No Billboards in Space

An anonymous reader writes "CNN is reporting that the Federal Aviation Administration proposed Thursday to amend its regulations to ensure that it can enforce a law that prohibits 'obtrusive' advertising in zero gravity." From the article: "For instance, outsized billboards deployed by a space company into low Earth orbit could appear as large as the moon and be seen without a telescope, the FAA said. Big and bright advertisements might hinder astronomers."

Comments

Huh?

[caluml]

And sorry, who is enforcing this law? I wasn't aware that the US owned space.

Re:Huh?

[Spetiam]

"Big and bright advertisements might hinder astronomers."

Not to mention the proliferation of space junk.

I wasn't aware that the US owned space.

Wow, even when we propose keeping space clean, you just can't pass up the chance to do a little US-bashing, can you?

Re:Huh?

[MrDomino]

It was only a matter of time until somebody started doing it...

True, but I can't be the only one who's a little disgusted that advertising is so invasive and prevalent that something like this can even be considered a possibility in the first place.

Re:Huh?

[nickptar]

Historically nations have had "ownership" according to how far they can project force.
Don't you mean 0wnership?

On the subject of lighting - reflection from terrestrial light and fluorescent paint (which converts UV into visible light) wouldn't be enough. I suppose the back would be covered in solar cells, which would charge batteries when the sign was on the day-side, and the batteries would power lights on the night-side. (If that's not enough, power could *theoretically* bebeamed from Earth - hmm, maybe space ads are what will finally get power beaming going.)

Re:Huh?

[sconeu]

Heinlein thought of it first. In "The Man Who Sold the Moon", he got support by raising the spectre of the Commies putting a huge Hammer-and-Sickle on the moon. He also got funds from "Moka-cola" by suggesting that "6+" had offered him money to put a 6+ logo on the moon.

Re:Huh?

[Lord Kano]

What if someone placed an ad over the Atlantic Ocean in geo-synch orbit? International waters and all, but it would STILL be visable from most of the US and Western Europe.

LK

Re:Huh?

[Waffle Iron]

The US has a flag on the moon, so until someone else claims another piece of space with another flag, it's all theirs.

Actually, the USSR got their flag to the moon first. They were the first to land space probes on the moon, and they made sure to include Soviet flags.

Re:Huh?

[shadowbearer]

mercury and halogen streetlights (the blue/white ones) were a lot more harmful to astronomers than sodium ones were, last I checked. Sodium lights have a much lower and more narrow emission band.

As to space ads... never underestimate the budget of an advertising department ;)

SB

Re:Huh?

[Teancum]

What is interesting is that this isn't even a new concept.

Forget about Heinlein and other authors who have talked about this before (which unfortunately was only brought up by one enlightened /. poster so far), this has already happened, but admittedly on a much smaller scale so far.

In 1993, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as part of the advertiseing for the movie "Last Action Hero", had his name put on the side of a rocket that went up to LEO.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Schwarzen egger+rocket+advertising+%22Last+Action+Hero%22 (Cached)
http://www.intouchgroup.com/press/Mar8_93-2.html
http://centaur.sstl.co.uk/SSHP/sshp_fun.htm

The point here is that regulating advertisement beyond this is just a matter of scale, rather than anything that has any substance. And when the vehicles themselves get so big that they are visible from LEO? (Aka like the "mothership" in Red Dwarf?)

What about the NASA "meatball" logo that is plastered to the side of each space shuttle? What about Boeing logos on all Delta rockets? Space Ship One had a whole bunch of stuff on its side, including ads for Virgin Galactic and the X-Prize itself. Should that be banned as well?

While by itself this sort of advertising is not going to pay for activities in space, it will make a marginally profitable company be able to run in the black.

The #1 think I that is going to blow the FAA regulations out of the water is that it is going to be unenforcable, unless the U.S. Air Force is going to assert American soverignty over all LEO patterns that cross visually over U.S. territory. I wouldn't put it past the current administration to do something bold like that, but the implications to that level of enforcement would be counter productive and dangerous to America itself.

Don't read the news much, huh?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

All your base are belong to us.

I'm still waiting...

[Spy der Mann]

for when they forbid obtrusive advertising in CYBERspace.

Fiction because Fact

[zakezuke]

Blade Runner (1982) I believe employed the use of either low orbit billboards, or just random hovering billboards. Hard to tell what the effect was intended to be.

Loophole

[Oooius]

Sounds like there's a pretty big loophole to me - technically speaking, low earth orbit is not zero-gravity. The gravity that close to the earth is almost as strong as it is here on the surface. The onyl difference is that you're zinging around at 20,000 MPH, thus keeping yourself from falling out of the sky.

I swear...

[PyWiz]

...you slashdotters just can't help making desperate attempts to cynically imply the US government is trying to overstep its boundaries and turn into some fascist regime. Sorry, but companies based in the US CAN be regulated by the US government. Many European countries will likely follow with similar laws and thus most major companies will be stopped from displaying billboards in space. Note this is NOT a violation of anyone's rights, simply a reasonable use of regulatory power.

Good try, though.