Talk:Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This page doesn't come close to doing the place justice. I'll be in the area next week, so I'll see if I can snap some pictures and pick up some promotional material to flesh this out a bit. Kaszeta 19:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Picture has been added, and I'll work on the text later this week. Kaszeta 15:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Museum is having trouble handling advance reservations for its IMAX shows because of the huge crowds that are visiting even well outside of the summer tourist season. You're likely to get a phone recording that says the queue is so long that you won't even be allowed to wait on hold. Buy IMAX tickets well in advance and arrive at the Museum near its opening time if you expect to get a parking place and see a show.
finicky arithmetic question
it says the centre was made possible by a donation in 1999. It also says that 15 years were 'required' to build it. Was this article sent back from the future? on the 15 year timetable from 1999 the place hasn't been built yet. Is it:
- Only partially completed (and giving a projected timetable for construction)
- Wrong about the date the donation was made (or wrong in the implication that construction only started after the donation was made)
- Wrong about the timetable for construction.
Anyone know? 22.214.171.124 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's see, the site was selected in 1990 and it opened in 2005. That makes 15 years in my arithmetic!--BillFlis 12:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Correct. The site was selected in 1990. The donation from Steven Udvar-Hazy, which allowed the Smithsonian to realistically begin work on the facility, was in 1999; thus, the apparent discrepancy in dates.Scarletsmith 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Photo Caption Question
The MiG 15 photo currently has this caption: "MiG 15 of the type piloted by Polish defector Frank Jarecki"
My question is: who is Frank Jarecki? Why is he of note to be mentioned under the photo? Wikipedia has no article on him, and the only defector mentioned in the MiG 15 article is the North Korean pilot No Kum-Sok.
Does anyone have a good reason why this particular caption should stay as it is? -- g026r 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The NASM also has the only surviving Boeing 307, an ex-Pan Am Stratoliner, Clipper Flying Cloud.
Seems all very out of date
Quality of the curation
I think those who have been there will agree that the fantastic collection is hampered by a terrible layout, shoddy presentation, and a dearth of information. There are very few aircraft that you can actually walk all the way around, there aren't enough catwalks for the hung aircraft, the placement of the larger aircraft is lacking in cohesion, and worst of all the information about the aircraft that you are looking at is often difficult to find and minimal when you do. I suppose this is better addressed in a letter to the Smithsonian but for this: it lacks both the charm of an actual hangar or the Smithsonian's own "attic," and the presentation and information of a high quality museum, and that should be pointed out in an article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Removed the "glide test platform" description from the listing for the shuttle Enterprise. True, she never flew in space, but according to NASA (and the Smithsonian) she's still an Orbiter (designation OV-101) and is properly referred to as the Space Shuttle Enterprise. -Jesternaut (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
unless "orbiter" has a definition other than "that which orbits," the Enterprise is not an orbiter. It never orbited anything and was not capable of doing so. OV designation notwithstanding, this seems to indicate that NASA agrees that it was a glide test platform, not an orbiter:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/orbiters.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Of course there's another definition -- the Orbiter is the name of the airplane-shaped component of Space Shuttle (as distinct from the ET and SRBs). Also, the Page on Enterprise from the site you linked explicitly states that Enterprise is "the first Space Shuttle Orbiter". Jesternaut (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- From that site: Enterprise, the first Space Shuttle Orbiter. 'Orbiter' may be the name of that component of the package, however the Enterprise is a non-spaceworthy test platform, not a spaceship or small 'o' orbiter. I think the previous poster's point was simply that it is not a real space shuttle. It had no engines and could not have gone into space. In the designation "Space Shuttle Orbiter" at least two of those three words are inaccurate. Just because the geniuses who brought you the frozen o-ring and the foam strike call it an Orbiter doesn't make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- No one's questioning that Enterprise was never made spaceworthy. But NASA's level of technical prowess or clumsiness is irrelevant here -- "Orbiter" remains the designation they gave it. Is a bomber not "really" a bomber until it drops its first bomb? And is an Orbiter not an Orbiter until it achieves orbit? Would we still be discussing this if they'd picked a different name for the system? (Pegasus, Hermes, Astroplane, Skylark, and Space Clipper were all under consideration -- see Jenkins, 3rd ed., p. 171.) Jesternaut (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a statement that seems to have been sourced from a posting by some guy on a forum site. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, reliable sourcing. --Jenny 07:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Under the Collection section for the SR-71 Blackbird, it has in parentheses (Jetfire). For those of you that don't know, Jetfire was the robot in Transformers which could transform into an SR-71. He was housed in the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in the movie. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure this was just done as a joke and should not be included here. Someone else can make the decision whether or not to remove it. Damaband (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting side note: Yesterday I visited the Udvar-Hazy center, and there actually was a Jetfire exhibit! Near the SR-71 there was a display of movie artifacts (props), transformer toys etc and a monitor displaying a continuous loop of Jetfire transforming from the SR-71 and breaking out of the hanger doors. I don't think this merits inclusion in the main article, so I'm just noting it here. Ferritecore (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two simulators in the center that aren't mentioned at all in the article. It's been a while since I've went there, so I can't remember much about them, though. --Kaysakado (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the IMAX theater at the museum is operated and run by a different organization than the exhibit itself, but the theater has become an important part of the facility, and I think it's deserving of more than a passing mention. Amit (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I could agree with that but I havent found a lot of references for information on the Theatre itself. --Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This article was edited as part of the SIA edit-a-thon!