Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Considers Privatizing GALEX Astrophysics Satellite

Posted by timothy on from the I-hear-zuckerberg's-good-for-it dept.

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?"

11 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  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.

  5. 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.