A heated debate is unfolding over the fate of the iconic space shuttle Discovery, with a potential move to Texas sparking controversy and raising questions about historical preservation and legal boundaries.
Discovery, the prized exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution's Udvar-Hazy Center, has become the center of a political storm. The argument revolves around whether this national treasure should remain at the National Air and Space Museum or be relocated to Houston, home to NASA's Johnson Space Center.
The push for Discovery's relocation began with a state-level initiative by Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz (both R-Texas). Their efforts were later incorporated into President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," which became law on July 4.
However, recent correspondence reveals the challenges and progress of this behind-the-scenes operation. Both NASA and the Smithsonian have confirmed that they've been directed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare for Discovery's move to Houston within the specified 18-month timeframe.
But here's where it gets controversial: both organizations have concluded that moving Discovery would require significant disassembly, which they warn could destroy its historical value.
Joe Stief, organizer for KeepTheShuttle.org, a group advocating to keep Discovery at the Smithsonian, expressed alarm. "It's not something NASA ever contemplated doing," he said. "You'd have to break the shuttle into at least six major parts, probably more."
Stief explained that disassembling the shuttle, even into its largest components, would cause irreversible structural damage. "You'd be removing thermal tiles and blankets, cutting up connectors, and disrupting the intricate wiring and tubing system," he said. "They preserved Discovery specifically to keep all this intact for future research."
And this is the part most people miss: the Smithsonian's letter estimates the move could cost upwards of $120-$150 million, excluding the cost of building a new facility in Texas. This far exceeds the $85 million allocated in the bill.
The debate has sparked a letter from Senators Mark Kelly, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Richard Durbin to the Committee on Appropriations, urging them to block the transfer. They argue that Houston's disappointment in not being selected initially is understandable, but removing an item from the National Collection is not a valid solution.
Senators Cornyn and Cruz, however, have accused the Smithsonian of a "frivolous misinformation campaign" and potentially violating the Anti-Lobbying Act. They dispute the need for disassembly and question the Smithsonian's cost estimates.
The Smithsonian maintains its ownership of Discovery, stating that NASA transferred all rights and ownership to the museum in 2012. The museum also questions the legality of the government-ordered relocation.
But the Senators' letter pushes back, arguing that the Smithsonian, despite its claims, is fundamentally a creation of Congress and operates with federal funding and employees.
This perspective worries the Smithsonian, which, as a "trust instrumentality," operates independently from federal agencies. Legal precedent states that artifacts donated to the Institution become its property, not federal property.
"We're concerned about the precedent this could set for removing objects from the national collection," the Institution wrote, warning of potential damage to the most intact orbiter from the shuttle program.
Stief acknowledged the legal complexities, noting that the Department of Justice would represent the museum. "Even if the law is in their favor, we can't rely solely on the legal angle," he said.
The outcome of this debate could redefine how federal law treats artifacts in the Smithsonian's care and whether executive interpretation can override institutional independence.
As Congress remains in a partial government shutdown, the fate of Discovery hangs in the balance, with negotiations over the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill potentially deciding its future.
"Even with unlimited funds, this move wouldn't be the right choice," Stief concluded.
