Many in Houston are upset that the Obama administration did not locate one of the three soon-to-be retired space shuttle orbiters at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
(Above--The Space Shuttle Endeavour flying over the Johnson Space Center and Houston. It will not be landing in Houston.)
It is hard to imagine that anybody thought one of these shuttles would come to Texas. Given all the anti-government talk in Texas, you'd think that we would not want anything at all from the feds.
The Johnson Space Center is in Texas in the first place due to the efforts of the New Deal-inspired Lyndon Johnson.
Maybe the federal government has not deserted the space program in Texas, so much as Texas has embraced an extreme politics that rejects the things that have helped Texas grow over the years.
(John Coby at Bay Area Houston says that Republican U.S. Rep. Pete Olson, who represents the Johnson Space Center area, did a poor job working to get the shuttle for Houston.)
I haven't been blogging as much because I've been busy with work, school (second M.S. underway at UH), and family life.
Long story short - NASA staff made the right decisions here. They are maximizing public exposure to the Orbiters and granting the Orbiters to institutions that made the effort to prove they will display them in a befitting manner.
SCH was late to the game and largely made an appeal to emotion. Keep in mind that the Saturn V enclosure is supposed to be a temporary structure... and look at how long that took to happen. KSC already has a $100 million plan lined up for Atlantis.
My friend, Michael Grabois, nailed it in a guest entry for SciGuy.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2011/04/guest_commentary_dont_blame_nasa_or_politics_for_a.html
Whoa.....I don't see nuthin' in these here blogs about vegetables. When did we switch topics???
bubba: Didn't know that. Thanks.
I have noticed Justin hasn't been active "over there" for a while. I miss him. Gueses we will likely never know exactly "who" we needed to sleep with to get us a shuttle. I would have volunteered.....unless it's that kooky lady astronaut with the trunk full of diapers and duct tape.
Garner was probably right. OTOH, I think any job is what you make of it. JFK gave NASA to LBJ to play with. I think, overall, tha turned out OK. Certainly for us.
Yes, or May-ter and Moh-ter as it is.
offshore,
It appears we agree, but you say "To-May-To" and I say "To-Mah-To".
CG, pay attention. Justin don't play here no more because we don't play nice with the wingnuts. He's posting some good stuff on the chron articles though. But I'm surprised he hasn't blogged on it himself on the chron.
The one probably most responsible for locating the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston was probably Albert Thomas, then Houston's Congressman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Richard_Thomas
At the time LBJ was V.P., a position that fellow Texas John Nance Garner described as not being worth "a warm bucket of spit".
For the sake of continuing this lengthy, but rather fun, debate I'm going to contend that the decision to put NASA in Houston was not political. It seems more like a "good ol' boy" move by LBJ.
I heard that NASA was put in Houston because that's where LBJ told them to put it.
I'm gettin' a little concerned now. Does anybody know, is Justin on vacation? 'Cuz, I'm sure he can clear all this up.
You're not going to find a smoking gun but the dots are there to be connected.
"Civic leaders and congressmen from other states doubted that Houston and environs met all of NASA's official criteria, at least any more than their towns did. They inquired about the roles of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, chairman of the high-level National Aeronautics and Space Council, and Representative Albert Thomas, also a Democrat and Texan and chairman of the Independent Offices Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, in the choice of the Harris County site. [NASA administrator and site selection head James E.] Webb and other NASA officials denied all charges and suggestions of political influence, pointed to Houston's obvious attractiveness in relation to NASA's criteria, and added that the planned expansion of the Cape Canaveral launch facilities, the establishment of the Michoud Plant on the Pearl River, and proximity to the Marshall Space Flight Center in northern Alabama made the choice appropriate."
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/sql01
It's one of those 'everyone knows this' kind of things. Here's a blurb from the Texas State Historical Association:
Johnson also had a large effect on the Texas economy during his political career, as he steered congressional appropriations to the state in the form of military bases, crop subsidies for farmers, government facilities, and jobs for federal workers. The Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, headquarters of the NASA space program in Houston, is a large symbol of the impact of Johnson's liberal nationalism on the development of Texas and the Sunbelt in the postwar years.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fjo19
Can you provide some proof of that? It may be true but it sounds dangerously like speculation.
Offshore, I don't see where Neil stated or even implied it was a political decision. He made a great case of where Houston was just slow off the blocks in lobbying and marketing for the shuttle.
What he did point out was the utter gall and hypocrisy (what a surprise) of those on the right screaming bloody murder of a "political decision" when they have done nothing but bash and obstruct the President from day one of his election and now want to scream "unfair".
And if it were a "political decision", don't you think his hometown of Chicago (which did apply for an orbiter) or Dayton Ohio (a key state for his re-election aspirations) would have gotten it?
And I thick Neil's point was "if" it was a "political decision" why are the wingnuts even whining? Besides that fact that irrational whining is also a wingnut Pavlovian reflex.
Actions have consequences. Duh
Houston was chosen because LBJ was a Texan.
No, Bubba, I was not aware of that and thanks for the info.
By the way, it was the blogger who pretty much said it was a "political decision". My point is that, if it was, that's effed up.
Please elaborate on that. From what I gather, Houston was chosen because it met all of the criteria for the planned site as well as its proximity to the US Army San Jacinto Ordnance Depot, Rice, UT, and Texas A&M.
I don't quite understand where you're coming from, Kel. I am beginning to think you've made some assumptions about the way I see things.
Offshore, if getting the most bang for your buck is a "political decision", then so be it.
If more tourist dollars (including international $$$ rolling in) are spent in NYC and LA than would have been in Houston, and it benefits the overall US economy and helps to pull us out of this Republican recession, then so be it.
If more kids visit it in NYC and LA and decide to become scientists and astronauts or anything in the science field, then so be it.
As noted by someone else in a Chron comment, we did such a great job marketing and preserving that monster Saturn 5 rocket in Clear Lake, didn't we? Letting it rust away for 30 years and not doing a thing until it was literally falling apart. I visited that Saturn rocket. Can't touch it, no info, no interactive tour, audio, etc. Just a big rotting hulk to take pictures of.
I also visited the JSC before and after they Disneyfied it. We had more access to the guts of the space center and seeing how it operates and things really worked (and for free too) than now where it's just a space themed playground for kids.
FYI, you do realize that the USS Intrepid is a Sea, Air & SPACE Museum and that the carrier served as a recovery vehicle for the manned space program in the 1960's right?
Yeah, it was a "political decision" alright.
offshore,
The reason we have NASA in the first place was a political decision. You can't have the best of both worlds.
The choices were logical. The Smithsonian has the greatest collection of air and space items in America, and the money and staff to take care of them. Kennedy Space Center has been the shuttle home for all these years, hence the second choice. The Los Angeles choice provides a chance for people on the west, especially children, to see what a shuttle really looked like.
Any concerns about Houston are mislaid. They have gotten far more than their fair share for far to long. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL would have been just as logical a choice, especially with the Von Braun tie-in.
Justin.......JUSTIN....... Has anybody seen Justin???
Help us out here. Whose call was this? Did we just lose the coin toss???
Justin.......JUSTIN....... Has anybody seen Justin???
Help us out here. Whose call was this? Did we just lose the coin toss???
Yes, by all means Kel, bring in whatever irelevant topic you wish. I.certainly didn't mean to imply that was not your right. Sticking to the subject was just a suggestion.
The simple fact that this whole fiasco was a political decision is wrong. No opinion, just flat wrong.
Where the heck is Justin?????
That musta been on my page of the newsletter that I inadvertently used when I painted my new master brake cylinder.
Sorry.
I'll take it anywhere I please, offshore.
Specifically:
If you spend years saying you don't want anything from the feds, well, that's exactly what you'll get.
sorry Girl...oops.
I suppose that's true. NY is where the money is, no doubt, but that doesn't make it right.
Sorry Kel, but I fail to see how rednecks or reacecars play into this, so lets stick with the shuttle, shall we?
The Smithsonian is getting an orbiter, correct? I have made the drive and Google maps is pretty close to its guestimate of four and a half hours from DC to NYC. It is a lot further from anywhere in Texas to NYC, DC, or LA. It seems to me that the "third coast" should have gotten a fair shot but, as Neil boasts, it fell victim to good ol' (for nothin) politics and that just makes me wanna hurl.
I'm not a season pass holder at SCH but I have visited many times and even sent my kids to some of their summer day camp programs. We do indeed have some important pieces of history there. I am now, and have always been a strong supporter of the space program. It is humankind's only snowball's chance in Hades of outliving our planet.
My opinion (and it's not sour grapes...just safe to say at this point). Space Center Houston sucks...it would have been a tremendous national waste to let them get their hands on one of them.
The 'south' did get one by the way...the place is called the Kennedy Space Center.
Hey Carguy,
dadgum it dude, I been telling you we've been going to Mars daily since 1973 (according to John Lear) via the 'gate' (compliments of the Alpha Draconians. It's one of the benefits we get from trading children for Draconian holiday meals)
According to the story in the SA Express-News, the decision was made by the space agency, where it believes that the greatest number of people could see the spacecraft. New York will get Enterprise, which never flew in space, per the story.
We will for sure have NASCAR sponsorship cash flowing into the Texas motor speedway.
By the way, we're season pass holders to the space center, and we have several pieces of memorabilia that are extremely important in space history. We have the podium Kennedy made his famous speech at, we have Apollo 11's mission control, we have the Saturn V (and it's GIGANTIC), we have Apollo 17's command module - and not one of the people I've seen pissed about this snub even KNOW this.
Seriously, go look at it. We have a fantastic museum, right next to NASA (you can take the tram tour right from there).
And might I remind you, New York, LA, Florida - they all paid the taxes to get us to the moon same as Texans did. Why do they not deserve it at all?
Yes, I wish it has been here, but really, we have an amazing wealth of space history here - maybe we could focus on jobs or bringing home something FAR more important to Houston - our local boys and girls stationed in the middle east.
They got a LOT of people there and in that part of the country. I'm just saying, "bang for the buck".
I don't like yankees. But that will give the orbiter better exposure than almost anywhere else.
Long time no see.
I agree. We don't need to go to Mars AGAIN. And until we have a propulsion system 1,000 times better than the one we have we aren't going anywhere.
Seveal people here will probably tell you that the NASA money is some tiny part of the national budget. But, still, I agree, we've gotten a lot of good stuff out of the space program. But, IMO, unless and until they can develop a "warp" drive, a "force field", or a time machine, we could use that money better someplace else. The only thing NASA would be useful for would be NEO mitigation.
So you're saying that it WAS a political decision and that we had it coming, Neil? I guess you are entitled to that opinion, no matter how absurd it may be.
And I have to take exception to you opinion too, Carguy. New York is in no way, shape, or form, deserving of an orbiter.
Some predictions regarding the Space Shuttle announcement:
1. This will become something else for the Obama-
Haters out there to squeal about.
2. The President loses nothing politically because
he isn't going win Texas in 2012 anyway.
3. Outside of Houston (and specifically, the Clear
Lake/NASA area), no one really cares that
Houston didn't win. This story is big deal
here for about 2 days, tops...then, as usual
in the 24-Hour News Cycle Era, it will be
forgotten.
Don't get me wrong, the descision not to place one of the retired orbiters here is at once disappointing and curious (New York City?), but the U.S. space program lost its sizzle decades ago. And no, I'm not one of those folks who thinks the program should be done away with entirely; I just don't think we should spend money on something so prohibitively expensive as manned spaceflight without a clear mission (and that mission, by the way, is not simply to employ people).
Who made the call anyway? Was it Obama, was it Joe Biden, did they draw straws??? Justin, can you ring on this?
I am just a s disappointed as anybody. Well, probably not really. Not as much as Justin I'll bet. But, we've got a lot of "space stuff" here and it is a BIG country. I think the four recipients are deserving and that, whether or not it was political, somebody was gonna be unhappy.
I don't see why they can't fly one of them around 4-5 time a year to other cities so everybody can see it up close. Charge admission to defer the cost. Sell hats and t-shirts and pictures of you sitting inside like you were flying it. Maybe we could make a dent in the national debt. Not a big dent, mind you.