Keep working on getting an air and space museum in there. That can fund the rest of it. And saving the hangar just to leave it empty and off-limits to people is kind of pointless.

I also would like to see and air and space museum in Hanger One. And, I willing to contribute my bit to fund it. But the Smithsonian is not kidding when it says we, not they, will have to fund it and that does not mean the city or county, it means all of us will need to VOLUNTEER to pay for it.

$40 million to resurface the hanger. No, of course I can't think of any better use for that huge amount of money. Not one thing.

Someone needs to whisper in Steve Jobs ear and have him fund the "Apple Hanger One" project.

Think about it... It's the biggest icon in the Bay Area South of SF.

Google Hanger One sounds cool too..

Hey! How about the name "iHangerOne" ??

I sent an email to a friend and he liked this comment better than my previous one, so I thought I would post this one too.


Since they used in the latest Star Trek we know it MUST be preserved until at least the 23rd century right?

Can someone explain to me the value of this Hanger? Why spend a nickel on an obsolete structure with the "hope" of getting an investor or group to put up money and create an "air/space museum" west? In terms of a landmark, we're not talking Coit Tower or the Golden Gate Bridge here, are we? I drive by it every day and see an oversized, useless structure left over from the 1930s. Don't we have better places to allocate $10 million?

Like Jim, I and hundreds of thousands of others also see Hanger One every day. But I see an immense icon of the Nation's history, and would like to see it preserved. Certainly, it would be better for it to be preserved and used than to be preserved and empty. An air and space museum housed in Hanger One is not the only potential use, but I think it's a good one.

Can I convert it to a commercial grow operation?

How many families taxes went to that 10 million dollars? 500?

I'd like to commend our congressional rep. for putting this through the NORMAL congressional subcommittee approval process (it is vetted and debated with other uses of funds). This open process is a much better way to appropriate $ than EARMARKS (which show up with no prior public input as the secret deals of Senate-House conference committee 'dealers').

Opinions (letters) to the rest of the Senate Appropriations Comm. are now appropriate.