Slashdot Mirror
NASA To Deal With Disney For Commercial Use Of ISS
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.
What happens if it comes falling back to Earth?
That'll be one hell of a ride!
Um, not to rain on your unsupported rant, but MIR is still functioning peachy keen. Articles here and here
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
*Sigh*... Once upon a time, "Rocket Science" referred to complex feats of science and engineering, while trivial matters were colloquially known as as "Mickey Mouse" stuff. But now, they have become one and the same.
Now, if the station is international, how can national NASA enter into any unilatera; contracts regarding ISS?
to ride "earth mountain"...
O.K., here's the proof that I'm getting old:
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.
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 .
I can see the fnords!
... or perhaps it's a step forward that now we're only figuratively destroying ourselves, rather than literally destroying ourselves. Putting Mickey Mouse on a space station doesn't really compare to exploding an atomic device over a populated Japanese city, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned. Going into space is progress, no matter how you look at it, and tax dollars have got us basically nowhere since 1969. Let the corporations take us up there. Why the hell not?
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Isn't Disney the company that bought the Sonny Bono Act (20-year retroactive extension of copyright term across the board) from Congress during the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Jiminy Cricket (pardon my French) I think 95 years of exclusive rights is too long if copyright is designed "to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
Will I retire or break 10K?
A term like this can really date someone.. :)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Now all the astronauts will have to walk past signs that say "You must be this tall to ride the space shuttle."
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
We're already stuck with such uninspiring names as the Banc One Ballpark (nicknamed BOB, in Phoenix) and the new uninspiringly named Comerica Park where the Tigers play in Detroit. Do we really need to have our monuments and public works named by marketing people?
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.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
ISS
-----
Free music from Jack Merlot.
>Now, if the station is international, how can national NASA enter into any unilatera; contracts regarding ISS?
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 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.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty does not ban commercial ventures. It bans national sovereignty and nuclear weapons and any obstacle to free access, among many other things, but puts responsibility for compliance in the hands of the signatories, e.g. the US is responsible for making sure that no US companies violate the treaty. The treaty didn't really envision private space launches, so it's going to be obsolete eventually, but it does have an amendment procedure.
Now, the 1979 Moon Treaty 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.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Hey, all right! Can anyone think of some more purely scientific endeavors that can be ruined be corporate involvement/takeover? I'm going IPO with my new business to sell print ads in elementary school textbooks. Maybe we can start selling ad space on artificial limbs?
...
Amateur science is becoming the only real science. Now if only we can figure out a way to expropriate some superconducters
bjord.org
news from the revolution
I wonder if it'll have a "Space Mountain". They could just throw you out of the airlock. A truly wild ride...
[pink beam of light]
Of course, my favorite space commercialization scheme remains the following picture:
http://www.hallert.net/images/S huttleBudgetCuts.jpg
is This what you mean?
--Drive carefully. 90% of people are caused by accidents.
Duck Dodgers, in the 23rd & 1/2th century!
"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.
Carousel is a lie!
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. . .
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...
make world, not war
I wonder if this is the future of NASA... :) On the other hand, if commercialization helps future missions, like putting three interferometers orbiting the sun, which effectively yields to a very high powered "telescope", helping to find those nearby planets.