Selling Hubble.

[pioneer0333]

Would NASA be interested in selling Hubble when they are done with it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

NASA has never expressed an interest in this. Hubble alone was over a billion dollars. Add to that, the cost of post Challenger delays and getting it to orbit in 1990 plus the Hubble Repair Missions (HRM), we'd never even partially recoup our costs to a reasonable level. Its also nearing the end of its service life and no other country (Except Russia)could mount a servicing mission and paying the U.S. to send a HRM would be beyond the space budgets of countries with space programs.<br /><br />But just in case, maybe you should E-mail the idea to NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

Considering its broke right now, you might get a discount. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

Who would buy it? Not like you can make a lot of money selling astronomical data! The only people who would buy it, and can afford would be someone like Gates-Buffett who want to donate the research.

 

[pioneer0333]

If NASA just holds on to it till space travel becomes more capable, they could sell or donate it to say a global education program for astronomy. Schools every where could benefit by adding an astronomy class encompassing the use of the HST. The Hubble would be accessible by schools all over the world. Plus if the schools linked up together, they could easily raise funds to keep the Hubble working.<br /><br /> Just another way to keep the public wanting to push the space program forward. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

<br />Not sure I follow. How does space travel being capable help Hubble? Holding on to it will cost $. If they donate the schools still could not afford to operate it - it is not cheap and you need a lot of infrastructure (TDRS, engineering, planners, operators...). I would think schools could get a lot more bang for their education buck with smaller projects. Now perhaps you mean that the US govt would pay and operate it but donate the use to schools. Except that is what they are doing now.

 

[qso1]

And, by the time space travel being capable comes about, ground based instruments will be at or very near Hubbles level. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Unfortunately, without an orbital boost, Hubble will de-orbit bewtween 2010 and 2032 depending on several factors. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[pioneer0333]

I'm just saying, if (and hopefully so), but if space travel becomes as common as air travel in the next 20-30 years, access and ability in space will be much cheaper and a lot more widely spread than it is now. Till then, they could put it in a "far" or geostationery orbit around the moon or something. I just don't wanna see it go down in a ball of fire. <br /><br />Now that I think about it, when the ISS gets old, you don't think they will destroy it too? <br /><br />I have said this once before, but NASA needs show that they are still the major players in space. A good challenge to NASA, bring the Hubble back, and put it in the Smithsonian. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

I think NASA didn't try to sell it now that it is nearing the end because they wouldn't think anybody might want it. I suppose they would hand it over for a dollar if somebody expressed interest, past costs mean nothing, all that matters now are the prospects in future for Hubble, what can NASA do with it and it seems it will cost them something just to keep it untill it burns up, doubt they can just say one day soon when it stops operating completely, lets forget about Hubble and that's that. <br /><br />I think those private companies that now look towards space turism might be able to take it over and even refurbish it in some daring missions but they probably aren't interested, either running it or using it as a turist attraction LOL<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

vanDivX:<br />I think NASA didn't try to sell it now that it is nearing the end because they wouldn't think anybody might want it.<br /><br />Me:<br />And one of the reasons nobody else would be interested is that they have no way to service it.<br /><br />True NASA probably wouldn't be interested in past cost but the buyer might be. And the buyer will want to be able to get as much use out of the scope as they can but without being able to service the scope. It probably would not be seen as much of an investment despite its superb capabilities.<br /><br />By the time private enterprise gets enough of a foothold in space, Hubble will probably have just about shut down anyway due to lack of regular servicing, and of course, ground instruments will be very close to or equal in Hubble capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

if the private enterprise were really private (as they are not these days anymore given they have to obey tons of government imposed regulations, safety and multitude of others regulations that render them not really private anymore) they would develop ways of servicing it fast enough I think.<br /><br />I have read a while back about the 'Skunk works' that were I think part of NASA back then, so it wasn't private in that sense but that's good example how private enterprise would operate if it was let to be really private. Those guys in those days if they could do their stuff nowadays would do things that would astonish us day in day out, people today simply don't have perspective on what's possible, their standard is bumbling bureaucracy of NASA and they can't imagine existence of anything better, appropriately enough, they don't get anything better.<br /><br />as to ground telescopes, they can get better but they can't beat a telescope in orbit, if they try to come close, the costs will escalate too much and they will run against limits that will become increasingly harder to overcome if it will be possible at all, atmosphere is here to stay and I don't think anybody will be able to do away with it anytime soon<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Private enterprise could certainly develop the means to service Hubble. But as things are right now, the only Hubble servicing capability is access provided by shuttle. Other manned vehicles such as Soyuz or an OSP type vehicle could do it but repair capability would be limited due to the fact that the shuttle carries a fairly large servicing pallet in the payload bay to allow Hubble to be stably secured aboard shuttle during servicing which in turn provides optimal repair capability not really possible with Soyuz or small spaceplane craft.<br /><br />While private enterprise could develop a vehicle that could possibly carry a similar servicing pallet, the developmental expense might be an obstacle.<br /><br />"Skunk works" were never officially a part of NASA although NASA may have been involved with them at certain times. Skunk works was a nickname applied to an aircraft design and development team at Lockheed led by Clarence (Kelly) Johnson. They were responsible for the SR-71 and U-2 to name a couple of craft. Boeing has a similar division more involved with NASA called "Phantom works". I'm not entirely convinced NASA is a bunch of bumbling bureacrats. Some bueracracy is certainly involved but the bigger problem IMO, and one you alluded to, is that people don't care. Some don't care because NASAs all they know. Others, and I suspect a larger percentage, don't care because they don't care what we do in space. This is the direct result of budget priorities that shifted away from human space flight after 1973-74 and Apollo based one what time has shown to be a flawed argument. This is why it is vital that private enterprise find the solution to cheap access to space if HSF is to survive which in turn could allow for a Hubble sale and subsequent servicing by any potential buyer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

yes, Lockheed it was, somewhat rings the bell, read the story of it and thought that even if you separate out some exageration, it was still so amazing what those people did.<br /><br />I just don't see new frontier technology being built with almost the same safety like it was supposed to carry people to work on their nine to five shifts. That is not to say that safety should be shrugged off completely but NASA is just going overboard (and it is not just them but the whole industry, I wouldn't want to bash them overhead exclusively so to speak) and in the end they are not safe anyway as shuttle disasters proved aplenty. <br /><br />I am pretty sure if such skunk works could operate to this day, that is such approach would be rule rather than exception, things would be very much different now. At the time, they rode on the last free spirit that american enterprise had, already around them everyting everywhere was going to ditch. Useless to even talk about it, nothing will change anytime soon for us to see it.<br /><br />As to servicing Hubble, you're right, that's realistic view, I was more thinking how it might have been, to start developing something now by private companies is a bit too late for Hubble plus there would have to be other uses for such servicing platform. <br /><br />It seems that going to space these days is still very much matter of adventure and curiosity and getting kicks out of it all the while gathering scientific information that is not terribly practical, indispensable for our survival on earth. I just don't think space turism is what should drive private industry's going to space and there is not much else one can imagine is very much profitable out there, including Hubble.<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

vanDivX:<br />That is not to say that safety should be shrugged off completely but NASA is just going overboard and in the end they are not safe anyway as shuttle disasters proved aplenty.<br /><br />Me:<br />Its understandable they appear to be going overboard. The human space flight program hangs in the balance at this point. The shuttle disasters are not necessarily proof of an unsafe shuttle. Consider how many more disasters could have resulted from situations such as the Discovery landing with a tile at the wing tip burned through (1985). Numerous potential brake problems that could have been disasterous though maybe not fatal. The Hydrogen leak problems from the early 1990s. Several RSLS aborts. I'd say overall, the shuttles been pretty forgiving. Only one rocket system has ever flown 100% successfully and that was the Saturn series. But the Saturns did not fly near as much as the shuttle.<br /><br />As for innovation. What appears to have happened there is that once Apollo ended, and the shuttle developed. We shifted our priorities away from human spaceflight somewhat. The shuttle was the sole approved program out of several proposed in 1969. The other programs depended on a mix of shuttle and Saturn-V for support but draconian budget slashing resulted in only the shuttle being approved in 1972. It would be 12 more years before NASAs next big step would be approved, and that was space station. 14 more years before that achieved IOC.<br /><br />Even in commercial aircraft. We don't fly supersonic or hypersonic planes. Todays jet aircraft are not all that much different than when the jet age began. <br /><br />The current pioneers are people such as Burt Rutan, Elon Musk, Sir Richard Branson and more. They will hopefully make the big changes needed in human spaceflight along side NASAs new programs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

vanDivX:<br />It seems that going to space these days is still very much matter of adventure and curiosity and getting kicks out of it all the while gathering scientific information that is not terribly practical, indispensable for our survival on earth. I just don't think space turism is what should drive private industry's going to space and there is not much else one can imagine is very much profitable out there, including Hubble.<br /><br />Me:<br />Hubble was not profitable in the immediate cash sense. But Hubble revolutionized astronomy and provided us with invaluable knowledge about the cosmos. This of course may not resonate with the public at large who is only interested in how their tax dollars are spent.<br /><br />Unfortunately, while they criticize NASA as expensive (Annual budgets $16B) they seem to miss the fact that we are loosing far larger amounts of money to the deficit ($400 B dollars last I checked) which is just one way were loosing money.<br /><br />This leaves us with space tourism and private industry development of space as a resource as the only way left to attract the publics attention on human spaceflight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

it is all one package and parcel, nation that has deficits won't like to sponsor science too much, that's because deficit spending is comensurate with people being primitive and such people don't see science as valuable. While government agency is not the best way to do science (that's severe understatement) I have to say that if the money is to be spent, let it be spent on science, on NASA and whatever, that's much better than if it is thrown into welfare state projects.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I can very well invision Hubble having been private project from start, private industry doesn't do only things that bring in direct profit or even any profit at all, it depends, but it all hinges on it being really private enterprise as I explained above. The less the society is 'private', the less its people or its companies will sponsor something out of sheer good will, given they could afford it. As to Hubble, I think what a great advertising it would be for any large concern that could afford to finance it. But they either don't have vision or they are too much of government hacks to see different. <br />In this connection, I am reminded of this Buffett/Gates duo, instead of financing some science, they plow money into charity, that is into black hole, trying to compensate for third world failing. No vision in that, just sanitizing puss of earth, like late mother Tereza, something very much wrong with world if this is how riches should end. <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

vanDivX:<br />I can very well invision Hubble having been private project from start, private industry doesn't do only things that bring in direct profit or even any profit at all,<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats true but very few private corporations could afford to finance Hubble, including the servicing missions.<br /><br />vanDivX:<br />Look at Buffett/Gates duo, instead of financing some science, they plow money into charity...<br /><br />Me:<br />We are lucky enough to be debating charity while many unfortunate souls will never know our lifestyle, even a lifestyle such as mine which is more existence than life but far better than those souls I mentioned. What Gates and Buffet are doing I find commendable and the fact is, we can afford to do both contrary to popular belief.<br /><br />You had mentioned deficit spending. During the Clinton years, we had our first budget surplusses since Nixon was in office. Despite this, NASA spending was actually still being cut and the same excuses offered to justify the cuts.<br /><br />We can afford to be charitable and do science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

I was offered a job at Skunk Works in Burbank in the early 80s when I graduated from college. For my interview, I was never allowed to leave the reception area, they could not tell me what I would be working on, and for my first six months they would have given me busy work near the reception area until I received top secret clearance. That seemed to me to be an offer I could refuse.

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We are lucky enough to be debating charity while many unfortunate souls will never know our lifestyle<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />for one, I wouldn't call it 'luck' that our part of the world is where it is. Things like education and plenty of food on table etc., don't happen by luck. <br />I also don't believe charity will help those that need it, that is, not in the long run. Short run yes, but it will get wasted sooner or later anyway in some way or another unless people and their countries would change their ideas how things should be run. Their need is selfcaused, it is not some fate or natural law. Earth is so easy to live good life on it if only people were open to reason.<br /><br />I do find it sad and sickening when I see riches - made in one case in the very much forward technical field like computing and in the other case by investing in the best of the best enterprises our world has to offer - spent on aleviating perenial poverty whose primary cause is plain irrationality of people. <br />I am not rich at all but if it came to that, I could afford to flush twenty or a hundred dollars down the toilet, question is, would it be commendable way of disposing of my spare riches or even moral.<br /><br />When I talked about deficit being tied to financing space programs, I meant it more generally. Defficit spending (among other) marks a nation that lives beyond its means and one doesn't live beyond ones means to advance science or some such commendable goals but more typically to buy some form of life security and or plain well-being and both are shortrange goals, in effect it means saying 'to hell with tomorrow, tomorrow we'll be dead', you just don't do science with such approach.<br /> <br />One or several years exception doesn't make any difference since one swallow doeth not make spring LOL, if anything nation under Clinton was more leftwards oriented than before or after him and I don't see that nation made a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Well, its all relative I suppose. The luck part is that if you live in a country thats resource rich to start with, lucky to be born there as opposed to being born in the Sahara desert. Not all areas on Earth are easy to live on. If this were true, we'd have major flourishing population centers in deserts and Antarctica.<br /><br />Sure we are responsible for our destinies to some degree. I would agree charity long run is not helpful but this is assuming charity to be nothing but giveaway. Sometimes a charitable act is simply a loan that if all goes well, you collect it back, maybe even with interest.<br /><br />I mentioned Clinton surplusses because the records which were not disputed by the majority of Republicans simply recorded that there were budget surplusses. Makes no difference to me whos in office. The Republicans spent the majority of the early 1990s complaining about deficit spending when Clinton was in office, look at there spending now.<br /><br />Clinton by the same token proposed an unweildy solution to health care that was soundly rejected in the early or mid 1990s.<br /><br />I agree that science should get better budgets which is exactly what I pointed out when I mentioned Clinton surplusses could have increased NASAs budget substantially. IIRC, one of the years saw a 32 Billion dollar surplus. NASA could have gotten an extra billion or so that year and maybe an SSTO could have been closer to reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>