Hubble option

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Perc - 06 Mar 2004 03:43 GMT

If NASA deem it too expensive to save the Hubble telescope why not
offer it for sale on the open market? In selling it they would be also
passing on any liabilities for damage it might cause if it ever
returns to Earth as a large meteor. The commercial prestige of
releasing images from the Microsoft Space Telescope, or the Coca-Cola
Orbiting Telescope (or whatever the eventual buyer would call it)
might be enough to outweigh any perceived risks. Science could still
be done but the new buyer might realise commercial uses for the
facility too. If this became the next major step in the
commercialisation of space then I believe it would be worth it to save
such a wonderful instrument for more use.

If this suggestion has already been tendered to the group then I offer
my humble apolgies for wasting your time. With three young kids I
barely have enough time to catch the main world news, let alone follow
news groups as I would like.

Regards to all,

Peter

Reply to this Message

Jorge R. Frank - 06 Mar 2004 05:23 GMT

> If NASA deem it too expensive to save the Hubble telescope why not
> offer it for sale on the open market? In selling it they would be also
> passing on any liabilities for damage it might cause if it ever
> returns to Earth as a large meteor.

In principle that's possible. In practice, the buyer would assume the
liability by indemnifying the government against damage claims, then taking
out an insurance policy to cover the risk of that indemnification. But if
the buyer doesn't have a credible plan to prevent an uncontrolled deorbit
of HST, the insurance company is likely to charge exorbitant premiums.

> The commercial prestige of
> releasing images from the Microsoft Space Telescope, or the Coca-Cola
> Orbiting Telescope (or whatever the eventual buyer would call it)
> might be enough to outweigh any perceived risks. Science could still
> be done but the new buyer might realise commercial uses for the
> facility too.

Fine and good, but HST is gradually losing the gyroscopes that allow it to
point accurately enough to get good pictures. NASA projects that the
telescope will fail by around 2007 if no servicing mission is performed. It
will remain in orbit quite a while after that - NASA projects that its
orbit won't decay until 2013. Of course, NASA also projected that Skylab
wouldn't decay until 1981. Orbital lifetime predictions spanning a solar
maximum are still a rather inexact science, I'm afraid.

So, to throw it back at you, let's say I'm an underwriter at MuttLife
Insurance Co. and you're the proposal lead for the Micro$loth Space
Telescope Purchase team. I ask how you plan to service HST, so that you can
1) prevent it from deorbiting uncontrollably, and 2) keep it producing
pictures so that you can generate enough of a revenue stream to be able to
afford the insurance premiums I'm about to charge you.

What's your answer?

> If this suggestion has already been tendered to the group then I offer
> my humble apolgies for wasting your time. With three young kids I
> barely have enough time to catch the main world news, let alone follow
> news groups as I would like.

I take it that, by posting this to sci.space.history, you consider that HST
is already history? :-)

Signature

JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Reply to this Message

Space Forum / Space History / March 2004

Hubble option