News: 0179594588

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Senators Try To Halt Shuttle Move, Saying 'Little Evidence' of Public Demand (arstechnica.com)

(Tuesday September 30, 2025 @03:00AM (BeauHD) from the non-viable-solutions dept.)


Sen. Mark Kelly and three Democratic colleagues [1]urged appropriations leaders to [2]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.



[1] https://www.collectspace.com/news/news-092925a-kelly-senators-space-shuttle-discovery-move-letter-appropriations-committee.html

[2] https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/09/senators-to-appropriators-leave-space-shuttle-discovery-in-smithsonian/



Re: Quit pretending it's about cost (Score:2)

by simlox ( 6576120 )

Why shouldn't they? It sounds like stupid waste. Then you move to Houston. Then come some other people wanting to move it the other way. What about promising the Artimis II capsule to Texas, instead?

Re: (Score:2)

by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 )

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?

Re: (Score:2)

by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 )

They should have gone to FL, CA, TX and DC.

Re: (Score:3)

by geekmux ( 1040042 )

> They should have gone to FL, CA, TX and DC.

They kinda did.

[1]https://www.nasa.gov/centers-a... [nasa.gov]

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/kennedy/retired-space-shuttle-locations/

Re: (Score:1)

by geekmux ( 1040042 )

> 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?

Because Greed N. Corruption wanted to profit heavily on moving it to an affluent location. Naturally no one is asking how much it cost to move the fucking thing to where we never launched it. They probably budgeted $300 million back then and spent $900 million doing it.

Re: (Score:3)

by migos ( 10321981 )

There was this whole lobbying process from competing institutions and in the end NYC won. Projected visitor count had a lot to do with it.

Re: (Score:2, Funny)

by fluffernutter ( 1411889 )

So in other words, they did it fairly. No wonder Republicans are upset.

Re: (Score:2)

by jsonn ( 792303 )

Maybe because Discovery has literally nothing to do with Houston?

Re: (Score:2)

by gweihir ( 88907 )

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)

by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

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.

$400 million? (Score:1)

by backslashdot ( 95548 )

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:2)

by keyboarderror ( 1596427 )

Political theatre has no limit.

Re:$400 million? (Score:4, Insightful)

by Knightman ( 142928 )

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:4, Insightful)

by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 )

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:2)

by buck-yar ( 164658 )

Its junk, should be sold if anyone will buy it, or dismantled. I was a huge fan of the shuttle program, used to tape each launch. But like an old car that you liked but won't ever run again, time to send it off to the scrap yard. We don't need a bunch of old space shuttles. Plenty of old footage to watch for nostalgia or education.

Re: (Score:2)

by Viol8 ( 599362 )

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)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

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.

Some Evidence. (Score:2)

by geekmux ( 1040042 )

> ”Space Shuttle Discovery belongs at the Smithsonian, where millions of people, including students and veterans, go to see it for free."

Oh it’s “free” you say? Ever wonder why only a fraction of American students and veterans have ever seen the Space Shuttle on display, or the original Smithsonian museum itself? Considering its located solidly on one end of the country and in one of the most expensive places in America to visit, I sure as shit don’t.

$400 million is a lot, but let’s stop bullshitting about “no” evidence. There are plenty of valid reasons major Smithsonian exhibits should not all h

Re: (Score:2)

by migos ( 10321981 )

Bullshit. There was a whole bidding process upon shuttle retirement, and many state / institutions lobbied for it. In the end, the visitor count projection was a big factor. Say what you will but NYC has a lot more visitors than flyover states. Just because you can't afford to go there it doesn't mean that people around the world don't want to visit.

Re: (Score:2)

by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 )

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 exhi

Re: (Score:2)

by Viol8 ( 599362 )

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: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

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)

by mrbester ( 200927 )

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.

Start a... (Score:2)

by joshuark ( 6549270 )

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:2)

by gweihir ( 88907 )

It does not make sense. Part of the felon-in-chief's plan to misdirect away from things that actually matter?

Wasteful spending if approved.... (Score:2)

by bsdetector101 ( 6345122 )

Brain dead politicians.

Increased Electricity Consumption Blamed on Linux

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The US Department of Energy claims Linux is partially
responsible for the increased demand for electricity during the past year.
Electricity use was up 2.5% from January to September of 1998 compared with
the same period in 1997. "While some of the increase can be attributed to
higher temperatures over the summer," one Department bureaucrat explained,
"Linux is certainly a contributor to the increased demand for power."

When asked for clarification, the bureaucrat responded, "In the past, most
PCs have been turned off when not in use. Linux users, on the other hand,
usually don't turn off their computers. They leave them on, hoping to
increase their uptime to impress their friends. And since Linux rarely
crashes the entire system, those computers stay on for weeks, months, even
years at a time. With Linux use continuing to grow, we expect demand for
electricity to increase steadily over the next several years."

In response to the news, several utility companies have announced plans to
give away free Linux CDs to paying customers who request them. One anonymous
executive said, "The more people who use Linux, the more power they consume.
The more electricity they use, the more money we make. It's a win-win
combination." Yesterday Linus Torvalds was nominated as a candidate for the
Assocation of American Utility Companies Person of the Year.