The battle over the future of the space shuttle Discovery is intensifying as the Smithsonian Institution considers the possibility of disassembling the shuttle to facilitate its relocation to Houston, Texas. This decision comes amid a political struggle regarding whether the shuttle should remain a part of the National Air and Space Museum’s collection or be moved to the Johnson Space Center, which is home to NASA’s operations.
Recent correspondence between NASA, Congress, and the Smithsonian highlights both the challenges and progress of this contentious effort. In a letter to congressional committees, museum officials indicated that moving Discovery could require significant disassembly, risking irreversible damage to one of the most well-preserved artifacts of spaceflight history. The urgency to relocate stems from the “Bring the Shuttle Home Act,” advocated by U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz (both R-Texas). This legislation was incorporated into President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which was signed into law on July 4.
According to the Smithsonian, both NASA and the museum have been instructed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare for the move within 18 months. However, the letter warned that Discovery “will have to undergo significant disassembly,” stating that such action would “destroy its historical value.” The estimated cost for the relocation is projected to be between $120 million and $150 million, a figure that exceeds the $85 million allocated in the appropriation bill.
Discovery has been a prominent exhibit at the Smithsonian’s Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia, drawing numerous visitors and serving as an educational resource. Joe Stief, an organizer for KeepTheShuttle.org, a group advocating for the shuttle’s preservation, expressed serious concerns over the potential disassembly. “The shuttle wasn’t designed to be disassembled,” Stief said. He emphasized that dismantling it would likely result in catastrophic structural damage, as it would involve removing hundreds, if not thousands, of thermal tiles and cutting numerous connectors.
Stief’s organization has garnered over 3,500 supporters who are urging Congress to prevent the shuttle’s relocation. In a letter dated September 23, U.S. Senators Mark Kelly, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Richard Durbin called on the Senate Appropriations Committee to block the transfer. They argued that revisiting the decision made nearly 15 years ago, which determined the final homes of the space shuttle orbiters, would undermine public trust in institutions.
In response, Cornyn and Cruz criticized the Smithsonian for what they termed a “frivolous misinformation campaign.” The senators contested the assertion that disassembly is necessary and questioned the museum’s cost estimates, arguing that they are “more than 10 times higher” than those provided by private logistics firms.
The Smithsonian maintains that it legally owns Discovery, as all rights were transferred to the institution by NASA in 2012. The museum’s stance raises questions about the legality of the government-ordered relocation. In their letter, Cornyn and Cruz countered the Smithsonian’s claims, pointing out that the institution is fundamentally a creation of Congress and is funded by federal appropriations.
The current situation poses a significant dilemma for the Smithsonian, which operates as a public trust distinct from federal agencies. This unique structure allows it a degree of independence, making the outcome of this situation critical not only for Discovery but also for the treatment of artifacts within the Smithsonian’s care.
As negotiations over the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill continue, the fate of Discovery remains uncertain, entangled in broader discussions about funding and institutional commitments. Stief expressed concern about the implications of the proposed move, stating, “Even if you had an unlimited budget, this wouldn’t be the right thing to do.” The eventual decision could set a precedent for how federal law interacts with museum artifacts and institutional independence.
