Texas politicians warn Smithsonian it must not lobby to retain its space shuttle | Hacker News Reader

Texas politicians warn Smithsonian it must not lobby to retain its space shuttle

arstechnica.com

44 pointsLorenDB26 comments

The bill allocates $85 million to move the shuttle. For some reason Senator Cornyn doesn't mention that number in his press releases. The relevant text:

> (F) $85,000,000 shall be obligated to carry out subsection (b), of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be obligated for the transportation of the space vehicle described in that subsection, with the remainder transferred not later than the date that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section to the entity designated under that subsection, for the purpose of construction of a facility to house the space vehicle referred to in that subsection.

Also, the Air and Space Museum is free and Space Center Houston (the new location) charges $30 per person.

Minor quibble: the Shuttle is at Udvar-Hazy, which is also free but has kinda pricey parking. ($17, iirc).

You don't have to drive, though it is kinda far from anything else. And the price is per car rather than per person, so a family visit is far cheaper.

> You don't have to drive, though it is kinda far from anything else.

It’s right at Dulles, easy to cap onto a trip in or out of the DC area, or even a long-ish layover.

It is far but you can take the metro to the bus, that's how I've visited. And it is a really cool museum, I would recommend it to anyone. Try to go before the shuttle is gone I guess, but they also have an SR-71, lots of satellites, a Concorde, and a thousand other planes. Just a giant hangar full of cool stuff.

That is a long trip from downtown; but utterly worth it.

also worth mentioning the Smithsonian air and space museum (there are two, the one people know about on the national mall, and the less well known but way better one somewhere in virginia) -- the latter one also pulls the same stunt - free entry, expensive parking. Also see: many of our state and national parks.

Clearly these museums are either (a) underfunded (2) overspending (c) both, thusly operating in a capitalistic fashion. kind of silly since the purpose is knowledge for the people. imagine a library with free borrowing and return of books and resources, free internet, but parking at the library is $10.

I don’t think it’s clear. I am not a local to these areas but it sounds like it could also be similar to tragedy of the commons. If the parking was free maybe it becomes overused by other folks and there are ways to prevent that but people are clever getting around loopholes. Easy enough to charge for parking.

All I can find on the Smithsonian is that they did press interviews, where various staff expressed opposition, and that they also sent some report to Congress. The press interviews are, quite naturally, public statements, and it could be argued they're unrelated to lobbying. As for the report, that's part of their normal duties - it would be a real catch-22 if such a report were considered lobbying. This feels like bluster from the politicians; they write dumb letters all the time for PR purposes.

The space shuttle situation, though, is a disaster.

Strangely, according to its Congressional proponents, the language in the bill says "to transfer a space vehicle involved in the Commercial Crew Program". That would not be a Shuttle. That's a Space-X Dragon, or one of the boosters.

The remaining Shuttles were delivered by carrying them atop NASA's Shuttle Carrier, a Boeing 747 rigged for that, and landing it at a nearby airport. Those craft were retired years ago. Unclear how to move the thing without cutting it apart.

Also, no one is providing the rest of the "message sent to Congress" in which "the organization said it would be 'unprecedented' for the federal government to remove an object from its collection and send it somewhere else."

There's nothing about noting that something is "unprecedented" that counts as lobbying or opposition per se. It could be "unprecedented" in a good way; the organization might have also just been answering a question or asking for clarification -- which seems reasonable given that the law specifies something involved in the Commercial Crew Program, not the shuttle.

Not defending this specific case, but is it really unprecedented to remove an item from the Smithsonian and send it somewhere else? There's been a similar order for them to return cultural remains to their owners since 1989.

NASA at least gets to pick which shuttle, if they have to go through with this. Enterprise, which is stored in a tent near the Intrepid aircraft carrier in New York, might be an option. There's no historical relationship between Intrepid and the Space Shuttle. Enterprise was placed where it is now by lifting it from a barge with a large crane. So it could be put onto a barge again and moved to Houston by water.[1]

[1] https://intrepidmuseum.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions...

Sadly this won't work. The bill requires the designated spacecraft to have flown humans to space.

cutting it apart,numbering the pieces and airmailing it to them,bit by bit " The Space Shuttle Flys One More Time"

The space shuttle is fine where it is. Why does it need to be moved now?

Because it is in a state run by the party out of power, and a state run by the party in power wants it.

Udvar-Hazy, the hangar museum where the Smithsonian stores the big stuff, is in Virginia. The governor of Virginia is a Republican.

But both senators are Democrats, and it nearly always goes for the Democrats at the Presidential level. (Not always, but when it doesn't, it's always such a sweep that it doesn't matter.)

Because the Republicans are carving up our nation and offering it to the highest bidder—or in this case, bribery for votes. That’s the government we have now. This is what has become of the former leader of the free world.

I don’t see how that applies to this situation at all

It is why the space shuttle is being moved from the Smithsonian—it got Trump some votes for his Big Beautiful Bill.

To own the libs.

Wow, things like this are really actually part of that "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"?!

Everything is. It’s a masterpiece of authoritarian politics: Who could refuse a bill that benefits waitresses all over the country?

I think I don't know what a "bill" is. It seems like a collection of laws? Or just a collection of something (like the Space Shuttle thing). It's seems crazy to have a huge blob of things that you can either accept or refuse in full. Internet research tells me, it is more or less the same as a law, so how can something like a "big (and very beautiful!) bill" even exist?

Sometimes it makes sense to create a package of laws to release at once, because they enact a shared goal or depend on each other. That’s good, and generally considered useful.

Then again if you let a bunch of degenerates without dignity, manners, or brains take control of the government, they will twist every tool to their disposal into perversion; in this case, shoving any and all policy changes into a giant law, such that you can always point at the commonly accepted improvements, gloss over the atrocities, and most importantly, coerce all senators into passing it, even if it’s actively harmful to their own constituents.

And if people start to ask too many questions, you threaten to invade a country, accept a bribe jet plane, or do really anything else to flood the zone with shit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com