I don't care if I was risking getting fired for taking a day off from work, but if need be, I will call out of work for this! This is something I would never get to see again.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
I don't care if I was risking getting fired for taking a day off from work, but if need be, I will call out of work for this! This is something I would never get to see again.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
Agreed. We need to pay close attention to when / where, and then all figure out the best spot to watch (even for us who don't photograph)Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1840
I cannot wait to see her arrive at JFK... Rest assured, I will be there, either watching her from my perch or down next to the runway when she does come in. And, for once I will actually take LEVEL pictures of something landing when it happens. Hahaha (Tommy will get that one)
ERIC ROCKS!!!! :cool:
Awww feeling a little left out are we? All are major tourist destinations over dreary seattle and the midwest. This way they get the most exposure not just for Citizens of the US but for people around the world who tend to take vacations to places like NY and not Seattle, Chicago or Houston.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
From the NASA document requesting applications for the shuttles, they said one of the requirements was a nearby airfield capable of handing the SCA, as all shuttles would be flown to their final destinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
And since we've been talking about Enterprise for the past two days, here's a look at what we are getting...
http://www.moose135photography.com/T..._nFdNR-L-2.jpg
http://www.moose135photography.com/T..._k4ueZ-L-3.jpg
Was it ever outfitted with engines? I don't think it was but it would be cool to get it with the engines. I could care less about the heat shields.
I can't recall where, but I'm pretty sure I read that NASA plans on removing all of the engines/propulsion units from the decommissioned shuttles and replacing them with high quality replicas. Apparently, the main engines are still very highly prized by NASA. As for Enterprise, doesn't seem that they ever installed real engines.
The original plan back in the 70's was to bring Enterprise (OV-101) up to spaceworthy status by adding engines and a TPS. (The tiles you see are only foam not the real deal) During the construction of Columbia (OV-102) NASA and the contractor learned a lot of things and how to do them better. One major item was how to make the orbiters lighter in order to carry more payload by using the new construction techniques and materials. These techniques were eventually applied to Discovery (OV-103) and Atlantis (OV-104). When time came to retrofit Enterprise they took a hard look at the cost and the deconstruction that would be required to bring her up to the new standards. It would not be economical.
NASA had constructed another partial orbiter for testing, STA-99. Ironically this vehicle helped to show NASA what sections of the vehicle were "overbuilt" as they did not see as much stressing as thought, resulting in the new lighter shuttles. It was decided to use this vehicle as the basis of the next shuttle and just build the parts they needed new. She became Challenger. When she was tragically lost, and a replacement was approved, Enterprise was looked at again to be upgraded. But NASA had such a cache of spare parts (tail, wings, crew compartment etc..) from when they thought the shuttles would make dozens of flights to get to 100 or so each, and assumed that some parts might need replacement. The projected flight rate never materialized, so NASA again found it more economical to just use these parts and build a new one, Endeavor (OV-105).
The article covers the inspections on Enterprise:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...y-smithsonian/
Yes they did find some corrosion and it is being repaired. Most likely from the decade it spent sitting in a hangar at IAD before UH was built.
She WILL be flown to NY on the SCA that's a given. Most likely after Discovery is flown to IAD to UH, to swap for Enterprise.
So the next question is will Intrepid have the new hangar built (and the $$$) in time for when this happens? If not where would she go in the mean time? I'm also willing to bet that when she comes to NY there will be a photo op/fly-by over the SOL and 'I'. :cool:
With relation to the Enterprise being the only non flight worthy of the fleet as far as space goes... Are those just OMS cover's on it or wwere the plumbing and compartments completely left out of it from the get go as it was strictly flown for landing testing.
Enterprise never had engines or plumbing for them installed. From the Smithsonian's site:
They did have the capacity to add them later, if needed. After both the Challenger and Columbia disasters, some thought was given to upgrading Enterprise to flight status. With advances made during the shuttle program, this was rejected, as Enterprise was heavier, and had different structural elements, than the operational orbiters.Quote:
...this vehicle has no propulsion system and only simulated thermal tiles because these features were not needed for atmospheric and ground tests.
I for one am infuriated at the decision. And the mood in Houston is total outrage, including a lot of the NASA workers/astronauts who feel like they've been slapped in the face. No offense to you guys in New York, but come on...Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
The shuttle was designed and dreamed up in Houston.
The astronauts who flew it lived and trained in Houston.
The missions the shuttle flew were controlled from Houston.
What were they smoking thinking NYC is more deserving of an orbiter than Houston? The Space City? Florida I can understand, Air and Space Museum I can understand. LA, near NASA Drydon I can understand. But Houston deserves an orbiter WAAAAAAAAAAY more than the Intrepid...instead we just get two seats pulled off it.
Anyway, Congressional inquiries are in the works to figure out what led to this decision, and maybe, MAYBE it can result in an Orbiter being rerouted to Houston, NASA's HOME, where it belongs.
1. more people will see it
50. we paid more in taxes then Houston
NASA decided it not us. It to me is simple....more people will see it in NYC than any other place....
Why should it be in LA, it is Not Dryden.....
Sorry Moose, I had to do it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derf
Houston was basically told by the White House it was a political move to rustle up votes...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7518917.html
Anyway, it doesn't matter which city has more tourists, it would honor those tens of thousands who have devoted their blood, sweat, and tears to the program.
Votes for what? NY will never vote Republican in the general or Senate seats and now that we have a Dem Gov who basically governs like a Republican so I don't see how that made every difference. My bet is it's money and Fred is right many more people will see it in NY than in Houston. Florida I can give you because Obama will have a very tough time carrying that state but CA and NY? Both states vote Dem no matter how horrid the candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perriwen