Senators Try To Halt Shuttle Move, Saying 'Little Evidence' of Public Demand (arstechnica.com) 107
Sen. Mark Kelly and three Democratic colleagues urged appropriations leaders to block funding for moving space shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia to Houston, arguing the transfer would waste taxpayer money, risk permanent damage, and restrict public access. The relocation, pushed by Texas senators Cornyn and Cruz under a new law, carries an estimated cost of nearly $400 million. Ars Technica reports: "Why should hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars be spent just to jeopardize a piece of American history that's already protected and on display?" wrote Kelly in a social media post on Friday. "Space Shuttle Discovery belongs at the Smithsonian, where millions of people, including students and veterans, go to see it for free." In a letter sent on the same day to the leadership of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Kelly and his three colleagues cautioned that any effort to transfer the winged orbiter would "waste taxpayer dollars, risk permanent damage to the shuttle, and mean fewer visitors would be able to visit it." "It is worth noting that there is little evidence of broad public demand for such a move," wrote Kelly, Warner, Kaine, and Durbin.
In the letter, the senators asked that committee chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and vice chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) block funding for Discovery's relocation in both the fiscal year 2026 Interior-Environment appropriations bill and FY26 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill. [...] "Houston's disappointment in not being selected is wholly understandable," the four senators wrote, "but removing an item from the National Collection is not a viable solution." [...] "There are also profound financial challenges associated with this transfer," wrote Kelly. Warner, Kaine, and Durbin. "The Smithsonian estimates that transporting Discovery from Virginia to Houston could cost more than $50 million, with another $325 million needed for planning, exhibit reconstruction, and new facilities." "Dedicating hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to move an artifact that is already housed, displayed, and preserved in a world-class facility is both inefficient and unjustifiable," the senators wrote.
Then there are the logistical challenges with relocating Discovery, which could result in damaging it, "permanently diminishing its historical and cultural value for future generations." "Moving Discovery by barge or road would be far more complex [than previous shuttle moves], exposing it to saltwater, weather, and collision risks across a journey several times longer," the letter reads. "As a one-of-a-kind artifact that has already endured the stresses of spaceflight, Discovery is uniquely vulnerable to these hazards. The heat tiles that enabled repeated shuttle missions become more fragile with age, and they are irreplaceable." Kelly, who previously lived in Houston when he was part of the space program, agrees that the city is central to NASA's human spaceflight efforts, but, along with Warner, Kaine, and Durbin, points out that displaying Discovery would come with another cost: an admission fee, limiting public access to the shuttle. "The Smithsonian is unique among museums for providing visitors with access to a national treasure meant to inspire the American public without placing economic barriers," wrote the senators.
In the letter, the senators asked that committee chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and vice chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) block funding for Discovery's relocation in both the fiscal year 2026 Interior-Environment appropriations bill and FY26 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill. [...] "Houston's disappointment in not being selected is wholly understandable," the four senators wrote, "but removing an item from the National Collection is not a viable solution." [...] "There are also profound financial challenges associated with this transfer," wrote Kelly. Warner, Kaine, and Durbin. "The Smithsonian estimates that transporting Discovery from Virginia to Houston could cost more than $50 million, with another $325 million needed for planning, exhibit reconstruction, and new facilities." "Dedicating hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to move an artifact that is already housed, displayed, and preserved in a world-class facility is both inefficient and unjustifiable," the senators wrote.
Then there are the logistical challenges with relocating Discovery, which could result in damaging it, "permanently diminishing its historical and cultural value for future generations." "Moving Discovery by barge or road would be far more complex [than previous shuttle moves], exposing it to saltwater, weather, and collision risks across a journey several times longer," the letter reads. "As a one-of-a-kind artifact that has already endured the stresses of spaceflight, Discovery is uniquely vulnerable to these hazards. The heat tiles that enabled repeated shuttle missions become more fragile with age, and they are irreplaceable." Kelly, who previously lived in Houston when he was part of the space program, agrees that the city is central to NASA's human spaceflight efforts, but, along with Warner, Kaine, and Durbin, points out that displaying Discovery would come with another cost: an admission fee, limiting public access to the shuttle. "The Smithsonian is unique among museums for providing visitors with access to a national treasure meant to inspire the American public without placing economic barriers," wrote the senators.
$400 million? (Score:1)
We're just going to act like $400 million isn't a fucking ridiculous price? What the fuck can possibly cost that anything near that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Political theatre has no limit.
To the victor goes the spoils. This is all about carrying away the trophy to one's home turf. The shuttle is not a museum specimen but a trophy.
The Texas senators may not be in the right here, but they're just doing what all the political victors do in plundering the spoils of political war.
Re:$400 million? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything is cheap when you are playing with other people's money.
I should also mention that moving something the size of a space-shuttle is difficult and very expensive especially since none of the specialized transports (SCA 747-100) for is in a functional state.
Re:$400 million? (Score:5, Insightful)
To move the space shuttle, both the building it's currently housed in and the building it's moved to would have to be partially deconstructed to make openings large enough to accommodate the shuttle (the current building was literally built around the shuttle, so there's no shuttle sized door). A customized cradle would to be built into the destination building and that won't be cheap. Then the move would have to take place using a specialized hauler which is also quite expensive. Finally, both of the buildings would have to be reconstructed (which is quite expensive) and viewing areas would have to be built around the shuttle in its new location (also quite expensive). I'm sure there are hundreds of other expenses involved with the move as well, but I've hit the major ones.
So no, $400 million isn't a "fucking ridiculous price). You just have no clue what's involved and made an arbitrary decision that the price couldn't possibly be that high.
Re: (Score:3)
the current building was literally built around the shuttle, so there's no shuttle sized door
Not saying that is wrong, but it's not fully correct and there is a precedent.
The Discovery was not the first shuttle there. It originally housed the Enterprise. I have photos of my kids, running from the SR71 in the hall in front, back down to the Enterprise in the separate hall behind. So, they were able to remove the Enterprise and replace it with the Discovery.
No, I don't remember seeing any shuttle sized doors, so they must have removed a wall. But, if they did it easily once, they can do it again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you look close at the rear of the hangar, behind Discovery, there are very large doors that presumably still open. I was there the day they rolled Enterprise out and Discovery in. It was an impressive sight.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is to not damage this relic from our space program.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, let's just cut the historical exhibit into pieces. That makes perfect sense!
Re: (Score:2)
This Rembrandt doesn't fit the new frame? Get out the scissors!
The Solomon Solution! [Re:$400 million?] (Score:2)
Cut the thing up! I said it before I stand by it. It never needs to be "air worthy" again. In fact splitting thing apart so people can also see its internal structure etc would actually make it a better exhibit.
OOH! I think you have it! The Solomon solution: just divide it in two and give each museum half!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain it has to be flown.
Re:$400 million? (Score:5, Informative)
I assume you're just trolling, but if you really are a moron then perhaps you'd like to inform us what you'd do with all old exhibits in a museum? There's plenty of photos of old egyptian/roman/celtic/ming artifacts, why waste space keeping them, bin them right? Ditto those wheezy old steam locos, antique cars, planes which are also on film , recycle for the scrap value?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe replace all of the museum's contents with exhibitions extolling Trump's greatness? (you know, something like in N. Korea).
Re:$400 million? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a ridiculous price for the result (being in a different state) but not a ridiculous price for the activity itself. Moving the shuttle would be an insanely complex feat involving not just the moving of something that is no longer designed to be moved (it was flown to its resting place on the back of a now decommissioned dedicated aircraft) but also had the final building built around it.
Re:$400 million? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is the care for government efficiency now?
Oh, I see, that was just a pretext to fire government employees, got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're just going to act like $400 million isn't a fucking ridiculous price? What the fuck can possibly cost that anything near that?
Providing 1.3 million round trip airfares between Houston and Washington DC for Texans who want to see the shuttle.
Re:Some Evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I actually think that is a bit unfair to rural areas
Rural areas fucked themselves by being shitty. Not in terms of the land, but the people and their attitudes. Most people want to get away from shitty assholes so they move to more progressive states. Then the shitty states double down on being shitty and more people move. If not for the electoral college, maybe those shitty states would have to try being nice to people.
Re: (Score:1)
So people are moving from "shitty rural" states like California to "more progressive" states like Texas?
https://www.dailysignal.com/20... [dailysignal.com]
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So we should locate significant history in places no one travels to and that don't have the amenities nor anything approaching the amount of other fun activities that a major city does?
Put the stuff where barely anyone lives, what a great way for almost no one getting to enjoy our country's history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As someone who used to live in a "flyover" state, it most definitely SHOULD go to somewhere with a higher population base and more visitors. That is not unfair at all. That is life. That is where people are. DC and NYC have large airports, mass transit, and infrastructure to move a lot of people around. Rural areas do not. Get over yourself.
The Smithsonian is a national treasure of museums. This is specifically where something like this should go. Not MN, WI, SD, ND, IA, NE, MO, KS, AK, OK, MI, etc. Chicago
Re:Some Evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Washington DC is nowhere near being the most expensive place to stay.
Tons of hotel rooms between $150 and $200/night when there's no holiday going on. I live in a little town and the hotels that aren't complete dumps start at $120. Flights from LA to DC start at $150 or so, which isn't any more expensive than flying to Houston. A rental car in DC can be had for around $100/day which is about the same as a rental car in Houston.
As for accessibility, booking one flight and one hotel stay to see all the exhibits in one place is far more accessible than booking multiple flights and hotel stays to visit exhibits scattered across the country.
Finally, I would really like to see the source that backs up your claim that "only a fraction of American students and veterans have ever seen the Space Shuttle on display, or the original Smithsonian museum itself". I'm fairly sure the source is you just making shit up and presenting it as truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you fly from LA to DC to see a shuttle when there is already a space shuttle (Endeavor) in LA? There were six built (counting Enterprise) and minus the destroyed Challenger and Columbia, there are four left at three corners of the country for you to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Because unlike Houston there are tons of other things to see in DC along with the shuttle.
Never mind the fact that what they were saying was obviously meant an an example of cheap airline pricing getting from one major airport to another and not a vacation guide.
Re: (Score:1)
> Why would you fly from LA to DC to see a shuttle when there is already a space shuttle (Endeavor) in LA?
Because Endeavour is not actually on display. When I was there in the spring, they were still constructing the building and I couldn't even see the shuttle.
I've seen Enterprise at Udvar-Hazy, and then I saw Discovery (the tour guide pointed out the special doors that were used to move it in). Discovery sure looked beat-up in comparison - going to space will do that. I also saw Atlantis in Florida; I
Re: (Score:1)
Interestingly, I found a press release saying the Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center was supposed to open "mid-2025" but they would "announc[e] the official opening date well in advance of the public opening," and yet, I can't find any updates on that opening date.
https://californiasciencecente... [california...center.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The east coast is the most populous part of the USA by far - 3 times that of california , so why wouldn't a national asset be located there?
Re:Some Evidence. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, who wants all that national and international prestige of locating such an amazing piece of history in a place tourists actually travel to when we could charge people to see it in Houston, a city no one would ever voluntarily vacation at. Much better to spend almost half a bil to move it somewhere where far less people will get to enjoy it.
Re: (Score:1)
Texas is a not more accessible to those who would go to NY to see exhibits in multiple museums. Yeah, I'll just add another leg of my tour because something I wanted to see has been moved 1600 miles, said no-one ever.
Re:Some Evidence. (Score:4, Informative)
Dude there are *four* surviving space shuttles. One in DC, one in NY (those are close together, fair enough -- the one in NY was only for atmo testing and while mostly capable of flying in space, but never received the refit to be able to do it) but the other two flown shuttles are at KSC in Florida and in Los Angeles. If your argument was that people have to travel too far, then we'd move the NY one to Nebraska or something to minimize distance traveled from any point in the country. That would also be a lot cheaper to stay at a hotel there than in Houston.
But, conveniently, Florida, New York, DC and California are some of the most visited places in the US. 64% of Americans have visited Florida (far more than any other state), 56% have visited New York, 54% DC, and 50% California. Texas just barely beats California at 51%, so you could probably improve accessibility a tiny tiny tiny bit by moving the LA one to Houston, but that would leave the entire western US with worse access (distance from LA to Houston is 1500 miles, vs distance from Houston to KSC is 1000 miles, and that's not even taking into account places like the Pacific Northwest.)
If you want to see a shuttle for less money, you have a couple of options. Go to Florida and drive to KSC, or stay at a cheap place somewhere along the Northeast Corridor or Metro North train lines and take a day trip into NYC -- you can stay late as the last Northeast Corridor trains run late into the evening and the Metro North trains leave as late as 1AM. (And you can take an uber to Penn/Grand Central to get the short distance to the train stations if you want to avoid the subway at night -- it's not as dangerous as the news makes it seem but you do see some tweakers on the subway, but the regional trains out of the city are clean and comfy)
Start a... (Score:3)
Start a GoFundMe and see if people will pay for the move, if they really want the shuttle relocated. At least, there'd be no "administrative costs" that are often 90% or more of the cost. The "no pay, no way" method.
--JoshK.
Is this move about the Epstein files? (Score:5, Interesting)
It does not make sense. Part of the felon-in-chief's plan to misdirect away from things that actually matter?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Are you just stupid or is it the TDS talking?
Literally, in the story AND THE OP:
"...The relocation, pushed by Texas senators Cornyn and Cruz"
This isn't the big Orange Monster that haunts your every nightmare.
This is garden-variety senatorial pork (and pretty much a stupid idea, imo).
My god you people need to step away from the internet once in a while (and maybe not shoot folks when you do).
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am just not as anywhere as dumb as you. I can imagine indirect action at work. I can even imagine that Trump has traded favors with Corny and Cruz to make this happen.
Oh, and look: https://www.sacurrent.com/news... [sacurrent.com]
Funny how that goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why would Trump give the faintest shit where the shuttle is?
Let's look at your reasoning:
"Something happened I don't like. The people who said they did it, who claim to have done it, who asked for it...DIDN'T REALLY DO IT. IT WAS THAT ORANGE BOGEYMAN UNDER MY BED!"
"Can you prove it"
"No, but I CAN IMAGINE IT! See? OBVIOUS."
Get some help, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what?
Seriously - you're assigning it to him because ...ergo: he is "behind" it somehow.
a) you hate him, and
b) you are mad about this,
Do you not see how completely delusional this is?
TDS case 126,245,488
Wasteful spending if approved.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Inaccuracy (Score:2)
I agree with the majority of the Senator's comments, and certainly the sentiment, but the Smithsonian is not unique - NMUSAF is also freely open to the public, and has a sizeable space exhibit.
Personally, I think there was no real justification for them to go to any museum that charges admission.
Don’t move it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
SR-71. But yea. And huge exhibits on the rest of the space program, the Cold War arms race, etc. The Dulles annex is a national treasure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
without a door fee
There is a $15 parking fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Udvar-Hazy charges for parking but the museum entrance is free.
Redesign the spending system (Score:2)
I live in Houston- this is dumb (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in Houston and have been to the space center many times. There is ALREADY a life-size cockpit mockup that you can walk through AND a life-size mockup on top of the 747 carrier. There is no benefit to ALSO having the real deal on-site. There are also Saturn V, Gemini and Mercury rockets on-site for viewing, so it's not like there's nothing to see. On top of that, you are risking the shuttle to hurricane damage given the location right of Galveston bay.
Privatization vs. Innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
The purpose of the space race (Score:2)
The space race has it origins in establishing international prestige. Despite what JFK stated ("We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."), we went to the Moon in order to scare the Russians.
For the most part, we expect more international tourists to be visiting museums in D.C. than in Houston. So it makes the most sense to put all of America's victories and accomplishments on display in one place. If the intent is to communica
Re: (Score:2)
No Funny again (Score:2)
Missed the target again. Could have gone with dark humor...
For example, what about instead of moving an old shuttle just giving Houston all the collected pieces of the space shuttle that exploded over Texas? You remember. It happened back when Dubya was saving the world by invading Iraq. All this stuff was in all the newspapers.
"What's a newspaper, daddy?"
Re: Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:2)
Re: Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:5, Informative)
They should have gone to FL, CA, TX and DC.
They kinda did.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-a... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, not TX. If Houston had been picked for this one shuttle in the first place, then his statement would be right.
I think it's a waste to move now, but Houston would have made more sense. On top of the NASA significance, it's also more geographically fair. If NY lost theirs, they still have one within a 3 hour train ride. Meanwhile Houston currently is a lot further away, a couple of days of driving or train.
Re: Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:2)
Gone are the days where someone will travel out of their way just to see the biggest ball of yarn, a singular space shuttle that you probably won't be allowed to board.
They can figure out another item to build a souvenir shop around.
On a side note, how stupid is it pay hundreds of millions to move something that could have been flown there at a fraction of the cost. Missed opportunity.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody wants to go to Texas
(BTW, why do people here think the shuttle is in NY? TFA correctly states that it is in the Smithsonian outside Washington, DC.)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a shuttle (Enterprise) in New York. If they were moving that one, I think there would be a lot fewer people objecting. Putting one in New York never really made sense to me, because the state of New York had aproximately nothing to do with the shuttle program other than providing a museum at the end and probably contributing some astronauts to the program.
I get why Houston felt slighted. But the National Air & Space Museum really is the right home for a shuttle, so the only way this makes s
Re: (Score:2)
Eyeballs. Compare the number of people who visit New York City to Houston. New York City attracts 60 - 68 million visitors each year. Houston attracts roughly 54 million.
NYC also has more international visitors than Houston so more people from around the world
Re: (Score:2)
There was LOTS of complaints that NY did not get a "real" shuttle. So I don't think TX would be satisfied by getting the Enterprise either.
This is incredibly stupid however. The Shuttle says "USA" on the side and is currently in (well near) the Capital of the USA in the Smithsonian. Why didn't he try to get California's shuttle? He could have said "woke" a lot to justify it.
Washington or Houston [Re: Quit pretending it'...] (Score:2)
I think it's a waste to move now, but Houston would have made more sense. On top of the NASA significance, it's also more geographically fair. If NY lost theirs, they still have one within a 3 hour train ride.
You are aware that it's the shuttle in Washington DC that they're planning to move, not the one in New York, right?
And they want to move it from the Smithsonian collection, a museum that's free and open to the public, to a private pay-to-visit museum.
(*to be technically accurate, in Arlington Virginia, right next door to DC)
Re: Washington or Houston [Re: Quit pretending it' (Score:2)
(*to be technically accurate, in Arlington Virginia, right next door to DC)
Technically it is in Chantilly, Virginia, just south of Dulles Airport and over 20 miles west of Arlington. (https://www.si.edu/museums/air-and-space-museum-udvar-hazy-center) They put Discovery there because there's a taxiway connecting the airport to the museum and National Airport probably couldn't handle a shuttle-laden 747. Also no need to cut down trees to move the shuttle (looking at you California). Just hooked up a tug and towed it for a meet and greet with Enterprise on the tarmac before sending
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected.
Re: Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think it gets much more affluent than the counties surrounding Washington DC. Of the top 10 "wealthiest counties" in the country by median income, FIVE counties that surround DC are in the top 10 and the top 2 are both on the northern VA bank of the Potomac river.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The shuttle is already on display at the Smithsonian site near Dulles airport. That site is consistently mobbed with visitors so there doesn't seem to be any problem with tourists getting a nice long look. There are also a LOT of other historical aircraft and spacecraft at the site.
https://airandspace.si.edu/vis... [si.edu]
It's great place to visit.
Re: Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about? It's in the Smithsonian in DC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a stupid waste now and it should say where it is -- but why did NY get a shuttle and not Houston in the first place?
Well now that the hard work and cost of restoring and preserving the space shuttle has been done by someone else, they want the end product moved to Texas until more work has to be done on it.
A trip to the Udvar-Hazy museum out near Dulles airport is a must if you're in the DC area. Well worth the drive out there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Somebody is hallucinating hard.
Here is a hint: Unlike your usual crowd of MAGA-morons, sane people require evidence for such claims.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Dems are always wrong and if they're not, just invent a reason why they would be wrong in some hypothetical situation. Remember if it feels right it is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong about what?
Re: (Score:2)
The posting you replied to may have contained heavy amounts of sarcasm ...
Re: (Score:2)
That was only one of the concerns, also that it'd get an admission fee and that there's a high risk of damage is also listed.
But why should we ignore cost because there's some alternate universe with a private party that would cover the cost instead? It's a pointless waste of money.
Re:Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes because risking such an awesome piece of our history just to move to a place no one vacations in is dumb. Now we'll all have to travel to fucking Houston to see this piece of history rather then a city we might actually want to go to.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who lives in San Antonio, I find this funny but true. I haven't been to Houston in years. I've had more reason to go to Dallas than to Houston. (but still, I really ought to visit JSC someday)
Re:Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:4)
Quit pretending you're a fiscal conservative then.
Re: (Score:3)
It's really just about glorifying stupidity? (Score:2)
On principle the OP/FP should be quoted against censorship, but sometimes a comment is sufficient stupid to deserve being forgotten.
But America really is finished when idiocy like the topic of this story is consuming so much of the "mental bandwidth" of the country. The zone has been sufficiently flooded with BS. Long ago, actually.
And now we have all that AI slop to really ramp up the production!
Re: (Score:2)
They want to profit from it, by moving it to a facility that charges admission fees.
There's probably quite a few organisations in the back pockets of Cornyn and Cruz