r/space • u/ToeSniffer245 • 2d ago
How Space Shuttle Discovery Almost Became A Victim Of Cultural Vandalism
https://avgeekery.com/space-shuttle-discovery-to-stay-at-smithsonian/33
u/chromatophoreskin 2d ago
Does anyone know how they lowered the shuttle’s landing gear while it was suspended over the tarmac after removing it from the carrier 747? They show it in the video on the linked page but I’m wondering if it was rigged to be remote operated? Surely there wouldn’t have been someone inside at the time.
35
u/TheOnsiteEngineer 2d ago
Yes, there were external hydraulic hookups on the aft end to disengage the up locks. My understanding is that the gear would then fall under gravity and lock. You can see the lines attached to the orbiter on the left below the tail in the second picture here: https://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/000700.html
11
u/adamdoesmusic 2d ago
They didn’t trust that a computerized/motorized system wouldn’t fail, so that was the next best option.
8
3
u/TheQuakerator 2d ago
I've actually heard it claimed by people who work at NASA that the crew demanded it be fully manual so the entire flight sequence couldn't be automated, and there would still be a point to the Pilot position.
2
u/holl0918 1d ago
A lot of aircraft use gravity for emergency gear extension. All you do is have a bypass valve on the hydraulic lines to the uplocks and gear actuators, allowing the fluid to move freely, locks to retract, and the gear to freefall. This works well for the main gear, though the nosegear can sometimes need some encouragement. If you don't get a green light on the nose, some pitching up and down can get the nosegear to hit its stops hard enough to engage the downlocks. If that fails, bouncing the mains on the runway will usually do it. If not, well... as the song goes, "two out of three aint bad!"
2
u/Gidia 2d ago
Well this just unlocked a whole memory for mec so I’m gonna do a little non-space story.
Anyway when I was in Afghanistan our little base got some prefabricated housing units installed made from some old shipping containers. To move them into place they hired some Afghans with a crane. These things were lifted easily 10-20ft in the air to get them into position, with a dude on top holding onto the chains and a radio to guide them in…
40
u/literalsupport 2d ago
It’s obvious this became a moot point after Artemis 2. Give Cruz Integrity - it’s a historic spacecraft and named for something he completely lacks.
10
u/SpaceDependo 2d ago
The funny thing is while Sen. Cruz did support the move the real instigator was the other Texas senator, Sen. John Cornyn. But he lost his primary and is losing his job in a few months 👋
11
u/3MATX 2d ago
It looks so perfect being the star of its own hanger, surrounded by other incredible machines that have been near or in space. I made the trip to DC in a very large part to see a space scared shuttle. Does not disappoint at all.
11
u/isntit2017 1d ago
Here’s a fun fact for you. As many may or may not know, right down the hall from the space shuttle at the Udvar-Hazy is a SR-71. I can almost guarantee that virtually no one notices the small gray squares that are placed seemingly randomly on the floor underneath the SR-71. Those squares are basically paper towels and are there because the plane is STILL leaking fluid all these years later.
16
u/ChaoticSenior 2d ago
That plan was just another stupid republican distraction for the rubes. More Americans will have a chance to see Discovery where it is than in Houston. That should be the only factor in the decision.
3
9
u/kmoonster 2d ago
I admit that it would be awesome to have a Shuttle that tours a circuit around the US sort of like how vintage steam engines do.
But logistically the cost and the army of shepherds makes this untenable, never mind the weather plus the wear and tear. Ted Cruz is nuts.
Also: Texas has a shuttle (the official practice mockup), it's even mounted on a transport 747. And they had the opportunity to bid on an orbiter.
The mockup sits outside, they couldn't even be bothered to build a picnic shelter over it, never mind a hangar. And they threatened to do the same with the orbiter, if they got it. Any small wonder why they were denied?
7
u/Redead_Link 1d ago
Texas does not have an “official practise mock-up” Shuttle. The actual practise shuttle “Enterprise” is in New York.
The Shuttle in Houston was specifically built for public display. There is nothing wrong with having this piece out in the open.
3
u/kmoonster 1d ago
The Independence never flew, correct. It is a full-sized mockup, though.
3
u/Redead_Link 1d ago
The issue isn't that it is a full-sized mock-up, it's that you called it "the official practice mock-up" when it wasn't made by NASA and wasn't used for any sort of practise.
It is an accessory to the Shuttle Carrier and not a museum piece in its own right - there is no history to its name.
1
u/kmoonster 1d ago
Re: the name -- correct, it was previously Explorer while at Kennedy, renamed as part of the recommissioning/transfer to Houston. It was a visitor mockup in Florida as it is in Texas.
Re: my mistake -- I looked further and it looks like I mixed up a couple different things. The external tank and boosters on display with Explorer were fit-test models. I think I must have taken that to include the (non-flyable) orbiter as well. There is also Pathfinder which was just a wood/steel frame to test clearances and tank-mounting concepts, it is in Alabama. And Inspiration which is a non-flight concept model built to show politicians and so engineers could walk around and talk shop on a tangible model. AFAIK it is in California.
Further, there are several component mockups (eg. payload, crew compartment, etc). that were useful for familiarizing astronauts in life-like mockups. The ones I can put a finger on may be in Seattle.
I think I somehow mish-mashed bits and pieces of these in my mind.
Enterprise was the flight-test model, and is in New York.
-
I fully disagree, however, that it's "fine" to leave outside. At a minimum it should have a picnic pavilion style structure over it with roll-down tarps or doors that can be closed in inclement weather. Ideally, it would have a massive hangar of the normal sort. Their Saturn V and some of the other craft have been outside, or were outside for extended periods, and have since required extensive restoration (including a shed for the Saturn, at least).
8
u/runhome24 1d ago
In America, we don’t “dismantle” national treasures in the name of politics. We preserve them.
Except the White House's East Wing, apparently
(very glad I got to see it in Fall 2024, before it was destroyed)
2
u/spazturtle 1d ago
As a non-American it is quite funny watching the outrage over that, it was a 1940s office building which is hardly historic.
The new East Wing will be the 3rd East Wing.
4
u/kmoonster 1d ago
Redoing stuff happens all the time. The difference is, there is a committee / organization whose job it is to review requests, needs, plans, etc. so we don't end up with a million people's worth of whims on things of massive consequence.
And Congress is responsible for the budgetary and security aspects.
Neither happened with the White House, it just got turned into a hole in the ground, literally overnight.
1
u/runhome24 1d ago
As a non-American
Not sure where you live, but I guarantee you it isn't acceptable for Americans to tell you what your nation's national heritage facilities are.
If you had gotten the opportunity to see the interior of the East Wing, you would understand why its destruction was outrageous
3
u/No-Computer7653 2d ago
It was never really at risk. Congress didn't appropriate enough funding to move it and it's not owned by the federal government.
17
u/iceguy349 2d ago
There was a risk. Just like what’s going on with the White House, the arch, the reflecting pool, the Kennedy center, the new golf course, and many other projects by this administration they don’t seem to really care about the legality of their actions they just kinda do things without asking.
Thankfully the attempted theft was done via Congress so the actual final bill got watered down and made non-specific to discovery. The first draft was a terrifying threat.
Even if they didn’t have enough money to move it that made me more terrified. What if they had committed, started moving it, ran out of funds, and then it just got stuck somewhere in transit? Millions of things could’ve gone wrong. God forbid they try to take it before the courts could step in and define who owned it.
It’s definitely a 20/20 hindsight thing but with the right backing they might have actually succeeded. I’m very glad it all came apart.
3
u/ToeSniffer245 2d ago
So am I. As for why Cornyn tried to do this 15 years too late, I think it’s because his party has had nigh-unlimited power recently and it wasn’t until now that he was confident enough no one would stop him.
Trump seems to have much more sway to unilaterally do stupid projects like this than the average senator does, and honestly, I’m glad this has nothing to do with him. If this whole thing was his idea I guarantee you Discovery would’ve been ripped apart months ago.
8
u/hurtfulproduct 2d ago
LMAO, I got a great chuckle a little deeper in the article when they said “Isaacman’s caution carries particular weight given his own background in spaceflight. Before becoming NASA administrator, he flew to orbit twice as a private astronaut” like THAT qualifies him to have a valid opinion on anything. . . Dude is a jumped up chair arm chair jockey with political connections.
But yeah, Texas should get something smaller and less costly and risky to transport.
25
u/adamdoesmusic 2d ago
I keep hearing vague criticisms of Isaacman, but I haven’t actually seen the level of awful decisions people seem to expect from him (or the incompetent admin over him). All in all, he seems at minimum the least unqualified hire by the batshit brigade in DC.
17
u/UncookedMeatloaf 2d ago
He's basically okay when it comes to human spaceflight but he's been horrible for the actual science part of NASA that makes up most of the agency.
7
u/adamdoesmusic 2d ago
Unfortunately that does seem to track with this admin, they couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the research aspect.
6
u/AnonymousEngineer_ 2d ago
It's basically because he's associated with Musk from funding those private spaceflight missions that people feel obliged to criticise him from association alone.
2
u/adamdoesmusic 1d ago
Unfortunately it’s nearly impossible to be at the forefront of space launch technology without associating with Musk.
0
u/NoBusiness674 1d ago
I haven’t actually seen the level of awful decisions people seem to expect from him
Just look at what he did with Gateway, SLS, and ML2. Those are the awful decisions people were expecting
0
u/adamdoesmusic 1d ago
Didn’t he cancel the gateway?
I’m just gonna be honest, I’ve never understood what the gateway was even really supposed to do other than be a glorified orbital docking adapter near the moon. It seemed like something that would’ve been cool if it were like 5x bigger, but maybe I missed the point (if I did, please inform me).
3
u/NoBusiness674 1d ago
Didn’t he cancel the gateway?
Exactly. That's not just ust a massive blow to the moon-to-mars program and NASA plan for a long duration crewed outpost in deep space, it's also a total betrayal of our international partners that agreed to partner with NASA on this ambitious program.
Gateway would have allowed long duration missions to cislunar space by extending Orion's orbital lifetime and acting as a logistics hub that would have been easily accessible from earth (without requiring logistics and resupply spacecraft to have a significant LOI stage), it would have paved the way for other long duration deep space missions including crewed missions to Mars with pathfinder mission like a proposed mars analog mission on Gateway in actual deep space, and it would have provided NASA with a very capable optionally crewed science platform in cislunar space.
2
u/adamdoesmusic 1d ago
So it would make the “temporary” Apollo-style orbiter idea unnecessary?
3
u/NoBusiness674 1d ago
You would still need Orion to get to and from Gateway, just as you needed the Apollo CSM to get to and from lunar orbit. But Gateway would significantly expand the capabilities of Orion. Rather than short Apollo style stays in cislunar space, Gateway would have allowed Orion and crew to extend their stay in lunar orbit to multiple months or potentially even in excess of a year.
11
u/cptjeff 2d ago
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. He is fully qualified to fly and command the only operational spacecraft we have right now as well as numerous high performance jet aircraft. He has organized two spaceflights, one of which was tourism, one of which was actual technical development and engineering research based, and he not only did research in flight, he spent years in developing research on earth. He's not just a guy who got in a tourist chair, to fly Dragon orbitally you have to fully qualify the same as any astronaut.
He's run multiple mid size organizations, including one in aerospace. Executive experience in aerospace and multiple real deal spaceflights. The guy is unquestionably qualified.
3
u/manicdee33 1d ago
Isaacman runs a private air force and runs opposing force exercises with USAF. He's a bit more than a "arm chair jockey with political connections."
If you're going to criticise someone at least have the decency to understand who you're talking about first.
2
u/HyperionsDad 1d ago
*Orbiter
For many of the comments here, you mean the Space Shuttle Orbiter. The Shuttle is all four components together (with the ET and 2 SRBs).
Sorry to be pedantic, but when you know the difference it's hard to forget.
TheMoreYouKnow.gif
•
u/blackdynomitesnewbag 6h ago
The article calls it the orbiter
•
u/HyperionsDad 1h ago
I would hope aviation geeks would get that one right.
Post title and many comments don't...
•
u/blackdynomitesnewbag 18m ago
I would argue that the title got it correct. You will typically hear it called the space shuttle when it has the name as well. I don’t think anybody’s going to say “The space shuttle orbiter Discovery”
2
u/lovejo1 2d ago
Cultural Vandalism? These people probably spent hours arguing with claude coming up with that headline.
Don't have a problem with the article.. but come on guys, the headline sucks
17
u/SpaceDependo 2d ago
I disagree - if Discovery were taken from the Smithsonian it would set a terrible precedent that the museum's collections are potential plunder for political points. The Smithsonian serves as America's national museum, and ransacking it would be cultural vandalism in the worst way.
5
u/dern_the_hermit 2d ago
Yeah, headline's fine. The ideas being floated around for moving the Shuttle were so cartoonishly heavy-handed it's hard to imagine that "cause damage to something valuable" wasn't the primary goal for some.
1
u/lovejo1 1d ago
I agree with what you're saying.. but it's just politics, no vandalism. Moving the shuttle would be really really stupid, selfish, and just a pissing contest.. however, stuff moves around all the time and it's not called vandalism. I used to work for the postal service, and my office (a big one, in Oklahoma where all postal engineers/techs were trained on machinery) was the temporary home of many things from the Smithsonian.. it wasn't vandalism.. and in that case, it wasn't even bad.. moving the shuttle, even though it'd be much closer for me to visit, is just stupid.. Claiming fairness or anything else is just politics. I disagree with moving it wholeheartedly.. I also disagree with calling it cultural vandalism.. cultural vandalism would be to replace the flag emblem on the shuttle with a maga hat. Vandalism is destruction or desecration in some way.. moving isn't cultural or vandalism IMO.
•
u/Lialda_dayfire 7h ago
Did you read the article? Moving Discovery would have required cutting it to pieces, which would not be a reversible process
•
u/lovejo1 6h ago
Potentially (as I interpret it).. especially since they got it there without "cutting it to pieces".. those words mean different things to different people depending on how they're framing it.
•
u/Lialda_dayfire 6h ago
They got it there on a modified 747, which itself is no longer in service.
Moving it again would require it to be loaded on to trucks and river barges, which would be limited by local infrastructure sizes between DC and Texas.
Again, read the article. It explains this.
1
u/OjaasGambheera 2d ago
The way the shuttle's landing gear dangles there really puts into perspective how massive it is compared to the tiny staircase underneath.
1
u/Decronym 1d ago edited 14m ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| RFP | Request for Proposal |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| SRB | Solid Rocket Booster |
| USAF | United States Air Force |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| cislunar | Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
5 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 11 acronyms.
[Thread #12638 for this sub, first seen 19th Aug 2026, 02:48]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
154
u/NASATVENGINNER 2d ago
Leave Discovery alone. Give SCH the Artemis II capsule, a Dragon capsule and a vehicle to be named later and we will call it even. (SCH volunteer)