Slashdot Mirror
NASA to Go Commercial?
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.
well, the big white sides of the shuttle are exelent for bus-type posters
plus a comment - since the public doesn't seem to be behind NASA anymore, the private sector is the only way space will ever be explored. It's sad, really.
i to hope i can some day vacation in space!
-- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount}
This could be good as long as it doesn't jeopardize what NASA is trying to do. Though, just that NASA HAS to do this for funding is scary, NASA should be fully funded... People don't realize the good that comes out of space exploration/research.
Well, NASA has been trying to privatize space for years. Several years ago they had contests between a few different companies to try to come up with a new space vehicle design - the benefits of doing well at such a showing are obvious...
After we are finished leveling afghanistan we should think about having NASA shoot bin laden into the sun with the rest of his american hating followers.
They just have to be sure they don't start doing what the big corporate sponsors want instead of what the public or nasa people want.
Money has a way of changing things.
This is a freeze dried big mac? finaly! something in space that tastes just as good as it does on earth!
-- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount}
If I were an astronaut I would totally be for this. I mean...getting a slice of Pizza over stuff in a pouch has to be nice. Now all they need is a few Jolt's, a PS2 and Devil May Cry and they'll be set. :-]
--SD
"I am told that I talk in shorthand and then smudge it." -Tolkien
I don't really understand how much this could help NASA. Ask the average Joe-on-the-street when the next Shuttle launch is and I doubt he could answer you. Shit, I can't answer you.
NASA started losing its appeal to the everyman around the late 80's, following the Challenger explosion. Everyone knows Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, but I doubt the average Joe could tell you the name of any of the people crewing the shuttle right now. I know I can't without a little Google searching.
So really, how effective a marketing scheme will this be? Who's turning on the television to see the ads plastered on the side of the Shuttle prior to launch? What Newspaper prints a front page story about the shuttle launch? What kind of exposure would a Playstation 2 ad get on the Shuttle versus the kind of exposure it would get during the Superbowl, or the World Series, or a "Very Special Episode of 'Felicity'"?
I think it's wonderful that NASA is seeking out private funding, since the powers that be are no longer interested in the space program. I just have to wonder what kind of revenue a space shuttle advertisement would bring, and if that revenue would be any more than a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of operating the shuttle.
What possible benefit can we, the public whose tax dollars support NASA, see from space exploration? Obviously, someone has decided that the money would be better spent elsewhere, and the only people I see complaining are the occasional Slashdot user.
Obviously, if we all wanted it, we'd be pissing away billions of dollars on space exploration, which so far has netted us a handful of rocks, Tang, and Astronaut Ice Cream.
Sad? Hardly. Unless you can't live without Tang.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
hmm, If we keep taking ideas from russia soon we ill be able to buy a shuttle on ebay or for a bit less a trip into space, with training. Good old Russia.
(Score:0, Interesting)
As a big supporter of private access to space, this does not seem like such a good thing for the american public. NASA started off as a wonderful, if costly, employment plan that showed the Russians we had ICBMs, but is now charged with maintaining their own finances. That's all well and good, but NASA still has government beaurocracy and inertia holding it back. Small private companies, attempting to develop reusable access vehicles, are more likely to be efficient and innovative in their approaches than the dinosaur that is most of NASA (admittedly, some of the departments are quite good, like the recent jury rig to survey a comet.) In order to get funding, those companies were going to need investment from large companies, which would go into developing their businesses. I fear that NASA has beaten them to the punch, and the investment dollars will be thrown at the beaurocracy to dissapear.
P.S. Before anybody whines, advertising is a form of investment like any other. You give somebody money, and hope you get more back while they use it.
My Karma is so good, I'm the Dalai Lama...or something.
That's the most brilliant idea that I've read in weeks... sending the entertainment people in orbit!
:)
Send the people behind RIAA and MPAA into space, you'll get out full undivided support!
Oh and don't send too much oxygen... you know, it costs 1000$/KG so, you can try to save on that issue... especially if you are commercial, you must turn into profits... just a suggestion
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
anyone who gets this deserves a nickel.
It's done more than that, it's also given us countless hours of quality PBS and Discovery channel programming, and Velcro! Can you even truly imagine life without Velcro?
Strangling the competition at birth.
Safety my arse.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
But if we're going to take a cue from history, let's point NASA toward the real profit from technology lies: Porn.
No, really, think about it. Early photographs? Porn. Videos? Porn. DVDs? Why, Porn again! And don't even get me started on where all the "innovations" in Internet commerce and advertising have come from -- we may all hate the X10 ads, but they're using both innovation AND implied voyeurism to make a profit.
Now, just imagine what NASA could do by selling Space Porn. I'm sure that millions of guys across America would be "curious" enough to pay a few bucks to see sex in space. And any modeling company would love it -- no mode need for Wonderbras for lift, since there's no gravity to make them fall. And they'd bring about a whole new wave of public interest in space travel and technology (surely this would be more effective in creating public interest than the proposed return-to-the-moon plans)!
Let's face it -- a little Porn goes a long way toward the technological advancement of the human race. Abandon your silly preconceived morals and let the avarice take control.
(Moderators: With any luck, this will be funny. But it might be a troll. I'm honestly not sure =)
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
It was less than a year ago that the USA was putting up such a fight about Russia commecialising space by flying the worlds fist space tourist to the ISS and now they are preposing commecialisation along a very similar direction.
I think the USA was scared off the whole space tourism thing by the Challenger disaster which also happened to be carrying the first non-astronaught to ride on the shuttle. If this new proposal can bring more funding into NASA it could be a big bonus not only for space bound activities, but for the R&D that filters down and eventually end up enhancing our lives.
A few years ago, when I first left college looking for work as a chemist, one of the jobs I applied for was project with NASA. Unfortunately, NASA didn't have the funding to pay for the study that it was requesting, and as such there really wasn't a job immediately. As such while waiting on the money to actually appear, I ended up in corporate america. I have no idea as to whether the project ever was actually done, as I moved on and forgot about it, and moved on to formulating mouthwash for the mass market.
Funny how everyone always complains about what scientists don't study, but no one wants to foot the bill to allow them to do it. If this idea to commercialize space puts even a dime into real research, we might actually learn something. But as it stands, all anyone seems to want from most scientists are consumer products (toys) and the rest be damned, judging by where we put our money actually. I say this can't hurt to try it.
Got plenty of room on that baby. Lets take a clue from Nascar and deck the space shuttle, tanks, and even rocket bosters out. Shoot, slap some sponsor patches on the astronauts too.
But I have to draw the line at billboards in space. I don't want to step out on a night as see Pizza Hut blasted across the moon or be looking at the perfect night and see a Coke add float by.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
That post is not Offtopic. Its also not a Troll and not Flamebait. There should be a -1 Stupid.
A sphincter says what?
Th military invented the internet and then gave it to us and made their own milnet for themselves. Maybe Nasa will go that way too. InterNasa and MilNasa. You and I have a chance of going to space yet.
Then the Americans plotted to bring Capitalism to its final victory: they flew up there with a bunch of white and painted the Coca Cola sign onto it.
Commercialization(is that right?) is how our country...how our world works.
It's surprising NASA has gotten as far as they have with just government funds. Ofcourse, how much money is in space? Just advertising for now but I guess someday mining will come into play and eventually other things. Space exploration can't always be something left for a handful of government employees.
So what is the price for one m^3? :)
I always wanted my own spot in space. You know... to spend my old days.
I'm going the full monty with this
I want my cubic meter of emptyness!
42 + 1 = 42
Suck.
How about setting up a bed & breakfast in the ISS?
"But the brochure said that the window offered a view *towards* the earth!"
JP
--- Worst tagline ever.
Just imagine, your out for a nice weekend camping trip and instead of that unsightly milky way blocking the view, you are greeted by familiar images of Coke, Intel, Tommy Hilfiger, and of course Microsoft. *This sky brought to in part by...*
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
(Colorado residents will get this joke instantly)
Eric
Be who you are...and be it in style!
if they were to have ads on the side of the shuttle, it would be a one time deal. they would be burned off during re-entry.
Josh
This slashdot article (Private Rocketplane Test a Success) suggests:
I can just see it now... rocket races televised around the world, with each rocket as coated with advertising as currently exists in NASCAR? Hey! maybe they''ll call it NASACAR racing? ;^)
But seriously, auto racing has sponsorship from the major car manufacturers. There's bragging rights at stake when Chevy beats Ford at NASCAR, or Ferrari bests McLauren at Formula 1. As commercialization of space proceeds, I suspect commercial rocket ventures will similarly sponsor racer's rockets to "boost" mind share in the marketplace.
Come on, terrorists... blow this fucking country up now... put it out of its fucking misery...
All this from a space agency that forbade its astronauts from hugging Tito on camera during his weeklong visit to the international space station, and which for years balked at even giving a name to the orbital complex. (It's now called Alpha thanks to its gutsy first commander.)
That is the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. If you were not a proponent of privatising space exploration, you should be after reading that paragraph.
Nasa's budget for 2001 is 14,035,300. Yes folks, that's 14 billion dollars. Take a significant fraction of that- Say 3 billion dollars and offer it to the first organisation that puts people on Mars for over a month and returns them.
Privatise the space station and make it pay for itself via advertising and space tourists. ("Yum, nothing tastes better than a hot Domino's Pizza in 0 gravity, and it still arrived in less than 30 minutes!")
Replace the aging white elephant space shuttle with cheaper heavy lift boosters.
Use the rest of the money for holding up core Nasa programs like the Hubble.
Just my two cents... flame throwers- Ready... aim...
I have no pants and I must scream
"When space travel ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything. The IBM Stellar Sphere. The Microsoft Galaxy. Planet Starbucks."
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
As per your request, here's the report.
Old news, was released Sep 24, here's 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?
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
So can we look forward to NASA taking it upon itself to sell chunks of outer space as real estate?
If so, how would it work? Would each country 'own' the outer space directly above it?
And who would own those areas of space above international waters?
And how would rents for space be calculated for non-geostationary satellites? Would the passes over India, say, be cheaper than passes over USA?
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
I don't think it's a matter of people not realizing its potential as much as politicans not agreeing what "full funding" means. Where do we draw the line between necessity and waste? Apparently, NASA wants to expand on what is necessary and continue to explore what is possible. I like space experimentation, so all the power to them...
Imagine this, you look into the sky and see a giant billboard saying "Looking for female, preferably okay with multiple computers in house. I like to cook, walk, and sing." That personal ad could be seen by the entire population of the planet!
Here's the report:
9 2
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36
For myself, and I think many Americans, NASA lost its appeal when it launched the Shuttle program. Even in school I knew it was going to be one big expensive beaureucratic bog. I remember specifically asking them for pictures of the Moon and Apollo for a class project, instead they sent me pictures of the Space Shuttle and some letter saying it how this is really what I wanted.
Decades later I don't feel the space program has moved but a teeny tiny bit because of the Shuttle. Oh, some of the cheap projects like DS1 and Pathfinder were great, but all the Shuttle stuff (and now space station) is garbage. The Shuttle cost more than it would have cost to keep using the older non-reusable rockets.
With the Shuttle, NASA tried to make space part of everyday, but instead it got the "humdrum" part right, but missed the everyday part. The Shuttle is virtually useless, and completely uninspiring.
NASA should have gone for a moon base instead, we'd be much further along with technology I think.
...to sue Mc Donalds when a chunk of its advertising hits my back yard.
Don't scare me like that.
Faster computers sooner, improved radio, jet, fuel and video communications gear. Cell phone access andtelephone/data service anywhere in the world. Microwave ovens. Improved tools, industrial processes, robotics and just about every other damn thing since 1960 has been improved indirectly or directly from space research and expenditures.
I highly recommend a book called "The High Road" by Ben Bova. Unlike most of Bova's work, this isn't fiction, but more of an essay regarding the need for increased investment and work towards space travel. No pictures available, the book is out of print, so an amazon.com link is kinda pointless.
Even when the book was printed (1981), drastic cuts in space funding were evident. Remember this is BEFORE the Challenger incident! Many different sources are cited in this book to back up his facts, but I will still try to not stray from the obvious.
1. Satellites. Sat phones, many nodes of the Internet, GPS systems, XM radio, spy satellites, anti-spy satellites, the Star Wars program (Think Reagan, not Jar Jar) all owe their existence to satellites. You can complain about those all you want, some are pointless, but all have been put with the idealistic thought of making life better in general. Some fail, and some are to make money, but I am glad all of them are there.
2. Secondary technical innovations. Velcro, Most plastics, and tertiary technical advancements for such things as bone marrow transplants (Remember the old commercial with Jesse Jackson, specifically to rally support for the space program, citing bone marrow transplants as one of the effects of earlier space exploration?)
3. Energy. This is the one that bites my tail most that SHOULD have been done in the 70's, and still should be done. A Solar Power Station. The idea is a large satellite, positioned so that it is never blocked from the sun, could gather and redirect the energy to a large array of solar power cells (we're talking a few dozen square miles worth, but well worth it). Environmental impact would be nill, and the land could still be used for grazing by livestock. Just plop the array of cells into some flat section of New Mexico or Montana, and be done with it. The power that could be produced by such a station could easily be twice that of the energy produced by imported and domestic oil gathered at the same rate. While I would recommend reading this book for the full explanation, this link will take you to a PDF with an excellent overview if you cant find the book. Imagine, free, practically limitless energy available. The electricity could be used to separate water into hydrogen and water, so even transportation would benefit.
4. Economy. Every dollar spent into the space program would change hands an avarage of 8 times before 'settling'. This is a matter of spending money to make money. It creates jobs, technology, and even patriotism.
5. Survival of the Human Race. As unlikely as it may seem, the Earth is our biggest Single Point of Failure. If anything happens to the Earth in a manner that makes it inhospitable to human life, the race will end. We must, for the survival of the species eliminate that single point of failure. Asteroids, nasty bacteria(e.g. Ebola), greenhouse effect, are all problems whose affect on the race could be limited if we got rid of the single point of failure. However improbable, they are still possible, and the human race must overcome.
6. Moon exploration. Boy, I'd love to get my hands on a killogram of diterium(Hydrogen ion +3?). There's only a few metric ton naturally occuring on the planet, almost all in the oceans. But, its on the surface of the moon, and the lack of atmosphere makes extracting it from the dust (notice I didn't say 'soil'. Just the dust, no more than 2" deep, would yeild enough diterim to satisfy a huge energy consumption for an enourmous amount of time.
There are more, but I grow tired of typing. Space exploration is not for short sighted people. It has produced amazing results for the entire human race, and as pessimistic as it may sound, failing to properly support it by the Americans is both bad for the U.S. as a whole, and failure by the world to investigate further is accepting the eventual end of the human race.
Toodles
Toodles D. Clown
Ever tried to have sex while in a space suit?
i think we should send dave thomas into space, ya know the wendy's guy, that way he can try to sell his awful greasy hamburgers up there, plus he's really annoying don't ya think ? And we can send other people who have outlived their stay on earth, such as ronald mcdonald, but please keep the hamburgler hehehe
http://www.goodtimetickets.com
http://www.vanillaafro.com - take me seriously and I will shoot you
Courtney Stadd took over the Office of Commercial Space at the Department of Commerce shortly after Malcolm Baldridge, then Secretary of Commerce, died after a fall from a horse. Stadd had previously been working at NASA.
Baldridge had established the Office of Commercial Space in response to difficulties he had with NASA accepting private overtures at a Commercially Developed Space Facility (CDSF) aka the Industrial Space Facility (ISF) -- a man-tended orbital laboratory, entirely financed by private capital -- which would have been in orbit in the late 1980s if NASA had merely signed on as an "anchor tenant" -- procuring space on the laboratory as a customer -- as would have been allowed by Reagan policy and later law.
If you notice at this link another individual with close association to Stadd is Scott Pace. Scott Pace has involvement in this story of the Baldridge-era Office of Space Commerce as well.
The CDSF era was a time of misguided political activism on my part (I now know direct technology development to be far more revolutionary and threatening to the would-be "powers that be"), and I had sent a letter to the National Space Society's "Space World" editor. The letter concerned the appropriate division between private sector and public sector responsiblities. I made reference to patent law's distinction between technology (patentable) and science (unpatentable) as a guideline. Courtney Stadd had recently hired Scott Pace to work under him at the Office of Commercial Space. As someone who watched the tragic demise of the CDSF at the hands of NASA interests in teh wake of Baldridge's death, and who had actively supported the ISF, I complained to the Secretary of Commerce that I Pace should not be retained due to the potential conflict of interest represented by his participation with the various organizations surrounding the National Space Society. According to verbal reports to me, the letter of mine on patent-law-guided space commerce policy was being submitted for final publication when Pace appeared in the offices of the NSS where the editors of the NSS's "Space World" were making their deliberations. Pace rather boldly asserted that they shoudl not publish my letter and spoke of the fact that I was trying to get him fired in the same context -- as though that were somehow justification.
In this light, it is interesting that Courtney Stadd is now in line to become Goldin's successor:
Intrigue Swirls Around NASA Chief Goldin, Possible Successor
By Steven Siceloff, FLORIDA TODAY posted: 11:10 am ET, 04 October 2001
NASA Chief Rallies Troops After Terrorist Attacks
NASA Spells Out its Space Commerce Agenda
CAPE CANAVERAL - Two NASA memos issued last week look for the most part like any of the dozens that have flowed from the agency. But NASA Chief of Staff Courtney Stadd signed them instead of Administrator Dan Goldin.
It is unusual for sweeping directives such as the travel restrictions released last week to carry anyone's name other than the administrator's. The incidental change offers a glimpse into the intrigue that has swirled around Goldin since last November's election.
Agency observers and White House officials have long seen Stadd as an administrator candidate.
Those views gained intensity in late August and September. Then the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 pushed the government into a war footing. NASA issues plunged to the depths of the White House's to-do list.
Stadd holds considerable sway over NASA since he was appointed by the Bush administration, said Federation of American Scientists analyst Charles Vick.
"I think a lot of responsibility is falling on his shoulders," Vick said. "This administration doesn't give a blast about NASA now, and didn't before the events of Sept. 11."
Howard McCurdy, a space policy professor at American University in Washington, D.C., said Goldin faces an unusual situation: plural leadership of a federal agency.
Instead of a single man at the helm, the White House has Goldin and Stadd to run NASA together. "This is a 70-year-old technique in Washington," McCurdy said.
Vice President Al Gore was sufficiently interested in space during the previous presidency that a deputy NASA administrator was not necessary, McCurdy suggested.
While not dismissing McCurdy's suggestion, Goldin press secretary Glenn Mahone said that Stadd's Chief of Staff position is next in line after the vacant Deputy Administrator slot.
The new initiatives are not a sign of a power shift at NASA, but rather a sign that Stadd is comfortable with the agency and the role he has held in it since January, Mahone said.
"It isn't any signal," Mahone said. "Courtney now has his footing in the agency. It's a growing process."
But other NASA watchers said leadership at NASA has been diluted for lack of interest.
"There is a growing perception that Dan is going to be an administrator for life," said John Pike, director of the Alexandria, Va.-based thinktank Globalsecurity.org. "This should have been taken care of in the spring. It's indicative of the unusually low priority that NASA has been accorded. Now it is even further from the front of the stove."
The White House plucked Stadd from his commercial space business as a liaison between Clinton Administration holdover Goldin and Bush's staff. "There's certainly been a view that Courtney was providing the adult supervision during the transition to a new administrator," Pike said.
Uncertainty is something agency employees have had to deal with for months. It faces a $4.8 billion cost overrun in the International Space Station program and shortfalls in the space shuttle program. The agency also must find a new director at Johnson Space Center in Houston and a new administrator.
Seastead this.
HAHA! If he doesnt give you a "+4, Funny" you will have to wonder if its true!!
So what does it mean when a pizza pie hits the moon?
If NASA wants the public's attention they have to do more whiz-bang stuff. It doesn't have to be difficult or important, it just has to be a good show... I suggest shooting nukes at the moon.
Well that would explain the following two links:
Nasa
And this:
Lena
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
-- My Weblog.
As part of this deal, "Tranquility Base" will be redubbed "Pepsi Tranquility Base (tm)". The Apollo 11 mission itself will know be known as "Taco Bell Run Beyond the Border 11 (tm)". Neil Armstrong's name will be officially changed to "Commander KFC".
Further announcements will be made concerning the new official nomenclature for all of the other Pepsico/Apollo missions, as well as the plans for a new theme park in Cape Mountain Dew.
They must be running out of money again. Last time they just shot John Glenn into orbit as a PR stunt, now they realize they need something else..
And imagine this: Learning and adopting capitalist methods from Russia?! Amazing!!! And I thought the US was capitalist...
Perhaps, if it's done well enough, it could be an enterprise similar to other semi-public industries, such as transportation (Amtrak, etc.), where governmental 'aid' is subsidized by paying customers.
There's plenty of value to be had:
- Performing research missions sponsored by industry, or by entertainment outlets (such as the Discovery channel). They already do this with satellite launches.
- Bringing back souvenirs (how much would you have to sell moon rock for to make it profitable?)
- Space tourism, of course.
However, NASA's culture is really not well suited for this - they're far too used to getting handouts from the government. It will, perhaps, have to fall on a private company to do properly. And I'm all for that.
Enough of wasting my tax money on NASA. Let 'em pay their own way like everyone else.
Years ago, I saw a WWII Luftwaffe flight helmet liner that was secured with something that sure seemed to be Velcro. It was at some kind of flea market, over 10 years ago, but I remember the guy pointing it out.
Anyone else seen anything like this?
(And No, the guy didn't have any Gestapo 'Täng' for sale...)
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
-- My Weblog.
Actually NASA have to do this but my guess is that they dont wanna do this. The only reason they do this commercial thing is because they don't want Russia to get all the money from this market. Like that rich (American) space tourist that Russia sent out, NASA didn't want to send him out to a space station. But they sure would like the 20 million dollars he payed...
2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
...that I would happen to be surfing the humor sites today and find this picture of a space shuttle!
Trojan. Rockets are simply the best marketing vehicle for phallic shaped products. Now if you could just find a way to slide a 100ft rubber over the next cargo shipment to the ISS...
Nice to see stupid rednecks have net access.
I'm really surprised no one has mentioned this as a fund-raising activity for NASA, yet. Sex in zero G, and what could possible be more romantic than the ultimate sunset or the ultimate moonrise? A week of no stress, no gravity, pampered and catered, and sex in zero G!
GPL Deconstructed
From dictionary.com:
Nike n : winged goddess of victory; identified with Roman Victoria
swoosh (swsh, swsh)
v. swooshed, swooshing, swooshes
v. intr.
To move with or make a rushing sound.
To flow or swirl copiously.
symbol (smbl)
n.
Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible
To sum it up:
Nike swoosh symbol is Victory Swirling Invisibly
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
For years now I've wondered if science could give us a better snack. Science has done much good for us in the snack department. I'm not saying it hasn't been a long bumpy road. Let's think about this for a bit. The pretzel is a good snack, but insufficient on its own. I've always found it a bit bland. Especially on an airplane where I want and deserve a nut.
But lets think about some other examples. The Granola bar had much potential. Especially it's chocolate covered variant, the Kudos bar. But at that point we've forsaken the health factor and you might as well just eath either a butterfinger or a nutrageous bar.
Then there are things that put "Fruit" in the name to fool your brain into thinking that they are healthy. This never fools your ass... it continues to just get fatter and fatter. Leading examples in this category is the Fruit Roll Up.
But today I discovered what may be the best snack ever. The Honey-Nut Chex Mix. Chex mix is great. It takes one of the only "Healthy" cereals that doesn't taste like crap, and mixes it up with the nuts that are now lacking in today's modern air craft. But I always wondered how to improve upon this design. Chocolate covering things is always a popular choice. Chocolate covered pretzels. Chocolate Covered Nuts. Chocolate Covered Chocolate. I mean, you can improve nearly anything by covering it in chocolate... at least so goes the theory. But I always foudn that overkill. Chocolate is like the one ton gorilla of candy. Sure it's powerful, but after you've let it ride you for a bit, you're just not gonna feel the same.
But honey nut chex mix solves the problem. The deception of being "Healthy" because it contains chex. The joy of a prezel. Little pseudo nut clusters... and it's all covered in "Honey Nut" (literally translated: some sticky coating and sugar). It's not quite as sticky as eating pure chocolate, so it even solves the messy problem of eating much sugar or chocolate covered snacks. And it tastes good too!
It's the perfect snack and it's all mine. Hands off biznatch.
an old joke :)
:)
In pre-computer age, just at the start of space exploration Americans found out that normal pens do not work in space and guys up there have nothing to write with. Huge R&D (few MegaBuck) took place and finally a gravity-independent pen have been developed. Production of one piece cost 500 USD. They worked very nice. The idea came in to sell few such pens to Russia... But the answer from the other side of the ocean was: "What for? We use pencils."
Leonid Mamtchenkov
But seriously arent we (and NASA) losing sight of the fact that they have long been known as a beaurecracy out of control ? the level of spending inside NASA and the way in which projects bog down i red tape is the reason why JPL and similar organisations/Companies come up with innovations and cheaper proucts.
Would anyone invest in a company that spends more than it can ever hope to make and is so used to the government purse ? Would NASA management make the Hard cuts in management and staff to make it a viable operation ? I suspect not, but then again they can always list on the stock marketm, i mean if a company with a sock puppet as their major drawcard can make a killing then why not NASA !
(PS to the troll posters i am aware pets.com are broke but trust me their management arent !)
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Surely there's more commercial viability to space beyond product placement! 2001: A Space Odyssey seemed to have commercial enterprises operating in space, along with businesses like PanAm and AT&T offering services along the way. I can't recall off the top of my head what kinds of businesses were being conducted - in a way, memory seems to recall that the station was like an ultra-neutral U.N. office, but that could just be fond memories.
Someone should be reinforcing in our minds what benefits we are deriving from the shuttle program - Space Station Freedom is largely a product of those successes, but what other successes have affected our lives? Fixing the Hubble was a huge win for them, and the pretty pictures are nice, but the real benefit is, presumably, in other science being done.
Part of the mindset is that many of these people are scientists. And, scientists generally don't have the patience or the time to explain theories they understand at the highest levels and the effort required to explain it to people who don't have sufficient background to even comprehend the questions being asked, let alone the answers being discovered just doesn't pay off.
If the goal is to get us to colonizing Mars, then each and every experiment that moves us a step closer towards that goal should be pointed out, celebrated, discussed and dissected in light of that goal. Lately, it's felt more like the program is vaguely moving in some direction, but no one has a clear sense of what each experiment is moving us towards. Perhaps there are too many cooks in the kitchen...
They were upset the Russians got the first sale.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Maybe that's how our civilization came into being. It would sure explain why advertising is so pervasive these days :)
Lemon curry?
Does anyone have an idea of the amounts of energy needed to succesfully launch anything into space? They're huge!
When used for just a billionaire's holiday is called spoiling energy. Is this a Good Thing(TM)?
At least, the rocket fuel for commercial launches should be taxed. It costs so much to the environment. Even if it's pure hydrogen, it also has to be produced. See the article from a few days ago on fuel cells.
Not of course, that if NASA has any chance of earning a few extra bucks, they probabaly won't refuse.
True, the russians did use pencils, but only for the first few short space flights. You dont really want lots of conductive graphite dust floating around your spacecraft and getting into the electronics, do you?
-- We don't understand software, and sometimes we don't understand hardware, but we can *see* the blinking lights
Just a thought, and yes, I am aware that NASA as it presently exists is hardly a perfect example of an organization selflessly pursuing knowledge for its own sake.
There are two benefits of Nasa selling payload space, advertizing, and passenger tickets.
#1 These should be sold "at a profit" to Nasa. This would move cash into the space program.
#2 Having these services available at a premium price will help build a market for them. Building a larger customer base will make it easier for companies to move in and make a profit providing these services at a lower price.
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
AND I use Hotmail.
With today's quality of 3D rendering, realisms can be achived that would not require the hurtling of great chnuks of expensive metals and composites into the air for it to come back down again later.
Why not just spend some money in a rendering cluster, thereby promoting computing technology, and bringing virtual erality within out grasp?
-sigh-
The Russians -- ever on the lookout for a quick buck
:-)
Hmm, what brilliant journalist mind thought that up? Funny, (stereotypically), russians spend all their money on weapons research, and (also stereotypically) americans spend all their time making more money under the "capitalist" system. So who is looking for a "quick buck"?
This is not to start a flame war, but this is an atrocious piece of sh*t. It is intended to brainwash the readers into looking at Russians as little greedy bastards. And it does it with a casualness that is as admirable for its subtelty as it is damnable for its contents.
Aren't journalists supposed to be "politically correct", which would imply not passing judgement? I'm not talking about normal human decency, that's way above their mental horizon, but simply conforming to their own particular brand of self-delusion?
Or, (let's say it quietly), does this "politically correct" nonsense only apply to those whom we don't like?
Again, save your stupid flames. This is not to insult americans. But stop and think about how comments like these make you look to the rest of the world.
And I'm not putting my name on this. Sorry. I'd love to, but I don't feel like reading your spam. Furthermore, I live in this country, and with the forthcoming fascist surveillance, I would like to remain "below the radar"...not that I can't be traced, I know very well that I can. But I would like to at least retain the illusion. Isn't that what SSSCA is all about?
$fortune -m"LaGrange"
Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus
Where the three-body problem is solved,
Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K,
And the cold virus never evolved. (chorus)
We eat algea pie, our vacuum is high,
Our ball bearings are perfectly round.
Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed,
And a kilogram weighs half a pound. (chorus)
If we run out of space for our burgeoning race
No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch
When we're ready to start, we can take Mars apart,
If we just find a big enough wrench. (chorus)
I'm sick of this place, it's just McDonald's in space,
And living up here is a bore.
Tell the shiggies, "Don't cry," they can kiss me goodbye
'Cause I'm moving next week to L4!
CHORUS: Home, home on LaGrange,
Where the space debris always collects,
We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams:
Solar power and zero-gee sex.
-- to Home on the Range
If anyone has a link to this NASA draft document the article talks about, please post it below.
Hell, I'd much rather see pics of folks in the Space Shuttle eating pizza...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Entirely possible on a German WWII helmet liner...
http://www.velcro.com/about/history.html
History
In the early 1940's, Swiss inventor George de Mestral went on a walk with his dog... Upon his return home, he noticed that his dog's coat and his pants were covered with cockleburrs. His inventor's curiosity led him to study the burrs under a microscope, where he discovered their natural hook-like shape.
This was to become the basis for a unique, two-sided fastener - one side with stiff "hooks" like the burrs and the other side with the soft "loops" like the fabric of his pants. The result was VELCRO® brand hook and loop fasteners, named for the French words "velour" and "crochet."
-- My Weblog.
Here's how I see NASA. No innovation, no excitement, no risks, no profits. Brilliant individuals with breaktakingly audacious ideas are sidelined on risk grounds until they leave in disgust, or worse, lose their drive and ambition and hide themselves in the beaurocracy.
The shuttle is the world's most expensive launch system - probably. I say probably because NASA won't give (consistent) figures on how much a shuttle launch actually costs, especially as they refuse to cost astronaut training. They have budget overruns because they really don't know and don't care how much things cost. The reason why they don't care is simple: they don't have to.
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.
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.
Let it decide whether the PR cost of never losing an American in space is really worth the financial cost, when airline pilots, train drivers, bus and truck drivers lose their lives every day and yet those industries find a way to keep going.
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.
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Perhaps they're feeling stupid for not taking that rich guy up on his offer to pay for a space ride... they were too good for that, but now they're stooping even lower with space billboards. Hmm...
There is some truth to what you are saying.
However, let's not forget that space exploration is what brought about the unification of multiple countries in a joined effort to build the ISS. (very noble thing)
More importantly don't forget NASA's next step-->MARS
I believe that the general public really wants humans to go to Mars. Why ?? Simply because it is there and reaching it has never been done.(something similar to what Hillary said prior to taking on the Everest) For those who want to look deeper into where we come from and where we're going this has to be a step in the right direction.
Look at all the mass following of Sci-Fi space exloration (eg Star Trek), you can't say people don't want space exploration. What people want is space exploration without the associated costs !
Also, I wonder if Enterprise paid NASA to use the shuttle and the NASA footage on their title scene.(or it may just be the other way around !) Well, better start putting your kids into space engineering school so they can be picked as part of the 1st crew to go to Mars in ~20-30 years.
Everyman dies, not everyman really lives. -W.W
NASA has been a millstone about the necks of honest taxpayers these last forty years.
If space exploration was so vital to private enterprise it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar tax-payer's boondoggle. Private companies would be rushing to get there first if there was any tangible benefit to be had, which there isn't, apart from communications satellites and GPS.
That whole spin-off bullshit is plain nonsense. It's a notion worthy of the old Communist Bloc countries that the best way to develop better Velcro is not to invest a few thousand in an Earth-bound Velcro lab, but to first build a multi-billion dollar booster, a multi-billion dollar space lab, and send up million-dollar astronauts - all in the hope of getting some better fucking Velcro as a free fucking spinoff.
You want better Velcro - invest directly in Velcro research, not booster research. You want better medicine - buy biotech stock, not space stock. You want better plastics - send that donation to Dow Chemicals, not Acme Rocket, Inc.
If space exploration is really so fucking essential to Mankind, it had better pay its own fucking way.
I forget which book it was, and I'm sure someone will be happy to chip in and correct me on the exact quote, too...
"The 'C's and 'L's came out great. The 'O's and 'A's had a few problems."
This was a line from the story which described a science package that shot sodium dust out of a small can off the surface of the moon. It was supposed to rise off of the nighttime surface facing the earth, into the sunlight. Someone had inserted a mask into the can, so when the sodium dust hit the sun, it was a logo rather than simply a circle.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Didn't anyone learn a lesson from the whole dot com thing? Plastering brand names on the space station is no different than buying the naming rights to a stadium -- it will be grossly overpriced for its value, and will be seen as a ridiculous waste of money in short time. That is, if any company does it in the first place.
Nevermind Pepsico (Pizza Hut).
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
I already work on one of those projects. It is being coodinated with a number of industrial companies by a Professor/Scientist at Auburn University in Alabama. THe University of Alabama is working on a similar project.
The object is to provide research which will enhance the profits of some 600 to 1000 medium sized manufacturing companies located throughout the United States.
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
Ahhh, the good ol' days when Ronnie was in office...
Presidential Aide: Mr. Reagan! Mr. Reagan, sir! The Russians have just landed on the moon! And they've started to paint it red! What shall we do?
Ronnie: Come back when they've finished, son.
P.A. [later]: Mr. Reagan, sir. The Russians have painted a quarter of the moon red!
Ronnie: Don't worry about it, son. Tell me when they've finished.
P.A. [still later]: Mr. Reagan, sir. The Russians have now painted half the moon red! Aren't you going to do anything?
Ronnie: Nope, not yet.
P.A. [still later and even more anxious]: Mr. Reagan, sir. The Russians have now painted three quarters of the moon red! Can we bomb them, sir? Please, sir?
Ronnie: [ as before ]
P.A.: Mr. Reagan. They've painted the *WHOLE* moon red!
Ronnie: Okay. Now call NASA and tell them to get a rocket up there with plenty of white paint and write "Coca-Cola" across it!
I went to space camp at the NASA museum in Alabama 5 years ago. I'm nearly positive that I was told that NASA sold extra space on the shuttles for private research and such. I should even have a rate sheet around here somewhere... if I find it I'll post it later today.
About selling moon rocks...
e le ases/Previous.News.Releases/97.News.Releases/97-06 .News.Releases/97-06-09.Low-Cost.Launch.System.Pro posals
The last figures I saw about sending stuff INTO space was over US$10,000 per pound. This link from 1997 lists the cost at US$20,000 per pound.
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/NASA.News/NASA.News.R
The fact that they about halved the amount in a four year period is amazing, so people that think NASA is a money pit need to recognize that they are changing the way they do business.
I also think this is a great idea. I am for creating a business plan for NASA that allows the trips to space to be funded by private industry but still has government funding for R&D. The reason for government R&D funding is simple: Ideas that would never make it in private industry, because they are too expensive initially, must be researched and developed extensively before they can be chosen over another idea.
Remember that if we only support work that is profitable, then GNU would have been dead a long time ago.
Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)
This reminds me of Heinlen's "The Man Who Sold The Moon." It tells the story of a businessman who stops at nothing to sell interest in the moon just so he can build the first spaceship to go up there. Everything from using basic property law that show's that countries on the equator own the moon, to selling ad space to a corporation that can't fit its logo on the moon but can prevent others from placing theirs. The business man even steps over the line with false advertising as he plants a sack of diamonds on the returning space ship just before the reporters get there.
The story goes to show just how absurd one can get when trying to sell a commodity that no one really has ownership of, and just how easy it is to generate interest in a commodity that's so far away from everyone.
If anyone has a link to this NASA draft document the article talks about, please post it below.
It probably requires a paid subscription to view.
This just isn't fair. Private corporations having to compete with highly subsidized government entities is not free market.
Here is the link to the NASA draft document:9 2
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36
It's called 'Dreamtime'.
http://www.dreamtime.com
They are a company that was set up to exploit NASA's assets.
Here's the lowdown:
http://www.dreamtime.com/nasa.html
This sounds alot like the burials in space I've been hearing about. People's ashes get blasted into space by a rocket and then are released among the stars.
Celestis allows people to send departed loved ones into space.
"Since the time before recorded history people have looked to the sky with wonder. When humanity first mastered flight we knew that our destiny lay in the heavens above. Space travel and exploration is our greatest adventure -- today and in the future."
void women (int money, time_t time);
Fast forward to 2035 AD, flip on CNN:
"The Microsoft Windows comet has just crashed, taking down the entire MSN Hotmail Galaxy. The Microsoft-AOL-TimeWarner-PhillipMorris-NASA conglomerate has blamed it on either a faulty 3rd-party moon, or the presence of a rogue Open Source space station...."
Man, the future ain't what it used to be....
Where has the boldness gone? The USA won't do anything today unless its safer than milk, or makes a sure profit for an existing huge business. Where are the risk takers? Where is the freedom? Where is the urge to push on existing boundries?
Anarchists never rule
i've heard more horror stories, and seen more double talk than i care to believe.
if nasa had worked with sailing, we'd still be working with dug out logs. But you would have to admit, those logs would be state of the art.
Sex is where the money's at!
Porn is just one aspect.
How much do you think Hugh Hefner would pay for a zero-G and a private room for 4 hours? And he's got, what, 5 girlfriends? That's 6 seats -- airfare's bad enough, think how much they could make off a single trip. Though Hef would probably ask for a bulk discount...
NASA has a program called "Spinoffs." Which _gives_ new technologies away to companies who want to develop/market it. Every year they publish a nice little book of all the spinoffs for the year. Check out The Spinoff site or, The best of NASA Spinoffs.
You can't have looked into this at all and still say "We don't benefit from space exploration."
These are just the direct benefits. I think the intangible benefits are much greater. The space race inspired many people growing up in the Kennedy era to go into the science field. Many people litteraly owe their lives to technology developed for the Space Program.
and no doubt it'll be on soon
Clarke's novel "The Other Side of the Sky" may be what you're looking for.
Heinlein also covered similar stuff in "The Man Who Sold the Moon"
and somewhere in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy I think there was a reference to a Coke logo being created out of exploding suns, or something...