3 ms·

"In addition, the telescopes are capable of being pointed at Earth for observati0n [sic], as well. All of this potential for gathering data is a potential oppor

"In addition, the telescopes are capable of being pointed at Earth for observati0n [sic], as well. All of this potential for gathering data is a potential opportunity to sell that data to universities, businesses, and government." I wonder if this is the main source of their positive cashflow.

gonzo 14y ago
you are not alone.
- mirceagoia 14y ago
  Yep, that could be another source.
davidcuddeback 14y ago
They could also sell it by access time. For example, University X rents access to the telescope for $Y/week. I think (but could be wrong) that's how observatories and other space telescopes work (except probably government grants instead of outright purchasing the time). Is anyone familiar with how access to resources is determined in the astronomy world?
- goodcanadian 14y ago
  Sort of . . . Telescopes are usually owned by countries, their agencies, and/or universities. When multiple agencies are involved, there is an agreement on how to split up access time, usually proportional to the level of funding provided. Each agency then allocates its share of the time to its stakeholders based on its own formulas. Time is usually awarded on a competitive basis where the best science cases win. Generally, from an individual researcher's point of view, they are not charged for the telescope time. From a larger point of view, however, it could be argued that their country (or university or whatever) "buys" a certain percentage of the time. When a new partner organization comes on board, the agreements are usually structured on an $X for Y time basis, but it will be a multi-lateral negotiation rather than simply setting a price and selling to anyone who can pay.
  - Tsagadai 14y ago
    So in other words they are entering a market filled with complex pricing agreements with a simple cost for service structure. Not having to buy into a consortium is probably a good deal for a lot of people.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
One client could be, oh, say Google?

gonzo 14y ago

you are not alone.

mirceagoia 14y ago
Yep, that could be another source.

davidcuddeback 14y ago

They could also sell it by access time. For example, University X rents access to the telescope for $Y/week. I think (but could be wrong) that's how observatories and other space telescopes work (except probably government grants instead of outright purchasing the time). Is anyone familiar with how access to resources is determined in the astronomy world?

goodcanadian 14y ago
Sort of . . . Telescopes are usually owned by countries, their agencies, and/or universities. When multiple agencies are involved, there is an agreement on how to split up access time, usually proportional to the level of funding provided. Each agency then allocates its share of the time to its stakeholders based on its own formulas. Time is usually awarded on a competitive basis where the best science cases win. Generally, from an individual researcher's point of view, they are not charged for the telescope time. From a larger point of view, however, it could be argued that their country (or university or whatever) "buys" a certain percentage of the time. When a new partner organization comes on board, the agreements are usually structured on an $X for Y time basis, but it will be a multi-lateral negotiation rather than simply setting a price and selling to anyone who can pay.
- Tsagadai 14y ago
  So in other words they are entering a market filled with complex pricing agreements with a simple cost for service structure. Not having to buy into a consortium is probably a good deal for a lot of people.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

One client could be, oh, say Google?