Congressman wants NASA to sell ad space in space

While NASA certainly has its share of funding troubles, we doubt that the money-making solution now being proposed by California Congressman Ken Calvert is the best way to get them the dough they need. Currently the ranking Republican on the House Space and Aeronautics subcommittee, Calvert wants NASA to get in the business of selling advertising on its spacecraft and other gear -- an idea that others have proposed with less of a straight face in the past (as seen above). While it's unclear just how much interest the proposal has garnered, The Register reports that the idea has been enough to raise the ire of "high altitude advertising" firm JP Aerospace, which feels that NASA would be unfairly muscling in on their turf.

[Image courtesy of Aha! Jokes]

[CharlieX @ May 3rd 2007 5:03PM]

They should get MTV to do a spacecraft edition of "Pimp my Ride"

[Jeff @ May 3rd 2007 5:04PM]

It's tacky, to be sure, but if it makes money for NASA, I really don't see the problem. If you have issue with the idea, just don't buy products offered by the sponsors.

[Mickey Jones @ May 3rd 2007 5:05PM]

The huge external fuel tank should be sponsored by Viagra.

[THX 1138 @ May 3rd 2007 5:14PM]

You've got to be kidding me; that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard!
Nothing like the US government pawning off its responsibility to the greedy in corporate America.

How about this Ken Calvert?
Rather than approving trillions of dollars a year for the DoD's and DARPA's "Black Projects" and other research projects to kill people a little more efficiently, how about you divert some of that money to agencies that actually do things to *help* people.

It’d be a nice change for once.

[John B @ May 3rd 2007 5:23PM]

Considering that those "black projects" are most likely intended to "more efficiently" kill those people who are trying to kill YOU (and me and anyone else that they can who they disagree with), I have no problems at all in telling you to STFU. DoD means just that - Department of DEFENSE. Or are you one of those who think that we'll survive by renaming it and restructuring it to the Department of Let's Just Talk To The Enemy And They Won't Hate Us Because We're Nice People? If their black projects help to keep us and our allies as safe as possible, then they can gladly have tax money.

How about something more appropriate like joint ventures? (NASA's recent rejection of a Russian request for a joint project is pathetic and needs to be rectified.) How about engaging more with the private companies and individuals who have clearly shown that they are more efficient than NASA?

The real nice change would be for people like you to stop showing your hatred for the military at every f**king opportinuty by creating an anti-military tangent on an non-military topic.

[Matt @ May 3rd 2007 6:20PM]

You're a complete and utter moron. A) Remove the tinfoil hat, it's interfering with your brain waves. B) The 60s are over, the government isn't out to kill you (well, maybe they are, but it's only because you're annoying). C) DoD is in place to defend the safety of Americans, not help poor Iranians. Finally, D) nothing you said has anything to do with putting ads on spacecraft (which I think is a stupid and cheap idea, for the record). Quit drinking the Kool-aid.

[bdaver @ May 3rd 2007 5:24PM]

go further and be a milliondollarhomepage rip-off spacecraft.
Own a piece of space history !

[Iain @ May 3rd 2007 5:18PM]

This reminds me of a scene out of Idiocracy

[Edjr @ May 3rd 2007 5:30PM]

Why not let companies make their own rockets and fight for our unflinching loyalty! First one to the moon, (for reals this time) gets my next buck!

[Ralph @ May 3rd 2007 5:21PM]

Y'know, I don't think I'd mind if the shuttle's booster rockets were painted like giant Energizer AA batteries. Beyond that, I'd say "no".

[Sander de Regt @ May 3rd 2007 5:22PM]

Yes, it's very likely that NASA want to add pounds and pounds of paint (=weight) on their space craft -maybe they want to add some soft foam rubber banners as well? Wouldn't that be great publicity for your company? "Tonight the space shuttle Discovery has exploded on lift-off when a big Pepsi label came unglued from the fuel tank and hit the wing causing the Space Shuttle to spiral out of control"

[Henry @ May 3rd 2007 7:55PM]

Yeah, the extra weight ( and maybe cost) of the paint was the reason they stopped painting the ET white.

[coffinzm @ May 3rd 2007 5:45PM]

Maybe could sell Halliburton ads on our tanks as well.

[coffinzm @ May 3rd 2007 6:04PM]

Thanks for your response, but you seem to have overlooked my point. I didn't mean to raise any "anti-military tangent" as you so aptly described your interpretation of my post. I used this example for the sake of drawing attention to my post, because I know the subject tends to stir up strong emotions. So, rather than trying to convey any anti-military sentiments, I was pointing out the ever growing role of corporate influence in our government sector. At what point do we need to draw the line and identify that government activities, such as our space program, should not be subject to the influences of America's corporate mecca? My point was not to attack the military. It was to attack the growing audacity of big business.

[Shawn G @ May 4th 2007 9:26AM]

You, sir, are an idiot.

Since when has monitoring domestic phone calls to help bust drug-dealers helped me? When has killing between 100-300+ Iraqi citizens who did nothing to me, helped me? Do you want to kill everyone you disagree with, or just those who believe in a different God?

Crawl back under your bridge, Troll!

[TR @ May 3rd 2007 5:25PM]

It's like if the Capital Building put billboards on its lawns for McDonalds and Pepsi, and if the Pentagon promoted the buying of five burgers instead of one at Burger King. . .

Private space companies can advertise.

[info @ May 3rd 2007 5:49PM]

If this can help pay for more spaceflights, I don't care how many ads they put on the shuttle.

[John B @ May 3rd 2007 5:53PM]

I don't know about that. Halliburton is about oil, not oxygen/hydrogen or whatever is stored in the external tank. (Too lazy to look it up.) If the shuttle used Middle Eastern oil to get it into space, I'm sure that they'd be interested.

I like the Energizer idea, though. "It keeps going and going..."

The McDonald's one like in the picture is appropriate, too. "Just like with humans, we also support the larger mid-section!" then paint the SRBs like fries.

[THX 1138 @ May 4th 2007 5:11AM]

You've severely misunderstood my comment.

A.) Amusing. lol

B.) Dar.

C.) Uh, the DoD is there to protect us from everyone and everything, not just Iranians.

D.) I did: "You've got to be kidding me; that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard! Nothing like the US government pawning off its responsibility to the greedy in corporate America." The rest had to do with Congresses spending habits.

[tiuk @ May 3rd 2007 5:51PM]

Fight Club, anyone?

[CyBeR @ May 3rd 2007 5:52PM]

Will never happen. They already keep the big-ass tank unpainted because the paint (the first one was, in fact, white) weighed too much for its usefulness.

Also, how is a space shuttle a gadget, exactly?

[Emre Aydinceren @ May 3rd 2007 5:57PM]

We wouldn't private enterprise influence independent scientific work. Such as, what if they decide to exert influence to if first mission should be to Uranus or Mars...

[John B @ May 3rd 2007 8:47PM]

That's complete bullshit and you know it. You're just trying to backpedal because you've been called on what you said.

"how about you divert some of that money to agencies that actually do things to *help* people"

That quote alone of yours PROVES it by stating that in your opinion the military has no helpful purpose. Regardless, it doesn't matter. You made an anti-military statement, which is very fashionable, and therefore got the "Highly Ranked" that you were looking for. Digg, Slashdot, Engadget, whatever. They're all starting to become the same anymore when it comes to comment moderation.

[live2xs @ May 3rd 2007 6:28PM]

I asked a brother that works for one of the shuttle suppliers (ATK) a while ago why the tanks weren't painted. It was a weight issue. Can't see them agreeing to put stickers on if they can't even justify paint.

[bob @ May 3rd 2007 6:54PM]

God forbid another shuttle succum to a major disaster, but what
advertiser is going to want their name be associated to that.
a piece of a big mac ad fall off and wreck the shuttle. and then watch all the law suits. think of all the more money for the attorneys. start the escrow now. better yet just put some real money into the program and get back to the money and mars and start selling moon rocks on ebay!

[rp @ May 3rd 2007 7:11PM]

I don't see why corporate sponsors can't cough up money for advertisements just about everywhere else if paint weight is as big of a problem as people are suggesting. What about on the astrosuits? I'm sure it wouldn't be a big deal there. McDo could give the astronauts happy meals or something. What about on the launch pad? Sony could put their name on it and then have it go up in flames.
I for one would rather have corporations fund this than pay for it myself. I dunno about you, but I'm not making enough money to be generous with it.

[THX 1138 @ May 4th 2007 5:03AM]

FYI, I have no idea who that "coffinzm" is.

Anyway, to reply to you in my own words...

No, I'm not being anti-military, as in the sense of being against the U.S. service personnel or the military in general.

My point was that, if Congress can just hand over trillions of dollars a year for projects they know nothing about and may have little to no practical value and never see the light of day, telling NASA - who let's Congress know what they plan on doing - to "go corporate" is a poor way out.

NASA is a *government agency*. Telling them to sell ad space to earn some outside income would be like telling a U.S. soldier to wear a McDonalds label on their uniform so they could pay for their body armor or helmet supports.

It's a problem for Congress and they're just too lazy to deal with it.



P.S. - Trust me, I'm not some hippie. I know what the DoD and DARPA are there for and when it's kill or be killed, I'm certainly not going to lie down.

Yet, honestly, I'd rather see some of that money go to education, FEMA, Medicare or Social Security.

I mean, a bullet's a bullet. No matter how aerodynamically made or new the propellant, the end result will always be the same.

[Juaquin @ May 3rd 2007 8:54PM]

Actually, I think it's a great idea, if done in a subdued way. If people advertise on the Space Shuttle, they'll want the launch to be broadcast to thousands of people, to get their money's worth. In turn, they'll have to market the launches, exciting Americans once again about our activities in space. That's the kind of backing we'd need if we ever want to make it to Mars.

That, or find a way to incorporate lots of chrome and spinners.

[myscrnnm @ May 3rd 2007 10:17PM]

"The huge external fuel tank should be sponsored by Viagra."

Did you mean Pfizer? Viagra is a product.

[Seasick @ May 7th 2007 4:08PM]

Sponsored by delicious Tang.

[debugy2k @ May 4th 2007 10:11AM]

Would you even want to pilot a space shuttle with the word "Microsoft" on it anyways?

[jfoust @ May 4th 2007 7:21AM]

For what it's worth, Rep. Calvert first introduced this idea nearly a month ago, during a speech at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs on April 10, and it was extensively discussed at the time:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/11/calverts-intriguing-idea/

As of yet, Calvert has yet to formally introduce the legislation he discussed.

[Rick Lyon @ May 4th 2007 11:18AM]

Yea, because space is so massive the possible exposure is limitless! This congressman is a fracking genius as he must realize how many meteors, stars and aliens these ads could reach?!!?

[ggarrett @ May 4th 2007 2:05PM]

JonB I think the point he is trying to make is that by diverting a small portion (around 1-2%) of Dod spending (2007 = $400+ billion) to NASA's budget (2007 = $17 billion) then there wouldn't be a need to explore avenues like corporate advertising on the Space Shuttle (which will never happen due to mass issues). DoD could still "defend" us with $436Bil instead of $440Bil but only with a few less new creative methods. Also, I am still working on adjusting my undertanding as to when you enter a country and begin war that this is defense and not offense. We could split it into a DoD and a DoO, maybe...

[Nick @ May 4th 2007 3:45PM]

I believe they got NASA and NASCAR confused.

[NUOMAN SALEH @ May 15th 2007 2:49PM]

NASA IS THE BEST OUTER SPACE STATION IN THE WORLD ,IT HELPS HUMAN.I LIKE IT VERY MUCH I WOULD LIKE TO WORK IN IT.THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR GREAT EFFORTS.