This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

NASA Is Talking About Advertising In Space – Again

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 11, 2018

Why NASA’s next rockets might say Budweiser on the side, Washington Post
“NASA has steadfastly stayed away from endorsing any particular product or company — even going so far as to call the M&Ms astronauts gobble in space “candy-coated chocolates” out of fear of appearing to favor one brand of candy. But during a recent meeting of a NASA advisory council made up of outside experts who provide guidance to the agency, Bridenstine announced he was setting up a committee to examine what he called the “provocative questions” of turning its rockets into corporate billboards the way advertisements decorate NASCAR race cars. “Is it possible for NASA to offset some of its costs by selling the naming rights to its spacecraft, or the naming rights to its rockets?” Bridenstine said. “I’m telling you there is interest in that right now. The question is: Is it possible? The answer is: I don’t know, but we want somebody to give us advice on whether it is.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

10 responses to “NASA Is Talking About Advertising In Space – Again”

  1. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    It works for race cars, I don’t think for spacecraft. I love that Shuttle illustration but in reality ad revenue is peanuts to real cost of operating that vehicle. I see it like Bridenstine promoting a product at one of his press briefings, in general I think this is a big no-no. But then the way things work these days, only ones restricted are low level people having to follow procurement rules and the Hatch Act.

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Just like NASCAR!

    Oddly enough, I think this would make NASA’s rockets more accessible to Americans. My thinking:

    Does anybody remember when the Internet was nascent , and the popular meme was ‘information wants to be free?’ And now pretty much everyone recognizes that the money for these websites has to come from someplace and so we’ve made our peace with advertising.

    Similarly, we used to complain that advertising was invading our lives-now it’s even above the men’s urinal. But I don’t sense the same degree of pushback.

    I wonder if a similar transition wouldn’t occur here?

  3. Fred says:
    0
    0

    Well it worked for Tang, and that stuff was terrible.

  4. William T Lloyd says:
    0
    0

    America “If we can’t make make a buck, what’s the point in trying?”

  5. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    Nope. Nope. Nope.

  6. Leonard McCoy says:
    0
    0

    I’m a Doctor not an accountant but sure, in this era of
    commercial partnership and where various commercial entities lease NASA
    facilities it fits very well. There are many instances where a company
    that is trying to associate itself with greatness show a moon landing or a
    rocket launch or a Mars rover so yes!

  7. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    Hey dont knock, Pizza Hut Proton flew

  8. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    So long as the funds go to NASA and not the general fund, why not?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      It’s a very bad precedent. Legislative control of the budget is a fundamental part of how checks and balances are set up in the US Constitution. It’s how Congress exerts control over the executive. (Passing laws isn’t as fundamental, since the President has considerable authority to prioritize which laws to enforce.) Giving a government agency an independent source of income would compromise that.

  9. Homer Hickam says:
    0
    0

    I have a quick answer to this: Absolutely not.

    It would be tantamount to putting commercial messages on the fuselages of Air Force jets or the hulls of Army tanks and having our military men and women endorse products.

    NASA is a federal agency, just like the military and every other bureaucracy in Washington, DC. It belongs to every citizen in the USA and should not be in the business of business. Similarly, the astronauts are government employees. Their relatively low pay is compensated by their honor to serve all the people all the time. Wernher von Braun often spoke of his appreciation for the sacrifice his team made by working for government pay rather than the much higher pay they could have gotten with a private contractor. They served a higher cause than a lucrative paycheck.

    As an aside, I’ve previously suggested that the occupation of federal employee astronaut is somewhat obsolescent and it makes sense that companies doing business in space simply hire their own. I believe we will see federal astronaut ranks dwindle to a handful over time. However, there may always be a need for government astronauts to fly aboard experimental vehicles or those that are strictly national in purpose. In any case, let the commercial astronauts put Nike stripes or STP patches on their uniforms, not those who belong to all the people.

    Summing up, considering the enormous power of the federal government in all phases of American life, the conflicts of interest created by a federal agency or employee endorsing products are so unpredictable and potentially damaging, I don’t think we even want to contemplate such a thing.