backtop

Science NASA to Sell, Donate Old Space Shuttles
Michael Barkoviak - December 19, 2008 8:00 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 62 comment(s) - last by bridgeman.. on Dec 22 at 2:20 PM

  (Source: NASA/Troy Cryder)
NASA plans to donate and sell old Shuttles after they're retired in two years.

NASA plans to donate one space shuttle to the Smithsonian, with the other shuttles up for grabs to any "educational institution, science museum, or other appropriate organization" with millions to spend.

It will also be possible to purchase the engine for between $400,000 and $800,000.

"These are national assets, national treasures and something that NASA feels the public would want to see displayed publicly for years to come," said NASA spokesperson Michael Curie.

Shuttle Discovery will be the shuttle given to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C., with the others up for grabs.  The honor to show off a U.S. shuttle will be $42 million -- $28.2 million to remove hazardous materials from the shuttle, $5.8 million for transportation costs, and $8 million to help get the shuttle ready for public display.

NASA is looking to see if an organization has the money to purchase the shuttle, proper ability to display it, have proper money to make sure it's kept in good condition, among other requirements.  It must also be kept in a "climate-controlled indoor display space," not outdoors.

After it's drained of all chemicals, a single shuttle weighs around 170,000 pounds -- a carrier aircraft will be required to transport the shuttle to a location that is landlocked.

The U.S. space agency plans to accept applications from all interested parties until March 17, 2009.

The current generation of space shuttles is expected to retire in 2010, with the U.S. space agency forced to rely on Russian Soyuz craft to get astronauts and supplies to the ISS.  The next-generation shuttle is expected to be available in 2015 or 2016.

President-elect Barack Obama can prohibit the donation and sale of U.S. shuttles, if he doesn't want them to go to the highest bidder.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Going to the moon?
By Syran on 12/19/2008 8:33:01 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The current generation of space shuttles is expected to retire in 2010, with the U.S. space agency forced to rely on Russian Soyuz craft to get astronauts and supplies to the moon.


When did the Russians finally get there? Might want to change that to space or the ISS. :)




RE: Going to the moon?
By jrb531 on 12/19/2008 9:30:32 AM , Rating: 4
The biggest problem will not be obtaining the upfront cash but finding a climate controlled "indoor" space to house the shuttle. Many people do not realize how big the Shuttle really is and to properly display it will, most likely, require a new building or addition to an existing museum that will cost at least as much as the expenses needed to obtain a Shuttle.

I would love the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, which already has an excellent building annex dedicated to space, to obtain one but there is no room for it and another building would be needed to be built. This would fit right in with the museum but I would suspect that this would be a 100 million effort at the very least if you consider all the logistics and the cost to build a proper display building for the Shuttle.


RE: Going to the moon?
By FITCamaro on 12/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Going to the moon?
By theapparition on 12/19/2008 10:34:09 AM , Rating: 3
While there's no doubt that Chicago is as corrupt as it gets, can you name another city that isn't as well?

Sad commentary on our society.


RE: Going to the moon?
By FITCamaro on 12/19/2008 10:55:11 AM , Rating: 1
I think one should go somewhere around the Houston area since it is another big NASA center.


RE: Going to the moon?
By gregpet on 12/19/2008 2:02:17 PM , Rating: 4
Not only "another big NASA center" but mission control which takes over as soon as the shuttle clears the tower. I would love to see an shuttle in H-town!


RE: Going to the moon?
By marsbound2024 on 12/19/2008 5:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Houston, Huntsville or Orlando would be great places (though I would be rather concerned about Florida and its hurricanes wrecking havoc on the shuttles). I would have said the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. but there are two reasons I am against it: 1) I doubt the Smithsonian could put it anywhere... 2) Washington, D.C. is exactly the place that is restricting the capabilities of NASA in the first place.


RE: Going to the moon?
By FITCamaro on 12/19/2008 8:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
It will be indoors. Short of a Category 5 hitting Orlando at full strength and leveling the building, the shuttle would be fine. But I'd prefer Houston. In Orlando it'd be just a tourist attraction. In Houston its a memory of times past and achievement....plus a tourist attraction.


RE: Going to the moon?
By jevans64 on 12/20/2008 1:58:53 AM , Rating: 4
I think Huntsville will be in the running to bid on one. There is no doubt that they will want a REAL shuttle on display rather than the mock-up ( Pathfinder OV-098 ). I remember them blocking off the highway when they were trucking it in and quite a crowd gathered to watch it go to its resting place. It has been sitting outside in the elements since the early 80's but they take pretty good care of it. The Space & Rocket center also has an A-12 on display in which they painted the NASA logo on. There is also a standing Saturn 5 mockup that cost $15 million, I think. There was plans for a gantry / lookout / restaurant, but that was never completed. The Center just completed a $20 million building and restoration of an actual Saturn 5. Some of the money was raised by selling personalized "Saturn 5" license plates. I'd give up my Saturn 5 plate to have a "Shuttle" plate.

Russia and Moon. Nope. The Russian Soyuz will be used just like it has been used since Mir... as an astronaut ferry and garbage scow. There is always a Soyuz docked to ISS anyway for emergency evac. and also to toss refuse into.

Orion/Ares I will be going to the moon. I'm not too far from the Stennis test stand, so I hear them testing RS-68, J-2X, RD-80, and what-not all the time. :D

Russia / USSR DID have a shuttle program ( Buran ) that most people don't know about. The Buran was a clear knock-off of the US Shuttle but the SRBs and ET were different. If I remember correctly, there was one flight then some more work in refining the design and building more orbiters. I think two were destroyed on non-launch mishaps ( ie. hangar collapse, etc ) and there are two more on display... one in Kazakhstan and one in Germany.

When Russia was making all that dough on oil, I thought that they would crank up their shuttle program again.


RE: Going to the moon?
By bridgeman on 12/22/2008 2:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
"That sagging old rust bucket is designed like a garbage scow! Half the world knows it; that's why they're learning to speak English!"
"Comrade, don't you think you should... rephrase that?"
"You're right, I should. I didn't mean to say the Soyuz should be hauling garbage, I meant to say that it should be hauled away AS garbage!"


RE: Going to the moon?
By blowfish on 12/20/2008 4:15:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Washington, D.C. is exactly the place that is restricting the capabilities of NASA in the first place.

In fact it's more a case of NASA's inefficiencies restricting their abilities. Case in point - look what Burt Rutan and a few others achieved with a relatively miniscule budget.

NASA don't even have the simple common sense to consider using tethers on their $50k toolbags. Some joined-up thinking is needed before their budget is expanded.


RE: Going to the moon?
By Marduke on 12/20/2008 4:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the bag was supposed to be tethered. A simple oversight meant it was forgotten.


RE: Going to the moon?
By Lord 666 on 12/19/2008 11:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
Technically Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center is in Chantilly, VA. Putting Discovery there would make more sense as they already have a mock-up version of the shuttle there.

Sure, its a bit off the beaten path of the National Mall, but at least there is room to enjoy the exhibit without getting cramped by tourists.


RE: Going to the moon?
By JonnyDough on 12/19/2008 3:38:25 PM , Rating: 3
Don't you guys think it would be better to put a real space shuttle where there isn't so much, spacey stuff? Give people who have to travel two states away to see anything of real interest something to gaze at. Children everywhere should be able to be inspired to explore and learn, not just in places like Houston, where people can already watch space shuttles take off. Why should you guys have it all? The money sending those ships up is mostly not from Houston.


RE: Going to the moon?
By othercents on 12/19/2008 6:12:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Don't you guys think it would be better to put a real space shuttle where there isn't so much, spacey stuff?

No, while there is spacey stuff in Houston already that actually makes it a good place to put more. This allows someone to travel to one location to see everything instead of traveling to multiple different locations to be able to see everything. This is why the best places to go to see NASA stuff is Florida or Houston.

quote:
Children everywhere should be able to be inspired to explore and learn, not just in places like Houston, where people can already watch space shuttles take off.

FYI. Shuttles don't take off from Houston.

Other


RE: Going to the moon?
By JonnyDough on 12/19/2008 6:34:10 PM , Rating: 1
K, they take off from the Cape in FL and land in Houston. That's beside the point. My point is that we all pay for the space programs, so why not spread the love back around? Why should some oil town in TX get all the tourist revenue?


RE: Going to the moon?
By Marduke on 12/19/2008 6:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
They don't land in Houston either.


RE: Going to the moon?
By JonnyDough on 12/19/2008 7:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's just a command center. I recall now. So what you're saying is that his point is moot because there's no logical reason to put a shuttle in the middle of nowhere anyway? I know that putting the command center there had it's reasons, mainly the lack of weather...


RE: Going to the moon?
By mmatis on 12/19/2008 9:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Mission Control is where it is because of Lyndon Johnson. No other reason.


RE: Going to the moon?
By aliasfox on 12/19/2008 4:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not a mock up. The Udvar Hazy center has the prototype USS Enterprise. I believe it reached sub-orbital altitudes and tested how the vehicle would land. Refitting it to spaceworthiness would have been too costly, so they kept it as a trainer.

IIRC, it was named after the ship from Star Trek - write in vote from the public, and much of the original cast was at the unveiling.


RE: Going to the moon?
By jrb531 on 12/19/2008 11:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
Please do not fall pray to the media "automatically" labeling everything Chicago is corrupt. While we have our share of problems... the vast majority of people are honest and hard working. I too abhor our Gov and many of the local pols but to label everyone as being in the same mold does the vast majority of us an injustice.

Not to interject politics but "some" people consider our current President pretty bad... would it be correct for the rest of the world to automatically label everyone in the US as being bad for this reason and this reason alone?


RE: Going to the moon?
By TMV192 on 12/19/2008 9:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
that's great and all but what does it have to do with the Moon/ISS comment?


RE: Going to the moon?
By grath on 12/19/2008 8:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
MSI Chicago would be an excellent location, we already built an underground drydock for a WW2 German submarine twice as long as the shuttle, and a new such facility connected to the current space center would fit nicely under the southeast parking lot between the lagoon and lake.

Chicago is also home to Boeing corporate headquarters which certainly doesnt hurt our bid. The Boeing (and former Rockwell) factor also would favor Seattle, St. Louis, and Los Angeles.


RE: Going to the moon?
By Marduke on 12/19/2008 8:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
I vote Huntsville Alabama. After all, much of it was designed there, all the structural and ground vibration testing was done there.


Great Idea
By cscpianoman on 12/19/2008 9:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I like this. The space shuttle has so much history to it that it would be a waste to tear them apart for scrap. I would love to see one of these up close and personal, instead of on a computer/TV screen.

So, the Russians are taking over now, eh? Oversight much?




RE: Great Idea
By FITCamaro on 12/19/2008 9:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's a lot bigger than it looks on TV. Can assure you of that. Closest I've been is about 200 feet.


RE: Great Idea
By Belard on 12/19/2008 10:24:48 AM , Rating: 2
Look at photos of the Shuttle on top of a 747 should give people an idea how LARGE the shuttle is. It's about the size of a 737 in area, but a larger body.

I guess DRAINO wouldn't work to clean them, eh?


RE: Great Idea
By PitViper007 on 12/19/2008 12:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
I had the opportunity to see it up close when I was stationed at Edwards AFB on the few occasions it landed there. And yes, it is much bigger than it looks on TV. What's interesting is all the prep work that goes into getting it ready for transport. I never got to see the actual mounting onto its 747 carrier, but the process leading up to it is involved.


RE: Great Idea
By FITCamaro on 12/19/2008 1:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
I have a picture of me and my boss standing a few hundred feet from it on the crawler as STS-114 was being wheeled out to the launch pad. That was cool. Even cooler was standing outside the VAB when it went up. The pressure wave makes your pants flap around. Apparently the guys from American Chopper were there too but I didn't know it or see them.


RE: Great Idea
By mmatis on 12/19/2008 9:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
Muchos picturos from Kennedyos:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/index.cfm


RE: Great Idea
By JonnyDough on 12/19/2008 3:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
Russians taking over? Oversight? What are you talking about.

It's called the ISS. INTERNATIONAL Space Station.

The ISS is a joint venture. The Russians aren't taking over anything. They're doing their part. The ISS is already largely funded and designed by the U.S., but it would not have all been possible without Russia's help.

I would venture to say that the Russian rockets are not an oversight at all, but that it was planned - or rather, due to economic stress and the loss of a shuttle that we asked them to do a bit more.


L@@K!!! 25 year year old collector's vehicle
By Bender 123 on 12/19/2008 9:31:07 AM , Rating: 5
This little spacecraft is so hot it needs thermal tiles! 1,500,000,000,000 original owner miles, new tires, navigation system and main engines. 0-1000 in 18 seconds. Great hauler or extra spacecraft for your garage. Will consider trades or cash. Call 555-NASA and ask for Dave.




By hduser on 12/19/2008 9:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
The A/C is a plus but the lack of power windows kills the deal.


By FITCamaro on 12/19/2008 9:42:57 AM , Rating: 1
I don't work there anymore...


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 12/19/2008 10:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
Well being over 25 years old you can file for antique license plates...


By Sahkuhnder on 12/19/2008 4:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a little worried about it being able to pass the emissions check.


I'll do it!
By salgado18 on 12/19/2008 10:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
The honor to show off a U.S. shuttle will be $42 million -- $28.2 million to remove hazardous materials from the shuttle, $5.8 million for transportation costs, and $8 million to help get the shuttle ready for public display.

I'll remove hazardous materials for just $18 million!




RE: I'll do it!
By Suntan on 12/19/2008 1:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
You go right ahead. Its not a bunch of pansy-ass "ohh nooo, there's lead in the solder!" kind of hazardous materials. Have a google for the word *hypergolic*.

-Suntan


RE: I'll do it!
By Bubbacub on 12/19/2008 5:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
there is no hypergolic fuel in the shuttle orbiter


RE: I'll do it!
By Marduke on 12/19/2008 6:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
Except things like the methylhydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide used in the space shuttle's orbital maneuvering engines.


RE: I'll do it!
By Bubbacub on 12/19/2008 6:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
ahhh but they are tiny and don't count!


Donation and Highest Bidder
By conceptxp on 12/19/2008 1:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
I would forsee that the chinese government wants to purchase nasa product. Once they buy it, they will replicate it.




RE: Donation and Highest Bidder
By FITCamaro on 12/19/2008 1:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
Export control laws wouldn't allow the sale.


RE: Donation and Highest Bidder
By Amiga500 on 12/19/2008 2:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly... they would just ask the Russians for the designs of both the Shuttle and the Soviet Buran.

Both had pluses over each other, but both had similar limitations.


RE: Donation and Highest Bidder
By cludinsk on 12/20/2008 11:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
right. another country would want our poorly designed, exploding spacecraft.

anyone in their right mind will learn from the shuttle project and build something more fail-safe, as we are doing with the project orion now.


From the Office of the President-Elect
By Indianapolis on 12/19/2008 11:17:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
President-elect Barack Obama can prohibit the donation and sale of U.S. shuttles, if he doesn't want them to go to the highest bidder.


That's great news! Maybe Tony Resco will end up with his own personal space shuttle.




By mmatis on 12/19/2008 9:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
Or Rod Blagojevich...


By SiliconAddict on 12/21/2008 1:47:07 PM , Rating: 1
Please do us all a favor and die you sack of shit.


42 Million!
By nayy on 12/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: 42 Million!
By callmeroy on 12/19/2008 2:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well there's always one (at least) cyncial view point to a DT story , might as well be yours.

Do you marvel at a beautiful sunny day , away from crowds, then go "ACK...you know these UV rays are killing us" -- to the person/people you are with?

Lighten up...I see no controversy here in this story.


RE: 42 Million!
By Zoomer on 12/19/2008 5:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
And if the "someone else" wants to, why not?

Next you'll have people complaining that nasa spent 28.8+10 million disposing of the shuttle when someone would have bought it for $30M.


where it belongs
By inperfectdarkness on 12/19/2008 12:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
national museum of the air force; wright-patterson AFB.




RE: where it belongs
By Basilisk on 12/19/2008 1:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
I vote for parking one in space: it could provide a day-trip destination for all those space-tourists folks suggest we'll soon have! :P


What a waste of money
By SiliconAddict on 12/21/2008 1:43:20 PM , Rating: 1
This is retarded. These shuttles are perfectly viable devices at tugs and whatnot. Put them up in space. Bring an External Tank up along with each one....process and fill up each tank and you've got yourself something that can be used to travel around. Repair satellites. Emergency rescue if another country is in trouble. An external environment for the ISS if anything ever goes wrong to allow an escape or temp shelter while the ISS is repaired.

This is pretty damn typical of American thinking. Its not shiny and new so lets throw it away or drop it in a garage sale. Yes the current shuttles are expensive as shit to launch. However there can be other uses for them. Once in orbit the life of one of these suckers would be substantially longer since it isn't going up and down, up and down.




RE: What a waste of money
By Marduke on 12/22/2008 1:16:31 AM , Rating: 2
Actually no. The shuttle cannot stay on orbit for more than 18 days.


They already have one!
By nafhan on 12/19/2008 10:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
The Smithsonian already has the Enterprise at the Air and Space Museum annex near Dulles Airport (awesome museum BTW). I wonder where they will put a second space shuttle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_F._Udvar-Hazy_...




Udvar-Hazy Center
By taneumann on 12/19/2008 4:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
The shuttle at the Udvar-Hazy Center is not a mock-up. It is the Enterprise, a real space frame used to prove a space ship can glide back to Earth. the shuttle was missing a lot of the mechanical parts of her space fairing sisters but is much more than a mock-up. Also of note, portions of the Enterprise's wings were cut out and tested after the Columbia disaster investigation.




I'm Interested...
By SRoode on 12/19/2008 5:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Will there be a "Buy It Now" option on E-Bay?

I have absolutely no patience...




High mileage....
By wingless on 12/20/2008 4:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
Some guy: "So uhhh, how many miles does it have on it again?"
Nasa guy: "...a few million."
Some guy: "And you can't knock off an extra $3500?"
Nasa guy: "The Craigslist said $500,000 firm didn't it!!!! GTFO!"




Trade this for a pyramid
By ehab on 12/20/2008 10:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
Would you trade this for one of our Minor pyramids in Egypt?




$42 million is ridiculous!
By bobgoh on 12/21/2008 10:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Who want that piece of junk for $42 millions? NASA should donate it to museums for educational purpose.




Stupid
By BruceLeet on 12/22/2008 7:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
This will slow down process of growing space technology with companies relying on OLD technology, it will not progress.

This is NASA trying to stay ahead of the game so they don't lose their government grants.




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki