Dennis E. Powell has a great idea for a way of saving the Hubble Space Telescope – privatize it. If the Hubble is worth so much, certainly a consortium of private agencies, universities, the ESA, or individuals could find some use for it.
Eventually space will become the next frontier for capitalism – and that’s when the dream of common and safe space travel will be realized. A private consortium operating the Hubble would be a bold first step towards that future.
Particle accelerators are considered to be essential for the development of future electronic technologies. Building one has no value except potential, and the costs are astronomical. However, the potential return from a SSC is huge, especially in theoretical advancement. You see many firms lining up to build a superconducting supercollider? You see that many private companies scrambling to build the interstate highways that have made them so profitable by allowing faster and more efficient production and shipping?
Sometimes–and this is the thing that Liberals tend to overstate and Conservatives undervalue–the only way to get something developed is to have the government develop it, because the potential value of it may not be realized for some time and private companies cannot afford to issue and guarantee a 20-year bond.
I’m all in favor of keeping the Hubble, especially since there’s no replacement, but given that it needs regular, in-person maintenece – the very reason Nasa’s going to let it de-orbit – and that no corporation does private manned space travel, how is that going to work?
Anybody who gets the Hubble is going to wind up having to hire Nasa to fix it anyway. There can’t be a private consortium to run the Hubble unless the Hubble is still up to be run, and that’s not going to happen without a visit.
Anybody who gets the Hubble is going to wind up having to hire Nasa to fix it anyway.
They could hire Taikonauts (spelling?) to do it. Else, they could go with ESA, or with the Russians.
Else, they could go with ESA
Does the ESA have a crewed vehicle? I didn’t think they did…
The ESA doesn’t, but they could easily use a Soyuz borrowed from Russia or use a remotely-controlled robot to attach a booster pack to the Hubble and boost it into a mre stable orbit.
There’s really nothing else wrong with Hubble, it could have several years left if only there were a way to boost its decaying orbit into something more stable.
If there’s nothing wrong with it, and it still has use, then why don’t we let NASA figure out a way to fix the orbit and save us the trouble of launching an entirely new telescope–as I recall, we’ve already put a hell of an investment in this one.
If there’s nothing wrong with it, and it still has use, then why don’t we let NASA figure out a way to fix the orbit
Well, they’ve already figured it out. It’s just that you need to spacewalk astronauts to the Hubble, which means you have to take the Shuttle there. And the thing about taking the Shuttle there is that you can’t go from the Hubble’s orbit to the ISS”s orbit, which makes the trip too unsafe under current NASA thinking.
“And the thing about taking the Shuttle there is that you can’t go from the Hubble’s orbit to the ISS”s orbit, which makes the trip too unsafe under current NASA thinking.”
So what you’re saying is that they haven’t solved it yet? 😉
So what you’re saying is that they haven’t solved it yet? 😉
Technically? They haven’t found a solution that fits their political climate. But I guess I don’t really see that as no solution at all, do you?
“But I guess I don’t really see that as no solution at all, do you?”
Yes, I do. They found a hypothetical solution, but still lack a practical one. For a left-wing kinda guy, I’m surprisingly pragmatic. 😉