NASA To Deal With Disney For Commercial Use Of ISS 113
spiralx writes "According to this story on MSNBC, NASA is preparing to announce its first deal for 'commercial use' of the International Space Station. It is expected to be some kind of multimedia broadcasting deal, most likely to be with a Disney-led consortium." I'm presuming that liftoff is an E-ticket ride.
Re:Only if they can keep it in orbit. (Score:2)
That'll be one hell of a ride!
Re:argh im leavin this country (Score:1)
No, no, no; this isn't a troll... it's honest, heartfelt agony pouring out of a soul that has had one too many exposures to capitalism. :)
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Charles Bronson (Score:1)
"Some you will (recognize), and some will surprise you," said Tam
Like TBS. Nobody expected to see the "All Charles Bronson, All Weekend, All From SPACE Weekend!!!".
Or what about Cartoon Network? Wouldn't Space Ghost be that much cooler From Space?
Re:Are we sure we really want that? (Score:1)
Etot "sig" byit pisyat v Russki!
(35.0% Slashdot nezdorovi.)
Re:Space shuttle w/ ads (Score:1)
That's the one I wanted. Glad that someone was able to find it.
MIR a failure? (Score:2)
New Lows (Score:1)
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
Re:Commercialism mixed with NASA won't work. (Score:1)
You must have me confused with someone else. What is a Troll anyway?
:P
disturbing reality (Score:1)
With that theory in mind, the ISS is a terrible thing to waste on what will eventually become an amusement park ride at "Brainwashing Children Everywhere" Disney.
Screw.
Re:New Lows (Score:1)
Pay per view (Score:1)
Those who think commercialization of space is the next great leap for our civilization, go read the article. Pay special attention to the parts that discuss NASA's intention to sell the rights to footage obtained from the ISS to the highest bidder, thereby eliminating a tradition of making these materials public and freely accessible. Also consider the references to embedding sponsors' logos into images and video footage sent from the ISS. Don't skip over the part where NASA sheepishly defends its right to freely distribute a small subset of ISS-produced material untaintained by commercial information. Read and weep, and, twenty years from now, tell your kids about the times when information, or at least the best part of it, was free.*
* Or at least paid for by citizens' tax dollars that went into its production and not toward another round of Disney tax breaks.
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:1)
I was heartbroken when they got rid of Inner Space to make room for some lame Michael Jackson ride.
Re:Well (Score:1)
This isn't Rocket Science, you know... (Score:2)
Re:Space shuttle w/ ads (Score:1)
For the first space shuttle launch the external fuel tank was painted white. In all subsequent launches it has been a natural rust colour because the weight of the paint added to the cost of the launch. By how much? (I don't know.) If the weight of all the advertising would not hamper the shuttle's performance significantly then this could noticably offset NASA's launch costs. Especially if some (presumably Disney owned channel) brodcasted every launch on TV and the internet.
For a night launch you wouldn't have to add to the weight of the shuttle. You could project a company logo or two onto the white exhaust cloud.
just my two percent of a loonie
Re:Does this mean we could get... (Score:1)
Don't you mean the _second_ planet... (Score:1)
And I assume by "planet" you'll include moons, asteroids, and Dyson's Spheres as well.
(what would be an all-encompasing term? planetoid?)
Get there early. (Score:1)
This is not new (Score:1)
I think some stupid Space Camp movie was made by Disney with the Columbia.
--
Carl Sagan... (Score:1)
USS ISS (Score:5)
Do I smell a refund? (Score:1)
Okay, Dan, I'll be watching my mailbox for that refund check. I'm sure you'll be watching yours closer, though.
I can't wait... (Score:2)
it was on bottomquark (Score:1)
GrnArrow
grnarrow@removethis.bottomquark.com [mailto]
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:2)
E tickets weren't pink if I remember right; they were the orange ones.
Also, if memory serves me correctly, they stopped using 'em sometime around 1982.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:1)
Re:One drawback to disney (Score:2)
That was true in the days of Apollo, but doesn't apply to shuttle crew anymore. Mission specialists can be anywhere between 58.5 and 76 inches (149 to 193 cm). Pilots must be at least 64 inches (163 cm) tall. Find out more here [nasa.gov] .
All ready been discussed (Score:1)
Re:USS ISS (Score:1)
Since when does NASA overrule the UN?
Also, could someone please enlighten me as to the rules the UN has set on space.
Re:I can see it now (Score:1)
Uh oh, they'll be having a little problem with the fact that the black and white headgear worn under the helmet are informally called "snoopys" by flight crew.
There's a nice two-page "Working Knowledge" article in the latest Scientific American [sciam.com] about modern space suits.
[Hmm... the site doesn't appear to be fully functional... I need to make sure it's not my proxy.]
Maybe Disney will get burnt by the same... (Score:1)
As is, I hope that Disney has at least the taste and goodwill to broadcast the momentous first couple of days ad-free, even if that's when premiums would be at their highest.
P.S. Anyone here read the Red Mars series... great piece of space exploration and a look at the transnationals (metanats in their nastier form)
I predicted this 10 years ago! (Score:1)
(Sung to the tune of "When you Wish upon a star")
When you wish on DisneyStar
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
will float to you....
If you visit for a while
It will soon seem pretty vile
Space is fun, and space is big
but it's not new
Movies many, we have seen
People dying on the screen
Everyone needs air to breath
no matter that there's none.
Save your strength, they're almost here
Exit slowly to the rear
We hope that you enjoyed your stay
On Dis....Ney.....STARRRRRRRRRR!
Re:One drawback to disney (Score:1)
Re:disturbing reality (Score:2)
Re:Commercialism mixed with NASA won't work. (Score:1)
NASA has cut commercial deals in the past. Don't forget the exclusive Life magazine deal that made all the Mercury astronauts famous . . . .
Re:Are we sure we really want that? (Score:1)
Disney and copyright (Score:2)
Re:Exactly (Score:1)
Re:New Lows (Score:1)
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
Re:One drawback to disney (Score:1)
Cheers Andrew
Re:You have it backwards (Score:1)
I'm trying to read through your rhetoric. If what you're saying is that the ISS is basically a US project that everyone else is tagging along on, I don't disagree with that interpretation.
Russia hasn't fallen down on their commitments, but they are tremendously late. We bailed them out not because we wanted a space station and they were the only way to get one, but because US politicians (White House and Congress) wanted a deal with Russia to get them to honor the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The ISS project and subsequent money funnelled to Russia can be viewed as foreign aid with a pretty bow on top.
France is subsidized with US dollars? Please. France, a rich Western country, isn't even a partner, they have their own space program, and they're only connected with ISS indirectly, through the ESA. There's some "strong neutral" feelings there, but we may yet see an Ariane used to send supply flights to ISS, especially if Russia gets even more broke and cannot launch enough Progress flights.
The non-US modules are being built and funded by the respective countries, in exchange for access to the ISS down the road. The sole exception is the Functional Cargo Block (FGB), which was funded by the US but is technically owned by Russia. (It has two tiny flag logos on it, one Russian, one American.)
----
old news (Score:1)
Public agency... private company? (Score:1)
Only if they can keep it in orbit. (Score:1)
Disney does NOT own the muppets. (Score:1)
"In the fall of 1989, the Walt Disney Company entered into negotiations to acquire The Jim Henson Company (then Jim Henson Productions) and the Muppets. Jim Henson died during the negotiations, and the deal eventually fell through. However, the JHC and Disney have sometimes worked together, such as for the (wonderful) MuppetVision 3-D at Disney/MGM studios in Orlando."
BTW, does anyone know what happened to Muppets.com?
"E" ticket... (Score:3)
A term like this can really date someone.. :)
Xtreme racing (Score:1)
I wonder which planet... (Score:1)
tcd004
Here's my Microsoft Parody [lostbrain.com], where's yours?
One drawback to disney (Score:3)
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
BroadDisneyCasting (Score:1)
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:1)
- Michael Cohn
Re:old news (Score:1)
However... (Score:1)
Are we sure we really want that? (Score:2)
I'd hate to think that the Sagan Memorial Station on Mars could have been called the "Donald and Goofy Mars House (C) 1997" or that we might have the "America Online/Time-Warner (all rights reserved) Docking Module" or even that the next space telescope might be called the "Tasco (TM) Space Telescope".
I want inspiring, meaningful names. I want the ability to filter the uninspiring, boring ones with Junkbuster.
Re:One drawback to disney (Score:1)
Of course, this means that given existing technology, any tourist trips to the ISS or the lunar theme park or whatever will also be off-limits to the taller folk among us.
--
Maybe it... (Score:1)
I don't see how they can re-coup the costs.. but whatever.
cheese
<!DOCTYPE SLASHTML "-//DTD KARMAWHORE 1.0"> (Score:2)
-----
Disney's Revenge... (Score:1)
I can just picture mouse ears on the sperical liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks by Pads 39A and 39B.
Hmmm (Score:2)
oh yay (Score:1)
mir (Score:1)
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:1)
Commercialization is THE way to go (Score:1)
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:2)
Re:USS ISS (Score:1)
AFAI can remember from reading up on one of the commercial projects to put a hotel on the moon, the moon is handled by internation treaty like the open ocean (ie ocean past 12 (nautical?) miles).
However, there is something there, a space station, and the space station operators can do whatever they want with it..
Re:Are we sure we really want that? (Score:1)
I want inspiring, meaningful names. I want the ability to filter the uninspiring, boring ones with Junkbuster.
Ok, does the name HUBBLE count as inspiring, or meanigful? Is "He thought of it first" a better reason than "They paid us $1.5M, and we were able to get it done 3 months sooner because of the extra cash?" Yes, it's cool when they name a piece of space hardware after Scientists, or Science Fiction Authors, but those names have become commodities, and frankly, Love ain't what makes the world go 'round... it's funding.
And really... Who cares if it's called The Sagan Memorial Station, Donald & Goofy's house, or "The Ronald McDonald House for REALLY, REALLY sick kids" (Ok, that was slightly silly
Nipok Nek
Brave new Worlds on which to sue... (Score:1)
Hurray... Another massive corp (Score:1)
And I, while all this happens, read slashdot and post this message. (Oh, werd... an infinite loop of postings on slashdot, what an idea!)
Re: internationality (Score:5)
Short answer: because the station is not owned in common; each nation retains ownership of the modules it builds.
Long answer: Station operations are governed by a suite of bilateral agreements [nasa.gov] signed in 1998 among NASA, RSA (Russia), CSA (Canada), ESA (European Union), and NASDA (Japan). These agreements specify down to the tenth exactly how much usage of each module each of the partners is entitled to [for instance, the Russians have 100% usage of their modules; the Americans have 97.7% use of theirs; but Japan and Europe have smaller percentages, mainly because they can't launch their own elements]. Most of the "financial" arrangements among the partners are handled by barter, e.g. we agree to provide X module in return for Y launch vehicle or J station support service or K slots for an astronaut from our program.
In the case of this ISS multimedia deal, essentially what is happening is that NASA is getting a third party (Disney) to pony up for the provision of expensive cameras and transmission equipment (ISS support) in return for the usual temporary embargo allowing them exclusive public use of the images. This equipment will actually be available to all partners to a certain extent.
Effectively NASA is providing something for the ISS without paying for it.
----
disney's gonna be using iis..? (Score:1)
oh wait....
-Peter
Re: Outer Space Treaty (Score:5)
Now, the 1979 Moon Treaty [greaterearth.org] does ban, in effect, private property rights on the Moon. That's a little different, and a potential obstacle to development, but Russia and China have both come around to free enterprise and trade, and we'll have to see what happens. The basic problem is the same as Antarctica: everyone will eventually want the resources, the only question is who gets the benefits of bringing them back to Earth. Most likely the treaty signatories will eventually provide commercial charters a la those that were used to initially explore and exploit the Americas (like the Hudsons Bay Company). I think this is so obvious and practical that we can assume it as the long-term outcome, though I don't discount political delays in getting there.
>Since when does NASA overrule the UN?
Since when does the UN have any jurisdiction over NASA or the USA? The UN, contrary to myth, is not a world government, it is a diplomatic body governed by treaty. The UN sponsored, but does not control, the space treaty; only the signatories govern the space treaty. If the US signs a treaty, it's obligated to live up to what it promised, which is why treatys are few and far between and argued over for years. But as far as the UN is concerned, the Assembly can pass resolutions of condemnation as many times as it likes and the US, like anyone else (say Saddam Hussein) may freely thumb its nose at them. Even the UN Security Council is effectively toothless in the face of a permanent member such as the US choosing to flout its decisions.
----
Re:USS ISS (Score:1)
But I doubt the hotel on the moon will ever get off the ground.
Re:You have it backwards (Score:1)
Ah, NOW we know why that $24billion was spent... (Score:1)
Multimedia broadcasting from the space station. Oh nooo couldn't use a satellite for that...
Fantastic. It makes the Millenium dome look like a work of genius.
Re:Commercialism mixed with NASA won't work. (Score:1)
ESA != European Union (Score:1)
Life Infringes On Art... (Score:1)
Am I the only one here who read Pirates of the Universe [barnesandnoble.com]?
Re:Hmmm (Score:1)
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:2)
Re:ISS is hogwash. (Score:1)
--
Re:This is not new (Score:1)
That was a cool movie, it had a little robot that looked like R2D2
Whatever it takes... (Score:1)
More power to em...wish it wasn't Di$ney though. Though the name alone, says why it's Di$ney.
C
What else can we screw up? (Score:2)
Amateur science is becoming the only real science. Now if only we can figure out a way to expropriate some superconducters
A Theme Park Where They're NOT Hated (Score:2)
I wonder if it'll have a "Space Mountain". They could just throw you out of the airlock. A truly wild ride...
Re:(Offtopic) Mouse in Space (Score:1)
Well.... (Score:1)
Disney to reduce the value of the contract (Score:1)
May 24 - The value of the contract between Disney and NASA has been reduced 10-fold when NASA admitted they were unable to fulfill all the expectations.
"We were shocked when we learned that simple things like a rotating DNA molecule built out of M&M's would not be possible aboard the ISS.", a Disney representative said today. "A NASA engineer came and gave a crash lecture on the so-called laws of motion, but we were not convinced. We, at Disney, maintain that the environment is not "in-space enough", and we will have to review the terms of our contract with NASA."
IMAX on the ISS (Score:2)
Of course, my favorite space commercialization scheme remains the following picture:
http://www.hallert.net/images/S huttleBudgetCuts.jpg [hallert.net]
Re:BroadDisneyCasting (Score:1)
One that owns/operates the ground and buildings at the theme parks, another company to maintain/operate the rides and stores at the theme park, and finally one company that will operate the information booth that was supposed to be free to begin with.
--
Re:Makes sense (Score:1)
Disney, a Mickey Mouse organization, is famously successful. I imagine many companies would consider it the highest compliment to be considered on par with Disney.
Aside from snide comments and puns, that NASA is teaming with commercial entities for projects only bodes well for the future and growth of the space efforts. When there's profit driving development, things go fast.
Re:Shouldn't they talk to Microsoft instead? (Score:1)
The government is already angry at M$, besides the DOJ, the Navy recently gave them a rating of "0" for performance.
It's funny when your cable company's add/public access channel BSOD's but I don't think anyone wants to hear
"Uhoh Blue Screen Of Death..." played over again on the news
Space shuttle w/ ads (Score:2)
Re:Are we sure we really want that? (Score:1)
--
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:1)
Probably 'cuz, when I was a kid, by the time we got the books home you could be damn sure there weren't any E's left.
---
Consult, v. t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.
Wrong company, but... (Score:2)
I can see it now (Score:2)
"Scientific research is still very important to Disney. NASA. I mean NASA," said NASA Executive Michael Eisner. "But it's time that we made it fun for the whole family."
New space suits were also introduced. Known as MICKEYs, they feature prominent round, black protusions on either side of the helmet, now in jet black.
"Those?" said Eisner. "Those are just satellite transponders. For the astronauts. I'm afraid I can't give out details right now, but I assure you, they are very important." Eisner then refused to say what MICKEY was an acronym for, and announced a warning for those who might try to figure it out.
"I've been advised by our attorneys that any attemt to reverse-engineer that acronym is punishable under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. And believe me, we're protect acronym theft wherever it occurs."
Eric S. Raymond was unavailable for comment, as he was being fitted for a MICKEY of his own.
Commercialism mixed with NASA won't work. (Score:2)
Even though NASA has had some troubles lately, they are still the class act in my opinion that they always were. Once commercialism comes into the picture, it'll lose focus on the scientific efforts that are it's passion.
Soon to come, Astronaut suits with Ninja Turtles logos. . .
Space commercialization (Score:2)
About a year ago I found an even better picture of the space shuttle with all sorts of other American megacorporations, but I cannot seem to find that one again...
Hope this is not the future of NASA... (Score:2)
Re:"E" ticket... (Score:2)
What would have really dated him (alas, he isn't old enough) would have been '"D"-ticket ride'.