Deliver them a few truckloads of assorted scrap from one of those airliner graveyards and tell them it's a dismantled shuttle, they'll have to assemble it themselves, sorry, no drawings available.

Careful, Doc - you'll be giving Boeing's accountants ideas for more cost savings.

Are you sure they don't do that already?

Just to appease the egos of some dumbass Texas lawmakers who were too stupid to take any Science classes in High School.

Why doesn't Texas just annex Virginia?

Then there's no need to move the Shuttle

I thought the letter of the law required something like "a space vehicle that has been to space and carried astronauts" - Couldn't they just ask Elon nicely if rather than splashing Flight 11's Starship into the Indian Ocean, could he please replace the fake Starlink payload with a seat for the winner of a special "once in a lifetime" raffle prize, and kindly land it instead somewhere on a spare bit of land near the Saturn V at Johnson?

Doesn't seem too much to ask?...

"a space vehicle that has been to space and carried astronauts"

Does it also say "at the same time"?

Interesting question - no it doesn't...

a) Has been to space

b) Has carried astronauts

c) Is selected with the concurrence of an entity designated by the (NASA) Administrator

Ring the Smithsonian and tell them you have a get out clause...

Oh that’s priceless. And they didn’t even define space, so one of Bezos’s celebrity sex toys would probably also pass muster.

It didn't say a "from", either. Just a "to".

Starliner is a good candidate, especially as it's considerably more successful than the senator who demanded this.

The first SpaceShip Two would also qualify, and that's a lot easier to move as it's sadly already been rapidly dismantled.

It didn't say a "from", either. Just a "to".

I wonder ... there've been a few occasions where people have had their ashes scattered in space. I wonder if the vehicles returned. Maybe even a booster or a lower stage would qualify.

Maybe they could give Cruz and Cornyn seats in it! Suits extra.

Both have ports

And we know a 747 can carry a shuttle ?

A new Boeing 747 is priced significantly high, with the last model, the 747-8, costing around $400 million when new. However, buying a used Boeing 747 is much less expensive; older models like the 747-400 can be purchased for $5 million to $30 million,

Oh I forgot that one - they *did* do the inital drop/launch tests with an airliner didn't they.

Strapped to the top if I remember rightly - posting without looking it up.

I know where there is a 'free' 747-8, maybe they could use it. It's never going to be used as Air Force One anyway. How much more expensive could it be to modify it to carry a shuttle than Donny's fat ass?

The Udvar-Hazy Center, where Discovery is housed, is over 20 miles from the nearest river. The shuttle has a wingspan on the order of 7 lanes worth of highway, and there aren't any highways that are at least 7 lanes in one direction leaving Udvar-Hazy. Even closing the roads both ways would mean dismantling road signs along the route, and most of the bigger roads are divided highways with median strips and barriers that would also need to be removed. Plus the shuttle tail height is about 6 stories; none of the bridges they'd have to go under would clear that. Most of them wouldn't even clear the fuselage, let alone the tail. And that's without allowing for the transporter it'd need to be on. The Johnson Space Flight Center, the putative destination, is also not anywhere near the water. So same problems (though they might have some wider highways).

The only reference I can find for the cost to modify the first SCA in 1976 was $30 million, which would be $170 million in today's money. So just the modifications to ferry it blows the budget.

Both the water route and the shuttle carrier option are mentioned in the article, along with the reasons why they are not feasible.

So you're saying we would have to build a hyperloop then?

"It's really not that hard"

This timeless quote from Conservative Idol Forest Gump is the perfect characterization of this plan and the administration behind it.

I thought that Trump was so eager to cut needless government costs that he set up a new unit: DOGE to do just this.

Or does DOGE not cut vanity projects ?

I have not heard of DOGE for a while - is it still a thing ?

You’re right but you are missing a small but vital point,

Trump is a cretinous dick

I would not rate him that highly

Cretinous dicks have uses, though. He doesn't.

Now now. Let's not insult cretins. What did they do to be associated with Trump?

No.

That is definitely not the goal or task of DOGE.

"That is definitely not the goal or task of DOGE."

The goal was to dismantle any agencies that were getting in Elon's way to country domination or he didn't like.

In politics-speak, "I will cut needless costs" is slang for "I will weaponize budget powers to destroy my political opponents".

Nobody ever actually cuts costs. I can't remember the last time I've seen it happen.

... aways a possibility ;-)

There's been stories of entire *buildings* being relocated intact - let alone what amounts to a large plane.

Just tow the thing - make it a publicity tour. Pretty sure there would be some crowds on the highway.

If it could land from orbit it should be able to trundle down a road.

Or am I being stupid?

https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/10/01/texas_internet_outage_gunshot/#c_5153928

what could possibly go wrong...

"what could possibly go wrong..."

Icon - You Bastard

Look up how big things are transported. Look at the last time they transported a shuttle.

Now look at a map.

And while disassembling and rebuilding houses is done semi regularly (historic houses for living history museums in Europe, for example) many parts are replaced (wall plaster, wattle and daub fill ins) rather than reassembled. We do not want that with the shuttle.

Well, you did ask, so yes.

The orbiter is big. Transport by road without dismantling would be an epic task. The wingspan alone requires the width of over 6 US Interstate lanes. The tail isn't going to make it under most bridges.

Buildings can be moved short distances. But we don't move skyscrapers over 1000 miles.

I saw a documentary about that in the 60's.

https://thunderbirds.fandom.com/wiki/Terror_in_New_York_City

Thunderbirds Are Icon!

Not "intact" -- not by a long shot -- but a story of moving a building...

I know of a medieval French chapel (Catholic). It was once disassembled stone-by-stone and moved to Long Island, New York. Then it was donated to a Catholic university and relocated again to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Each stone was meticulously labeled on 3 sides (minimum) with a systematic numbering scheme to aid in reconstruction. It has been expanded, re-roofed, and now has electric and HVAC and still holds Catholic masses -- the oldest building that is currently in North America (having predated all buildings built here) still used for its original purpose.

A shuttle orbiter, stripped down to truck-sized pieces (53-foot lorries)? If it were any other vehicle -- even a tank (*cough* I may have some experience there *cough*) -- this shouldn't be difficult thanks to modern nuts and bolts. But add that outer layer -- the tiles and thermal blankets -- and you have a shell that won't come off unless it's destroyed. No thanks; it's fine where it is.

"No thanks; it's fine where it is."

The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is the most appropriate location for a Shuttle. It's worth the risk to go there to visit both of the locations.

But the "Smith" in question wasn't even an American.

"I know of a medieval French chapel (Catholic). It was once disassembled stone-by-stone and moved to Long Island, New York."

The London Bridge before the current one* was also disassembled and shipped to the US. It would have been bigger but not as old. Contrary to some stories, however appealing they might be, the buyer didn't think he'd bought Tower Bridge.

* Circumlocution to avoid calling it "old" as it wasn't Old London Bridge which was medieval.

"If it could land from orbit it should be able to trundle down a road."

It's too big. The width would be an issue and even if a bridgeless path could be found, that won't mean there won't be utility lines overhead that will have to be disconnected/relocated to allow it to pass. It's not a Cessna 140 where one can take the wings off and put them back with no problems. Any disassembly will cause irreparable damage although they aren't ever intended to be powered up again. Even with large passenger aircraft, things like removing an engine has to be done carefully with an equivalent mass suspended to keep wings from warping. A large assembly will tend to settle into a new form over time due to stresses and how it's fastened together.

To be fair it could land from orbit and trundle along the road - it's just that the landing speed is rather high and so it's likely to be a bit exciting for any other road users.

Overhead line disassembly is included when however many tons of shuttle arrive at 200km/h

How many buildings have been transported 1400 miles across US highways? I mean proper buildings with bricks and foundations, not a wooden shack designed to be transported on a semi trailer.

Moving something that size is a more interesting question than most people seem to think.

I've worked with people who have moved obscenely large things (such as engines for very large ships, large and insanely heavy structural pieces that for whatever reason can't be fabricated on-site, etc.) across continents for obscenely large amounts of money. There is specialized trip planning software - it works very much like Google or Apple maps - that knows all about things like road widths, bridge heights, weight limits, axel count limits, etc., and will find a workable route if one exists - and they do exist more often than you might suspect. If you can't move it all the way in that manner, then you see if you can barge it to a relatively nearby port. There is a boutique industry that builds the necessary custom trailers, towing rigs, barge modifications, and so on. You need to arrange for cranes, hoists, jacks, or whatever to move your cargo from one mode of transport to another. You need to have a highly customized insurance policy written for the move. And the list goes on. But usually it can be done, and there are people who specialize in doing it.

If you want to see what a shuttle looks like on a trailer, there's a photo at this link:

https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000190261/

> https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000190261/

>> Enterprise arrives at Edwards

>> It had been moved via road at 3 mph

Cap'n, I cannae give her any more speed, she tear he'self apart.

Am I right to assume that Discovery was originally flown to its current location before the carrier 747s were decomissioned?

M.

"Am I right to assume that Discovery was originally flown to its current location before the carrier 747s were decomissioned?"

Yes and both of those aircraft were decommissioned shortly after. I was at the Mojave Air and Space port when Endeavor was being flown from Edwards AFB on it's way to Los Angeles. They did a low pass over the flight line. I was also covering stories of Masten Space Systems and Xcor at the time. Scott Manley just did a story on Xcor and a bunch of the commetards there were founders/employees.

Thanks. I had sort of assumed that, and it probably explains Trump's thinking, "well, if they got it in without chopping it up they must be able to get it out."

On a related note, I always thought it was criminal that they had to take angle grinders to some of the Concordes too...

M.

Maybe while they've got it in pieces they could outfit it with a bit more gold?

Yeah, it does look a bit drab. It should be The Most Beautiful Space Shuttle, you won't see a a more beautiful shuttle.

A cottage industry magically appeared to disassemble and reassemble the SR-71 Blackbirds as they were heading to museums. The wing spars would be drilled and mounted with a patch piece. Then the spars would be cut - permanently rendering them unflyable. Transportation, and then the patch piece would be re-attached to hold the wing in place.

The whole premise was the SR-71 was assumed to be built in such a way that it could not be disassembled.

Museum curators later found cutting the wing spars was not actually necessary. The birds could have been disassembled enough for transport and then reassembled. The myth was widely propagated in the air museum community, driving business to the one company professing the methods for titanium cutting and patching. They made a lot of money for awhile.

Discovery's current location isn't that far from navigational waterways....which can take a barge right over to Houston. Take a look at how the Hughes H-4 Hercules (commonly know as the Spruce Goose) made it to Oregon back in the early 1990's. If a plane larger than a 747 could be transported this way, a much smaller space craft carried by a 747 could be transported as well. This can be done without a slice & dice.