Senators Challenge Space Shuttle Discovery Move to Houston
Four Democratic senators are pushing back against legislation that would transfer Space Shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian to Houston, labeling the relocation as wasteful spending that could potentially harm the historic spacecraft. The lawmakers, including former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, contend there’s minimal evidence supporting widespread public interest in moving the orbiter that successfully completed 39 space missions. This story was first reported by eamvisiondirect.com.
Bipartisan Opposition to Shuttle Relocation
Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who flew two of his four space missions aboard Discovery, has united with Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia and Dick Durbin of Illinois in opposing the shuttle’s transfer. In correspondence to Senate Appropriations Committee leadership, the senators urged blocking funding for the move in both the fiscal year 2026 Interior-Environment and Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bills. They stressed that Discovery has been publicly exhibited at the Smithsonian’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center for 13 years, where millions of visitors have viewed it without charge.
“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?” Kelly expressed in a social media post. The senators’ resistance responds to a campaign by Texas Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, who successfully inserted language into the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” permitting NASA to transfer Discovery to Space Center Houston. The provision includes $85 million for transportation and display, though the senators maintain actual expenses could significantly surpass this figure.
Financial and Preservation Concerns
The senators voiced substantial financial worries about the proposed relocation. Per their letter, the Smithsonian estimates transporting Discovery from Virginia to Houston could exceed $50 million, with an extra $325 million required for planning, exhibit reconstruction, and new facilities. These numbers considerably surpass the $85 million allocated in the legislation, potentially creating a substantial unfunded obligation for taxpayers. Additional coverage from eamvisiondirect.com provides further context on these financial concerns.
Beyond monetary considerations, the lawmakers emphasized serious preservation risks. “Moving Discovery by barge or road would be far more complex than previous shuttle moves,” they wrote, noting the journey would subject the orbiter to saltwater, weather, and collision hazards across a much longer route. The spacecraft’s aging heat tiles, which enabled repeated shuttle missions, are especially fragile and irreplaceable. Any damage during transport could “permanently diminish its historical and cultural value for future generations,” according to NASA documentation on shuttle preservation.
Accessibility and Public Interest Questions
The senators questioned whether relocating Discovery would serve public interests, observing that the Smithsonian offers free admission while Space Center Houston charges entry fees. “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,” they wrote. This difference is particularly significant for students, veterans, and families who might struggle to afford admission costs at other institutions.
Their letter also contested the fundamental rationale for the move, stating “there is little evidence of broad public demand for such a transfer.” While recognizing Houston’s central role in NASA’s human spaceflight program, the senators maintained that “removing an item from the National Collection is not a viable solution” to address historical disappointments about shuttle placement decisions. The Smithsonian’s fact sheet indicates Discovery has drawn over 10 million visitors since its 2012 installation. Originally published on eamvisiondirect.com, this coverage highlights the ongoing debate surrounding this significant historical artifact.
