Moffett RAB Hangar One Subcommittee Report on Cork Room
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Moffett RAB Hangar One Subcommittee Report on Cork Room

on

  • 636 views

Presentation by Lenny Siegel and Linda Ellis on Hangar One's historic Cork Room.

Presentation by Lenny Siegel and Linda Ellis on Hangar One's historic Cork Room.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
636
Views on SlideShare
635
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.docshut.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Moffett RAB Hangar One Subcommittee Report on Cork Room Moffett RAB Hangar One Subcommittee Report on Cork Room Presentation Transcript

  • Hangar One’s “Cork Room” and Other Artifacts/Structures Lenny Siegel & Linda Ellis Moffett Field RAB Meeting July 8, 2010
  • The 225-foot long Cell Room, known as the “Cork Room” because it is constructed with cork, was used to store massive deflated gas cells from the U.S.S. Macon dirigible. Other than Hangar One itself, the Cork Room is believed to be the last remaining artifact of the lighter-than-air era at Moffett Field.
  • July 1, 2010 Tour
  • Cork Wall
  • Cork Cross-Section at Doorway
  • Original Storage Shelves
  • Conveyor System
  • Navy Plan • Preserve steel frame in place and remove conveyor for storage. • Sample cork, plaster (stucco), and wood for contamination. (agreed on July 1) • No promise to preserve porous materials.
  • Proposed RAB Position (offered July 1 by RAB representatives) • Preservation of the entire Cork Room in place, if safe, is the preferred option. • NASA should request preservation. • If cork is not contaminated, Navy should substitute weatherproofing for demolition. (possible cost, contractual issues) The recommendation for constructability and highest level of preservation by Rick Millitello, Hardip Pannu, and Linda Ellis is to completely encapsulate the Cork Room and equipment in place with a single ply roofing that is seam adhered only. Do not adhere the roofing to the plaster and structure, then sheet metal flash the roofing around the perimeter at the base following SMACNA standards. • Asked pro bono consultant to consider ways to preserve cork panels. Not recommended as panels will be difficult to remove and reinstallation will have seams that will never be the same after reconstruction.
  • Next Items to Preserve • THE WINDOWS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTIFACTS FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF HANGAR ONE. • Navy and NASA requested to confirm the following: 1. ALL rail cars will be removed and stored for future installation. 2. The propeller platforms, integral to the third floor steel cell floor and guardrail systems will be left in place. 3. The steel framed handling hoist and elevator controls on the roof will be left in place. 4. The mooring masts and turntables set in concrete below the orange peel doors will remain to allow future door operation. 5. Provide photos of the Antenna Room contents. The contents might be valuable for contents for museum display. Priority-TBD
  • Next Items to Preserve • Navy is requested to omit the following items from the current scope of work and reallocate funds to the increase the $75,000 budget for Historic Preservation. 1. Vertical steel wall panels on first floor. The vertical steel walls will need to be torched for removal and can be cleaned and coated with the structure. The money saved on demolition labor should be added to the $75,000 budget for artifact preservation. 2. Clay Block Room on the first floor is not painted and if poses no known hazards, the money saved on demolition labor should be added to the $75,000 budget for artifact preservation.
  • Requested Processes for Deconstruction • Contractor training for found artifacts during deconstruction. • Webcam filming • Artifact contingency for unforeseen and discovered artifacts