Rockets and Shuttles

[djr5899]

Just got back from a vacation to Washington, DC.  Have some pictures from both Air and Space museums, including Discovery Shuttle, Saturn V F1 mainstage engine, Gemini capsules, Lunar Lander, etc.  Check em out in the Imgur album below if you are interested.

https://imgur.com/a/SBtjLOc

[magnemoe]

27 minutes ago, djr5899 said:

Just got back from a vacation to Washington, DC.  Have some pictures from both Air and Space museums, including Discovery Shuttle, Saturn V F1 mainstage engine, Gemini capsules, Lunar Lander, etc.  Check em out in the Imgur album below if you are interested.

https://imgur.com/a/SBtjLOc

Nice, has been at KSC, looks like DC has more Gemini and the post Saturn 5 rockets outside of the shuttle. 
I can not go to DC because I will get to many Fallout 3 flashback  

[tater]

Link doesn't work for me.

[mikegarrison]

I flew in to DC a few years ago and deliberately went through Dulles instead of National just so I would have a chance to swing by the Udvar-Hazy Gallery. It's a lot more fun than the NASM on the Mall because it's got way more airplanes and spacecraft actually on display.

The best is still the National Museum Of The US Air Force, in Dayton OH, but the Smithsonian is pretty good. (The Seattle Museum of Flight is also quite good.)

[K^2]

The problem with Dayton is that unless you live in Ohio, it's hard to come up with excuse to go there. But it's a great museum. I still think I got a better kick out of Udvar-Hazy, but maybe because I like really big aircraft, and it delivers on that. If you want to see a great variety of "smaller" aircraft with no distractions, Dayton is definitely the place to go.

[mikegarrison]

8 minutes ago, K^2 said:

The problem with Dayton is that unless you live in Ohio, it's hard to come up with excuse to go there. But it's a great museum. I still think I got a better kick out of Udvar-Hazy, but maybe because I like really big aircraft, and it delivers on that. If you want to see a great variety of "smaller" aircraft with no distractions, Dayton is definitely the place to go.

GE Evendale plant is pretty close to Dayton. That's what has taken me there.

[djr5899]

19 hours ago, tater said:

Link doesn't work for me.

  Not sure why.  I thought maybe it could be an account type issue, but I was able to right click, open Incognito, and it still worked for me.

16 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I flew in to DC a few years ago and deliberately went through Dulles instead of National just so I would have a chance to swing by the Udvar-Hazy Gallery. It's a lot more fun than the NASM on the Mall because it's got way more airplanes and spacecraft actually on display.

The best is still the National Museum Of The US Air Force, in Dayton OH, but the Smithsonian is pretty good. (The Seattle Museum of Flight is also quite good.)

Yes, visiting both the DC museum and the Udvar-Hazy, the latter was definitely better.  DC Museum is more about the displays and exhibiting a collection, where Udvar-Hazy seems to be more "get as many planes in here as possible."  Still nice plaques with information on all the planes/pieces, but much easier to take in and see everything in Udvar-Hazy.

[Bill Phil]

Yeah. NASM is pretty sweet.

I used to visit the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola when I was in the area visiting family. It's got a plane hangar stylized as a carrier deck, which is pretty cool. Not many spacecraft, though.

[tater]

30 minutes ago, djr5899 said:

but I was able to right click, open Incognito, and it still worked for me.

This worked. Odd.

[djr5899]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

Yeah. NASM is pretty sweet.

I used to visit the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola when I was in the area visiting family. It's got a plane hangar stylized as a carrier deck, which is pretty cool. Not many spacecraft, though.

Would love to get to Wright Patterson as well.  Did Smithsonian Air and Space in DC, Udvar-Hazy in Virginia, and went to USS Intrepid in NY a few years ago.  Oddly enough, Kennedy Space Center is only 2-3 hours up the road from me and I have yet to be go there.  Likely on the to do list over the next year or so, to add seeing the 3rd Space Shuttle.  Saw Discovery at Udvar-Hazy, Enterprise on USS Intrepid.  Atlantis is in Kennedy.  Not sure I'd make it out to LA anytime soon to see Endeavour.

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, djr5899 said:

Would love to get to Wright Patterson as well.  Did Smithsonian Air and Space in DC, Udvar-Hazy in Virginia, and went to USS Intrepid in NY a few years ago.  Oddly enough, Kennedy Space Center is only 2-3 hours up the road from me and I have yet to be go there.  Likely on the to do list over the next year or so, to add seeing the 3rd Space Shuttle.  Saw Discovery at Udvar-Hazy, Enterprise on USS Intrepid.  Atlantis is in Kennedy.  Not sure I'd make it out to LA anytime soon to see Endeavour.

I am still extremely annoyed that NASA gave New York the shuttle that should have come to Seattle. They admitted that Seattle had the better application and should have received the shuttle except that when they evaluated it they did not count Canadians as foreign visitors.

IMO it was really about Congressional politics. New York had more clout and so NASA gave them the shuttle.

[tater]

There are 4 Orbiters left. One really doesn't count (Enterprise). One at KSC is a no-brainer, as is the one in LA (since the Orbiters were built in Palmdale, right?). Seems like the remaining 2 need to either be spread around to minimize travel time for Americans to see them, or one should probably be at JSC in TX.

The trouble with TX is that 3 would then be in the South.

As it is, one is extreme SW US, another is SE US. Chicago would be a good, central location for the third real orbiter, though I suppose it's worth looking at travel times vs pop density. (Houston is about as far from Chicago as Seattle is from LA).

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, tater said:

There are 4 Orbiters left. One really doesn't count (Enterprise). One at KSC is a no-brainer, as is the one in LA (since the Orbiters were built in Palmdale, right?). Seems like the remaining 2 need to either be spread around to minimize travel time for Americans to see them, or one should probably be at JSC in TX.

The trouble with TX is that 3 would then be in the South.

As it is, one is extreme SW US, another is SE US. Chicago would be a good, central location for the third real orbiter, though I suppose it's worth looking at travel times vs pop density. (Houston is about as far from Chicago as Seattle is from LA).

It's done. They aren't moving them again.

And Enterprise counts a lot more than what they did palm off on Seattle, which was the wooden cargo bay mockup. Of course the Smithsonian would get one and NASA would keep at least one for itself. But it was damn annoying that they set out criteria for where the others would go and then wink-wink-nod-nod violated their own criteria to put one in New York.

At the time they gave Seattle the mockup they said all sorts of stuff about how it was just as interesting as a real shuttle, blah, blah, blah. But notice on their website, the mockup isn't mentioned because, after all, it's just a bunch of plywood with an interesting history: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/shuttle_station/features/shuttle_map.html

Edited August 1, 2018 by mikegarrison

[tater]

2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It's done. They aren't moving them again.

And Enterprise counts a lot more than what they did palm off on Seattle, which was the wooden cargo bay mockup. Of course the Smithsonian would get one and NASA would keep at least one for itself. But it was damn annoying that they set out criteria for where the others would go and then wink-wink-nod-nod violated their own criteria to put one in New York.

I'm not disagreeing on the one in NY, and I know they aren't moving, my point was that to me, 2 placements always made sense (KSC and somewhere near where they were built), and that however they decided what to do with the other 2 , it was not ideal, it was political. Ideally they'd have made it as easy as possible for the maximal number of citizens to be within some distance of them. Seems like one should have been someplace in the middle of the country---course that leaves 1 more either NE, or NW.

Oh, wait, you're right about DC (Smithsonian) as well. Having decided that LA/KSC/DC were gonna be 3 of the 4, that makes one in the NW make a lot more sense (I forgot DC, even if rationally I think it should have been in Chicago).

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, tater said:

There are 4 Orbiters left. One really doesn't count (Enterprise). One at KSC is a no-brainer, as is the one in LA (since the Orbiters were built in Palmdale, right?). Seems like the remaining 2 need to either be spread around to minimize travel time for Americans to see them, or one should probably be at JSC in TX.

The trouble with TX is that 3 would then be in the South.

As it is, one is extreme SW US, another is SE US. Chicago would be a good, central location for the third real orbiter, though I suppose it's worth looking at travel times vs pop density. (Houston is about as far from Chicago as Seattle is from LA).

Well, a good chunk of the space program is in the South...

We should get one here in Huntsville...

Instead we have a mockup.

[mikegarrison]

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/Review_NASAs_Selection_Display_Locations.pdf

Quote

In summary, we found that NASA’s decisions regarding Orbiter placement were the result of an Agency-created process that emphasized above all other considerations locating the Orbiters in places where the most people would have the opportunity to view them. The Agency was not required to and did not consider a location’s ties to the Space Shuttle Program but, as directed by the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, considered whether the chosen locations had a connection to NASA’s human spaceflight program.

However, we found that the Team made several errors during its evaluation process, including one that would have resulted in a numerical “tie” among the Intrepid, the Kennedy Visitor Complex, and the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force (Air Force Museum) in Dayton, Ohio.

The Team awarded points to each of these respondents based on the following nine criteria:
• Commitment to Funding (Yes = 15 points; No = 0 points): commitment to fund display preparation, ferry flight, and transportation from the local airport to the display location.
• Funding Risk (Have Funds = 10 points; Must Finance/Fundraise = 5 points): ability to readily fund the costs of displaying an Orbiter.
• Facility Availability (Existing or Under Construction = 10 points; Can Build to Meet Deadline = 5 points): whether respondent had a facility to house an Orbiter upon receipt.
• Transportation Effort/Risk (Low = 10 points; Moderate = 5 points; High = 0 points): ability to transport an Orbiter from the local airport to the display site.
• Meet Delivery Schedule (Yes = 10 points; No = 0 points): ability to meet NASA’s delivery schedule.
• Attendance (Over 800,000 = 15 points; 300,000 to 800,000 = 10 points; 50,000 to 300,000 = 5 points; Less than 50,000 = 0 points): annual attendance.
• Regional Population (Over 12 million = 10 points; 1 million to 12 million = 5 points; Less than 1 million = 0 points): based on metropolitan population estimates obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau.
• International Access (Over 2 million = 15 points; 1 million to 2 million = 10 points; Less than 1 million = 5 points): based on data obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of Travel and Tourism Industries.
• Museum Certification (American Association of Museums or Smithsonian Affiliate) (Yes = 10 points; No = 0 points): certification or accreditation, if any, with the American Association of Museums or the Smithsonian Institution.

The Seattle Museum Of Flight protested this, saying they had been incorrectly scored for attendance and also incorrectly scored for "foreign visitors" because the proximity to Canada had been ignored. NASA essentially replied, "Oh well."

(Also, the Intrepid got 5 points for "being able to build a facility in time for the deadline" but in fact they did not build a facility until after they already had the shuttle, whereas the Museum Of Flight had a building already waiting. Nobody got a zero on this, however, so I guess NASA just took people at their word when they said they would be able to build a building in time.)

Edited August 1, 2018 by mikegarrison

[tater]

^^^ very interesting, indeed. I forgot about Dayton (and I've even been there!), that's perhaps better than Chicago, except for air traffic considerations.I consider LA pretty close to NM, and it's an 11-12 hour drive

 

I remember when Enterprise was in a tent on the fantail of Intrepid. We always visit Intrepid with the kids since their grandpa was surgeon aboard her.

[djr5899]

17 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I am still extremely annoyed that NASA gave New York the shuttle that should have come to Seattle. They admitted that Seattle had the better application and should have received the shuttle except that when they evaluated it they did not count Canadians as foreign visitors.

IMO it was really about Congressional politics. New York had more clout and so NASA gave them the shuttle.

Curious and I likely lack the knowledge (not trying to offend), but why Seattle?  What is the tie in to Seattle and the shuttle program (Boeing?)?  You are correct about the politics.  After I returned, I was reading up on the four shuttle locations and the bidding that went into it, and how it was overly political.  To me, Kennedy was a no brainer to get one.  California makes sense since a large portion of the shuttle build program was based in Palmdale, CA.  That leaves two left, and, I agree that Houston should have gotten one, with their presence of NASA and Mission Control.  That also would have satisfied the central area location.  I would have given the Enterprise to either NY or DC, based on visitor traffic, and, according to what I heard last week, Smithsonian Air and Space museum is the number one museum in the country in visitors per year (they cheat because the count both the DC and Virginia locations as one).

Kennedy, Houston, California, and DC should be the locations......but, it's done and my voice means nothing on the matter.   Just glad I have seen two of them, and of the two I haven't seen, one is only 3 hours away from me.

[wumpus]

On 7/30/2018 at 4:43 PM, mikegarrison said:

I flew in to DC a few years ago and deliberately went through Dulles instead of National just so I would have a chance to swing by the Udvar-Hazy Gallery. It's a lot more fun than the NASM on the Mall because it's got way more airplanes and spacecraft actually on display.

The best is still the National Museum Of The US Air Force, in Dayton OH, but the Smithsonian is pretty good. (The Seattle Museum of Flight is also quite good.)

12 year old me went to The Air Force museum in Dayton and was only mildly impressed.  I was spoiled by plenty of time in the Smithsonian museums (and that was long before Udvar-Hazy [the Dulles extension] opened), although obviously Dayton had many more planes.

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, djr5899 said:

What is the tie in to Seattle and the shuttle program (Boeing?)?

The shuttles were not placed according to any tie to the shuttle program. That was never a consideration. It was done supposedly to maximize the number of visitors who would see them.

Also, why two in the Mid-Atlantic and none north of LA or west of the Atlantic Coast? And lastly, the Museum Of Flight had already built a new building specifically designed to hold a shuttle. Not only did New York have to stick theirs in a tent at first, but the more permanent shelter they built is still kind of a flimsy-looking building sitting out on top of their carrier deck.

Edited August 1, 2018 by mikegarrison

[Gargamel]

On 7/30/2018 at 4:43 PM, mikegarrison said:

The best is still the National Museum Of The US Air Force, in Dayton OH,

I try to get down there every few years or so, it's only a few hour drive for me.   The one thing that upset me last time I was down there was one of their IMAX offerings.  I don't remember the details, but it was a movie produced by the USAF, about the USAF, but for some stupid reason, they had to resort to using CGI special effects for bomb blasts and such.  On actual targets, on an actual bombing range.   The effects were horrible, and I figured it would have been easier and cheaper for them to just use real bombs for the movie.