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.

Comments

USS ISS

[MeanGene]

Now, if the station is international, how can national NASA enter into any unilatera; contracts regarding ISS?

Re: internationality

[DHartung]

>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.
----

Re: Outer Space Treaty

[DHartung]

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.
----