Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Space Shuttle Collides With Bridge In New York

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the all-this-to-avoid-the-tunnel-toll dept.

NASA 157

First time accepted submitter AbrasiveCat writes "While transporting the space shuttle Enterprise to its new home at the Intrepid Museum, a gust of wind caught the shuttle and pushed a wing tip into the South Channel Subway Bridge. With any luck it was just the protective covering that was damaged. Ah, New York traffic."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Blast. (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219635)

We were hoping that Britain would provide something of a buffer; but it looks like metric wind is making its way from the EU after all...

Boing (2)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219645)

This news story would have sounded very different 15 years ago.

Linkbait titles! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219647)

I wish they weren't so common.

Re:Linkbait titles! (0)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220005)

tl;dr

It was on a boat (5, Informative)

wookaru (1521381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219651)

The summary should reflect that the Space Shuttle was being transported on top of a barge at the time of collision. Very low speed impact, very little damage. Headline is misleadingly catastrophic.

Re:It was on a boat (5, Informative)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219751)

Low speed doesn't mean little damage necessarily.

A barge is fairly heavy, and if it's being pulled with the current, there's a whole lot of energy behind it. The shuttle could act like the crumple zone on a car in a collision, essentially being crushed in the process of slowing or stopping the barge.

Re:It was on a boat (1)

BlindRobin (768267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219833)

The tow boat pilot must be miffed but having seen the damage foto, it's not much in the way of a collision as marine collisions go, a little bondo and some spray paint and they're good to go.

Re:It was on a boat (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220685)

He hands it to the final spot. "Yea, we can just buff that out."

Re:It was on a boat (2)

Cassini2 (956052) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221235)

A little brick of styrofoam would never harm a space shuttle ...

idjits. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219931)

Good thing we didn't trust them with a real shuttle.

It's been more than 10 years since 9/11, can we go back to hating New Yorkers like we used to now?

Re:It was on a boat (5, Informative)

MBAFK (769131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220139)

This page is more informative and has the damage photos: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-060412a.html [collectspace.com]

Doesn't look too bad.

Re:It was on a boat (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220229)

Now that it doesn't actually have to not-burn-up-on-reentry or anything, a modestly talented model aircraft hobbyist could probably have it looking good as new in a weekend.

I suspect that, had they had to get that wingtip flight rated again, the bill might have come in considerably higher...

Re:It was on a boat (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220533)

I think it's cool to be able to see the structure, which is depicted pretty clearly in some of the photos taken immediately after the collision. They oughta just face it so that wing is away from the entrance to the exhibit or direction you walk up to it normally or whatever.

Re:It was on a boat (2)

bsane (148894) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221091)

The leading edges of the Enterprise are just foam replacements anyway- the originals were used for testing post Columbia.

Re:It was on a boat (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220669)

Low speed doesn't mean little damage necessarily

I can vouch for that. When I was in the USAF stationed at Dover in 1971-3, one of the tow tractors backing a C5-A into a hangar hit the hangar door with a wing. We're talking really low speed here, slower than a normal walk. It did five million dollars in damage. Worried the hell out of the tractor driver until they layed the blame on the wingwalker.

Re:It was on a boat (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219785)

Cue up "I'm on a Boat" by Lonely Island.

Re:It was on a boat (2)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219825)

Well as we claim to be well informed techno nerds, we should have known that there are no more flying (and fueled up) shuttles around. There where only to options left: 1) Oversized truck not quite making a turn and doing some (minor) damage to the shuttle. 2)Shuttle on a ship with a lot more options on the scale of the damage to the shuttle.

Re:It was on a boat (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219905)

It could have fallen off a plane.

SAVE THE ENZOS! (2)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220211)

I'm confused, do I go to the Cargo Letter [cargolaw.com] or Airdisaster.com [airdisaster.com] for news on this ?
Guess I should check Wrecked Exotics [wreckedexotics.com] while I'm at it.

Re:It was on a boat (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221073)

While I assumed truck (shame on me for not following how the shuttle was being moved!) My first mental image was of them shearing the tail off on a bridge because someone forgot to measure... seeing the wingtip damage in the photos though makes me think this is mostly a non-story, that damage looks quite minor, and probably easily enough fixed/covered up. (especially being that the repair doesn't need to be able to survive launch or re-entry stresses)

Re:It was on a boat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219861)

misleadingly catastrophic

A priceless relic collides with a heavily used piece of transportation infrastructure?

that sounds pretty catastrophic to me

Re:It was on a boat (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220053)

Read TFA. The wingtip of the shuttle lightly grazed a wooden navigation bumper on the bridge, causing some protective foam to fall off the shuttle and no damage to the bridge.

Re:It was on a boat (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220885)

From the picture... It looks like the shuttle was made out of wood and foam...

Re:It was on a boat (2)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220055)

There's no mention of damage to the bridge, and the shuttle suffered only "minor wing damage". Not every catasrophic. Since the shuttle will never fly again, the wing damage shouldn't be that big a deal, just make a cosmetic fix and you're fine. If the shuttle fleet were still in use (and this was a real shuttle, not the test model), someone would have to do a serious examination of the wing looking for defaults.

Re:It was on a boat (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220197)

Some foam got scraped off of the starboard wingtip. Inconvenient, maybe. Costly, probably. Embarrassing, definitely. Catastrophe, not so much.

Re:It was on a boat (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220911)

I just picture the Barge captain cringing his face and breathing in very loudly threw his teeth, as his heart drops to his bowels.

Re:It was on a boat (4, Funny)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220495)

A priceless relic collides with a heavily used piece of transportation infrastructure?

Thank God the relic wasn't damaged, and the Shuttle should be pretty easy to fix.

Re:It was on a boat (1)

Reece400 (584378) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221201)

'collides' is one of the more misleading parts - Basically the wing tip bumped into a wood bumper designed for boats, and damaged some protective foam on the space craft's wingtip. FTA- "caused the rub panel foam protective layer of the wingtip of Enterprise to graze the protective wood piling bumpers in the water designed to bumper vessels"

Re:It was on a boat (1, Funny)

htnmmo (1454573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219941)

I agree. Still too soon to be publishing stories with sensational headlines about aircraft crashing into things in NY.

I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic.

Re:It was on a boat (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221277)

It's not like it'd be flying. It's been retired.

If it went to Houston... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219653)

it would have been taken care of better.

Re:If it went to Houston... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219837)

But who wants to go to that backwards hell-hole of a state to see it?

Re:If it went to Houston... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219979)

>But who wants to go to that backwards hell-hole of a state to see it?

Versus going to the city that's outlawing >16 oz. sodas?

Re:If it went to Houston... (0)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220587)

Tiny Mayor Bloomberg has had nightmares about drowning in a 16 ounce soda. He had no choice but to ban them.

Re:If it went to Houston... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40220575)

But who wants to go to that backwards hell-hole of a state to see it?

Oh, keep talking like that, and we'll stop being so polite about creating most of the jobs.

Re:If it went to Houston... (0)

k6mfw (1182893) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220615)

not really, Houston is regarded as poor caretakers and presenters of space artifacts. Saturn V rusting away and dirty with bird poop. Visitor center... last I heard it looked like it promotes Nascar. Former Shuttle manager Wayne Hale wrote in his 2011 blog that Houston does not deserve an orbiter, i.e. when was last time Houston mayor visited JSC? (he can't remember), when was last time Gov. visited JSC? (Ann Richards in the 1990s). http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/why-houston-did-not-get-a-shuttle/ [wordpress.com]

Ease up on the hyperbole please. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219657)

Stop it! Now!

Re:Ease up on the hyperbole please. (5, Funny)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219815)

Mod parent up to +10. There's NOTHING worse than hyperbole. If I had a nickel for every time I saw unnecessary hyperbole, I'd be a BILLIONAIRE by now. If I could jump as over the top as these headlines get, I could out-leap Superman over tall buildings! Excessive use of hyperbole is worse than SATAN rising from the DEPTHS OF HELL, spewing HELLFIRE on everyone!

Or, maybe, just maybe, you need to take a valium. Not sure.

Re:Ease up on the hyperbole please. (1)

al.caughey (1426989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220145)

So what... you were 5 cents short for your tall no fat extra starch latte at Starbucks?

Re:Ease up on the hyperbole please. (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220263)

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, DON'T EXAGGERATE!

Also, all extremists should be shot.

Re:Ease up on the hyperbole please. (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221109)

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, DON'T EXAGGERATE!

Also, all extremists should be shot.

Don't say that. Don't you know that all generalizations are wrong?

Re:Ease up on the hyperbole please. (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221339)

Everyone who makes sweeping generalizations is a complete moron.

Re:Ease up on the hyperbole please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219927)

The title of TFA is "Space Shuttle Collides With Bridge in New York". While this may be misleading, it is 100% factually correct, and not in any way hyperbolic.

Scary! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219663)

I'm scared of this article because the sensational title was analogous to something has big has 9/11

Oblig Tasteless (3, Funny)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219705)

Ready for throttle-up.

Re:Oblig Tasteless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219787)

You are go at throttle up.

Re:Oblig Tasteless (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219909)

Ready for throttle-up.

Well, as long as we're all going to hell today, 2001 called, 1986 can have its tasteless humor back:

This just in: A SECOND SPACE SHUTTLE HAS JUST CRASHED INTO THE SECOND PIER OF THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE!

Re:Oblig Tasteless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40220919)

My kingdom for modpoints. This is the funniest comment on /. ever.

Interwting (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219729)

the level of anxiety I felt when reading the headline. I had to take a moment to remember they aren't in use.

Disappointment (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219737)

Why am I both relieved and disappointed this wasn't an awesome space crash?

Re:Disappointment (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219783)

Were you expecting the saucer crashdown from Star Trek: Generations?

C'mon! I mean, Marina Sirtis wasn't even driving...

Re:Disappointment (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220479)

Was Kirk flying it?

All I can say is, we're certain they didn't forget to disengage the parking brake this time!

Re:Disappointment (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220797)

Yea, what was up with that.
I mean Riker is suppose to be a really good pilot and all. He should have just taken the helm. Or why not Data to handle both consoles. I mean he is orders of magatudes faster then a human, he could do whatever he does and pilot the ship at the same time.

Re:Disappointment (1)

al.caughey (1426989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220183)

But the outer skin has been damaged (or not... I'm just reading the comments and may get to the original article later on)... so, any case, with the outer skin damaged, it could still burn up on reentry...

Re:Disappointment (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221383)

Except this is the Enterprise, which has never been to space and was only ever used to test landing parameters from relatively low altitudes.

I bet.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219749)

I bet it went down something like...

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/c/cb/USS_Enterprise-D_saucer_crash.jpg

Re:I bet.. (1)

pezpunk (205653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219769)

i was picturing something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msp2xO_TdQ4 [youtube.com]

Re:I bet.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219839)

What immediately came to mind for me was Admiral Cartwright/Sisko's Dad yelling that the the Klingon ship commanded by Admiral Kirk was going to crash into the Golden Gate bridge.

Re:I bet.. (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220709)

If you were picturing that, I worry for your mind. Then, I watched most of it, I worry for mine. It was like Timecube in video.

Re:I bet.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40221023)

I was thinking of the 90's Spiderman cartoon. The part when the space shuttle crash-landed on a New York bridge.

Imaginary Diagrams (2)

bacon.frankfurter (2584789) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219767)

I wish there was a way to post a diagram of what I was imagining this article to be about, based on the headline alone.

Hint: It would have been the Brooklyn Bridge, and there would have been volcanoes and dinosaurs involved.

Clearly moving this thing around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219869)

is like a big, complicated task...involving angles, maths and other science type things. I wonder if there's a joke in this somewhere that I'm somehow missing?

New Yorkers... (5, Funny)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219885)

THIS is why you CAN'T have nice things!

Re:New Yorkers... (2)

chispito (1870390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220009)

As far as I can tell, they get nice things like this (atmospheric test) Space Shuttle simply because they're New York.

Re:New Yorkers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40221395)

Houston was screwed out of a shuttle.

Re:New Yorkers... (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220431)

Damn it!!! I was going to post this!!!

Should of sent it (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219933)

Should of sent it to Texas, we were more careful with our shuttle replica than they were with the real things it seems. Someones head is going to roll over this I bet.

Re:Should of sent it (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220107)

It's just the Enterprise, not one of the shuttles that was actually launched.

We should return it to NASA. "This one's broken, we want to exchange it for Atlantis"

Re:Should of sent it (1)

al.caughey (1426989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220249)

Maybe Canada will want to buy it now...

Did you hear about that really good deal we got on the [damaged] submarines from the Brits?

Re:Should of sent it (1)

geoffball (1195685) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220423)

I'd think the wreckage from Columbia would be cooler to have than Atlantis.

Re:Should of sent it (3, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220179)

Yeah, they were trying to console Houstonians a few weeks ago by telling them, "Well, at least the model shuttle we'll be getting is something the public will be allowed to walk through and see from the inside." Small comfort for a city that's devoted so much to the industry. It just feels like a massive slap in the face.

Re:Should of sent it (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220279)

The space under bridges is very narrow in a lot of the major ports of the world. During low tide, sometimes there's only 2-3 feet of clearance. I think not accounting for the lift of the wings from the wind is something not many people would account for.

Re:Should of sent it (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220815)

You mean like this? http://www.click2houston.com/image/view/-/14428030/medRes/1/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/vrhrx6/-/shuttle54-jpg.jpg [click2houston.com]

Houston seems to have managed to get their replica to it's new home safely. Someone dropped the ball, you always factor in wind when on the water, always

Re:Should of sent it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40221045)

Theres a difference between accounting for lift due to plane wings and wind in your course. The way the summary reads, a gust caused the plane shape to rise and scape, not the barge/vessel being pushed by the wind. It is not normal procedure to expect a vessel tilt from wind raising the clearance height because ships with clearance problems are typically too big to be destabilized in this way. Gusts on the side of the vessels alter the course of the ship, not tip the vessel, and can cause collisions with the supporting beams of the bridge, not the bridge itself.

I didn't see anything... (3, Interesting)

khr (708262) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219965)

Well, I can say there was nothing recognizable damaged to an untrained eye with a 300mm camera lens... I was on the bank of the bay, near the Verrazana-Narrows Bridge taking pictures... Maybe that's why they were late getting there, they might've stopped to inspect it after the collision.

Re:I didn't see anything... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220609)

Maybe you shoulda shot the side that hit the bridge, since you can clearly see damage in some of the photos.

Ambiguities (3, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219977)

There are many ambiguities in the summary.

1. The bridge was over water, not a roadway.

2. This was neither caused by "New York traffic" nor did it disrupt (land) traffic.

3. The protective covering that was damaged was on the Enterprise, not the bridge.

4. You can view photos of the damage [collectspace.com] yourself.

Re:Ambiguities (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220979)

3. The protective covering that was damaged was on the Enterprise, not the bridge.

And the "protective covering" that was damaged is actually part of Enterprise in the same way the [protective] bumper on the front of your car is part of your car. It's physically part of the vehicle.

No Business in NYC (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219995)

I'm so glad New York City got a Space Shuttle instead of the National Museum of the United State Air Force. That way, citizens can pay to see it (NMUSAF is totally free--including parking), in a setting that makes sense (there were carrier-based space shuttles, right?) and it's clustered next to another shuttle (less than eight hours NYC to DC, vs. putting it towards the center of the country). Further, this shows that the Intrepid museum is already providing the lack of care they have provided other artifacts [slashdot.org] .

Re:No Business in NYC (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40221341)

Anon, i think you formatted your link to http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/museum_care_a12.html incorrectly.

TLDR on the link: The relevant section discusses how the A-12 camera plane was left outside by the New York Intrepid museum and it may have gotten damaged, disrespecting the importance of the vehicle to recent American history. The rest of the article was a lot more interesting than the part about the museum, so the adventurous reader is in for a treat.

Thanks Anon, that article was really cool (although you might have quoted the relevant part).

What happened to waiting for the weather report? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40220003)

Mission control should never have given the go-ahead in that kind of wind...

Oh, nevermind.

Shuttle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40220017)

These things have been known to break up on re-entry.

It destroys the value!!! (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220071)

Wow,this is going to kill the value of it even more! It doesn't have the original box and instructions, now it's nicked up. NFW will they get the high dollar at ComicCon.

I guess it'll just have to be suspended on a string from the Statue of Liberty's arm.

Armageddon will happen (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40220079)

Uh-oh! Now the shuttle is broken. If we ever needed to retrofit the shuttle with mining gear to save the world from an impending astroid collision, we're screwed!

So, (5, Funny)

hackertourist (2202674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220123)

these are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise?

captain kirk was wasted on landing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40220289)

captain kirk was wasted on landing

Bloody... (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220185)

...women drivers...

Safety Record (1)

psyclone241 (733888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220191)

Someone figured on maintaining the safety record of NASA....

Stop parading it around then (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220195)

Seriously, this thing is getting more press coverage then when it was in use. Also, does this mean the Earth's core is going to stop spinning?

Another accident ... (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220341)

.. and again, there were no survivors among the shuttle crew.

Protective Covering of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40220515)

With any luck it was just the protective covering that was damaged.

The shuttle or the bridge?

SHIELDS! SHIELDS! (3, Funny)

ebinrock (1877258) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220547)

[Scotty]: What, she didna' have her shields up?

Better headline (or at least more scary) (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220607)

A better headline would have been "Enterprise crashes into bridge"
I mean everybody knows the shuttles are retired, but CVN65 hasn't retired just yet (I think its on the last tour of duty) and I am sure an aircraft carrier would do a lot more damage, not to mention the potential of leaks from its 8 reactors.

Re:Better headline (or at least more scary) (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221273)

And if Captain Kirk had to bring the Starship Enterprise back in time for another load of whales, and crashed into a bridge? Well, there goes the future, destroyed by angry space-whales.

Just imagine how different it would be... (1)

EvilSS (557649) | more than 2 years ago | (#40220729)

...if this headline was from two years ago.

Not flight worthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40220921)

I can tell you one thing: I'm not going to be flying into space in that thing any time soon, not even if they paid me. They should ground the shuttle until the damage is completely repaired.

Come on... (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221129)

It's not like this is rocket science.

(anymore)

See Discovery, not Enterprise (1)

Dr. Gamera (1548195) | more than 2 years ago | (#40221215)

I saw Enterprise when it was still at Udvar-Hazy. I have also seen Discovery at its new home in Udvar-Hazy. I'm no rocket scientist, but Discovery was much more impressive. It... felt... like a spacecraft. Okay, now waiting for more knowledgeable people to tell me about the real differences in external appearance between Discovery and Enterprise, or alternatively, use me as an example of how external knowledge (Discovery was a real shuttle, Enterprise just a testbed) can affect perception.

Damn you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40221433)

KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNN!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?