Save Hangar One Committee

Please join us in support of the "Re-Skin Hangar One" proposal. Subscribe to our email list or RSS feed to be informed of developments and learn how you can participate.

Our next Call to Action will likely be this winter, when the Navy makes its recommendation to preserve or demolish the hangar. Subscribe now, and we'll call on you to attend the public hearing, probably in January, send a written comment to the Navy, and get in touch with your representatives in Washington.

Re-covering Moffett Field's Hangar One with fabric is an historically sensitive, cost-effective, legally compliant way to restore the Hangar and prepare it for future use. We ask the Navy to use fabric as a way to restore Hangar One after removing the existing siding, which contains hazardous substances.

In 2003, NASA estimated it would cost $27.5 million dollars to re-skin the hangar in steel. Fabric would be less expensive than steel: After the toxic siding is removed and the frame cleaned, we estimate it will cost around $12 million to apply the fabric skin.

Around 1,500 people have signed on to support our proposal that the Navy re-skin Hangar One with a durable, attractive teflon-covered fiberglass fabric similar to that used for Mountain View's Shoreline Ampitheater and the Denver International Airport terminal.

The fabric has a 60-year lifespan, with existing installations still going strong after up to 37 years in service.

In May, 2006, the Navy proposed demolishing Hangar One completely. The Navy says the hangar's siding is shedding toxic chemicals into the stormwater, which drains to the bay.

We argue that by removing the siding and keeping the steel skeleton, then recovering the hangar with fabric, the Navy will meet both obligations: To clean up the hangar and to return it to the community for re-use under the Base Realignment and Closure process.

And the cost is modest, not much more than demolition, which would destroy this historic regional landmark, a unique public asset.

We haven't yet won the war to save Hangar One, but this is an important win!

The Navy's Rick Weissenborn said in an email to RAB members on July 25:

The Navy has decided to issue a revised EE/CA for Hangar One (Site 29) at Moffett Field and seek additional public comment. This decision to revise the EE/CA is based on concerns expressed by the public in review of the EE/CA published on May 5, 2006, new information received by the Navy in response to those concerns, and new information received in response to requests for proposals for performance of the Removal Action work. A schedule for

This is the statement I intend to present at tonight's meeting:

The Navy's EE/CA that recommends tearing down Moffett Hangar One is a flawed document that "backs in" to a predetermined conclusion that the Navy had reached a year ago.

During the summer of 2005, the Navy's position re: Hangar One was made clear at Restoration Advisory Board meetings held at Mountain View City Hall. The reaction from the public was strongly opposed to demolition. This opposition was also expressed by members of the community at an August 18, 2005 meeting at Moffett Field. After this widespread criticism of the Navy's demolition proposal, they agreed to do this EE/CA, although the results indicate that the study was simply conducted to reinforce the course of action that the Navy wanted to take all along.

The Navy built Hangar One to house the gigantic airship U.S.S. Macon in 1932 on land donated by Bay Area communities. It is a monument to innovation and service, an icon of the Peninsula, and one of the world’s largest free-standing structures. Unfortunately, some of the materials used in its construction are now known to be toxic.

To eliminate the environmental risk, the Navy proposes to demolish Hangar One for $12 million … but Navy studies also show that it would cost only $12 million more to replace the toxic materials instead. We believe it’s worth the extra $35 per square foot to preserve Hangar One for future generations.

Lenny Siegel writes:

At the March 9, 2006, meeting of the Moffett Field Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), the Navy reported that the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for Hangar One is complete. They plan to brief our U.S. congressional delegation next week. Then, sometime over the next month, they will release the document for public comment.

There will be a public meeting about two weeks later, and RAB Community Co-Chair Bob Moss will probably convene a special meeting of the RAB, perhaps without Navy participation, shortly thereafter.

The EE/CA will explore several alternatives for Hangar One, and (I believe) recommend one. Due to the politics, complexity, and magnitude of this problem, the EE/CA was elevated to the political appointee level within the Navy.

For those of you who missed the Navy's "Alternatives Workshop" Thursday night:

Our community put on a good show for the Navy Thursday night (August 18, 2005). We were unified. We were constructive. We got our points across.

During the poster session, we handed out the "SHOC Statement." We gave people stickers with our logo to wear. Over the course of the evening, nearly twenty people signed up to be on our list.

From 70 to 100 people crowded into the Navy's "Alternatives Workshop." Nearly everyone in the room, including the Navy's professional facilitator, was confused by the Navy's efforts to walk us all through a spreadsheet covering 13 cleanup options and multiple criteria - without any background information. After about 15 or 20 minutes, they gave up.

Prior to yhe closing of Hanger one, I was a indoor model flyer at Hangar one on a monthly basis.
This activity involved teaching children "future pilots" how to build and fly simple models. I think this type of activity should be re-instated whenever hangar one is deemed safe for use.
The type of airplanes flown were rubber powered and very light weight. Some weighed as little as one-half gram (not including the rubber motor). These are very graceful, slow flying, free flight models.
RPM on the props is typically one revolution per second. Endurance on one wind of the rubber motor is up to one hour. My personal longest flight at Hangar one is only 20 minutes.

Thought I'd share something I just read about the Akron Airdock (as a member of the Moffett Historical Society, I've always been interested in the fate of that Hangar, as well as Hangar One). I don't know if any one else follows it too, but maybe the actions there have some relevance to Hangar One (or maybe not; but I still find it interesting).

In a nutshell, it looks like the Airdock has its own problems now with PCB's. The EPA has fined Lockheed Martin Corp. (the Airdock owner) $66,700 for the presence of PCB's in and around the facility. Lockheed did an interim cleanup, and began "investigating interior and exterior contamination for future cleanup".

(cross posted from Moffett Users)

Spaceref.com reports that NASA is seeking parties who might be interested in sheathing Hangar One with photovoltaic panels:

… Assuming that the Navy elects to remove the contaminated exterior siding and leave the structural frame …, NASA intends to enter into an enhanced use lease or other legal instrument (not a procurement action) with a third party … to install a new Photovoltaic (PV) system that will generate a minimum of two megawatts of electricity along with the hangar’s re-siding work at no cost to the Government. NASA WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY FUNDS FOR THE SIDING, PV SYSTEM, OR ITS INSTALLATION. NASA’s contribution is to provide the use of the Hangar One’s outer surface area, with options to purchase delivered power, and the right to use the project for credentials, publications and advertising …