Space Shuttles land but not in Houston

Houston, Tranquility base here, the Eagle has landed ... Apollo 11

Houston, we have a problem ... Apollo 13

Houston, you won't be getting a retired space shuttle ... NASA Admin Charles Bolden

The campaigning is done and the decisions have been made. The retired NASA Space Shuttles will be going to the Intrepid Air and Space Museum in New York City, the Smithsonian (actually the Udvar-Hazy Hangar in Chantilly, VA), the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and perhaps the biggest surprise, to many air and space fans, the California Science Museum in Los Angeles.

The placement was geographical, but it also comes down to numbers. The sheer numbers of people who live nearby. The number of people, national and international, who visit the selected areas. Those numbers can't be overlooked by the losing areas, even Houston.

You can't argue with the Smithsonian or Kennedy selections.

The Intrepid leads the way as a carrier based museum (ones in San Diego, Corpus Christi, Charleston, and even Mobile with it's retired battleship, look to it as the leader). It has a sleep aboard program and education center and a number of planes on display. The water-based facility built a special site for its retired Concorde (one of the two in the US). That location was justified as nearby Kennedy International Airport saw the most SST flights of any US destination.

The California site could be questioned. Opened in 1998, it is the youngest of the aviation sites considered. Current plane displays include the Bell X-1 used as the prop in the movie "The Right Stuff"(yawn), a reproduction of the Wright Glider, an F-20 prototype (a plane that never made it into production), a DC-8, and an A-12 Blackbird (okay - cool!). Although near the Douglas and several other aviation plants, it is hardly the in the same collection or historic league as Seattle, Dayton, or Houston (or Chicago, Pensacola, or Huntsville, AL). Reports are it attracts 1.4 million visitors annually, and there is no charge for admission.

To be fair, the Shuttles should be spread out. At least one should be west of the Mississippi. Had it gone to Seattle and the Museum of Flight, it would have joined a retired Air Force One, a retired Concorde, and a number of assorted military and commercial planes, including 747 Number One and 727 Number 1,000. The Museum is a well established attraction and has the backing of Boeing.

The US Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, OH would have been a logical choice. As the home of the Wright Brothers and only miles from Neil Armstrong's home town, it would be a more central geographic choice. It has an aviation history and it's an established attraction with an airplane collection second only to the Smithsonian (and that could be debated). The Air Force connection with the shuttle program is deep. Reports were the Air Force already had $14 million in its next budget to house a shuttle.

Houston's Space Center Houston attraction is more Disneyland entertainment than full of history, more playful hands-on than thoughtful mind-challenging. It is one of the youngest. While the Johnson Space Center is the training home of NASA, the 750,000 visitors pale with the numbers visiting the other three sites. There are a couple of space capsules, the lunar rover and lots of rocks, and a Saturn V rocket (lying on the ground).

All are justifiably disappointed.

Most were hoping Shuttle placement wasn't politically motivated, but it is hard to look past the politics. California has the political clout (as does New York) and Texas does not (and apparently, neither did Washington or Ohio). It also has a payback factor. Had this decision been made a few years ago, with a Texas president in the White House, would things have turned out differently?

Then again, look how the NASA domain is spread out and why.

The Johnson Space Center is in Houston largely because of Senator (and the Vice-President) Lyndon Johnson, and representatives Albert Thomas, Olin Teague and Sam Rayburn (who was Speaker of the House).

The other facilities, situated hither and yon, were part of a political payout and compromise in the late-1950's and early-1960's ... including Huntsville (AL), Stennis Space Center (MS), Langley and Wallops (VA), Ames, Dryden and Vandenberg (CA). These choices were made more because of the strong political influence, to spread out tax dollars, and create jobs, than the often heard "strategic protection purposes."

There's even a NASA facility in Fairmont, WV.

One just has to wonder ... had Sen. Robert Byrd still been alive (and Sen. Jennings Randolph for that matter), one of these space shuttles might have landed today in Huntington, Morgantown, or even Elkins!

Okay - enough grumbling that I can't make a 45 minute trip to see a shuttle up close. I'm packing my bags. One shuttle is near my daughter in Southern California, the other near my parents in Florida. I've never been to the Smithsonian or Intrepid museums. Maybe this WAS the political motivation after all - to keep us traveling with high fuel prices!