Actually Space Center Houston, while operated like it is a separate entity, is the JSC visitor’s center, was established by JSC, and JSC people oversee the actual hardware and JSC people are still supposed to sit on SCHs Board of Directors. Its similar to the arrangement at KSC where NASA people oversee and direct work on the exhibits though it is done by a contractor that is paid out of revenues from your KSC Visitors Center.

So JSC is just as ‘guilty’ as are the people of SCH, probably moreso because JSC should actually have an interest in the history (they have the historian), their people’s work (the engineers and managers who oversaw all Shuttle work at JSC) and the exhibits (JSC still oversees all the actual space hardware). It is also a NASA Headquarters responsibility that hardware is handled appropriately. Everyone at JSC works for the AAs in Space Ops and Exploration, and they all work for Bolden. Bolden should have had the interests of the space program, space program history, Space Operations, the Shuttle Program, and JSC in mind, along with those of the rest of the US people. If the SCH Houston bid was inadequate it was due as much to NASA issues and lack of coordination.

“If you think two plywood replicas equates to a “real” orbiter then we’ll just send one to Houston and one to Dayton and call it square. We need to dump them anyway to make room for a “real” one.”

OK, JSC will accept one. We never had a real, complete life sized Orbiter. Several of our mock-ups and trainers were nothing more than plywood in the shape of an Orbiter crew compartment or fuselage. They had real looking hardware where real hardware was needed to make the training convincing. Ours had history-all the crews trained in them but now all are going elsewhere, so we are left with nothing. So we accept your offer of one of the mock-up Orbiters from Florida.

I do not know whether it was but who said it was a “simple” formula?

Well the world does not revolve around Houston sorry.

True, but we aren’t talking about a traveling exhibit. We are talking about the permanent home of the Shuttles.

common sense & Coastal Ron – Perhaps, the Shuttle decision was purely quantitative. Maybe foot traffic and bid price were the only important factors. If so, the discussion can end, but I would wonder why it took so long to announce the winners if it was a simple formula.

The fact is that the decision was supposed to include the cities’ connection to the Shuttle program. New York has none. And this isn’t the only intangible that has to be weighed in the decision. Perhaps, I came across as implying history should be the only deciding factor. That was not my intention. I simply think it should be weighted higher in the decision than the quantitative factors.

BTW…I guarantee there are many people in my city (Houston) that would like to see a shuttle on display. Many that have worked for decades on the program without ever seeing one in person. They would love to see one if it were near by, but the closest one will be nearly 1000 miles away. I hope that they will all be able to make that trip to see one, but it is unlikely.

That will keep them busy for next 30 years, making sure they dont make any real progress.

“That said, I still stand by my assertion that history is more important than money, presentation, or foot traffic.”

How can you quantify “history”?

That is the problem with justifications like “history”, in that it boils down to intangibles. How the L.A. area perceives it’s history (all Shuttle built there, all landed there at some point) is different than how Houston does (home of Johnson Space Center, w/lots of space related activities), or Ohio. By what universally accepted method do you measure “history”?

And what if that history turns out to be a location that few people visit? If that historic location was somewhere where few people would see it, then is it the best place for the true owners, the 311 million citizens of the U.S., to appreciate it?

My city didn’t get a Shuttle, but then again we didn’t have a connection to the Shuttle program. Still, I’m sure that there are lots of people in my city that would like visit one when it goes on display, but I don’t think they will be traveling there just to see it, but wouldn’t mind visiting it if it’s nearby.

My $0.02

well now not so much.

I live in Houston (Clear Lake and Santa Fe) and Rich Kolker (when he lived in Houston) and I use to meet routinely for lunch there on….Wed I believe (Rich when you get to Africa chime in here if you recall)…we did Chinese on Tuesday and Friday. (the Oriental Gourmet)

Space Center Houston is interesting but that is about all one can say for it. I’ve spent a lot of time at the USS Intrepid museum and it is a far superior exhibit both the ship and the planes on her deck.

Clear Lake is not exactly tourist destination number 1. The folks who I have gotten tours or given tours to are gee whized for a bit but then it turns into just another government facility…Of all the places “at” JSC the place that has been the most entertaining to the folks who I have taken on tours of…is the Sonny Carter facility.

If the goal was to get a place where lots of tourist would come and see the orbiters…well The Intrepid was the place.

People will see politics in just about anything that they like but to see it in this decision is really goofy

Robert G. Oler

Of course Florida already has two Orbiters that visitors can walk around and inside of and another ‘launch experience’ ride.

Tell you what … If you think two plywood replicas equates to a “real” orbiter then we’ll just one to Houston and one to Dayton and call it square. We need to dump them anyway to make room for a “real” one.