Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

BWhite · 2005-04-06 18:18:20

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/ap … IP.html]Is this advertising?

Thoughts, pro or con?

dicktice · 2005-04-06 19:34:42

Next step: Pay to have your logo plastered on the aerospaceframe itself. Will it come to that?

Commodore · 2005-04-06 19:48:39

Next step: Pay to have your logo plastered on the aerospaceframe itself. Will it come to that?

If it means getting farthur, faster, and with more, I hope so.

Palomar · 2005-04-06 20:11:27

In return, this partnership would provide NASA increased Internet capabilities during events related to the upcoming Space Shuttle missions

*NASA being a gov't organization funded by taxpayer dollars, it seems a "conflict of interest" of sorts to actively involve private corporations.

But NASA is openly (vocally) supportive of private space enterprise.

My head hurts...

--Cindy

P.S.: Why is NASA seeking help from private orgs in getting increased internet capability?

srmeaney · 2005-04-06 21:32:41

Yes, it's advertising. Not as likely to draw Corporate interest as the prospect of having your company logo etched into the door of a tool locker somewhere on the ISS. But advertising none the less.

Cindy, they have obviously put this in as the new guy is pushing cutbacks in information/media support funding. It also means that he hasn't realised that most of the Information is directed at the Education market and as a result would realy fall under something that could be financed by the Department of Education. I'm sure the Department of Education would love to sell uncensored NASA TV (even the bit where flight is screaming "Don't push the red button!") to the Discovery channel for real time broadcast.

RobertDyck · 2005-04-06 22:45:57

Bill, didn't you make a presentation at the last Mars Society conference asking NASA to seek corporate sponsorship to raise funds? This is exactly that. There was a NASA person there asking if regulations would permit them to do so. After some discussion she said she would have a lawyer look into what's permitted. I was there so don't deny it; this was your idea. Congratulations.

Palomar · 2005-04-07 05:06:04

*In the 1960s NASA needed the Soviet Union.

In the 2000s it needs corporations.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-04-07 05:50:22

My question is, how do we follow the money trail for such sponsorships and how would the public rightfully be in the know as to how much funding was paid for this sponsorship?
Next is to know where or to which programs this money is funnelled into?
I am all for Nasa being able to offset its budgets needs but not at the effect of congress counting on these funds coming and thus lowering what would be given to Nasa though the normal budget process.

Palomar · 2005-04-07 05:56:07

*Why don't we just let the corporations take over NASA?

They already run Washington, D.C. -- don't they?

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-07 07:58:13

*Why don't we just let the corporations take over NASA?
They already run Washington, D.C. -- don't they?
--Cindy

*Pttphhfff*

srmeaney · 2005-04-07 08:25:54

It is endemic of a large scale budget cut and policy rethink for NASA. The Cost cutting through Sponsorship carrys into the comming Centennial Challenges Program which is almost identical to the Ansari X-prize. Basicly it terminates the need for the Big contractors like Boeing to charge NASA the big development bucks for R&D. Now the little up and commings develop the project areas at their own expense and NASA rewards the winner with a cash prize and an order for more.

Basicly no more $23,000.00 toilets.

BWhite · 2005-04-08 08:17:54

Bill, didn't you make a presentation at the last Mars Society conference asking NASA to seek corporate sponsorship to raise funds? This is exactly that. There was a NASA person there asking if regulations would permit them to do so. After some discussion she said she would have a lawyer look into what's permitted. I was there so don't deny it; this was your idea. Congratulations.

Yup.

I am not inherently in favor of marketing and sponsorship, however the ten year US federal budget projections are pretty darn bleak and even if we can sustain $16 billion per year for NASA, $16 billion is not really enough to do what needs doing.

If the mountain won't come to Mohammad, Mohammad had better get his rear in gear and go find himself a mountain, of cash.

Nike, Reebok and Adidas spend $2 billion per year on endorsements. Just those companies. Sell the media rights to our return to the Moon and sell sponsorships and perhaps we can increase total NASA funding by 50% per year.

= = =

Last year, NASA got its budget passed because of Tom Delay. Recent press suggests Delay may be toast. Even Bill O'Reilly has started attacking Delay meaning the GOP power brokers may be getting ready to cut Delay loose.

No Delay? Who will stand up for the NASA budget next autumn?

Palomar · 2005-04-08 08:42:27

*Okay, here's my grumpy off-the-cuff response: My views of how we'd continue into space were formed during the Apollo era: High hopes and expectations, lofty and achieved goals. With the fall of the USSR so went the fall of NASA (no genuine competition anymore) -- except as probes and rovers go, etc.

So what the hell. Unless Russia teams up with ESA and we get another Competitor, I guess we're going to see corporate/company logos and slogans plastered all over the frickin' place.

Bothers me, though, that these giant corporations pay their 3rd-world employees starvation wages while they drive around in Rolls Royces and pay "da new massah" (like Michael Jordan or Kathy Lee Gifford) big bucks for celebrity endorsements...

Does NASA really want to associate with this? Maybe it does.

I just know MY vision (for whatever it was worth) of how we'd go out and why is D-E-A-D.

Yeah, I guess my expectations were unrealistic. But that doesn't mean I have to like the current trends.

My 2 cents' worth.

--Cindy

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html]Glory Days: They'll pass you by

BWhite · 2005-04-08 09:12:24

Apollo WAS advertising.

“Outstanding feats in outer space are today the greatest advertising medium the world has ever known. - - [America] must advertise our competence and our ability to protect our friends by demonstrated superiority in the penetration of this new and challenging environment.”

General Bruce Medaris, Werner von Braun’s boss at the US Army, said this in the early 1960s.

Congress paid for Apollo BECAUSE the whole freakin' project was advertising American superiority.

= = =

Bothers me, though, that these giant corporations pay their 3rd-world employees starvation wages while they drive around in Rolls Royces and pay "da new massah" (like Michael Jordan or Kathy Lee Gifford) big bucks for celebrity endorsements...

This bothers me also.

One solution is to buy those brands that pay their workers a better wage. This can begin with BOYCOTT WAL-MART.

I read yesterday that China stands poised to wipe out textile production in Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam etc. . . by paying similiar wages as those countries but combining the same low wages with much better transportation infrastructure built by the government.

Cambodia is looking at launching an advertising campaign in the West to show that they treat their workers better than China does. Fight the sweatshops by appeals to the western consumer.

In England, a brand of coffee that claims to come only from farms that practice ecologically sound farming AND pay decent wages is growing rapidly in market share. Costs a little but more but consumers seem willing to pay extra for the privilege.

= = =

Off thread joke:

Q: Why are there no Wal-marts in Iraq?

A: Its filled with Targets.

Edited By BWhite on 1112973878

Palomar · 2005-04-08 09:37:21

Apollo WAS advertising.
“Outstanding feats in outer space are today the greatest advertising medium the world has ever known. - - [America] must advertise our competence and our ability to protect our friends by demonstrated superiority in the penetration of this new and challenging environment.”
General Bruce Medaris, Werner von Braun’s boss at the US Army, said this in the early 1960s.
Congress paid for Apollo BECAUSE the whole freakin' project was advertising American superiority.

*Erm...well that's not quite what I meant (the USSR didn't exactly have an inferiority complex itself...)

I just remembered all those "Tang" commercials from the early 1970s. :hm: But was "Tang" an official sponsor, like the American Dairy Council is an official sponsor of the Olympic Games? Seems to me "Tang" was simply taken along for the ride, and the company got permission to make advertisements thereafter with the astronaut/NASA association.

I Googled, but can't find a definite answer.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-04-08 09:55:00

Apollo WAS advertising.
“Outstanding feats in outer space are today the greatest advertising medium the world has ever known. - - [America] must advertise our competence and our ability to protect our friends by demonstrated superiority in the penetration of this new and challenging environment.”
General Bruce Medaris, Werner von Braun’s boss at the US Army, said this in the early 1960s.
Congress paid for Apollo BECAUSE the whole freakin' project was advertising American superiority.
*Erm...well that's not quite what I meant (the USSR didn't exactly have an inferiority complex itself...)

But =WE= had been humiliated by Sputnik and other Russian space exploits.

Palomar · 2005-04-08 10:03:02

Apollo WAS advertising.

General Bruce Medaris, Werner von Braun’s boss at the US Army, said this in the early 1960s.
Congress paid for Apollo BECAUSE the whole freakin' project was advertising American superiority.
*Erm...well that's not quite what I meant (the USSR didn't exactly have an inferiority complex itself...)
But =WE= had been humiliated by Sputnik and other Russian space exploits.

*Yep.

Now what about the "Tang" issue?

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-04-08 11:06:44

*Erm...well that's not quite what I meant (the USSR didn't exactly have an inferiority complex itself...)
But =WE= had been humiliated by Sputnik and other Russian space exploits.
*Yep.
Now what about the "Tang" issue?
--Cindy

My belief (without benefit of ANY recent research) is that TANG was allowed to say NASA included it with food rations but paid nothing to NASA specifically for marketing rights.

Even if we agree to allow NASA to market =HOW= that is done remains a huge issue.

Selling non-exclusive media rights for the next lunar landing would probably raise the most money with the least amount of fuss. If a network wants access to NASA video and audio feed they pay a pro-rated share of a predetermined fixed fee.

No limit on the number of networks which can sign up and carry the broadcast, but if a network does not pay its pro-rata share then it cannot broadcast the video/audio.

= = =

Set a number at say $8 billion dollars for "return to the Moon" - - which would include plenty of media content before and after the actual mission itself. If FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC all signed up, each would pay $1.6 billion (the actual exact number tweaked by market share).

If CNN opted out (for example) then it would be $2 billion each but CNN would be blacked out of the media feeds. FOX, of course would trumpet how "un-patriotic" CNN was being by not joining in.

This gives NASA another $8 billion for its missions.

Edited By BWhite on 1112980044

BWhite · 2005-04-25 12:33:49

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori … DATE=]More advertising

clark · 2005-04-25 14:36:28

This gives NASA another $8 billion for its missions.

Co-rection, Bill. That gives the US treasury 8 Billion. But say Congress passes a law (i hear they do that from time to time), and allow NASA to keep the money it makes, what makes you think those same politican's won't slash NASA budgets because "they can make thier own buck now."

Put a different spin on the idea- say another federal agency, i dunno, the EPA, started charging networks access rights to broadcast pictures of trees- or the interior department started charging for shots of Mount Rushmore...

NASA is a public agency, paid for by public funds- how do you legitametly sell access to a public agency that works for the benefit of citizens?

BWhite · 2005-04-25 15:13:19

This gives NASA another $8 billion for its missions.
Co-rection, Bill. That gives the US treasury 8 Billion. But say Congress passes a law (i hear they do that from time to time), and allow NASA to keep the money it makes, what makes you think those same politican's won't slash NASA budgets because "they can make thier own buck now."
Put a different spin on the idea- say another federal agency, i dunno, the EPA, started charging networks access rights to broadcast pictures of trees- or the interior department started charging for shots of Mount Rushmore...
NASA is a public agency, paid for by public funds- how do you legitametly sell access to a public agency that works for the benefit of citizens?

If Congress did that (swapped media money for tax dollars) and left NASA without sufficient funding to actually get to the Moon, then there would be no media money. Catch-22.

Besides, my plan is 100% non-exclusive - - everyone can buy access - - and six to twelve months after the mission, the video, audio and data feeds revert to the public domain.

= = = = =

Michael Griffin is on record (2003) saying that NASA needs about $20 billion per year to get serious lunar exploration underway. Get $12 billion in media access rights - - 100% non-exclusive - - and some of that shortfall is closed up.

= = = = =

Care to argue? Come to ISDC in Washington, I have this paper up on the agenda.

clark · 2005-04-26 07:54:41

If Congress did that (swapped media money for tax dollars) and left NASA without sufficient funding to actually get to the Moon, then there would be no media money. Catch-22.

Or, Congress gives NASA enough money to get to the moon, and then pockets the media money.

The media angle is full of problems. Take for instance Tang. Tang was created by a company, not NASA. Tang is little more than Kool-Aid (as in drinking the Kool-Aid ). It was evaluated for use in the Apollo program.

General Foods (IIRC) capitalized on the use of their Tang by the space program. What NASA got out of this was better than money- they got publicity, and they got relevance to Joe American. This in turn generated support by which the agency could get federal funding from the government since people held the agency in high regard, and the agency could point to real world (as in good for the economy and jobs) examples of how their esoteric Buck Rogers program had benefits to the nation.

What you are describing makes more sense in a traditional venture for human space exploration (oxymoron), not for a government agency set with executing public policy. Why is that?

Because NASA wants people to watch what it does. Expecting the media groups to pay creates a barrier by which some media groups will forgo coverage. I mean, the President could charge for covering the State of the Union address, but is the public interest served by this? No, and instead, the Executive Branch *requests* media to cover these type of events.

Besides, my plan is 100% non-exclusive - - everyone can buy access - - and six to twelve months after the mission, the video, audio and data feeds revert to the public domain.

So media companies would pay billions to cover something that is in the public domain, which they lose media rights to in a relatively short amount of time? Why? How do they make any money on this? Where is the incentive for them?

To sell commercials? Okay, the value of air time is in direct proportion to the control and coverage of an event. If multiple media groups can cover the same event, that event has less value when they go to sell ad-time. Which is why the Olympics is only covered by one media group (or the world series, or the superbowl, or different soap operas). They generate further revenue by controlling rebroadcast rights for a long, long time (things like selling DVD's, highlights, or re-run rights).

Michael Griffin is on record (2003) saying that NASA needs about $20 billion per year to get serious lunar exploration underway. Get $12 billion in media access rights - - 100% non-exclusive - - and some of that shortfall is closed up.

Don't tell me what he said before he wore the hat, tell me what he is saying while he wears the hat. Bush said a lot of things before he was President. People say a lot of things before they become the office they represent, or the Administrator of the agency they are charged to run at the President's discretion.

What Griffin *is* saying, now, is that the current budget for NASA is sufficient to execute the President's vision, but in order to make the most of exsisting funds and anticipated goals, NASA will look for ways to excelerate Shuttle retirement, Science will take a hit, and the agency will close centers.

These are the words and actions Griffin is making and doing.

Care to argue? Come to ISDC in Washington, I have this paper up on the agenda.

I have a cousin that works in Washington. Family near there. :laugh:

I probably won't make it, as I will be preparing for the GMAT and an attempt at Stern. But one of these days, I'll make you buy me a drink.

clark · 2005-04-26 11:17:30

And about Griffin... what he is saying *now*:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … Highlights

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16232]Full transcript

Lots o' fun stuff in there, but he ain't the Griffin he once was.

Mars refrence:

Mars Costs
When asked about the economics of going to Mars - what it would cost to actually mount a mission, Griffin said "I am on the record as saying that I don't think that missions to Mars are unaffordable with the budgets that we have if they are utilized appropriately. Everything that I know to date about what it will cost us to do a [human] Mars mission was summarized in a Planetary Society report that Owen Garriott, and old and good friend, and I chaired in behalf of the Planetary Society with numerous co-authors. That report included a section on costing. The costing analysis was done at a very high level. It was basically weight-based costing which, at this point, since we don't have mission architectures to point to, nor do we have specific designs, nor would it be appropriate in this time to have specific designs, because we're not going to Mars next week - or next year."
"The costing analysis was based on order of magnitude weight estimates that would be required as well as assuming certain productivity gains that have been characteristic of the U.S. economy as a whole. ... what it adds up to is that I think we have a pretty good first order effort of what it takes to go to Mars - and that estimate is summarized in that report. And frankly, that is the best knowledge I have of what it ought to take - if we do it right. The answer came out to be that in present day dollars you could probably go to Mars for what we spent on Apollo. .. there is no need to go to Mars over an 8-year period .. it is, as President Bush said, a 'journey not a race'. So, I view, at a few billion dollars a year, paced out over a number of years, voyages to Mars are eminently doable - and I would urge you to download that report."

Note to the rabid Zubrinites, there are other ways to get to Mars- not better, not worse, just *others*:

http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-s … mmary.html

BWhite · 2005-04-26 11:32:58

The Aldridge Commission said that making space exploration a larger part of our culture was a mission critical undertaking.

Our culture is shaped by big media. Therefore we either bribe, cajole or coerce big media to join the party or we accept space exploration as remaining outside mainstream American culture.

= = =

Big media will never value what they are given for free.

Coerce them into paying some money - - create some sunk costs - - and they will fight to build public support to recoup their investment.

In for a dime, in for a dollar.

Edited By BWhite on 1114536934

clark · 2005-04-26 11:44:20

Bill, you're the one that sunk the idea. In order for this scheme to work, then exclusive rights have to be granted to one media congolomerate. And therein lies the fundamental problem- NASA and the space exploration belongs to the American people, since it is paid for by the American people. NASA dosen't have a right to sell pieces of it, or the access to see it.

If it did, then you would set the precedent that an American agency can limit access to publicly held information on the basis of profit.

If you grant non-exclusive rights, then you don't offer the media groups something worthwhile. There is your catch 22.

All that aside, it is nice fiction.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-04-06 18:18:20

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#2 2005-04-06 19:34:42

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#3 2005-04-06 19:48:39

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#4 2005-04-06 20:11:27

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#5 2005-04-06 21:32:41

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#6 2005-04-06 22:45:57

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#7 2005-04-07 05:06:04

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#8 2005-04-07 05:50:22

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#9 2005-04-07 05:56:07

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#10 2005-04-07 07:58:13

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#11 2005-04-07 08:25:54

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#12 2005-04-08 08:17:54

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#13 2005-04-08 08:42:27

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#14 2005-04-08 09:12:24

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#15 2005-04-08 09:37:21

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#16 2005-04-08 09:55:00

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#17 2005-04-08 10:03:02

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#18 2005-04-08 11:06:44

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#19 2005-04-25 12:33:49

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#20 2005-04-25 14:36:28

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#21 2005-04-25 15:13:19

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#22 2005-04-26 07:54:41

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#23 2005-04-26 11:17:30

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#24 2005-04-26 11:32:58

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

#25 2005-04-26 11:44:20

Re: Is this advertising? - NASA to offer website sponsorships

Board footer