Why are two TX senators trying to wrest a Space Shuttle from the Smithsonian? | Hacker News Reader

Why are two TX senators trying to wrest a Space Shuttle from the Smithsonian?

arstechnica.com

17 pointspmags4 comments

It is a shameful exercise in grandstanding, but the article cited by Ars about the difficulty in transporting the shuttle is, in my opinion, wrong.

When they needed to move the shuttle-sized Muon G-2 magnet ring from Brookhaven to Fermilab, they carefully packaged it up and sent it by barge for 85% of the trip. The east coast and gulf coast portions used the intracoastal waterway, which is exactly the same route they would use for the shuttle. And yes, that magnet ring is a hell of a lot more fragile than a shuttle.

I’m sorry to say, but transportation is not at all a barrier to such a move.

Here is a photo of it passing St. Louis. You can see how tiny it looks compared to the kind of barge they’d use:

https://muon-g-2.fnal.gov/bigmove/images/gallery/20130719-St...

Thanks for the details about the Muon G-2 move. Are there aspects of the G-2 that made it more modular / easier to disassemble than the shuttle?

The quote in the article cited by Ars (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-041025a-space-shuttle-...) seems to come from the former "director of NASA's transition and retirement program".

> Partially disassembling Discovery is also not an option. Removing the wings would result in destroying many of the thermal blankets and tiles that protected the space shuttle as it returned to Earth, and you would still be left with segments too large to enter normal traffic, explained Jenkins.

The shuttle wingspan is 78 feet, and the narrowest section of the Intracoastal Waterway is >100 feet. You simply wouldn’t have to disassemble the shuttle to make it work.

There are existing rules for wide loads. They’d just use them.

That’s the extent of my knowledge. I think that everyone they’ve talked to doesn’t want it to happen, and that is coloring their view of whether it can happen. But I could be wrong.

See, holding perpetual plenary sessions of Congress is like our 24/7 live-news cycle. There's no new news to report, especially not substantial stuff, so they keep telling us platitudes and teasers and building up to no-big-deal, just to keep selling the commercials, just to keep the channel-surfers hooked.

And Congresspeople must look like they're Doing Important Work, all the time. They've got to Pass Bills and Debate Controversial Stuff, especially Wedge Issues, even if they're wasting time. Because they're being paid to go to D.C. and be in session and do work, i.e. pass new laws.

Imagine if Congress repealed old laws and regulations that became irrelevant or they pared down the shelf of the U.S. Code to streamline it. Imagine if they took breaks, longer breaks, or focused on truly impactful legislation that would make a difference.

But their job, their condemnation now, is to churn out stacks and stacks of legalese that will take orders of magnitude longer to be interpreted and to be implemented, but that's not their problem. Each Congressperson is motivated by the need to "fight for my constituents" and "advance the best interests of our district/great state" and oh yeah, to get re-elected!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com