Slashdot Mirror


NASA Considers Privatizing GALEX Astrophysics Satellite

hogghogg writes "The GALEX spacecraft (surveying the Universe in ultraviolet wavelengths at which the atmosphere is close to opaque) is coming to the end of its budget life, but it hasn't finished imaging the entire sky and is still (fairly) functional. A group at Caltech wants to keep it running, so NASA is considering transfer of ownership under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act, which 'allows the transfer of government-owned excess research equipment to educational institutions and non-profit organizations.' Many NASA missions are terminated for budget reasons at the end of a prescribed period, even while the hardware is still highly functional. Although this is the first-ever transfer from NASA of a functioning satellite, maybe this is just the start for a class of privately run astronomical and Earth-observing facilities in space?"

21 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Win win by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a win win situation.

    Win 1. It gets NASA some money. Compared to no money at all, that's a win.
    Win 2. It gets a university or other institute a fantastic toy for a bargain price. Compared to a new satellite, that's a win.

    1. Re:Win win by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Win 3: It gets interested parties, like universities or other research organizations - profit or not - into doing something whose use to the taxpayer is arguable, and which therefore shouldn't be funded by government. This way, taxpayers don't pay for this, but people who are interested can either pay for it, work on it, or do whatever that either increases its lifespan, or makes maximum use of its remaining life

    2. Re:Win win by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      Win 3: It gets interested parties, like universities or other research organizations - profit or not - into doing something whose use to the taxpayer is arguable, and which therefore shouldn't be funded by government.

      Exactly. This satellite is imaging the entire sky, which clearly is the next logical step for a Google Earth / Google Maps hybrid.

    3. Re:Win win by bosef1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only thing you would probably want to do is make sure any sales come with a mandate that any future data collected on the satellite has to be publicly released or shared freely with NASA (you could even set it up so the private organization gets a year to use the data themselves before they release it). I would hate to see a situation where the Federal government (and the taxpayers) build a satellite (or other technological marvel), and then a senator yanks the funding, and it gets sold at bargin price to a private entitiy in the senator's neighboorhood. I know that sounds fantastical, but we have to prepare for these types of contingencies.

    4. Re:Win win by eyenot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FTFA: "This would not involve compensation from Caltech," said Trent Perrotto, a NASA spokesperson. "It would be a transfer of ownership." What money?

      It's not all that much of a "win". The satellite, which could be something everybody in America gets a chance to use, is going to become the private property of not several, not a network or a special organization devoted to the satellite, but just one single university. A very expensive university in California. Why should they get it? Why not MIT? "Why not" a hundred other universities and colleges? It shouldn't be given to Caltech. They should wait, it's not like the thing is falling out of the sky, and somebody should set up a nonprofit organization for the purpose of utilizing the satellite. Credentialed members of the public should be able to either buy survey time or sign up for free observation time. It shouldn't be locked away in Caltech land.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    5. Re:Win win by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      FTFA: "This would not involve compensation from Caltech," said Trent Perrotto, a NASA spokesperson. "It would be a transfer of ownership." What money?

      Maybe Caltech will sell naming rights and has to share the money with NASA? ;-)

      1st Reporter: And in today's science news, Papa John's GALEX satellite completed finally its mission of mapping the sky using ultraviolet light.
      2st Reporter: Can you shed a little light on what that means for us "normal folks"?
      1st Reporter: It means Papa John's will offering their classic Moon Pie pizza and their Out of this World moon-cheese bread sticks for only $9.99.
      2st Reporter: Only $9.99? I Guess Herman Cain was on to something after all.
      1st Reporter: Not really. God Father Pizza never had an offer like this.

    6. Re:Win win by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Informative

      The satellite, which could be something everybody in America gets a chance to use, is going to become the private property of not several, not a network or a special organization devoted to the satellite, but just one single university. A very expensive university in California. Why should they get it? Why not MIT? "Why not" a hundred other universities and colleges? It shouldn't be given to Caltech.

      Caltech already runs it, and has since the start.

    7. Re:Win win by d3ac0n · · Score: 2

      To be precise, it's imagine the entire observable universe in ultraviolet wavelengths.

      Not really sure whether that's useful for Google maps. Useful for research though.

      That said, I think that privatization is going to be the future of space exploration and study. We simply can no longer afford the budget to run a massive space program on a national level.

      NASA should be kept around, but on a level of "spaceport administration" for launch sites. Allow the private companies to launch from NASA sites, but NASA runs and administers them, with their primary mission being the safe launch of space vehicles.

      Private companies can contract for use of the spaceport, thus covering NASA's operating costs and eliminating the need to directly fund them.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    8. Re:Win win by CBM · · Score: 2

      The satellite, which could be something everybody in America gets a chance to use, is going to become the private property of not several, not a network or a special organization devoted to the satellite, but just one single university. A very expensive university in California. Why should they get it? Why not MIT? "Why not" a hundred other universities and colleges? It shouldn't be given to Caltech.

      Probably because nobody else stepped up to the plate to operate the thing.

      They should wait, it's not like the thing is falling out of the sky, and somebody should set up a nonprofit organization for the purpose of utilizing the satellite.

      There is no "waiting." NASA is going to de-fund this satellite, and the choices are either to decomission it or transfer it to someone else.

    9. Re:Win win by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is a pretty big leap of logic you have there... 'average people do not understand the benefit, therefor the government shouldn't fund it!'.

      I am always shocked by this type of comment.. coming from someone on a computer.. across the internet.. two technologies developed using public funds that neither private industry nor average people saw a benefit to. Oh, and the whole space program. Private companies did not start becoming 'interested' till public funds did a lot of the high risk basic development for decades.

    10. Re:Win win by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      Even more than that:
      Caltech proposed the concept to NASA
      Caltech had a major part in designing it
      Caltech hosts the GALEX Science center
      Caltech continues to staff and run it
      NASA approved, funded, and launched it. Choosing Caltech wasn't just throwing a dart at the map and saying "OK, those guys get it!"

      And (from their About|Basics page) "All observations made by GALEX are publicly available through the Multimission Archive at the Space Telescope institute (MAST)."

  2. Lose lose by vikingpower · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a lose lose situation: 1) Scientists worldwide become dependent upon private initiatives; we have seen with European universities having to collect so-called 3rd-party funding what that does to research levels 2) In the long run, it causes NASA to lose ( even more ) competence; competence and know-how loss at NASA is already going on at a dishearteningly rate

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  3. Sweet... by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act, which 'allows the transfer of government-owned excess research equipment to educational institutions and non-profit organizations.

    I am going to start a nonprofit and buy Spirit and Opportunity. See my crowdtilt and kickstarter projects to donate :-).

    In all seriousness, this is a good idea to keep NASA tools going. I like it.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  4. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Funny

    On the face of it, this seems like a common sense piece of legislation that benefits everyone and not just the corporations.

    How the fuck did that happen?

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Moreover: is this is so "common sense", why do the USA need a law to implement it

      It involves the ownership transfer of government property, theoretically owned by the taxpayer, to a private entity. It's not that such things need specific authorization in law, but rather that the mechanism for that transfer needs to be codified. You and I might be fine transferring ownership of a car by exchanging $1, signing the back of the title, and shaking hands. But for a $100-million satellite we all payed for that requires some fairly sophisticated care, a more formal process is warranted.

    2. Re:Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      Pure accident. Someone goofed.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      As stated above in "Lose lose", I fail to see how this benefits anyone. NASA ( or ESA, for that matter ) is payed only a fraction, if anything at all, for old equipment.

      A fantastic instrument -- that is already paid for -- continues to be used to advance scientific knowledge instead of just floating uselessly around the earth until its orbit decays.

      You fail to see how this benefits anyone?

      Are you mental, or do you just not see any value in astronomy to begin with?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  5. Re:Plunder of people's money by deathlyslow · · Score: 2

    How is this any different than the surplus auctions? It has lived it planned and funded life, note I did not say it's intended life. It now becomes surplus just like any other chair, computer, or vehicle.

    --
    Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
  6. Re:Plunder of people's money by ExecutorElassus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, "privatize" should here be taken with a grain of salt. The S-W Act only allows sale to non-profit or educational institutions. That's hardly on the same scale as selling it to, say, Koch Industries. Research institutions, in particular, operate onder fairly strict guidelines regarding what they can do with their property (for example, a university I worked at for a while had a huge scandal a few years ago when it discovered the facilities manager taking home stuff they were throwing out). Even surplus property has to be disposed of in a manner that insures it doesn't fall into private hands. So if some university is taking over the satellite, that's not such a huge degradation of public utility, or ownership.
    And, if that means that more NGOs get involved in managing space hardware - particularly for exploratory purposes - I'm not terribly opposed.

  7. Re:Plunder of people's money by necro81 · · Score: 2

    letting go of people's control on something made with people's own money

    I might grouse about that, too. But then I just need to remember the alternative: that it sits up there, defunct, in orbit forever (it's in a 700-km orbit), or gets incinerated in a controlled de-orbit. In either case, it's lost to us. Better someone be able to make use of it.

    If I could provide input to such decisions, I would advocate that a condition of the arrangement be that the public have free and unfettered access to the data (summary, at least, available online; raw data archive upon request), and that any publications using such data automatically enter the public domain. Considering that it is going to an academic institution, some of that will happen as a matter of course, but not all.

  8. Caltech is hardly "private sector" by TwineLogic · · Score: 2

    Caltech operates a federal lab, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, and receives federal money to do so. The Institute ("Universtiy") is run from that source of funding.