🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.space
Article #7282

Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)

#7282
From: Francois Yergeau
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 03:31
52 lines
2915 bytes
In article <ewright.726345157@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>>It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight,
>>NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I
>>wrong?
>
>Yes, those restrictions have been relaxed, though not removed
>entirely.  Remember the Intelsat salvage mission?  

Subject beaten to death last year, no further comment. :)

>>Is NASA doing that?  On any scale bigger than small, occasional excess
>>capacity?  If so, I agree it's playing games with its charter.
>
>It's certainly tried.  The original plan for the TDRS system
>called for at least one on-orbit spare, which would be leased
>to a private company for commercial service until/unless NASA
>needed it.  This never happened because NASA had trouble just
>launching enough TDRS satellites for a minimal constellation.

If all goes well next week, they'll have excess capacity aplenty.
Given the current state of the comsat industry, putting that excess
capacity on the commercial market could very well be called unfair
competition.  Stay tuned.

>>As for NASA hiring its own flight crew, constructing its own
>>communications facilities and in general operating the shuttle system
>>on its own instead of contracting out the whole works, I don't see any
>>inherent problem with that.  Just like I don't hire Tektronix to
>>operate my oscilloscope in the lab.  
>
>There is some difference between operating an oscilloscope
>and operating an airline.  At least six orders of magnitude
>worth.

But the airlines do not contract out their operations.  They procure
planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them.
It's certainly proper, legal, and it's not clear to me that doing
otherwise would be beneficial.

> And I don't think you actively try to put other people
>out of the oscilloscope business, do you?

No, my allocation of taxpayer's money is way too small. :-)



-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!sifon!cerberus.ulaval.ca!yergeau
References: <ewright.726254273@convex.convex.com> <1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca> <ewright.726345157@convex.convex.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!sifon!cerberus.ulaval.ca!yergeau
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Message-ID: <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca>
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:31:18 GMT
References: <ewright.726254273@convex.convex.com> <1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca> <ewright.726345157@convex.convex.com>
Sender: news@cerberus.ulaval.ca
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec
Lines: 52
Nntp-Posting-Host: 132.203.76.4