It seems silly (and expensive) to move it and there are, no doubt, politics involved. But it may be worth pointing out that this annex to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is out by Dulles and not very convenient for visitors to access.
To be clear, there's not a good reason to move it as far as I can tell. And the default should just be to keep it where it is.
Given that the current administration literally issued an executive order claiming that the Smithsonian is bogus, it seems plausible this is just part of an attempt to diminish its stature: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/
Not long ago it would have been hard for me to imagine a president having a vendetta against specific museums, but given how transparent the executive order is, the only question is whether he's petty enough to try to do something like this. Unfortunately I think it's pretty clear from past precedent that this is pretty plausible.
The current administration is trying to emphasize certain parts of our history and diminish others. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it's something along the lines of "this was something the public sector did with taxpayer money that advanced science. We should deemphasize anything positive that came out of it because it casts public sector projects and science in a good light"
Also worth noting that it's free to go see the shuttle now.
The proposed location charges $30-40 for adults and $25-$35 for children. $150 for a family of 4 to see the shuttle[1] feels steep? But also somehow taking a thing that is free/low-cost in most countries and making it expensive is on-brand for America, I guess.
1 - Yes, there are other things there, as there are at the free Smithsonian where the shuttle currently lives. For comparison, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is in New York City and kids enter free (adults are $30). Also, residents of the region are allowed to pay what they want for entry.
They don't even properly take care of the one they've got; the high-fidelity Shuttle replica and the 747 carrier aircraft already at Houston are outside in an area that gets hurricanes.
! That's high-fidelity enough that I didn't realize it was a replica when I visited (but yeah, nagged at the back of my head that it was sitting out there). If it weren't for the cost of moving and admission and care, I'd say sure, Johnson Space Center deserves one of them. I'd rather spend the money on new probe launches.
Having seen the Kennedy space center museum and Dulles Smithsonian (and downtown Smithsonian) I think that having the vehicles outdoors in the "natural climate" in which they operated makes them hit way harder even if it's worse for preservation.
The "natural climate" for the Shuttle was something like 99.5% indoors in a hangar / VAB, 0.4% space, and 0.1% outside. And they definitely didn't leave it out during hurricanes.
I've seen it in Dulles and I've seen Kennedy Space Center museum and I'm telling you that looking up at a rocket in the Florida sun is a far more impactful experience than seeing the shuttle in Dulles.
If it were up to me I'd park it on a taxiway (or stick it in the parking lot at Dulles, lol) and give tours.
And I'm telling you that looking up at a decrepit, collapsing rocket in a few decades would be a bit less impactful. Short-term (and subjective) benefit for long-term complete loss of the Shuttle eventually. The Smithsonian wants to be able to show this thing off a thousand years from now, if they can.
Outdoor storage for priceless, fragile artifacts is just plain odd.
Why isn't a replica enough then? it will hit the same for people who go to museums to "feel" how it is (that's my case), and for people who wants to see the original without degradation, a museum is great.
I've been aboard the Hermione replica, the Santa Maria replica, a greyhound replica, a Uboot replica in the last two years (and a 1800 steamboat, and a lot of others), honestly for people who like to imagine how it feels like, a replica is better, as you can really visit it.
Keeping the originals safe but still observable is different, and address different people.
Sorry, Grayhound, a corsair ship. The replica tour the british islands and Brittany. I think i read about the HMS greyhound last month and in-conscientiously thought that was also how the corsair was written too.
"'We have discussed enclosing it, but those plans are not finalized yet,' said Protze. 'We brought the best of the best in to redo the rocket, inside and out, and so I feel confident that if it was to stay outside, it would be good for another 20 to 25 years.'"
You don't understand. Museums are a business, a nonprofit and often subsidized business, but still a business. The public is less served and engaged and exited per visit/hour/etc seeing pristine vehicles from behind a rope in an air conditioned building. Letting the public visit these things in the most ideal setting (which is typically whatever is closest to operating conditions) and ideally interact with, walk through and touch them is what builds appetite for further museum funding, expansion, etc.
After decades of environmental wear from outdoor display it can be moved inside, assuming there's enough public interest to justify that. The degradation of visitor experience at that point is acceptable because the item is older, more "historical" etc. The restoration of the item and subsequent redisplay itself then generates further public interest and/or revenue (especially in the modern age of Youtube and the like).
People need to interact with the stuff that their parents or their parents parents remember in order to get exited about (and fund) preserving the (best of) stuff that nobody alive has any connection to. You need to let patrons today sit in the Huey grandpa served in order to get the money to restore the Ford Trimotor nobody alive has much connection to. This is the same situation but bigger. The fact that the shuttles were a national prestige project and their location is a subject of national politics may cause emotion to mask things but on a 10+yr timeline the reality is the same.
This is something that maritime museums have long since figured out.
Sure sounds like you're trying to "justify a preconceived opinion".
> The public is less served and engaged and exited per visit/hour/etc seeing pristine vehicles from behind a rope in an air conditioned building.
The Smithsonian's responsibility is, in part, to many, many future generations of the public.
> Letting the public visit these things in the most ideal setting (which is typically whatever is closest to operating conditions)…
Again, that's either a hangar, or space. "Outside" is the spot it spent the least time, and visitors don't hugely appreciate a vacuum chamber from the inside.
> The degradation of visitor experience at that point is acceptable because the item is older, more "historical" etc.
That's essentially the opposite of how these things work.
> This is something that maritime museums have long since figured out.
The rockets are mostly painted metal while the shuttle's white surface is mostly a woven thermal protection blanket material. Significantly different materials more likely to be damaged in the elements.
I must have a different expectation of "impactful". To me, the long entryway walk ending at a platform from which you can see the SR-71 and Discovery lined up was freaking amazing. Blew my kids' minds, too.
Yeah the only real plus I could see to putting it outside would be if you made it part of a fully assembled set with the boosters and fuel tanks but then you couldn't see all the little details that I personally love from seeing it up close and knowing this thing that's 10 feet from me went to space. You could put a replica up if you were doing the fully assembled version and get just as big an impact because the flaws in the replica would be hidden by distance.
They have an iron bird on srbs and an et on pedestals at SpaceCamp in Huntsville. This is the only reasonable way to display an orbiter outdoors: use a scrap one. The remaining flown orbiters should be preserved indoors, obviously.
>But it may be worth pointing out that this annex to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is out by Dulles and not very convenient for visitors to access.
It's also the better campus IMO. The one in DC is basically a speed run of the stuff you see in a kids book that just highlights all the "firsts". The one at Dulles has all the cool displays of big or technologically unique stuff.
I agree access isn't great if you're trying to shoehorn it into a visit to all the typical DC monuments type stuff.
Having been a frequent patron of both while living in DC: my opinion is that the Udvar-Hazy center has a much better collection, but I'd argue the NASM on the Mall is the better museum. There's a lot more information and things to learn versus just relying on the presence of artifacts.
I felt that I had to take a guided tour at the Udvar-Hazy center in order to get the full experience.
Those guided tours are so good though! You can learn so many cool stories and details and it's a different experience every time, so it's always fun to go back.
Oh, I don't disagree. Though it took me ages to get there because I sort of needed to arrange a long enough layover in Dulles to grab an Uber and spend a few hours.
You need a lot of space for a really good aviation museum. It's no coincidence that the one in the Seattle area is on a Boeing campus near their big plant.
Yeah it's impractical to have a big aviation museum in a downtown, the planes just take up so much space. Another really good one is the Air Force museum in Dayton Ohio.
If you're considering it that puts yet another reason to NOT move the shuttle, the situation in Houston isn't better.
For Udvar Hazy you can get there purely on public transport 7 days a week unlike in Houston, there's only a bus option in Houston and it doesn't run on the weekends and takes even longer than the equivalent trip out to Udvar-Hazy (90-120 vs 120-180 minutes for Smithsonian [0] vs Houston locations [1]).
However, the Udvar Hazy annex is an amazing space. It's absolutely huge, with lots of amazing pieces on display. It's also where the Smithsonian performs restoration on the aircraft in its collection. I doubt it would be possible to put something like that in DC.
It's not that far out of Washington, it's still free (like the other Smithsonians in DC, although you have to pay a small fee for parking), and is an absolutely fantastic facility that will keep anyone entertained for hours if they have any interest at all in aircraft.
Farther if you're looking at public transit travel times. It's ~90-120 minutes by the train-bus combo you have to take for Udvar and 120-180 for the bus only service (no weekend service afaik) for SC Houston. The one upside may be that if you're visiting Houston you're probably already renting a car because their public transit is worse than DC's.
> In July, Cornyn and Cruz successfully added language to the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" championed by President Donald Trump, which enabled acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy to then identify Discovery for relocation. The provision also called for $85 million to be made available to transport and display the shuttle in Houston.
Every single rhetorical overtone about eliminating waste — from DOGE to legislative “fiscal responsibility” — is at best in bad faith and on average a lie.
Yes, but it's more of theatrics for the masses. Whoever DOGE is now have sensitive data on just about every Americans. With that, you can plan your next 10 years.
It was but it did also end and hamper future investigations by agencies like the FCC, CFBP, NHTSA, etc that had investigated or would be overseeing future businesses (eg Elon always talks about making X and 'Everything App' which would include transactions and quasi-banking which would be in CFBP's jurisdiction).
I'm fairly sure that was Elon's main goal, slash the ability for regulators to get in his way because they've been a constant minor nuisance to him and he saw a chance to hamstring them going forward even if Democrats get back in power soon the agencies will have a drastically reduced investigatory and regulatory efficacy just from losing the people that know how to do it.
Musk's real issue was probably that said bill nixed the EV tax credit, exacerbated by withdrawing the nomination of Musk's hand-picked choice for NASA administrator.
Clearly the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is a fitting place for one of the decommissions shuttles to reside. So why move it?
Endeavor is located in California (at the California Science Center) and Enterprise is located in New York (at the Intrepid Museum). They should steal one of those and take it to Houston; not Discovery.
As a New Yorker I have a conflict of interest here, but I would favor moving Endeavor anyway since Enterprise is a fake shuttle that never went to space.
Endeavor is in the county that built (https://www.energy.gov/etec/downey-facility) the Space Shuttles. They've got as much claim as Houston, and Houston already has a high-fidelity replica and one of the two 747s.
Houston already has an amazing replica shuttle that you can go inside and explore. Why do they need to spend hundreds of millions to dollars to steal another one?
Yeah, it looks like when everything is now hyper effective and all unnecessary spending was already cut, thanks to DOGE and BBB, there is no problem spending few millions on Shuttle moves, Ball rooms etc... /s
btw. Where is DOGE now ? Was it self-optimized to 0 employees now - like when there is no cost cutting needed anymore - than cost cutting agency is the most ineffective part of the government ;-)
> YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump and other plaintiffs after he was suspended from the platform in 2021, according to a court filing.
> According to the filing, $22 million will be used to support Trump’s construction of a White House State Ballroom and will be held in a tax-exempt entity called the Trust for the National Mall.
> According to the filing, the settlement “shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Defendants or their agents, servants, or employees, and is entered into by all Parties for the sole purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation.” Google/YouTube also did not agree to any product or policy changes.
It seems silly (and expensive) to move it and there are, no doubt, politics involved. But it may be worth pointing out that this annex to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is out by Dulles and not very convenient for visitors to access.
To be clear, there's not a good reason to move it as far as I can tell. And the default should just be to keep it where it is.
Given that the current administration literally issued an executive order claiming that the Smithsonian is bogus, it seems plausible this is just part of an attempt to diminish its stature: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/
Not long ago it would have been hard for me to imagine a president having a vendetta against specific museums, but given how transparent the executive order is, the only question is whether he's petty enough to try to do something like this. Unfortunately I think it's pretty clear from past precedent that this is pretty plausible.
The current administration is trying to emphasize certain parts of our history and diminish others. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it's something along the lines of "this was something the public sector did with taxpayer money that advanced science. We should deemphasize anything positive that came out of it because it casts public sector projects and science in a good light"
Also worth noting that it's free to go see the shuttle now.
The proposed location charges $30-40 for adults and $25-$35 for children. $150 for a family of 4 to see the shuttle[1] feels steep? But also somehow taking a thing that is free/low-cost in most countries and making it expensive is on-brand for America, I guess.
1 - Yes, there are other things there, as there are at the free Smithsonian where the shuttle currently lives. For comparison, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is in New York City and kids enter free (adults are $30). Also, residents of the region are allowed to pay what they want for entry.
They don't even properly take care of the one they've got; the high-fidelity Shuttle replica and the 747 carrier aircraft already at Houston are outside in an area that gets hurricanes.
https://spacecenter.org/exhibits-and-experiences/independenc...
! That's high-fidelity enough that I didn't realize it was a replica when I visited (but yeah, nagged at the back of my head that it was sitting out there). If it weren't for the cost of moving and admission and care, I'd say sure, Johnson Space Center deserves one of them. I'd rather spend the money on new probe launches.
Having seen the Kennedy space center museum and Dulles Smithsonian (and downtown Smithsonian) I think that having the vehicles outdoors in the "natural climate" in which they operated makes them hit way harder even if it's worse for preservation.
The "natural climate" for the Shuttle was something like 99.5% indoors in a hangar / VAB, 0.4% space, and 0.1% outside. And they definitely didn't leave it out during hurricanes.
I'd rather it hit pretty hard for much longer.
I've seen it in Dulles and I've seen Kennedy Space Center museum and I'm telling you that looking up at a rocket in the Florida sun is a far more impactful experience than seeing the shuttle in Dulles.
If it were up to me I'd park it on a taxiway (or stick it in the parking lot at Dulles, lol) and give tours.
And I'm telling you that looking up at a decrepit, collapsing rocket in a few decades would be a bit less impactful. Short-term (and subjective) benefit for long-term complete loss of the Shuttle eventually. The Smithsonian wants to be able to show this thing off a thousand years from now, if they can.
Outdoor storage for priceless, fragile artifacts is just plain odd.
Move it indoors in 50yr then. There will be new artifacts.
Why isn't a replica enough then? it will hit the same for people who go to museums to "feel" how it is (that's my case), and for people who wants to see the original without degradation, a museum is great.
I've been aboard the Hermione replica, the Santa Maria replica, a greyhound replica, a Uboot replica in the last two years (and a 1800 steamboat, and a lot of others), honestly for people who like to imagine how it feels like, a replica is better, as you can really visit it.
Keeping the originals safe but still observable is different, and address different people.
Sorry, "greyhound" as in the bus?
Sorry, Grayhound, a corsair ship. The replica tour the british islands and Brittany. I think i read about the HMS greyhound last month and in-conscientiously thought that was also how the corsair was written too.
> Move it indoors in 50yr then.
After irreparable damage?
> There will be new artifacts.
There are unlikely to be new Shuttles.
All the stuff in the rocket garden is doing fairly fine. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill here to justify a preconceived opinion.
> All the stuff in the rocket garden is doing fairly fine.
Those have required extensive repairs from weather-induced corrosion etc. (https://www.collectspace.com/news/news-070218a-saturn-ib-roc...) or complete replacement (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39387412 "deemed too far gone to be refurbished") and are far less fragile than the Shuttle to the elements. Even then, there's a time limit and they're hoping to move them inside:
"'We have discussed enclosing it, but those plans are not finalized yet,' said Protze. 'We brought the best of the best in to redo the rocket, inside and out, and so I feel confident that if it was to stay outside, it would be good for another 20 to 25 years.'"
You don't understand. Museums are a business, a nonprofit and often subsidized business, but still a business. The public is less served and engaged and exited per visit/hour/etc seeing pristine vehicles from behind a rope in an air conditioned building. Letting the public visit these things in the most ideal setting (which is typically whatever is closest to operating conditions) and ideally interact with, walk through and touch them is what builds appetite for further museum funding, expansion, etc.
After decades of environmental wear from outdoor display it can be moved inside, assuming there's enough public interest to justify that. The degradation of visitor experience at that point is acceptable because the item is older, more "historical" etc. The restoration of the item and subsequent redisplay itself then generates further public interest and/or revenue (especially in the modern age of Youtube and the like).
People need to interact with the stuff that their parents or their parents parents remember in order to get exited about (and fund) preserving the (best of) stuff that nobody alive has any connection to. You need to let patrons today sit in the Huey grandpa served in order to get the money to restore the Ford Trimotor nobody alive has much connection to. This is the same situation but bigger. The fact that the shuttles were a national prestige project and their location is a subject of national politics may cause emotion to mask things but on a 10+yr timeline the reality is the same.
This is something that maritime museums have long since figured out.
Sure sounds like you're trying to "justify a preconceived opinion".
> The public is less served and engaged and exited per visit/hour/etc seeing pristine vehicles from behind a rope in an air conditioned building.
The Smithsonian's responsibility is, in part, to many, many future generations of the public.
> Letting the public visit these things in the most ideal setting (which is typically whatever is closest to operating conditions)…
Again, that's either a hangar, or space. "Outside" is the spot it spent the least time, and visitors don't hugely appreciate a vacuum chamber from the inside.
> The degradation of visitor experience at that point is acceptable because the item is older, more "historical" etc.
That's essentially the opposite of how these things work.
> This is something that maritime museums have long since figured out.
Some indeed have! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-505 etc.
The rockets are mostly painted metal while the shuttle's white surface is mostly a woven thermal protection blanket material. Significantly different materials more likely to be damaged in the elements.
Well you obviously didn't see the real Space Shuttle displayed at Kennedy. Since it's indoors.
And it's one of the most awe-inspiring presentations I've seen.
I can't imagine dumping it outside to rot on a piece of asphalt.
I must have a different expectation of "impactful". To me, the long entryway walk ending at a platform from which you can see the SR-71 and Discovery lined up was freaking amazing. Blew my kids' minds, too.
I found seeing it in Udvar Hazy incredibly impactful.
Yeah the only real plus I could see to putting it outside would be if you made it part of a fully assembled set with the boosters and fuel tanks but then you couldn't see all the little details that I personally love from seeing it up close and knowing this thing that's 10 feet from me went to space. You could put a replica up if you were doing the fully assembled version and get just as big an impact because the flaws in the replica would be hidden by distance.
They have an iron bird on srbs and an et on pedestals at SpaceCamp in Huntsville. This is the only reasonable way to display an orbiter outdoors: use a scrap one. The remaining flown orbiters should be preserved indoors, obviously.
Don't need outside for that; the LA shuttle is a full, upright stack, indoors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8vlWVp_oBU
Didn't know that. I've never had the chance to go to LA and see their museum. I've heard great things about it but haven't made the trek.
Ah sadly it's still not open so I couldn't have. https://californiasciencecenter.org/about-us/samuel-oschin-a...
>But it may be worth pointing out that this annex to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is out by Dulles and not very convenient for visitors to access.
It's also the better campus IMO. The one in DC is basically a speed run of the stuff you see in a kids book that just highlights all the "firsts". The one at Dulles has all the cool displays of big or technologically unique stuff.
I agree access isn't great if you're trying to shoehorn it into a visit to all the typical DC monuments type stuff.
Having been a frequent patron of both while living in DC: my opinion is that the Udvar-Hazy center has a much better collection, but I'd argue the NASM on the Mall is the better museum. There's a lot more information and things to learn versus just relying on the presence of artifacts.
I felt that I had to take a guided tour at the Udvar-Hazy center in order to get the full experience.
Those guided tours are so good though! You can learn so many cool stories and details and it's a different experience every time, so it's always fun to go back.
Oh, I don't disagree. Though it took me ages to get there because I sort of needed to arrange a long enough layover in Dulles to grab an Uber and spend a few hours.
You need a lot of space for a really good aviation museum. It's no coincidence that the one in the Seattle area is on a Boeing campus near their big plant.
Yeah it's impractical to have a big aviation museum in a downtown, the planes just take up so much space. Another really good one is the Air Force museum in Dayton Ohio.
It's unclear how you'd even move the thing safely. The shuttle-carrier 747s are literal museum pieces now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft#Retir...
I guess they can disassemble/reassemble it or move it whole with huge flatbed trucks, but both risk damaging the vehicle.
They'd likely move it via barge; that's how Houston got their current Shuttle (replica) from Florida. Getting it to the Potomac would probably be the toughest bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Independence#Spa...
When the lord is on your side, you can work wonders my son.
If you're considering it that puts yet another reason to NOT move the shuttle, the situation in Houston isn't better.
For Udvar Hazy you can get there purely on public transport 7 days a week unlike in Houston, there's only a bus option in Houston and it doesn't run on the weekends and takes even longer than the equivalent trip out to Udvar-Hazy (90-120 vs 120-180 minutes for Smithsonian [0] vs Houston locations [1]).
[0] https://airandspace.si.edu/visit/udvar-hazy-center/direction...
[1] https://www.tripadvisor.com/FAQ_Answers-g56003-d669494-t2695...
The default should always be to leave something the way it is without good reason to change it. People really should follow that rule more often.
However, the Udvar Hazy annex is an amazing space. It's absolutely huge, with lots of amazing pieces on display. It's also where the Smithsonian performs restoration on the aircraft in its collection. I doubt it would be possible to put something like that in DC.
> not very convenient for visitors to access.
Seems like a great reason not to put it all the way out in Texas
It's not that far out of Washington, it's still free (like the other Smithsonians in DC, although you have to pay a small fee for parking), and is an absolutely fantastic facility that will keep anyone entertained for hours if they have any interest at all in aircraft.
If they're going to move any of them to Texas, it should be Enterprise. It's already on the top deck of an aircraft carrier.
In a climate controlled hanger on a museum.
Significantly cheaper and safer to move it to a barge/boat/whatever and float it most of the way.
I mean, the Space Center in Houston isn't really convenient for visitors either. It's about as far from Houston as Udvar-Hazy is from DC.
Farther if you're looking at public transit travel times. It's ~90-120 minutes by the train-bus combo you have to take for Udvar and 120-180 for the bus only service (no weekend service afaik) for SC Houston. The one upside may be that if you're visiting Houston you're probably already renting a car because their public transit is worse than DC's.
Is this an escalation in the spat between the administration and the Smithsonian?
The administration has been making a lot of attacks and even executive orders on the Smithsonian for being unamerican and so on.
John Cornyn is afraid of Ken Paxton's challenge for his Senate seat. He's trying to bring some high profile pork back to Texas.
Most likely a mix of that and favors for friends.
Good catch, it was part of the "you can't talk about black people / slavery in your exhibits anymore because its divisive and Woke" launch https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/trump-executive-order-...
> In July, Cornyn and Cruz successfully added language to the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" championed by President Donald Trump, which enabled acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy to then identify Discovery for relocation. The provision also called for $85 million to be made available to transport and display the shuttle in Houston.
Every single rhetorical overtone about eliminating waste — from DOGE to legislative “fiscal responsibility” — is at best in bad faith and on average a lie.
DOGE was a data grab by private parties, nothing more.
It also was a convenient attack on various regulators that Musk personally disliked and the GOP broadly have been wanting to gut for years.
Yes, but it's more of theatrics for the masses. Whoever DOGE is now have sensitive data on just about every Americans. With that, you can plan your next 10 years.
It was but it did also end and hamper future investigations by agencies like the FCC, CFBP, NHTSA, etc that had investigated or would be overseeing future businesses (eg Elon always talks about making X and 'Everything App' which would include transactions and quasi-banking which would be in CFBP's jurisdiction).
I'm fairly sure that was Elon's main goal, slash the ability for regulators to get in his way because they've been a constant minor nuisance to him and he saw a chance to hamstring them going forward even if Democrats get back in power soon the agencies will have a drastically reduced investigatory and regulatory efficacy just from losing the people that know how to do it.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-03-27/elon-musk-...
Ha that makes so much sense.
[flagged]
Musk's real issue was probably that said bill nixed the EV tax credit, exacerbated by withdrawing the nomination of Musk's hand-picked choice for NASA administrator.
Clearly the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is a fitting place for one of the decommissions shuttles to reside. So why move it?
Endeavor is located in California (at the California Science Center) and Enterprise is located in New York (at the Intrepid Museum). They should steal one of those and take it to Houston; not Discovery.
As a New Yorker I have a conflict of interest here, but I would favor moving Endeavor anyway since Enterprise is a fake shuttle that never went to space.
Endeavor is in the county that built (https://www.energy.gov/etec/downey-facility) the Space Shuttles. They've got as much claim as Houston, and Houston already has a high-fidelity replica and one of the two 747s.
Fair enough. Then maybe they should take Enterprise, though I think they'd be happier with their current replica than a dummy trainer.
Houston already has an amazing replica shuttle that you can go inside and explore. Why do they need to spend hundreds of millions to dollars to steal another one?
Endeavor has a whole building being built around it it's not moving anywhere.
https://californiasciencecenter.org/about-us/samuel-oschin-a...
Yeah, it looks like when everything is now hyper effective and all unnecessary spending was already cut, thanks to DOGE and BBB, there is no problem spending few millions on Shuttle moves, Ball rooms etc... /s
btw. Where is DOGE now ? Was it self-optimized to 0 employees now - like when there is no cost cutting needed anymore - than cost cutting agency is the most ineffective part of the government ;-)
Ball room is privately funded btw.
Privately extorted funding, that is.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/youtube-agrees-pay-245-milli...
> YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump and other plaintiffs after he was suspended from the platform in 2021, according to a court filing.
> According to the filing, $22 million will be used to support Trump’s construction of a White House State Ballroom and will be held in a tax-exempt entity called the Trust for the National Mall.
Google themselves admitted they were wrongly censoring people at the Biden admin's request.
The settlement is from that ordeal, not extorsion.
But yeah, funny that Youtube had to pay for it lol.
Full letter from Google: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
You should actually read the letter instead of assuming what it says.
> Full letter from Google…
doesn't say anything of the sort. It, in fact, brags about their refusing to do so.
I'm not sure thats any better. A metaphor of corruption if I've ever seen one.
A president privately paying for a ball room that they will only use for 3 more years?
I don't think that's really peak corruption. He could have just kept the money.
It's simply a donation of a building. Not sure how you can spin that as corruption.
> A president privately paying…
There's zero evidence of this. (And plenty of evidence to the contrary, like the YouTube settlement.)
> He could have pocketed the money.
He effectively is. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/09/09/preside...
The Youtube settlement is his money. Youtube censored him, admitted it was the Biden admin directing it, and settled.
Trump can either donate the money or pocket it.
I'm not sure why you linked his net worth gain, has nothing to do with this conversation of donating this specific building.
> The Youtube settlement is his money…
… obtained via the power and threat of the public office. There's a good reason all these suits started getting settled only after he regained office.
> I'm not sure why you linked his net worth gain…
Because he's growing his wealth via the Presidency far greater than $20M he's "donating" out of someone else's pocket?
> There's a good reason all these suits started getting settled only after he regained office.
Yes, because as Google admitted, the Biden administration was the one instructing them to do so, of course the suits started after the Biden admin.
-- edit --
Source: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/google-admi...
Full letter from Google: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
Where are you getting that from?
https://deadline.com/2025/09/trumo-youtube-settlement-123656...
> According to the filing, the settlement “shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Defendants or their agents, servants, or employees, and is entered into by all Parties for the sole purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation.” Google/YouTube also did not agree to any product or policy changes.
No, they burrowed a bunch of commissars into various agencies.