Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Eclipses Yield First Images of Elusive Iron Line in Solar Corona
Next: What happens when all dimensions are doubled overnight?
From: David Spain on 7 Jan 2010 21:12 "Jonathan" <Home(a)Again.net> writes: > Hmm, could a business be built around using an orbiter as a tourist > attraction? Use it like a simulator and sell 'stick time' to wannabe > astronauts and rich kids alike? Make a hellova billboard having > an orbiter sitting out front for all to see. As far as selling simulated 'stick time' to would be astronauts I think the answer is known and is 'yes' even without an orbiter and spending $42 million. http://www.spacecamp.com/details.php?cat=Space&program=Adult+Programs Dave
From: Jorge R. Frank on 7 Jan 2010 22:12 OM wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:05:20 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank" > <jrfrank(a)ibm-pc.borg> wrote: > >> OM wrote: >>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:23:55 -0800 (PST), Charlie X. Murphy, L2 >>> sycophant <charliexmurphy(a)yahoo.com> arrogantly quiffed: >>> >>>> NASM does get one to exchange with Enterprise >>> ...Care to cite source? Or is that only available with an L2 purchase? >> <http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/11/which-museum-will-get-space-shuttle.shtml> >> <http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2010/01/predictions-for-coming-year-in-space.shtml> > > ...Thanks, Jorge. Should have asked you first, rather than someone > with no credibility in my book. > >> OM, NASM has first dibs on orbiters, period. > > ...This was never argued against from my end, I should stress. > >> They could, in theory, take a flown orbiter *and keep* Enterprise, > > ...With this in mind, I could see Enterprise being sent to JSC. > Considering that JSC has a higher visitor flow than Seatlle does, last > I looked, and JSC's place in the public eye, for them not to get a > Shuttle would take a *lot* of explaining. An old high school buddy is > my rep in the state legislature, and I may ask her about this at our > next reunion planning meeting. Well, the decisions have not been made, so there is still time for local efforts to result in something. But if the State Leg really wants an orbiter, they will get much better results if they appropriate a few million to replace the temporary building housing the Saturn V at JSC with a nicer permanent building that happens to be large enough to house an orbiter as well, rather than just trying to put political pressure on NASM. Oh, and they could also pony up a few million more to dredge out Clear Lake and restore the barge landing at NASA Parkway near the Hilton so that an orbiter could be barged in. (It *would* fit under the Kemah bridge; I was skeptical until I went on a boat ride under it and eyeball-measured it.) >> The smart money right now is on: >> >> 101 - Seattle Museum of Flight > > ...Arguments against that are cost. Last I heard. SMF's having some > financial difficulties. Nothing door-closing yet, but enough to rule > out building a special extension for something like a Shuttle. Last I heard, their building is large enough. That carries a lot of weight with NASM - they want to send orbiters to facilities that have permanent accommodations *now*. They don't want to send them to temporary facilities where they will languish for years while a permanent building is being constructed. And yes, I know that's hypocritical since the NASM did the exact same thing with Enterprise at Dulles before Udvar-Hazy was built. Unfortunately, they hold the high cards and they can do that. >> 104 - USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson > > ...Considering how the Air Farce regarded the shuttle, I'd be *really* > surprised if they even got Pathfinder. Trust me, if *NASA* was making the decision, they wouldn't get one. If it were *me* making the decision, I'd send Enterprise to Dryden/Edwards since 1) it has historical ties there, 2) it still gives the USAF "half an orbiter" and 3) it puts an orbiter on the West coast within driving distance of tens of millions of people, which in my mind makes it a better site than Seattle (which is within driving distance of nothing but Seattle) or Wright-Patterson (which is within driving distance of Udvar-Hazy). Nevertheless, the USAF is pushing for an orbiter and their museum at Wright-Patt is both large enough and well-equipped to preserve one, so odds are they will get one. >> JSC gets locked out due to bad blood with NASM due to the treatment of >> the Saturn V, and Seattle gets Enterprise because Bonnie Dunbar is the >> president and is pushing hard to get an orbiter. > > ...AIUI, much of the "bad blood" was really more NASM not willing to > help with any of the upkeep since the stack first wound up at JSC in > the mid 70's. At least that's what some of the guys involved in the > fundraising for the enclosure were telling people during the hat > passings. While that might be true, that's not the NASM's view of things, so it won't matter. Victory gets written by the historians, or history gets written by the victors, something like that. > As for Bonnie, there's more Astronauts in and around JSC > than there are Seattle, and I suspect if it came down to throwing > "astropower" around, Bonnie for all her credibility would still lose > the toss. She does have a building, which is a pretty strong trump card. > ...On a side note, does the NASM also have "bad blood" with Marshall > over the outdoor nature of their stack? The stack at MSFC is the Dynamic Test Vehicle, while the one at JSC is the only Saturn V made up *completely* of honest-to-god flight-rated stages. (The first stage at KSC was a test stage, the last real stage having gone to Michoud). The DTV also has an interesting history in that it never went through the hands of NASM thanks to some machinations of Von Braun. Still, you'll notice MSFC isn't even on the short list of facilities with a shot at getting an orbiter. Again, if it were *my* decision, MSFC *would* get one - they'd get the Challenger debris, accompanied by a note telling them if they'd done their fracking jobs, they'd have *gotten* an intact orbiter. > Or with Michoud over their > S-IC just above the hurriflood line? Michoud won't get an orbiter, either. At best they will get to keep one of the leftover ETs.
From: Pat Flannery on 8 Jan 2010 01:23 Brian Gaff wrote: > What you all been taking today? It's not easy crossing a omnivorous simian with a large carnivorous bird. This is a _lot_ more challenging than crossing the Venus Fly-Trap with the redwood tree, and all that led to was a bonsai tree with the personality of Godzilla rather than something that could eat small aircraft as I intended. So far all I've got is a baby winged "something" that looks like a reject from "The Wizard Of Oz", and is going to have a hard time working the flight controls by poking at them with the stunted wings it has where the arms should be. The horrifying results of its attempts to nurse from its mother's breasts with its beak I will leave to your imagination. She won't go anywhere near it now, and I doubt she ever will again...even after all the stitches are removed. You know, it would be possible to convert a Smart Car into a main battle tank at fairly low cost if your opponents were, say, squirrels. Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 8 Jan 2010 02:02 David Spain wrote: > As far as selling simulated 'stick time' to would be astronauts I think > the answer is known and is 'yes' even without an orbiter and spending > $42 million. > I wonder how much you could get for cutting one up for parts and selling them on eBay?* There are a lot of tiles on one, and you could probably sell those for a nice price each. In fact, you could just replace the tiles with display ones and still sell them while keeping the orbiter intact. Moving the orbiters from KSC to their final destinations is going to be a real pain also. You are either going to have to fly them there on the 747 (and how do you get them off of it once they arrive? That's how they got Enterprise to Washington DC), or disassemble them for rail or truck shipment. Since NASA is in a cash crunch, do they really want to spend money on this? Flying a orbiter back to KSC from Edwards costs around $1.8 million, and they have a mate-demate frame at either end of the flight. Simplicity says keep one at KSC and one at Edwards AFB. In fact they could land one at Edwards on the last flight and just leave it there. It certainly is a major part of the history of Edwards. * Space fans are screaming right now. :-D Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 8 Jan 2010 02:21
Jorge R. Frank wrote: > Well, the decisions have not been made, so there is still time for local > efforts to result in something. But if the State Leg really wants an > orbiter, they will get much better results if they appropriate a few > million to replace the temporary building housing the Saturn V at JSC > with a nicer permanent building that happens to be large enough to house > an orbiter as well, rather than just trying to put political pressure on > NASM. Oh, and they could also pony up a few million more to dredge out > Clear Lake and restore the barge landing at NASA Parkway near the Hilton > so that an orbiter could be barged in. (It *would* fit under the Kemah > bridge; I was skeptical until I went on a boat ride under it and > eyeball-measured it.) Removing the vertical fin for transport would simplify things a lot in that regard. BTW, one of the things that crippled the Soviet space program was their spending large amounts of money on space-related displays and monuments for propaganda purposes that could have been going towards actual space exploration. Let's not go down that route. Pat |