov]:
The surface of the stone is heavily weathered, nearly masking the rows of hieroglyphs engraved on all sides. Photographs taken near the time the obelisk was erected in the park show that the inscriptions were still quite legible. The stone had lain in the Egyptian desert for nearly 3000 years but undergone little weathering. In a little more than a century in the climate of New York City, pollution and acid rain have heavily pitted its surfaces.
Good luck keeping the shuttle safe on an aircraft carrier, on the ocean from crumbling in a few years.
Re:Europe (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Headlines are often supposed to leave a bit of mystery. Whether you like that or not is up to you, but it's unlikely to ever change as long as there are headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad slashdot doesn't employ anyone with journalism or editing experience, they would have caught that and come up with a more meaningful headline.
I'm more concerned about readers who fail at context recognition. Context recognition is one thing humans do very well but AI apparently do poorly. I'm concerned that you may be an evil AI. Bad jokes aside, there was exactly one reasonable interpretation of this headline. That interpretation fit exactly with what was actually happening. Just because the headline could mean other things that have very different meanings and simply wouldn't make sense in the world we live in is not a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
If Slashdot employed journalists with real professional headline-writing experience, the headline would've been something like: Schumer Shoots to Snag Shutdown Shuttle for NY Ship
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd worry more about the country lasting that long
Just like the Mona Lisa has outlived the Duchy of Milan, hopefully early space-age artifacts will outlive the nations which created them...
but that's not gonna happen if they're sitting outdoors on a rusting aircraft carrier.
Re: (Score:2)
Yu can still watch it, if you know the link: :)
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/1405/ [southparkstudios.com]
http://www.southpark.de/alleEpisoden/1405/?lang=en [southpark.de] (German site)
http://btjunkie.org/search?q=south+park+S14E05 [btjunkie.org] (BitTorrent meta search)
You’re welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will it include a deep-fisting Shiva or even Ganesh, and Xenu as a dominatrix?
Oh, and of course a very specific burning goat [bash.org] and a pterodactyl [pornotube.com]! (Obviously NSFW!)
Re: (Score:2)
Try and force your religious beliefs on me with violence and you'll discover that violence is a two way street.
I'll drink to that!
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom isn't free as they say
As Trey Parker [youtube.com] sang in fact:
Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Naw there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck o' five
Who will?
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the exploded 747 hanging from someone's ceiling in Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
err umm nm, re-read, it's not to have a launch point . . . but a museum piece. Boy I feel stupid, guess the idiots in politics is making me crazy where I think they would do something that stupid . . .