Space Shuttle Enterprise Damaged by Superstorm Sandy [PICS]

I live 20 mins away from the Air Force Museum...and it REALLY is a shame.

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.

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.

I ASSume LAX because the shuttle was built in the area.

ALL the shuttles were built in Southern California. That's why LAX!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91JQiNOrx0

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.

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

Part of the requirement for receiving a shuttle was that the Intrepid museum would provide an appropriate and secure enclosure.

Obama Administration didn't end the Space Program

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.

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.

Wow...how many more things can we blame on Obama? Shameless...