NationStates Jolt Archive

You've probably heard of this.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/02/07/budget.nasa.ap/index.html#hubble

It's a shame. The Hubble should be brought down to Earth and put in a museum at least.

Just serves to show why the space program should be commercialized. Just think how much cooler Spaceship One could have been if the private space industry had the $16.45 billion that the US government wastes in the astronaut killing organization we call NASA. We'd likely have settlements on the moon....

Just serves to show why the space program should be commercialized. Just think how much cooler Spaceship One could have been if the private space industry had the $16.45 billion that the US government wastes in the astronaut killing organization we call NASA. We'd likely have settlements on the moon....

Yes. I'm sure if private industry got in control of NASA a vehicle sitting on tons of fuel would never face the risk of exploding because of....uh...magic?

'Cool' doesn't factor in here. COST is the main concern. Even though many people would LIKE to take a spin around the Earth the cost to do so recreationally is large and mostly unnattainable for the general public. Only recently has space flight become a commercial possibility.

Settlements on the moon by now if private industry was in control? Please. Nothing was stopping private industry from going skyward in the past. And what economic benefit is there in the Hubble? It's all non-profit research.

Also, the whole point of Spaceship One was to see how cheap you could make a viable space vehicle. The billions don't even factor here.

Also also, if a private company made the shuttles there would be no reduction in costs. They'd still have to pay the company for the new shuttles and the maintenance. And when the company decides not to maintain the older models it would force the government to buy the newer models. Cost to the government would invariably go UP.

I'd like to see the ESA buy Hubble from NASA as they clearly don't want it anymore, and us pay the Russians to service it. Probably not practical though.

Just serves to show why the space program should be commercialized. Just think how much cooler Spaceship One could have been if the private space industry had the $16.45 billion that the US government wastes in the astronaut killing organization we call NASA. We'd likely have settlements on the moon....
Agreed.

I wanna ride on Virgin Galactic!

Just serves to show why the space program should be commercialized. Just think how much cooler Spaceship One could have been if the private space industry had the $16.45 billion that the US government wastes in the astronaut killing organization we call NASA. We'd likely have settlements on the moon....

Imagine if they had the $56 billion wasted at the Department on Education!

I'd like to see the ESA buy Hubble from NASA as they clearly don't want it anymore, and us pay the Russians to service it. Probably not practical though.
Eh, you could use that money to make a better one that would last longer anyways.

And bringing it down intact enough for a museum would take quite a bit of money...I'm sure they'll put pieces, though...


Personally, I think they should salvage whatever bits are worth salvaging...though, I suppose since they've already decided to trash it that nothing is worth the effort to salvage

Yes. I'm sure if private industry got in control of NASA a vehicle sitting on tons of fuel would never face the risk of exploding because of....uh...magic?

'Cool' doesn't factor in here. COST is the main concern. Even though many people would LIKE to take a spin around the Earth the cost to do so recreationally is large and mostly unnattainable for the general public. Only recently has space flight become a commercial possibility.

Settlements on the moon by now if private industry was in control? Please. Nothing was stopping private industry from going skyward in the past. And what economic benefit is there in the Hubble? It's all non-profit research.
Actually had we originally set up the program for the purpose of actually getting into space and doing stuff we probably would have something like a colony on the moon right now. Instead the space effort was pushed by oneupmanship with the russkies. This meant that we chose poorer designs because they would get us to the objective faster even though they were inherently more dangerous.

Eh, you could use that money to make a better one that would last longer anyways.



I don't understand, what's wrong with Hubble? My understanding is that, with servicing, it could last another 10 years or more (beyond its original design limit). Also, why would it be expensive to buy - the Americans are clearly desperate to get rid of it!

Private firms would never put a colony on the moon. Where is the money in that? There is also very little reason for governments to go there. I actually suspect that if there hadn't been oneupmanship with the Soviets then we still might not have got there.

The only real reason to go into space at the moment is research (until tourism becomes more viable), and the only people prepared to pay that much for research are governments.

Agreed.
Agreed here too

I heard of this a while back, it's a terrible shame :(

I don't understand, what's wrong with Hubble? My understanding is that, with servicing, it could last another 10 years or more (beyond its original design limit). Also, why would it be expensive to buy - the Americans are clearly desperate to get rid of it!
Radiation and dust and just junk messes it up, plus minute computer bugs that rear their ugly heads, and just general wear and tear. And I wouldn't think there'd be 10 years worth of stuff to look at..but that's me...

Eh, the cost to keep it going isn't worth it...You can spend a little more money to make a new one that's better and lasts longer and needs less maintainance...Thus, they trash it.

As for buying it...I doubt anyone can afford to buy it, and/or maintain it...Russia doesn't have a use for it...nor can I think of anyone who does. Basically, no one cares enough to pay the money.

I'm also thinking national security issues...can't just give them our technology like that...

Just serves to show why the space program should be commercialized. Just think how much cooler Spaceship One could have been if the private space industry had the $16.45 billion that the US government wastes in the astronaut killing organization we call NASA. We'd likely have settlements on the moon....
You don't know a whole lot about NASA or space travel do you?

The space shuttle isn't just some airliner that goes into space, it is the most complicated machine ever built. When you look at the dangers associated with space travel the fact that we have had only a handful of deaths in the program is remarkable. Thats not to say acceptable, but if not for the enormous amount of safety procedures and redundancy by NASA we would have lost many many more people.

You don't know a whole lot about NASA or space travel do you?

The space shuttle isn't just some airliner that goes into space, it is the most complicated machine ever built. When you look at the dangers associated with space travel the fact that we have had only a handful of deaths in the program is remarkable. Thats not to say acceptable, but if not for the enormous amount of safety procedures and redundancy by NASA we would have lost many many more people.
The space shuttle is outdated, inefficient, and more dangerous than several other plans that are out there. The entire program really needs to be trashed and rebuilt from square one.

You don't know a whole lot about NASA or space travel do you?

Nice ad hominem abusive. :rolleyes:

The space shuttle isn't just some airliner that goes into space, it is the most complicated machine ever built. When you look at the dangers associated with space travel the fact that we have had only a handful of deaths in the program is remarkable. Thats not to say acceptable, but if not for the enormous amount of safety procedures and redundancy by NASA we would have lost many many more people.

None of which addresses my point. Private industry is more capable of getting humanity safely into space on a useful level than NASA. It is also capable of doing it cheaper.

The Cost to Taxpayers of Governments' Anti-Space Tourism Policy and Prospects for Improvement (http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_cost_to_taxpayers_of_governments_anti_space_tourism_policy_and_prospects_for_improvement.shtml)

Private firms would never put a colony on the moon. Where is the money in that? There is also very little reason for governments to go there. I actually suspect that if there hadn't been oneupmanship with the Soviets then we still might not have got there.

It's our stepping stone to the rest of space.

The only real reason to go into space at the moment is research (until tourism becomes more viable), and the only people prepared to pay that much for research are governments.

Communications, remote sensing, power generation, and manufacturing are all reasons.
And private individuals are certainly willing to pay to explore. Remember that much of the exploration of Earth was carried out by wealthy individuals.
The Business of Commercializing Space (http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_business_of_commercializing_space.shtml)
Mars Needs Millionaires (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story99.php)