Here's what we know about the legislation, which is, in DC parlance, a "messaging bill." Cornyn is behind this, and Cruz simply agreed to go along. The goal in Cornyn's campaign is to use the bill as a way to show Texans that he is fighting for them in Washington, DC, against the evils there. Presumably, he will blame the Obama administration, even though it is quite clear in hindsight that there were no political machinations behind the decision to not award a space shuttle to Houston.Space Center Houston, which would be responsible for hosting the shuttle, was not even told about the legislation before it was filed. NASA, too, is not a willing party. The space agency does not want to have to find retirees who worked on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft decades ago to work to try to refurbish one of them. The most flight-ready aircraft of the two had its orbiter attachments removed, needs new engines, and would have to be recertified to return to flight. "We don't want any part of this," one NASA official told Ars.It seems unlikely that this is a punitive bill toward the Smithsonian. It just happens that, according to Cornyn's office, Discovery is the only shuttle still "owned" by the federal government and therefore eligible to be transported.The bottom line is that two Texas senators want taxpayers to spend at least $1 billion to remove the most historic Space Shuttle from the most historic spaceflight museum in the world, possibly break it in an across-the-country move, and then put it in a nondescript warehouse in Houston. I am a huge space buff who lives just a few minutes away from Space Center Houston. Even I can recognize this for the colossally stupid idea that it is.
Cruz is channeling David Cameron with this idiotic idea.
Houston would benefit from creating a museum for the ISS by integrating the underwater training version of the ISS and all the training module versions into a single building, allowing visitors to explore and appreciate its size. Houston has been managing its operations for over 25 years. Plans for that could begin now and be ready when the ISS is decommissioned; those parts can then be moved over.
To accomplish this utterly idiotic task, I think you'd have to move it over land to the vicinity of Alexandria and then take it by barge to Houston. Reconstituting an SCA is probably harder than that.
...the Smithsonian opted for a more economical approach by simply parking the vehicle as a static display
Anyone who has walked, or wheel - chaired, around Discovery can't help but feel a sense of awe, and deep respect for the people that built, maintained and flew it. It's BIG! ... I strongly urge anyone visiting the D.C. area to take the opportunity to see it in person and admire all the other wonderful planes and spacecraft on display. :)t
I can't wait to see the reaction when the LA Science Center display opens up. It's one thing to see the vehicle in person, but when she's upright.....
Sen. Durbin D-IL – “Houston has a problem – A Space Shuttle has been exhibited at Smithsonian in Chantilly, VA for 12 years. It has had 25 million visitors. One of the states that lost the competition has a new idea: let’s do it over again and make sure Texas wins. They added $85 million to move the shuttle to Texas. That is not what is necessary or what it would cost. NASA and Smithsonian said the cost would be $305 million. Where will Houston get the money to house the shuttle – $178 million would have to be added onto the cost. This will be the first time in history of the Smithsonian that someone has forcibly taken possession of an exhibit. Let’s be honest about this – if you are going use reconciliation funds to move this – its a heist by Texas because they lost the competition 12 years go.”
NASA Appropriations Mark-up Hearing [Jul 10]QuoteSen. Durbin D-IL – “Houston has a problem – A Space Shuttle has been exhibited at Smithsonian in Chantilly, VA for 12 years. It has had 25 million visitors. One of the states that lost the competition has a new idea: let’s do it over again and make sure Texas wins. They added $85 million to move the shuttle to Texas. That is not what is necessary or what it would cost. NASA and Smithsonian said the cost would be $305 million. Where will Houston get the money to house the shuttle – $178 million would have to be added onto the cost. This will be the first time in history of the Smithsonian that someone has forcibly taken possession of an exhibit. Let’s be honest about this – if you are going use reconciliation funds to move this – its a heist by Texas because they lost the competition 12 years go.”
Quote from: StraumliBlight on 07/10/2025 03:49 pmNASA Appropriations Mark-up Hearing [Jul 10]QuoteSen. Durbin D-IL – “Houston has a problem – A Space Shuttle has been exhibited at Smithsonian in Chantilly, VA for 12 years. It has had 25 million visitors. One of the states that lost the competition has a new idea: let’s do it over again and make sure Texas wins. They added $85 million to move the shuttle to Texas. That is not what is necessary or what it would cost. NASA and Smithsonian said the cost would be $305 million. Where will Houston get the money to house the shuttle – $178 million would have to be added onto the cost. This will be the first time in history of the Smithsonian that someone has forcibly taken possession of an exhibit. Let’s be honest about this – if you are going use reconciliation funds to move this – its a heist by Texas because they lost the competition 12 years go.”Times have evolved, and adherence to rules and civility has diminished. The future remains uncertain, and it is no longer possible to predetermine historical outcomes or practices.
Quote from: catdlr on 07/10/2025 04:00 pmQuote from: StraumliBlight on 07/10/2025 03:49 pmNASA Appropriations Mark-up Hearing [Jul 10]QuoteSen. Durbin D-IL – “Houston has a problem – A Space Shuttle has been exhibited at Smithsonian in Chantilly, VA for 12 years. It has had 25 million visitors. One of the states that lost the competition has a new idea: let’s do it over again and make sure Texas wins. They added $85 million to move the shuttle to Texas. That is not what is necessary or what it would cost. NASA and Smithsonian said the cost would be $305 million. Where will Houston get the money to house the shuttle – $178 million would have to be added onto the cost. This will be the first time in history of the Smithsonian that someone has forcibly taken possession of an exhibit. Let’s be honest about this – if you are going use reconciliation funds to move this – its a heist by Texas because they lost the competition 12 years go.”Times have evolved, and adherence to rules and civility has diminished. The future remains uncertain, and it is no longer possible to predetermine historical outcomes or practices.And the way you phrase this makes it sound like you approve. Maybe that's not your intention?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/07/03/space-shuttle-texas-smithsonian-congress/"Cornyn said in a statement that he looks “forward to welcoming Discovery to Houston and righting this egregious wrong.”Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Cornyn called the Smithsonian’s cost estimate “purposefully overblown,” adding that “an outside vendor skilled at moving military equipment like tanks, military aircraft larger than a space shuttle, and the shuttle mock-up has estimated the total cost to be between $5-$8 million.” That cost estimate, the spokesperson said, includes transporting the shuttle from the Smithsonian to a barge, the trip on the barge to Houston (via the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico) and the transfer from the barge to Space Center Houston."
The Space Shuttle Endeavour was moved from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida to Los Angeles in 2012. The total cost for the overland portion of the move, from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to the California Science Center, was estimated at around $10 million. The California Science Center and private donations covered this cost. The transportation of such a large and delicate object like Endeavour presented significant logistical challenges:Size and weight: Endeavour, weighing 172,000 pounds with a 78-foot wingspan, was too large to be transported by helicopter and too heavy to be moved by conventional methods without potential damage.Overland route: To navigate city streets and avoid underpasses, a 12-mile route through Los Angeles and Inglewood was selected. This required the temporary removal of street obstacles such as streetlights, signs, and traffic signals.Infrastructure Impact: The weight of the shuttle and its transporter necessitated careful planning to avoid damage to roadways and underground utilities. Engineers performed extensive analysis and utilized steel plates to distribute the load and protect sensitive areas.Community Concerns: The move also faced opposition due to the necessary removal of trees along the route. The California Science Center addressed these concerns by pledging to replace the removed trees at a higher rate and investing in community projects. The move of Endeavour was a highly complex and visible event, requiring collaboration between various agencies and attracting significant public attention. The California Science Center is currently raising funds for a $425 million project that includes the building of the Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center, which will be the permanent home for Endeavour, displayed in a vertical, "ready-for-launch" configuration.
If you want to have a little fun, go to Googlemaps and type in "Udvar-Hazy Center" in Virginia. Then zoom out until you see the nearest bit of navigable water, which is to the south. Figure out roughly how many miles the shuttle would have to be towed over roads to get there. That does not account for things like power lines and street lamps that would have to be removed, or overpasses that the shuttle cannot go under. That doesn't account for the local terrain or whether there is even a location that it can be towed to the river and placed on a barge.I live about 20 miles from the museum and I've been there dozens of times. I'm a little familiar with the area. It's not exactly perfectly flat. It will be interesting to see if NASA pays for a transportation route survey.
poles along the route and are coiled up. Numerous trees were cut down, and new trees were replanted after the move. Special measures were taken to reinforce bridges where necessary, and traffic was halted while the
Quote from: catdlr on 07/14/2025 05:06 ampoles along the route and are coiled up. Numerous trees were cut down, and new trees were replanted after the move. Special measures were taken to reinforce bridges where necessary, and traffic was halted while the I'm sure that the people who live in the area of Northern Virginia where the trees will have to be cut down and the roads will possibly be damaged will have warm fuzzy feelings about all this. It's one thing to face that disruption when your community is benefiting. It's different when you face the disruption and damage so that somebody else can take something away from you.
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/14/2025 05:01 pmQuote from: catdlr on 07/14/2025 05:06 ampoles along the route and are coiled up. Numerous trees were cut down, and new trees were replanted after the move. Special measures were taken to reinforce bridges where necessary, and traffic was halted while the I'm sure that the people who live in the area of Northern Virginia where the trees will have to be cut down and the roads will possibly be damaged will have warm fuzzy feelings about all this. It's one thing to face that disruption when your community is benefiting. It's different when you face the disruption and damage so that somebody else can take something away from you.Ultimately, it was the cutting down of old trees and replacing them with new, small ones that most angered the public.
Quote from: catdlr on 07/14/2025 05:39 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 07/14/2025 05:01 pmQuote from: catdlr on 07/14/2025 05:06 ampoles along the route and are coiled up. Numerous trees were cut down, and new trees were replanted after the move. Special measures were taken to reinforce bridges where necessary, and traffic was halted while the I'm sure that the people who live in the area of Northern Virginia where the trees will have to be cut down and the roads will possibly be damaged will have warm fuzzy feelings about all this. It's one thing to face that disruption when your community is benefiting. It's different when you face the disruption and damage so that somebody else can take something away from you.Ultimately, it was the cutting down of old trees and replacing them with new, small ones that most angered the public.How hideously expensive would it be to recommission the 747 Shuttle carrier and just fly it out of there? That's how they delivered it ti Uvar-Hazy in the first place. Uvar-Hazy is on a taxiway at Dulles airport.
NASA operated two modified Boeing 747 aircraft as Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCAs) to transport Space Shuttle orbiters. Both of these aircraft are retired.Here's the status of each:N905NA: This 747-100 model is now preserved and on display at Space Center Houston in Texas, with the replica Space Shuttle Independence mounted on its back.N911NA: This 747-100SR model is preserved and on display at the Joe Davies Heritage Airpark in Palmdale, California. It was also used as a source of parts for NASA's SOFIA aircraft (another modified Boeing 747) after its retirement.
NASAwww.nasa.govShuttle Carrier Aircraft Recordation - NASAThe two SCAs were under the operational control of NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. - Launch-to-Landing Process. - Historical Narrative. - SCA Videos.https://www.nasa.gov/shuttle-carrier-aircraft-recordation/AirHistory.netwww.airhistory.netAircraft Photo of N905NA | Boeing 747-123/SCA | NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration | AirHistory.net #690647It has been on display on Independence Plaza at the Space Center Houston since 30 April 2014. Sitting on its back is Independence, which is not a real Space ...https://www.airhistory.net/photo/690647/N905NAWikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.orgShuttle Carrier Aircraft - WikipediaHigh Confidence Response: Joe Davies Heritage Airpark. Context: Preserved at. 905: Space Center Houston. 911: Joe Davies Heritage Airpark, Palmdale, ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft#:~:text=Preserved%20at,Davies%20Heritage%20Airpark%2C%20Palmdale%2C%20California
How hideously expensive would it be to recommission the 747 Shuttle carrier and just fly it out of there? That's how they delivered it ti Uvar-Hazy in the first place. Uvar-Hazy is on a taxiway at Dulles airport.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/14/2025 07:53 pmHow hideously expensive would it be to recommission the 747 Shuttle carrier and just fly it out of there? That's how they delivered it ti Uvar-Hazy in the first place. Uvar-Hazy is on a taxiway at Dulles airport.Could Stratolaunch's Roc carry the Space Shuttle? Its max payload is 227 tons, while an empty Shuttle is 76 tons, however ground clearance might be an issue.
Dan, to answer your question, the best option is the one in Houston, but it will require removing the replica Space Shuttle that's on top of it, repairing and recertifying the 747 for flight, rehiring the pilots, getting insurance, and obtaining FAA approval, which will probably cost around $85 million. (Just kidding).
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/14/2025 05:01 pmQuote from: catdlr on 07/14/2025 05:06 ampoles along the route and are coiled up. Numerous trees were cut down, and new trees were replanted after the move. Special measures were taken to reinforce bridges where necessary, and traffic was halted while the I'm sure that the people who live in the area of Northern Virginia where the trees will have to be cut down and the roads will possibly be damaged will have warm fuzzy feelings about all this. It's one thing to face that disruption when your community is benefiting. It's different when you face the disruption and damage so that somebody else can take something away from you.Ummm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center.
Quote from: JAFO on 07/15/2025 01:15 amQuote from: Blackstar on 07/14/2025 05:01 pmQuote from: catdlr on 07/14/2025 05:06 ampoles along the route and are coiled up. Numerous trees were cut down, and new trees were replanted after the move. Special measures were taken to reinforce bridges where necessary, and traffic was halted while the I'm sure that the people who live in the area of Northern Virginia where the trees will have to be cut down and the roads will possibly be damaged will have warm fuzzy feelings about all this. It's one thing to face that disruption when your community is benefiting. It's different when you face the disruption and damage so that somebody else can take something away from you.Ummm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center. But the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft are decommissioned. The hypothesis is that it would take more to reconstitute an SCA and crew than it would to move the Orbiter over land and sea.
Ummm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center.
And yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor
the wings were cut off for the move and then reattached, and there has never been another 747 that had its wings cut off, reattached, and flown again.
Quote from: catdlr on 07/15/2025 01:52 amAnd yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor Endeavour. One of the few times we yanks use that "u" that the Brits are so fond of.
Quote from: JAFO on 07/15/2025 01:15 amUmmm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center. You can read a few earlier posts in this thread.
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/15/2025 07:02 pmQuote from: catdlr on 07/15/2025 01:52 amAnd yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor Quote from: Blackstar on 07/15/2025 07:01 pmQuote from: JAFO on 07/15/2025 01:15 amUmmm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center. Ah, I see now, post #29 where you theorized about moving Discovery from Udvar-Hazy to the water so she could be transported by barge ala Enterprise to the Intrepid since both whales are grounded.*hatinhand, head lowered* Apologies to have doubted you, sir.
Quote from: catdlr on 07/15/2025 01:52 amAnd yes, JAFO, it was Endeavor Quote from: Blackstar on 07/15/2025 07:01 pmQuote from: JAFO on 07/15/2025 01:15 amUmmm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center. Ah, I see now, post #29 where you theorized about moving Discovery from Udvar-Hazy to the water so she could be transported by barge ala Enterprise to the Intrepid since both whales are grounded.*hatinhand, head lowered* Apologies to have doubted you, sir.
Quote from: JAFO on 07/15/2025 01:15 amUmmm...... Discovery is at Udvar-Hazy, so they'd just back her out of the hangar and use cranes to mount her on the 747 like they did when they delivered her. I think the comments about cutting down and replacing trees refers to delivering/moving Endeavour from LAX to the California Science Center.
Which leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.
Quote from: catdlr on 07/16/2025 12:41 amWhich leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.The photos on the museum website show a tail cone attached attached to Enterprise in its current display state.
Quote from: laszlo on 07/16/2025 10:54 amQuote from: catdlr on 07/16/2025 12:41 amWhich leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.The photos on the museum website show a tail cone attached attached to Enterprise in its current display state.It wasn't like that when I was there.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62807.msg2699148#msg2699148
Quote from: Lee Jay on 07/16/2025 01:36 pmQuote from: laszlo on 07/16/2025 10:54 amQuote from: catdlr on 07/16/2025 12:41 amWhich leads to this question: Is the tail cone still attached to the Enterprise or stored somewhere? It will/may be needed for the Discovery move.The photos on the museum website show a tail cone attached attached to Enterprise in its current display state.It wasn't like that when I was there.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62807.msg2699148#msg2699148That's Discovery, not Enterprise. Enterprise is the one with the tail cone.
Quote from: catdlr on 07/15/2025 01:52 amthe wings were cut off for the move and then reattached, and there has never been another 747 that had its wings cut off, reattached, and flown again. Something that just occurred to me is that both SCAs were 747-100 series aircraft. I doubt that there are any 100 series still flying. There are probably very few 200 series still flying. That means that if you wanted to use a 747, you'd have to use a later model, like a 300, 400, or -8 series. But here's the issue--they all have a longer upper deck extension than the 100 series. Maybe there is a freighter version that has the same length upper deck. But I wonder if they decided to buy and use a 747, they'd have to conduct wind tunnel tests to determine how it would fly in that configuration. Also, you'd have to do flight tests with the aircraft, and train pilots for that single flight. It's a lot of work.
...So that almost certainly means that you have to do it by ground and then barge. There would have to be an extensive survey of the path to water, and then infrastructure changes to get it onto the water.
SEC. 40004. SPACE LAUNCH AND REENTRY LICENSING AND PERMITTING USER FEES. ``(F) $85,000,000 shall be obligated to carry out subsection (b), of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be obligated for the transportation of the space vehicle described in that subsection, with the remainder transferred not later than the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section to the entity designated under that subsection, for the purpose of construction of a facility to house the space vehicle referred to in that subsection.``(b) Space Vehicle Transfer.-- ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall identify a space vehicle described in paragraph (2) to be-- ``(A) transferred to a field center of the Administration that is involved in the administration of the Commercial Crew Program (as described in section 302 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 (51 U.S.C. 50111 note; Public Law 115-10)); and ``(B) placed on public exhibition at an entity within the Metropolitan Statistical Area where such center is located. ``(2) Space vehicle described.--A space vehicle described in this paragraph is a vessel that-- ``(A) has flown into space; ``(B) has carried astronauts; and ``(C) is selected with the concurrence of an entity designated by the Administrator. ``(3) Transfer.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the space vehicle identified under paragraph (1) shall be transferred to an entity designated by the Administrator.
Thanks to the Byrd rules on what can go into reconciliation bills, the OBBB does not actually say that Discovery has to be moved:QuoteSEC. 40004. SPACE LAUNCH AND REENTRY LICENSING AND PERMITTING USER FEES. ``(F) $85,000,000 shall be obligated to carry out subsection (b), of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be obligated for the transportation of the space vehicle described in that subsection, with the remainder transferred not later than the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section to the entity designated under that subsection, for the purpose of construction of a facility to house the space vehicle referred to in that subsection.``(b) Space Vehicle Transfer.-- ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall identify a space vehicle described in paragraph (2) to be-- ``(A) transferred to a field center of the Administration that is involved in the administration of the Commercial Crew Program (as described in section 302 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 (51 U.S.C. 50111 note; Public Law 115-10)); and ``(B) placed on public exhibition at an entity within the Metropolitan Statistical Area where such center is located. ``(2) Space vehicle described.--A space vehicle described in this paragraph is a vessel that-- ``(A) has flown into space; ``(B) has carried astronauts; and ``(C) is selected with the concurrence of an entity designated by the Administrator. ``(3) Transfer.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the space vehicle identified under paragraph (1) shall be transferred to an entity designated by the Administrator.https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/textThe Administrator could probably designate Gemini V or Apollo 17, which are both currently at Space Center Houston, and technically meet the requirements. An even more outlandish solution would be to buy a flown Soyuz from Roscosmos. That would, of course, not be what Sens. Cruz and Cornyn had in mind.
Don't say DiscoveryThe language in the Senate bill avoids any mention of the Smithsonian, Space Center Houston, Discovery or even the space shuttle. It only stipulates that a "space vehicle" (defined as a vessel that carried people into space) be transferred within 18 months of enactment to a NASA center "involved in the administration of the Commercial Crew program" and put on public display "within the Metropolitan Statistical Area" of that center."
I know the spacecraft they need - Apollo 7. I know it is transportable because I have a picture somewhere of it leaving Ottawa in a huge wooden crate.
I'd be very skeptical of that $8M transport estimate. As stated earlier in this thread, just moving Endeavour 12 miles from LAX to the California Science Center cost $10M. As I measure it, as the crow flies, it is 22 miles from Dulles to the nearest point you could possibly put the shuttle on a barge in Alexandria (and I'm not sure if there is really any dock there to park a large barge). So more than twice as long, through an urban area, for less money is just not credible. Much like this entire exercise by the Texas Senate delegation.
There is a good solution to this: Just put the orbiter into an industrial shredder and chop it into little pieces that can be transported in dump trucks. When the dump trucks reach Houston, have a crowd-funded effort to get a bunch of school kids with glue to glue it back together. Easy peasy.
QuoteThere is a good solution to this: Just put the orbiter into an industrial shredder and chop it into little pieces that can be transported in dump trucks. When the dump trucks reach Houston, have a crowd-funded effort to get a bunch of school kids with glue to glue it back together. Easy peasy. Got a good laugh reading that. But hey, Abbott and Cruztello... sorry, I meant Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz are such greedy buffoons, you should really try selling them your idea. With some heavy Texas patriotism dressing : they may buy it. Back you proposal with A.I and crrypto money, and there you go.
NASA selects shuttle orbiter to move to Houston
WASHINGTON — NASA has selected a shuttle orbiter to transfer to Houston, a move that faces logistical, fiscal and legal challenges.
I've seen a lot of shitty space policy over the years. However, a US Senator in a tough reelection fight trying to steal a space shuttle from the Smithsonian, and the NASA Administrator being all cloak and dagger about it, is among the shittiest.
Putting Discovery in Houston is a good idea. People in Virginia obviously won’t be happy about it, but if I’m not mistaken, Discovery didn’t launch from Virginia, so it doesn’t really make sense for it to be displayed there.
Best Uninformed comment:
What about Enterprise? We'd probably see the return of Gozer before we see NYC build the display off the Intrepid NYC promised to build.
Quote from: catdlr on 08/06/2025 12:58 pmBest Uninformed comment:There are a few others that rival that stupid comment. If the article is accurate, the federal government no longer owns Endeavour or Discovery, but still owns Atlantis. I guess they could remove the roof of the building where Atlantis is displayed and lift it out with a blimp. Blimps are the transportation mode of the future!
NASA Watch@NASAWatchThis is a statement from the @smithsonian "Collecting and preserving artifacts like Space Shuttle Orbiter Discovery is part of the National Air and Space Museum’s mission and core function as a research facility and the repository of the national air and space collection. The Smithsonian Institution owns the Discovery and holds it in trust for the American public. In 2012, NASA transferred “all rights, title, interest and ownership” of the shuttle to the Smithsonian. The museum is charged with collecting, preserving, and displaying aerospace objects and artifacts of historical interest and significance for current and future generations. The museum holds the comprehensive collection of artifacts that document America’s successful efforts to lead the world in human exploration. The Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center welcomes millions of visitors, at no entry cost, to experience, study, and see one of the museum’s centerpieces: Discovery."
Quote from: Blackstar on 08/06/2025 03:51 pmQuote from: catdlr on 08/06/2025 12:58 pmBest Uninformed comment:There are a few others that rival that stupid comment. If the article is accurate, the federal government no longer owns Endeavour or Discovery, but still owns Atlantis. I guess they could remove the roof of the building where Atlantis is displayed and lift it out with a blimp. Blimps are the transportation mode of the future!Nobody wants to move Atlantis. It's in a red state and it going to KSC was the one move that was universally agreed was the right call. If a Shuttle moves, it will be Discovery (hate to say it).
Robert Pearlman's Article: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/houston-youve-got-a-space-shuttle-only-nasa-wont-say-which-one/
The senators wanted to muddy the waters by claiming that the original location selection was political. However, if you go back to contemporary records, you will see that Houston actually made a poor proposal. I've visited all the locations multiple times and toured the museums. One thing that always struck me about Space Center Houston is that they did not do a good job with raising money for their Saturn V rocket display, and it was not that impressive especially compared to the ones in Florida and Alabama. If they didn't do a good job with the Saturn V, why would anybody think they would do a good job with a shuttle?Also, the NASA Inspector General did a review of the selection process and issued a report. You can watch the video here and download the report, which I have also attached to this post. The description of the video states:"NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin today released a report that examines NASA’s process for choosing permanent display locations for the retired Space Shuttle Orbiters. The review found that although Agency staff made several errors during the evaluation process of prospective Orbiter recipients, NASA complied with federal law and was not improperly influenced by political considerations when it chose the Smithsonian and sites in Los Angeles, New York City, and at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida."https://oig.nasa.gov/office-of-inspector-general-oig/sr-2011-shuttle/
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-080725a-cornyn-weber-investigation-smitsonian-shuttle-discovery-lobbying.html
Attached is a copy of that letter
QuoteAttached is a copy of that letter Thank you. I've just run out of toilet paper, I'll print it and it will make a perfect stopgap.
http://www.collectspace.com//news/news-081225a-white-house-review-smithsonian-air-space-museum.html
"We found no evidence that the White House, politics, or any other outside force improperly influenced the selection decision," Mitzelfeld said.
The trouble as I see it is, the Smithsonian was created by Congress. It's a public-private partnership. I'm not sure of the legalities of ownership when it comes to this particular form of organization. If the Smithsonian were fully private, then it would be hard to claim eminent domain or asset forfeiture to get it back. But in this case, the Smithsonian receives public funding so it's less clear to me."The Smithsonian Institution was established by an act of Congress in 1846 as an independent federal trust instrumentality, a unique public-private partnership that has proven its value as a cultural and scientific resource for more than 175 years.""Today, federal funds make up about 62% of the institution’s annual budget."
The House passed the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act this evening, authorizing funding for the U.S. Space Force and other components of the Department of Defense. Only a fraction of the amendments offered to the NDAA were allowed to be debated on the floor. One that was not cleared would have overturned a requirement in the reconciliation bill to move a space vehicle — likely the Space Shuttle Discovery — from Virginia to Houston.[...]Of the final number of 1,170 proposed amendments, 298 were allowed to proceed to the full House for consideration. Not among them was number 314, sponsored by four Virginia Democrats (Subramanyam, Beyer, Scott and Vindman) that would repeal the provision in the reconciliation bill (H.R. 1) to transfer what everyone assumes is the Space Shuttle Discovery (even though NASA won’t confirm it) to Houston. Discovery is currently at the National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA, in Subramanyam’s district.
"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.“Inefficient and unjustifiable”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.[...]Under the terms of the act, NASA has until January 4, 2027 (18 months after the bill's enactment) to transfer Discovery to Space Center Houston. For its part, the Smithsonian says that it owns the title to Discovery and, as the institution is not part of the federal government, the orbiter is no longer the government's to move.
This week, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA), alongside U.S. Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), called on Senate appropriators to block any federal funding from being used to relocate Space Shuttle Discovery from its home at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in Virginia to Space Center Houston in Texas. In a letter, the senators warned that such a move would waste taxpayer dollars, risk permanent damage to the shuttle, and mean fewer visitors would be able to visit it.
Ars Technica: Senators try to halt shuttle move, saying “little evidence” of public demand [Sep 29]Quote"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.“Inefficient and unjustifiable”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.[...]Under the terms of the act, NASA has until January 4, 2027 (18 months after the bill's enactment) to transfer Discovery to Space Center Houston. For its part, the Smithsonian says that it owns the title to Discovery and, as the institution is not part of the federal government, the orbiter is no longer the government's to move.Warner, Kaine, Colleagues Urge Appropriators to Block Costly, Risky Relocation of Space Shuttle Discovery from Virginia to Texas [Sep 26]QuoteThis week, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA), alongside U.S. Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), called on Senate appropriators to block any federal funding from being used to relocate Space Shuttle Discovery from its home at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in Virginia to Space Center Houston in Texas. In a letter, the senators warned that such a move would waste taxpayer dollars, risk permanent damage to the shuttle, and mean fewer visitors would be able to visit it.
Quote from: StraumliBlight on 09/29/2025 05:18 pmArs Technica: Senators try to halt shuttle move, saying “little evidence” of public demand [Sep 29]Quote"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.“Inefficient and unjustifiable”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.[...]Under the terms of the act, NASA has until January 4, 2027 (18 months after the bill's enactment) to transfer Discovery to Space Center Houston. For its part, the Smithsonian says that it owns the title to Discovery and, as the institution is not part of the federal government, the orbiter is no longer the government's to move.Warner, Kaine, Colleagues Urge Appropriators to Block Costly, Risky Relocation of Space Shuttle Discovery from Virginia to Texas [Sep 26]QuoteThis week, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA), alongside U.S. Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), called on Senate appropriators to block any federal funding from being used to relocate Space Shuttle Discovery from its home at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in Virginia to Space Center Houston in Texas. In a letter, the senators warned that such a move would waste taxpayer dollars, risk permanent damage to the shuttle, and mean fewer visitors would be able to visit it.Maybe they would be interested in the DreamChaser as a substitute.
The KeepTheShuttle team is disappointed to report that the White House’s Office of Management & Budget has asked the Smithsonian and NASA to explore cutting up the Space Shuttle Discovery to enable moving the shuttle to Houston.This development is unprecedented and alarming. NASA did not design the shuttle orbiters to be disassembled, and complicating factors include the shuttle’s aluminum frame, ~24,000 delicate ceramic tiles that coat the shuttle’s underside (the black part), and ~2,000 thermal insulation fabric blankets that coat the rest of the shuttle (the white part). Disassembling Discovery would cause significant and irreparable damage to these and other portions of the shuttle.
https://spacenews.com/senators-spar-over-plans-to-move-shuttle-discovery/"The release of that memo, as well as the earlier letter from Democratic senators, prompted a response Oct. 6 by Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. In their own letter to the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee, they asked that no restrictions be placed on funding for the shuttle’s move to Houston in fiscal 2026 spending bills.
Those opposing the relocation of the Space Shuttle Discovery have been circulating misinformation about both the cost and logistics of the move. In contrast, we have taken the responsible approach by consulting directly with reputable transportation logistics companies to obtain accurate cost estimates for transporting the shuttle. Rather than relying on secondhand reports or speculative figures, we took the initiative to consult directly with preservation experts who have hands-on experience in relocating and housing historic spacecraft. Based on this due diligence, we are confident that the relocation and proper housing of the Space Shuttle Discovery will be fully supported by funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the State of Texas.[...]As part of its opposition effort, the Smithsonian has disseminated misinformation about the logistics of the move, falsely claiming that the shuttle’s wings would need to be removed for transport, a claim not supported by industry experts. Furthermore, we also have serious concerns about the credibility of the cost estimates they have provided, which are more than ten times higher than quotes from experienced private-sector logistics firms.
But my suspicions lie closer to home. Houston didn’t get an orbiter because Houston didn’t deserve it.[...]No disrespect to those who spearheaded the effort to bring the shuttle here, but the response was lackluster. The local politicians gave lip service, some weak letters to the NASA administrator and little else. We got a limp editorial or two in the local newspaper. The movers and shakers downtown barely lifted a finger. Its hard to tell if Austin and the Texas Legislature even knew what was happening. A rally at city hall was poorly attended, too little, too late, and totally ineffective.
Rather than relying on secondhand reports or speculative figures, we took the initiative to consult directly with preservation experts who have hands-on experience in relocating and
Dumbest Plan Ever.
Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), together with Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX-14) on Wednesday (Oct. 22) sent a letter to the DOJ urging the Smithsonian be investigated for violating the Anti-Lobbying Act. They claim that the institution — Discovery's home for the past 13 years — improperly used appropriated funds to influence Congress with regards to relocating the winged orbiter."Public reporting suggests the Smithsonian Institution has taken affirmative steps to oppose the passage and implementation of the shuttle's relocation, as part of President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act," wrote Cornyn and Cruz to Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate. "These steps include lobbying the staff of the Senate Appropriations and Rules Committees to express disapproval, coordinating with members of the press to generate public opposition to the law's passage and disseminating misinformation about the cost and logistics of the move."The letter also alleged that the Smithsonian has called for the pending fiscal year 2026 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act and the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act to be amended such that it blocks funding for the shuttle's transport and rehousing."Furthermore [on the subject of funding], the Institution has circulated cost estimates that exceed quotes from experienced private-sector logistics firms by more than tenfold and has falsely claimed the shuttle's wings would need to be removed for transport, a claim not supported by industry experts," wrote Cornyn, Cruz and Weber.
Scott Manley@DJSnMIn 2010 NASA was reviewing where to send the flown Shuttle orbiters and created a score based institutions ability to show the shuttle to the public. Houston's score was the second lowest, but senators are trying to undo this and spend huge amounts of federal money to move a shuttle to Texas. It's like those parents on the PTA who insist that their child should get a participation trophy.
Note that if they do this, there is nothing preventing them from putting provisions in other bills grabbing more artifacts from the Smithsonian and sending them to Houston. They could get the Apollo 11 CSM, for example. If they wanted, they could get the Wright Flyer and the Spirit of St. Louis.
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/24/2025 12:55 amNote that if they do this, there is nothing preventing them from putting provisions in other bills grabbing more artifacts from the Smithsonian and sending them to Houston. They could get the Apollo 11 CSM, for example. If they wanted, they could get the Wright Flyer and the Spirit of St. Louis. Exactly. If they get this done, then there's nothing from stopping them to rob empty almost the entire spaceflight section of NASM. And all under the same lame excuse: "these missions were directed from Houston, they have no business being in Washington".
However, that ship has sailed.1. The Smithsonian on the Mall doesn't have the Shuttle Orbiter.2. Nor does it have a Saturn V.3. Nor a 747.4. Nor a Falcon 9.5. Nor a Starship.6. Nor ________.Obviously, it doesn't matter enough for our country's heritage for people to fix these dire situations.
Somebody must have deleted my post. Let's do the non-spicy version.The Air and Space Museum on the National Mall is the US's version of the Louvre. It is where we keep our nation's technological crown jewels and in usual times, it gets about the same number of visitors annually.The Dulles Annex is a wonderful place and the Shuttle display is nice. Very well done. Been there several times. And the Shuttle itself is a magnificent machine. But it is not on the Mall. It gets about 10% the visibility as it would on the Mall in usual times. If it were on the Mall, there's is zero point zero percent chance that Ted Cruz could filch it. He would be kicked out of town. But it's not on the Mall, so he can.If we are so concerned about our national patrimony, we should be very angry that the Mall museum does not contain a Saturn V, the 747, a Falcon 9, a Starship, and other historical craft. That there is not enough room is a pathetic excuse, when it is our version of the Louvre. Believe me, there is enough room in that area for the creative and determined. The architecture in that area is atrocious when not forgettable.But that ship has sailed. If the Shuttle orbiter cannot earn its place on the National Mall, it's tough for me to gather any additional anger for it ending up in Houston where I believe it will have about as much visibility as the Dulles Annex.
It's just not possible to put these enormous items at that location. The Shuttle, perhaps. Falcon 9, maybe. Saturn V, 747 and Starship? No way.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 11/04/2025 10:03 pmSomebody must have deleted my post. Let's do the non-spicy version.The Air and Space Museum on the National Mall is the US's version of the Louvre. It is where we keep our nation's technological crown jewels and in usual times, it gets about the same number of visitors annually.The Dulles Annex is a wonderful place and the Shuttle display is nice. Very well done. Been there several times. And the Shuttle itself is a magnificent machine. But it is not on the Mall. It gets about 10% the visibility as it would on the Mall in usual times. If it were on the Mall, there's is zero point zero percent chance that Ted Cruz could filch it. He would be kicked out of town. But it's not on the Mall, so he can.If we are so concerned about our national patrimony, we should be very angry that the Mall museum does not contain a Saturn V, the 747, a Falcon 9, a Starship, and other historical craft. That there is not enough room is a pathetic excuse, when it is our version of the Louvre. Believe me, there is enough room in that area for the creative and determined. The architecture in that area is atrocious when not forgettable.But that ship has sailed. If the Shuttle orbiter cannot earn its place on the National Mall, it's tough for me to gather any additional anger for it ending up in Houston where I believe it will have about as much visibility as the Dulles Annex.How would you propose to get a 747, a Space Shuttle, a Saturn V, and a Starship to the National Mall building? It's not at an airport and it's not at a port (turning basin). This is a big advantage of the Udvar Hazy site - it's at Dulles airport. The Saturn V exhibit at KSC is at both an airport (Shuttle Landing Facility) and a port. There's a B-52 is the middle of my city, but it's at a site that used to be an Air Force base.It's just not possible to put these enormous items at that location. The Shuttle, perhaps. Falcon 9, maybe. Saturn V, 747 and Starship? No way.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/05/2025 01:59 pmIt's just not possible to put these enormous items at that location. The Shuttle, perhaps. Falcon 9, maybe. Saturn V, 747 and Starship? No way.Moving enormous items is a high art, especially if you are willing to disassemble and reassemble portions. We should hesitate to say that these things are impossible.
We should also hesitate to spend hundreds of millions of dollars disassembling, moving, and reassembling a priceless piece of space history for no reason other than political vindictiveness.
NASA's Kennedy Space Center@NASAKennedyThe U.S. Senate recently passed a resolution “Commemorating the 40th anniversary of the inaugural flight of Space Shuttle Atlantis and recognizing Kennedy Space Center for its economic, educational, and cultural contributions to the State of Florida and the United States.”The first mission of Atlantis, STS-51-J, lifted off from NASA Kennedy’s Launch Pad 39A on Oct. 3, 1985. Atlantis flew 33 missions over the next 26 years, including the final mission of the shuttle program in July 2011. In total, Atlantis spent 307 days in space, orbited Earth 4,848 times, and traveled 125,935,769 miles. Atlantis has been on public display at NASA Kennedy’s Visitor Center since 2013.
Once that Starship is captured and SpaceX engineers examine it, Space Center Houston would seem to be the perfect place to display it. Imagine, while driving down NASA Road 1, seeing the gleaming, stainless steel edifice of a spacecraft in which people will land on the moon and Mars. It would drive foot traffic and increase ticket sales unlike any exhibit at any museum in human history.Even better, Musk, public spirited and eager to please politicians who hand out lucrative contracts, might be persuaded to finance the transportation and display of the Starship out of his own pocket. Cruz and Cornyn, who ought to be frugal with the public purse, should jump at the chance.The two Texas senators, eager as they are to snag a flown space shuttle orbiter for Texas, should drop the effort and go after the greater prize of a flown Starship. They will have props both for statesmanship and for the economic and cultural benefits such a decision will garner for Texas. It’s a win/win proposition all around.
Senators Cruz and Cornyn recently passed legislation that includes a provision to relocate the Space Shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian’s Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles to a site near the Johnson Space Center in Houston. The measure—folded into the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and signed in July 2025—allocates $85 million for the project. As someone who would love to see a flown Orbiter in Houston, I admit the idea is appealing. But I also have serious concerns.My biggest question is how anyone plans to move it. In 1976, NASA created the Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) specifically because we couldn’t transport the Orbiter safely by road or rail. Unlike an airplane, the Orbiter is a spacecraft engineered to withstand extreme temperatures in orbit. Even after stripping out everything possible, the remaining structure still wouldn’t fit through tunnels or under standard overpasses. That was true then—and remains true today.Unfortunately, neither of the SCAs is capable of flying an Orbiter anymore. That means the only realistic option would be to move Discovery by water on a barge.That leads to my second concern: getting the Orbiter to the water in the first place. The nearest major port—the Port of Baltimore—is roughly 40 miles from Udvar-Hazy. I haven’t mapped every route, but I know the region well enough to say this: the roads are dense, the infrastructure old, and the likelihood of finding a clear, unobstructed path wide and tall enough for an Orbiter seems extremely slim. Even one low-clearance bridge would halt the entire operation.And that brings me to what matters most: the integrity and meaning of a flown Orbiter itself. The Space Shuttle program was one of America’s most extraordinary collective achievements. Thousands of people across the nation contributed their expertise, ingenuity, and passion to build a reusable spacecraft long before modern digital tools existed. Every square inch of a flown Orbiter represents that effort. Its value lies not just in being displayed, but in being preserved—intact—for future generations to study and marvel at.Without an SCA, the only way to transport an Orbiter over land would be to cut it into pieces. Yes, it could be reconstructed. But doing so to a national treasure would be a tragedy. It would be like slicing the Mona Lisa into quarters simply because it made shipping easier. Technically reversible? Perhaps. Emotionally, historically, and academically? Unthinkable.I’ve crawled through Enterprise aboard the USS Intrepid and examined the space-flown Orbiters at the Cape. The differences are profound, and they tell an important story. I want future generations to feel what I felt—to see, untouched, what our predecessors accomplished without modern computers.Finally, if Houston does welcome a flown Orbiter, it must have a proper, environmentally controlled home. Both Space Center Houston and JSC have successfully received large artifacts by barge and could do so again. But what we cannot do is repeat the Saturn V experience—leaving one of the greatest engineering achievements in an open field to deteriorate.I hope we move forward wisely. Some pieces of history are too important to cut apart—and too valuable to display anywhere less than with the care they deserve.
https://spacenews.com/isaacman-opens-door-to-alternatives-to-moving-shuttle-discovery-to-houston/ Isaacman opens door to alternatives to moving shuttle Discovery to Houstonby Jeff Foust December 30, 2025 WASHINGTON — NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman suggested he would be open to transferring a spacecraft other than the space shuttle Discovery to Houston.In a Dec. 23 interview on CNBC, Isaacman said moving the shuttle orbiter from its current home at the National Air and Space Museum’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia would depend on whether it could be done safely and within budget.SNIPIn the CNBC interview, Isaacman said he would be open to Houston receiving another spacecraft, such as an Orion capsule, if cost or safety issues make moving Discovery impractical.“If we can’t do that, you know, we have spacecraft going around the moon with Artemis 2, 3, 4 and 5,” he said. “One way or another, we’re going to make sure Johnson Space Center gets its historic spacecraft right where it belongs.”Transferring an Orion spacecraft to Space Center Houston would likely be far simpler and less expensive than moving a shuttle orbiter. Orion capsules are routinely transported by truck and could be displayed in a smaller, less costly facility than what a shuttle would require.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/30/2025 01:35 pmhttps://spacenews.com/isaacman-opens-door-to-alternatives-to-moving-shuttle-discovery-to-houston/ Isaacman opens door to alternatives to moving shuttle Discovery to Houstonby Jeff Foust December 30, 2025 WASHINGTON — NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman suggested he would be open to transferring a spacecraft other than the space shuttle Discovery to Houston.In a Dec. 23 interview on CNBC, Isaacman said moving the shuttle orbiter from its current home at the National Air and Space Museum’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia would depend on whether it could be done safely and within budget.SNIPIn the CNBC interview, Isaacman said he would be open to Houston receiving another spacecraft, such as an Orion capsule, if cost or safety issues make moving Discovery impractical.“If we can’t do that, you know, we have spacecraft going around the moon with Artemis 2, 3, 4 and 5,” he said. “One way or another, we’re going to make sure Johnson Space Center gets its historic spacecraft right where it belongs.”Transferring an Orion spacecraft to Space Center Houston would likely be far simpler and less expensive than moving a shuttle orbiter. Orion capsules are routinely transported by truck and could be displayed in a smaller, less costly facility than what a shuttle would require.Far simpler? Orders of magnitude simpler. Possibly three orders of magnitude.
...He also raises an interesting point about private donations--when people donate to the Smithsonian, they are donating to the Smithsonian, because of its reputation and prestige and resources and home in the nation's capital. But if a budget law can subsequently redirect artifacts to other institutions--including private ones--then it decreases the attraction of donating to the Smithsonian. I mean, what prevents a senator from putting in a bill that the Smithsonian has to move an artifact to a museum that is privately run by that senator or one of his major donors?
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/06/2026 08:14 pm...He also raises an interesting point about private donations--when people donate to the Smithsonian, they are donating to the Smithsonian, because of its reputation and prestige and resources and home in the nation's capital. But if a budget law can subsequently redirect artifacts to other institutions--including private ones--then it decreases the attraction of donating to the Smithsonian. I mean, what prevents a senator from putting in a bill that the Smithsonian has to move an artifact to a museum that is privately run by that senator or one of his major donors?The Shuttle was the property of the US government until it was give to the Smithsonian, so they will try to argue that the US government can still somehow take it back. There is no reason to think that would also extend to private property donated by a private person to the Smithsonian.
I'd like to see a court tell Congress to pound sand on this. Once title has been transferred, they should no longer have the ability to claw it back.
One primary question is how they're going to move the orbiter? On the landing gear? If not, then they're going to need the Overland Transporter (OLT) which I think is still in California Science Center's possession as it was used to move Endeavour from LAX to the CSC. And the know-how to raise and stow the landing gear which required a special GSE cart called the "mule" which supplied the necessary hydraulic pressure. And also a lifting frame to mate/demate the orbiter to the OLT.
Terry White, who worked on the shuttles from 1978 through the end of the program in 2011, and helped maintain the thermal protective tiles, said they are “more fragile than an egg shell” and extraordinarily expensive to replace — a single one can cost thousands of dollars. The equipment to move the shuttles has also long been retired.White said that he does not think the Smithsonian deserved the shuttle — he would have picked Ohio’s Air Force museum — but short of teleportation, he said, “there’s no easy way to move them.”He is not so convinced that Artemis will meet the appetite from Texas lawmakers or those who felt Houston was overlooked. “They already have previous space capsules,” he said, adding, “that’s nothing compared to the size of the orbiter.”“I don’t think they would turn it down,” he said, “but they won’t be impressed that they just got something that went a loop around the moon and came back.”
White said that he does not think the Smithsonian deserved the shuttle ...
Quote from: StraumliBlight on 01/10/2026 06:10 pmWhite said that he does not think the Smithsonian deserved the shuttle ...That statement is unbelievable. The premier museum system in the country doesn't deserve it??? It's a great display. I went there three times to see it, and I live over 2,000 miles away.
I was told by a person who had worked at both NASA and the Smithsonian that he really did not like the Florida proposal, because they knew that it would produce stress cracks on the shuttle's frame. He was quite angry that they were displaying an artifact in a way that they know will damage it.
Some other details from memory: Both the LA and Florida proposals had to pay for transportation to the sites. The NASM did not pay for transportation. (I vaguely remember being told that a-that would wipe out the Smithsonian's space department budget, and b-it might not have been legal for the Smithsonian to pay the government. But my memory could be wrong.)
You've mentioned this before, do you have any written source that describes the concern?
NASA flew that shuttle on its transport aircraft on a "farewell tour" over several US cities, ending with Washington DC, where it finally landed at Dulles. (I was on the roof of our building in Chantilly with a view of the runway.) "Transportation" consisted of using a crane to lower the shuttle from the 747 onto the runway and rolling the shuttle into its display location inside the Udvar-Hazy hangar adjacent to the taxiway.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/11/2026 12:56 amNASA flew that shuttle on its transport aircraft on a "farewell tour" over several US cities, ending with Washington DC, where it finally landed at Dulles. (I was on the roof of our building in Chantilly with a view of the runway.) "Transportation" consisted of using a crane to lower the shuttle from the 747 onto the runway and rolling the shuttle into its display location inside the Udvar-Hazy hangar adjacent to the taxiway.It cost money to fly it to Dulles. And somebody had to pay for the large cranes. There were moving costs. Things are not free. The two other locations had to pay for their own transportation costs, NASM did not.
But it is mounted on an angle. It was not designed to be mounted on an angle for years.
"But practically, the damage is done. Generations of public officials and private donors have entrusted priceless cultural artifacts to the Smithsonian believing that this independent organization is shielded from the intrigue and idiosyncrasies of everyday DC politics. Now, Cornyn and Cruz’s maneuvering might have broken that aegis, which bodes poorly for both the Smithsonian’s current collection and the generosity of future donors. If Kansas’s tourism numbers are a little low, what’s to stop Senator Jerry Moran from shipping Dorothy’s ruby slippers to Topeka? If Muhammad Ali had known Congress could transfer Smithsonian artifacts to a private entity, would he ever have entrusted it with his prized gloves and robe?"
Quote from: ccdengr on 01/11/2026 12:55 amYou've mentioned this before, do you have any written source that describes the concern?No. I don't have any of the blueprints or planning documents for the exhibit. But it is mounted on an angle. It was not designed to be mounted on an angle for years. Where do you think the stress is on that frame? It's not up and down, it's on an angle.
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/11/2026 11:43 amQuote from: ccdengr on 01/11/2026 12:55 amYou've mentioned this before, do you have any written source that describes the concern?No. I don't have any of the blueprints or planning documents for the exhibit. But it is mounted on an angle. It was not designed to be mounted on an angle for years. Where do you think the stress is on that frame? It's not up and down, it's on an angle.Then the LA display is worse.
That said, here's an extremely detailed document about the Atlantis display. I haven't read it very carefully but I don't see anything that indicates there was a concern. "Structural Analysis Peer Review for the Static Display of the Orbiter Atlantis at the Kennedy Space Center Visitors Center", https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20130013597
Washington Post: New NASA head appears to slow controversial Discovery shuttle move [Jan 10]
