Author Topic: Corporate Sponsors for NASA? Agency to Study Making Space for Brands  (Read 744 times)

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5443
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 2078
  • Likes Given: 1406
Quote
In an era of flat budgets for the agency, Jim Bridenstine has started talking about corporate sponsorships for NASA missions.

New York Times Article

The picture is not from the article but found one from the web just for fun.   Tony.
Tony De La Rosa

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 464
 I've been watching local news channels all week, and pictures of "Florence" from ISS are being shown over and over again - often w/o attribution. I doubt NASA is making any cash back on this! ::)

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 810
  • Likes Given: 75
Dumb idea. Stop wasting money on cost plus and move to public private partnership would save much more money than some sketchy sponsorship deal.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8459
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 146
Dumb idea. Stop wasting money on cost plus and move to public private partnership would save much more money than some sketchy sponsorship deal.

In order to kill this idea NASA will have to show it costs NASA (or the USA) more than it will bring in.

Apollo was a Cold War stunt designed to show how technologically strong the USA was. A commercial scandal involving a firm that had put up say 0.1% of the money would have hurt the brand.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2593
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1300
  • Likes Given: 1419
Dumb idea. Stop wasting money on cost plus and move to public private partnership would save much more money than some sketchy sponsorship deal.
The money isn't wasted on cost plus.
The money is wasted at RFI stage where solutions are excluded.

It's got to get _very_ different if you believe that those working on rapid complete reusability  are not fundamentally wrong and chasing something that is utterly impossible, or at least something that will remain 'twenty years in the future'.

The existing disconnect between $1000/kg launch prices and $25K/kg+ hardware prices is sort-of-excused by 'one-off' and 'it must not fail', as well as 'but the payload fairing, it has to fold in seventeen different ways'. (For hardware that does not require scientific advances)

If that $1000/kg becomes available in 150 ton, larger than any current payload, and becomes able to inexpensively recover launched payloads, that disconnect gets less and less plausible to defend in many or most cases.

This is not the difference between cost plus and regular accounting.
It's the difference between:

Carefully analysing and constructing a tank that will hold 1.5 bar, with a 10% margin, to be used at 1 bar, and ordering one carefully machined out of Al/Li for $25M.
Or
Purchasing the same volume tank off the shelf rated for 20 bar made out of medium quality steel, and testing it performs as expected when pressurised to that pressure for a hundred cycles before using it at 1 bar for 100K..

Branding - well - the argument made by Bridenstien that it will encourage companies to promote NASA is not wholly ridiculous.

But, getting people to want to go into space and work at NASA isn't really a huge problem, and the people you want soon will not be influenced at all by Coke sponsoring SLS.

Increasing the budget 1% by getting better engagement and getting people to call their representatives has a very poor leverage due to the above structural inefficiency.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329

The existing disconnect between $1000/kg launch prices and $25K/kg+ hardware prices is sort-of-excused by 'one-off' and 'it must not fail', as well as 'but the payload fairing, it has to fold in seventeen different ways'. (For hardware that does not require scientific advances)


This same nonsense is being spammed on multiple threads.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4145
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2820
  • Likes Given: 3583
Putting advertising on government assets may sound like a good idea to someone that is supposedly profit oriented, but it's a dumb idea. Plus, advertisers know their demographic already, and slapping a logo on the side of giant rocket is not going to help convince potential customers that they should buy toothpaste or golfballs.

I also wouldn't be surprised that doing this would require a change in many laws on the books, put there for very good reasons.

This idea is destined to die a quiet death...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline jbenton

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 214
Fun fact: Pizza Hut sponsored the launch of Russia's Zvezda ISS Service Module on Russia's Proton rocket in 2000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvezda_(ISS_module)#Connection_to_the_ISS

Offline supermeerkat

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Once again The Onion nails it, Coke-Sponsored Rover Finds Evidence Of Dasani On Mars

https://www.theonion.com/coke-sponsored-rover-finds-evidence-of-dasani-on-mars-1819567322

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2593
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1300
  • Likes Given: 1419

The existing disconnect between $1000/kg launch prices and $25K/kg+ hardware prices is sort-of-excused by 'one-off' and 'it must not fail', as well as 'but the payload fairing, it has to fold in seventeen different ways'. (For hardware that does not require scientific advances)


This same nonsense is being spammed on multiple threads.

Nonsense implies there is no part that is correct, can you perhaps go into more detail?

The overall argument in the post was that the difference between cost plus and commercial contracts is large compared to the income from sponsership, but that is dwarfed by possible procurement changes.

Do you believe that corporate change is impossible at NASA, and it will never be able to do less expensive procurement?
Or that it is not  possible to produce payloads to do things in space for less than NASA once procured them at?
Or that the notion of cheaper reliable launch is wholly impossible, and Spacex/amazon should give up.
Or that reducing the cost of launch and making access for repair possible can never impact by more than the additional monies from sponsorship?

Reasonable skepticism about particular launch systems and practices is warranted - 'nonsense' implies all the things above are counterfactual and that seems a stretch, requiring more than simply 'nonsense'.

Is, for example, the minimum possible cost NASA can ever land something on the moon at set by Apollo?

Tags: