[wolverine876]

So what? Lots of organizations deliver lots of unique capabilities. Hubble is actually up there, real things are happening, people have accomplished amazing things, yet again we hear SpaceX promoted - a hypothetical capability about a hypothetical need of dubious value.

[ramidarigaz]

Sure lots of organizations have unique capabilities, and SpaceX is one of those! Better to bring home Hubble than let it burn up once it's no longer operational. I definitely rate inspiration much higher than 'dubious' :)

[tobylane]

Why is that better? It sounds like a contract for no purpose, much like the previous companies deals that are the issue of comments upthread.

[wongarsu]

Maybe the comment would have been better off just saying "Wouldn't it be great if at the end of it's life we could bring Hubble back to earth to put it in a museum". Because that's how I read it, it's something I completely support (just like putting ISS into a parking orbit instead of letting it burn up when that decision comes). Hubble is an important part of history and deserves to be preserved; to inspire current and future generations.

Dragging a specific method of accomplishing that into it was kind of unnecessary from GP.

[Eelongate]

> Dragging a specific method of accomplishing that into it was kind of unnecessary from GP.

Without pointing out that it could theoretically be done (that rocket isn't ready yet, and may never be), the assertion that it should be done is seriously devalued.

[canadaduane]

You're frustrated that the limelight is stolen from other deserving organizations, which is fair. I think what you're bumping in to is the unusual overlap between a commercial venture and a religious feeling. People who "believe in SpaceX" do so because it gives them more than just a "capability". When they believe in the future & far-future ideas seeded by Musk, they get a feeling of excitement, significance, purpose, etc. which bleeds over into all sorts of unrelated things. I don't know of many companies that succeed at this level. Disney, maybe?

[headmelted]

Apple too, probably.

[wolverine876]

> You're frustrated that the limelight is stolen from other deserving organizations

Keep your fantasies about my emotional state to yourself. I meant precisely what I wrote.

> religious feeling

I'm well aware of it, but it's not the basis of posts to HN. Such religions - cults of personality - inevitably do a lot of harm to society and the followers. Musk, of course, will make out very well.

Zealousness never has paid off; its purpose is to override reason and good judgement. How can that turn out well? Why would Musk want to encourage that, unless there is something to hide?

> I don't know of many companies that succeed at this level.

It's success to manipulate people? Apple and Steve Jobs succeeded in having an enthusiastic following without narcissim, setting a good example, without manipulating the followers, without undermining and harming others, and without undermining, apparently intentionally, the rule of law. Disney I think is the same.

[canadaduane]

I apologize. I was trying to understand, not cause harm.

[btmiller]

Who cares that Starship is a SpaceX property. Focus on the capability - which no one else has - and the ends - Hubble sitting in a museum instead of burning up in the lithosphere. You want to dislike SpaceX then go ahead, I don’t think anyone here would strongly discourage you from exploring that. But I truly challenge you to find another more economical solution to bring Hubble home.

[pnut]

I believe lithobraking is a joke euphemism for "crashing into the ground"

[Eelongate]

Correct, the 'lithosphere' is the Earth's crust.

[btmiller]

I fell victim to the memes! Thanks for the new knowledge :)

[kortilla]

Because inspiring people fucking matters. Bringing Hubble back and having it in a museum would (like it or not) do a lot more inspiring up and coming scientists/engineers than some random recent picture Hubble took.

Look at the number of views the falcon heavy double booster landing got. It’s entirely irrelevant to science but it’s still inspiring nonetheless.

Why does that matter? People without a 4 year+ degree in physics need to be inspired as well because statistically they are the ones who make the decisions.

[kunai]

I am fully aware that both you and I are in the minority on this website, but I agree. The promotion of SpaceX at the expense of other organizations that have been doing work besides LV development for decades is very disappointing, and it's moreso disappointing that SpaceX keeps getting injected into conversations about NASA's scientific work, something SpaceX is not interested in besides advancing rocketry.

I think it's warranted when we're, say, comparing the costs of SLS vis-a-vis something like Starship but it's really silly to constantly suggest SpaceX and other commercial space entities are some sort of savior figure for space exploration. I think it's actually a cautionary tale of again sacrificing a commons (space) for the sake of profit.

[denkmoon]

tbh you're all missing the point. It's about bringing Hubble back on terra firma at the end of it's useful life, I doubt GP cares too much who does it. _However_ the reality is that SpaceX is the only organisation that appears to have the capability to do that.

[Causality1]

it's moreso disappointing that SpaceX keeps getting injected into conversations about NASA's scientific work

Why are you getting hung up on Starship being the current best choice for a return mission at Hubble's EOL? If I was making the comment in 2010 I'd've said returning Hubble is worth the cost of a shuttle launch. If Hubble miraculously lasts another decade I'll make the argument returning it is worth the cost of whatever vehicle is best suited at that time, possibly if unlikely a vehicle coming from the France 2030 development drive.

[pixl97]

>really silly to constantly suggest SpaceX and other commercial space entities are some sort of savior figure for space exploration.

Why?

"It will cost you 1 billion to launch 100 tons to orbit"

or

"It will cost you 100 million to launch 100 tons to orbit"

or

"It will cost you 10 million to launch 100 tons to orbit"

Guess which one of those is going to 'save' space exploration? Not only that, cheap launches will massively increase the size of the market giving all those good little boys and girls that are interested in space a chance of getting a job in the market. NASA is the market too. If they can drop launch costs 10x, they can launch that much more science.

The space market has been dead for years, it's time to bring it back to life.