NASA to Go Commercial? 210
jeffy124 writes: "CNN has an article about NASA possibly selling space. The idea comes from Russia, where they have have sent into space Pizza Hut pizza, talking picture frames, and magazines. The proposal includes ties with the entertainment industry, tourism, NASA merchandise, and hiring a nongovernment organization to manage the US areas of the International Space Station." If anyone has a link to this NASA draft document the article talks about, please post it below.
Re:Hipocritical... (Score:2, Informative)
But as a Senator, and retired Navy Pilot and Colonel in the Utah Air National Guard, he wasn't necessarily the first _civilian_ in space; which is what they were trying to put up on the Challenger.
Here's the report. (Score:5, Informative)
Old news, was released Sep 24, here's Space.com [space.com]'s report from the following day.
Oh, and this would've been posted earlie, but I couldn't log in, what's up with that?
You may be on to something! (Score:3, Informative)
Nasa [nasa.gov]
And this:
Lena [cmu.edu]
For those of you unfamiliar with the Lena Image,(or Lenna, if you like,):
To test image compression technologies, engineers use a standard picture to compare the results. What did they use? A scan of a 1972 Playboy centerfold, of course!
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
Re:Space: Tons o' benefit (Score:2, Informative)
This is a very HIGHLY under-discussed side-effect of space exploration. Dennis Tito was the latest person to be profoundly amazed at this perspective.
Here is a link to Amazon's page:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563472600 [amazon.com]
I reccomend checking Amazon Z-shops (click 'buy it used') because the street price is astronomical (pun intended.) It's published by an institute that normally does high priced scientific journals, and they haven't gotten the idea yet that even the common man need to read this book.
Re:The Space program gave us... (Score:3, Informative)
The space program did later help push technology to integrate circuits, but such advances were already underway, and TI was the leader (IBM was doing it's tech-stifle shuffle back then). Improved radio comms helped NASA, but NASA didn't drive it. You see this in Gene Kranz' book, "Failure Is Not An Option".
NASA was created after the Bell rocket planes did their thing. All jets used by NASA came from the Air Force, who got them all from contractors like Martin, Lochheed, Marietta, Boeing and others. Advances in aviation were fueled and funded by the COld War. NASA was a recipient, not a donor.
Microwave ovens came outta WWII, when some guys noticed a few weird effects of the microwave transmittors used for radar. That's also why the first microwave ovens were called "Radar-Range", an Amana trademark.
We have a lot of technology and improvements that were developed specifically for the space program. This is a good thing. But there was a reason we spent so much money: we were scared shitless of the Soviets, who were also scared of us. Pure research is a wonderful thing, but it's expensive as hell and we have other priorities. Almost every twit here who didn't pay taxes last year was complaining that he didn't get a refund cheque -- so not even the geeks are willing to pay higher taxes in the hope that some of that money will go toward NASA and other similarly geeky and way cool programs.
I have no problem with crappy logos on the shuttle, as long as the advertisers don't start trying to control missions, requiring X amount of airtime displaying their logo, renaming of items and anything that might in some way interfere with the actual science. I wouldn't even mind if they modified the already tedious and annoying end of countdown speech: "...three, two, one, and lift-off of the Atlantis Space Shuttle on its 43rd voyage in space to blah blah blah." It's so crappy now theat adding "sponsored by Roy Rogers Restaurants" after the word "shuttle" wouldn't make it worse. Adding a 30-second radio spot would be another matter.
It would be good to get this kind of cash infusion, but it could be the start of NASA becoming another agency that is supposed to be self-sufficient and run like a business instead of a governmental agency. Look what that's done to the Patent Orifice.
woof.
This post was made possible, in part, by a grant from the Official French Fry Pages [tx7.com], providers of information about certain cooked potato products, and by viewers like you.
Re:NASA is fundamentally flawed (Score:3, Informative)
They currently have a $4 billion and some cost overrun. Think about that. NASA has spent (or allocated) $4 billion more than it has, only it's not sure where it spent it. The fuck? No company in the world would be allowed to do that. This is a big boondoggle even by government standards. Think how far $4 billion would go if spent on researching new technologies, rather than poured into supporting old ones.
I don't view this $4 billion overrun as incompetence. I view it as theft. Theft from people who could have spent it on improving the future rather than maintaining the status quo.
I could use the same argument against "defense" spending, which has a vastly larger budget and has zero *direct* return on investment. No one is saying there is any way to be *directly* profitable going into space. The space program is our ticket into the future, possibly on another planet in case something happens to this one - be it our fault, a huge meteor or heck even hostile aliens. Plus many useful spin-off technologies have come out of the space program.
Here's my radical solution. Privatise NASA. Float it on the market. Let it keep all of its assets, gift it five years worth of funding, and wish it good luck. Cut it free of red tape, let it come up with its own projects and it's own standards.
No one is stopping you from starting your own private space company. In fact a few already exist including Orbital [orbital.com].
Why don't you take your brilliant "privitization" theory and apply it to the road system and the military? It won't work there either because they cost money too and reap no profits in return. Face it, R&D costs money and that's exactly what the space program is - a giant R&D program.
We've been promised commercial space exploitation within the next ten years, for at least the past thirty years. It's well past time to put up or shut up.
NASA has launching private satellites into orbit for years.
I propose this not because I think that we shouldn't be in space, but because I want us to get out there and stay out there. If space travel can be sustainable rather than a series of staggeringly expensive proofs of concept, then let's demonstrate that.
No one's stopping you from doing it. PUOSU. BTW, there is this thing called the international space station [nasa.gov] that is being built right now and people are already inhabiting it. In fact, there have been space stations in orbit since the 1970s. The new ones are getting better and better. That's how all technology works.
Re:Space: Tons o' benefit (Score:2, Informative)
He actually spends a little bit of time showing why the Solar Satellites you mention in 3) won't be feasible for quite some time.
That being said, it is an inspirational read which I highly recommend.