Back to Squawk list
  • 33

Space Shuttle Enterprise Damaged by Superstorm Sandy [PICS]

제출됨
 
It's really sad that a national historic treasure such as this is being stored in what amounts to (borrowed) a bounce house. Twice this artifact has been damaged since being relocated. The Enterprise should be housed in a protective structure. Sigh... (mashable.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


golflaw
golflaw 13
Wright Patterson AFB - in Dayton, Ohio the home of the Wright Brothers houses the Air Force space museum, including most presidential planes from FDR's through JFK's. They wanted it badly and treat their planes like the treasures they are. They got a "piece" of something which is a big nothing. The bureaucrats who decided to put these things outside ought to be gone by noon, but they won't be.
organman
I live 20 mins away from the Air Force Museum...and it REALLY is a shame.
Zaphod58
Anything that leaves their collection exposed to the elements needs to have a good hard look taken before getting something as important as the Enterprise. I've seen pics of their A-12, and some of them show it in horrible condition. They need to build a structure of some kind and protect them, instead of letting them slowly rot.
trevortcaruso
the intrepid museum has a thus far terrible track record in regards to caring for their artifacts. do some research into their care for the concorde british airways loaned them. they had no business getting a shuttle when so many more capable institutions were available.
xAFFTCadmin
Agreed. As an aviation enthusiast, and former IT admin in flight test at the AFFTC, Edwards AFB, Ca, I was shocked to see the condition of some of the aircraft on static display when I visited Intrepid years ago.

They do not know how to properly curate historical aircraft and no historical aircraft, yet alone OV-101, should be left exposed to the elements on the deck of Intrepid.

The argument that New York was chosen because it is an "easy drive" for half the country's population is ludicrous. Between Discovery at the Smithsonian, and Atlantis at the Kennedy Space Center, there are already two orbiters on the east coast and within a reasonable drive for the residents of the east coast population centers.

With Endeavour in California, near where it and all of the other shuttles were built, and shuttles in Washington DC and the Kennedy Space Center, that leaves residents of the mid-country with no way to see one of the Shuttles without driving a thousand miles or more. The logical choice would have been to place Enterprise at either Dayton or Houston. The decision to place Enterprise on the Intrepid was ENTIRELY political and many of the established rules for their placement were waived in order to make it happen.

@ Ira Rampil, Who cares if the LM's were built in New York. That does not entitle New York to a shuttle all of which were built in Palmdale, CA. New York's, and Grumman's, aviation history are already on display at the Cradle of Aviation Museum on Long Island. LM-13 is on display there. If you think Intrepid deserves a piece of the space program, maybe you should lobby to have LM-13 moved to the deck of the Intrepid where it too can be exposed to the elements.
Timothyj67
The way they awarded cities a shuttle was a complete joke!!! here in Seattle we had a facility ready for the shuttle and its at the Boeing museum of flight ...Hmm didnt Boeing make parts for the shuttle?
Zaphod58
Exactly! There were so many better places they could have put one than the Intrepid. Places that would have the funds to take good care of it, and that could display it right.
zennermd
zennermd 5
I vote it be moved if they cannot protect it. I believe this is one of the few aircraft that HAS to be completely protected from something like this happening.
sparkie624
With all the history behind this ship, it is a real tragedy. Really hate to see this.
BatWeseman
The reason Space Shuttle Enterprise ended up in New York was because of congressional politics. Sen. Charles Schumer was the one pushing for a space shuttle for NYC and is a jerk because he threatened to cut NASA funding unless a Shuttle went to the Big Apple. NYC has done absolutely nothing to contribute to the space program.
vanbess
vanbess 3
Disgusting -- the shuttle should either still be in service or in a facility that will hangar the bird protecting it from damage
genethemarine
Neil Armstrong would not be happy.....
rsmath
rsmath 3
at least it wasn't Atlantis, Endeavour or Discovery! I've kind of written off Enterprise after they couldn't even barge it up the river without damage! That Poor ship -- very bad luck since moving it from DC!
howej011
its always sad to see a national treasure damaged, but it was sought of a self created incident beacuse it is on an aircrft carrier which is unstable even moored up, then it wasnt covered in tarp properly and the final mistake was not putting some sought of stucture around Enterprise in the pre-sandy bulid up
jasongtye
Way to go New York, mainly Chuck Shumer. "Youston" would have never let that happen to the shuttle. We KNOW how to prepare for tropical storms down here.
w7psk
Ive still yet to figure out WHY and How New York and LAX received shuttles. There are far more Connected to the space program cities that should have received them.

And to put it on a carrier in NY Harbor is ludicrous.
rsmath
rsmath 2
I ASSume LAX because the shuttle was built in the area.
HBFlyer
HBFlyer 1
ALL the shuttles were built in Southern California. That's why LAX!
Doobs
She should have come to Seattle! We got the "Sim" and Bonnie Dunbar!
abobbiep
One more political move that is costing our county its history!
Marsfan
Marsfan 1
I knew that they should put it in Houston
joelwiley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91JQiNOrx0
pilot62
@ Ricky Scott , Read up boy almost every space vechicle was designed, born , and built, and tested in California, we are the most deserving over even Houston ...Sorry
rampil
New York never contributed to the Space Program? Ever hear of the LEM and Grumman?

The intrepid is building a structure for the Enterprise, it just wasn't ready.

I feel a particular attachment to Enterprise, having written one of those letters to NASA years ago to change its name to commemorate Star Trek.

Why is the Enterprise in NYC? Forget Chucky Cheese Schumer! How about the fact that half the country's population is an easy drive. Not to mention that most foreign visitors come by NYC.
If you want to generate support for Space, the populace should be able to see the artifacts!
joelwiley
joel wiley -2
I'm not sure I get your point in this. Is that a major natural disaster with a 700 mile swath of damage tore the tarp off the shuttle and it sustained such damage that it will never go back to space, or are you pointing out that the organization entrusted with the Enterprise has not expended the funds to protect it as appropriately as you would wish? If the former, the Enterprise fared better than much of the coast. If the latter, were funds available for an appropriate enclosure, and if not, who would you expect to supply those funds?
jlanch
In Seattle we built our own enclosure with Private funds...and we only got the trainer. If we can do it, surely New York can.
howej011
it never went into space as such, but it was used for testing, it was mated to the SCA and was taken to just below space and conducted approach and landing tests into Edwards AFB as commented by indy2001, so it flew in the atmosphere and not into space
lizzybees
Part of the requirement for receiving a shuttle was that the Intrepid museum would provide an appropriate and secure enclosure.
indy2001
indy2001 -2
I'm as upset as anyone about the short-sighted decision to end the shuttle program before a replacement was anywhere close to ready. Thanks to the Obama Administration, we are totally reliant on our Russian 'allies' for human access to space.

To be fair, however, the Enterprise was never launched into space. It was used only for the Approach and Landing Tests into Edwards AFB. Even with this reduced role, however, it is an important piece of American history and better plans should have been in place. The Intrepid is a fine museum, but it clearly hasn't thought ahead regarding wind protection. Even if a freak superstorm like Sandy hadn't hit, I suspect a good Nor'easter would have inflicted similar damage. Hopefully the 3 orbiters will be better protected by their facilities. It's ironic that Enterprise rode out many, many hurricanes and tropical storms at the Cape but is damaged shortly after arriving in NYC.
Pilot78
Pilot78 6
Obama Administration didn't end the Space Program
mdlacey
Matt Lacey -2
Oh good grief. The locations for orbiters were decided by where they would get the most traffic. New York, DC, L.A. and KSC (near Orlando). I'm willing to slam left wing politicians at any rational chance, but this is cynical and has been since the decision was made.
xAFFTCadmin
Wrong. The amount of public exposure or "traffic" the shuttle would receive was one of the criteria in deciding where they would be placed. While director Bolden made it his prime consideration, it was not supposed to be the sole criteria.

Other criteria including Funding, Transportation Effort/Risk, Attendance, Regional Population, International Access, and Museum Accreditation (among others). These were put into a Scoring Matrix by the rating team.

History has now shown us that they seriously miscalculated, or the recipient misrepresented, several of these criteria.

First was Facility Availability. They gave the California Science Center (CSC), Johnson Space Center (JSC), and Intrepid a "5" (can build to meet deadline) in this area. Several other facilities received a 10. How did they figure this? Both JSC and CSC had permanent structures in which to store and display the shuttle (with the commitment to building specialized shuttle display structures later) whereas Intrepid planned to put it in an inflatable tent. They are hardly equal facilities and it would seem that history has now shown that Intrepid DID NOT have a viable facility available.

Next, they gave Intrepid a "10" (little or no risk) for Transportation Effort/Risk while giving CSC, JSC, and several other facilities only a "5" (moderate risk). Somehow, they felt hauling a shuttle up a river on a barge, and lifting it onto a ship with a crane, was less risky than moving it slowly through the streets on a Shuttle Transporter. It would seem that, once again, history has shown this was bad assessment since Enterprise sustained wing damage during it's barge move and Endeavour was moved from LAX to the CSC without incident.

Had Intrepid been given the "0" it obviously deserved for Facility Availability, and the "5" to "0" it deserved for Transportation Effort/Risk, the Museum of Flight in Seattle would have easily outscored it on the Matrix and it could have been in a statistical tie with the Air Force Museum in Dayton.

In evaluating the process, after the fact, NASA's Office of the Inspector General found several numerical errors that could, or would, have changed the final selection.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

lizzybees
First of all, the Enterprise was never space-worthy in the first place. She was a test craft used only for atmospheric test flights and was never intended to be launched.

Second, it was the Bush administration and not Obama that shuttered the program. The decision had already been made before the 2008 election ever took place. Do a little research before you spout nonsense please.
papatodd427
Wow...how many more things can we blame on Obama? Shameless...

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료