Where Are The Artemis-Inspired Advertisements? (2)
It would not be all that hard for #Tang to modernize their Apollo era advertisements to work for the #Artemis Generation – especially since some of the @NASA spacesuits are now the same color as Tang. Just sayin' @TangSocial @MDLZ @JimBridenstine @DouglasLoverro pic.twitter.com/UMx5DtG9Ky
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) May 15, 2020
Ads usually are used to relate people to products. I don’t think 99% of people outside of NASA or aerospace have ever heard of Artemis. What will they relate to?
You “think”. No one ever seems to have numbers when they make these claims.
Of course, you are right to be skeptical of non-scientific polls. I am old enough to remember Yuri Gagarin’s flight, but I have been dismayed by the level of people’s knowledge of spaceflight history especially over the last 30 years. 1 1/2 years ago, when I explained to a couple that the glow they just saw in the sky was the upper stage Trans-Mars-Orbit burn of the first Falcon Heavy, the man let me know that he worked for Elon Musk at a GigaFactory plant, but he had never heard of SpaceX! He was impressed to learn that the rocket was sending a Tesla to the orbit of Mars! But I also remember that when I was in high school (with 3500 other students, and successfully lobbied to get a TV set up so that students could watch the Apollo 14 moon walk, that literally only 2 students (I was one of them) watched it. It might not be 99% everywhere, but it sure feels that way.
Actually here is a bit of actual historical data on that from a 2015 NASA funded study published on their website.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/…
Historical Studies of the Societal Impact of Spaceflight
Part 1 is about the history of public opinion on NASA
Thanks for posting the document.According to the NASA study, a “fringe” 6-percent of Americans thought the Apollo moon landings were faked. According to Gallup in 2019, as reported here https://www.pcmag.com/news/… , that number has grown to 10-percent , and to a non fringe 18-percent among 18-34 year old respondents (labeled as “too much Internet” on their infographic). While we now need a well conducted poll to see who knows what government program “Artemis” is, my gut feeling is that the number of people who do know are about equal to the “Apollo Conspiracy” population, or worse. People might answer a little more confidently to “Does NASA have a program to land people on the moon by 2024” than to “Can you name it.” Sorry if this has strayed far from Tang, but I think my response to it came out as the question provoked pent up thoughts about main stream vs. enthusiast culture, education, and the access to and distribution of accurate information, once sponsored by Tang. I promise not to say more on this topic except for direct response.
Yes. This is what I like to call the ‘Seems Like’ effect. Common sense, or personal experience, isn’t often reliable.
Tang is considered a junk food now because it has almost no juice with lots of sugar and artificial ingredients. I expect parents would turn against NASA if Tang was promoted to kids as the drink astronauts like as in the Apollo Era. Indeed, does NASA even use Tang anymore given the advances in food tech since the 1960’s?
Which of course raises the question, are there any products that would have their sales to millennials increased because of an association with NASA? Sure the NASA logo is cool on clothing, but were else with it generate demand? In the Apollo Era space was new and cool so advertises latched on to it for advertising. But for a generation raised on spaceflight what type of message could it associate with a brand?
Spaceflight is a woven tapestry composed of many threads, and some of it’s most vital and vibrant threads are as timeless and as fundamental as what makes us human. Good stories today are good and they work on us (and can lift us) because they contain many of these same essential ingredients and underlying truths.
Competent storytellers (and advertising folks) tap into these core essentials and themes. Space just happens to offer—it is built on them!—some of the highest and most noble.
Ah, the old myth that advertising is able to sell anything to anyone, all you have to do is find the right hook for your campaign strategy. Have you bought any horse drawn wagons recently, after all they are climate change friendly.?
For 50 years you have had numerous popular science writers, science journalists and space advocate groups trying to sell space with the needle of public support not moving beyond where it was after the post Apollo crash. Sorry, but space advocates are just not selling a product the public wants.
Oh I will agree that Space Advocates should, for the most part, sit down and shut up since all they do is talk to each other. As for advertising you’d probably be surprised at what constitutes advertising these days – its the subliminal things that you do not consciously notice but influence your buying habits.
Yes, I cover those in my marketing courses. But be aware about using the term subliminal around advertisers because of its association with the urban legend of subliminal advertising. What you are referring to is known is a latent brand image and is measured by perceptual mapping.
Incidently advertising is only one small part of the Promotion Mix which is blended into an Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) strategy. What we are actually talking about in this topic is the lack of an IMC strategy at NASA, not advertising. BTW advertising is the only element of an IMC strategy NASA is prohibited from doing by law.
One of the things NASA does need is a good IMC strategy for its programs. However since that would require repositioning the PAO from a mere writer of press releases to a modern Public Relations office I see little hope of it happening. And as you mention space advocate groups are a lost cause in terms of actually promoting space to the public at large.
I notice that SpaceX has released a free simulation game about a Dragon docking with ISS. I suspect many people today are downloading just about anything to kill time while stuck at home. Despite what we (people who actually follow space-related issues) may think, “SpaceX” and “Dragon 2” aren’t exactly household names. If a few percent of the people downloaded and played a game for a few minutes, I suspect that could dramatically increase name recognition.
Yes, but it only seems to be promoted on blogs and websites that follow Elon Musk. It was on a twitter account that follows Elon Musk where I first found the link to it. I haven’t see any indication of NASA promoting it.
So that docking simulation is basically a good ad with dismal placement. You might as well put an ad designed for the Super Bowl on a cable channel showing old, silent films.
Bingo! You just summarized all the complaints Keith has posted about the dismal performance of NASA PAO.
“Selling” is different than engaging with storytelling that touches people at their core. The most effective selling IS storytelling. Far too many of those science journalists and space advocates you mention were in the same bubble as NASA PAO: If you just tout all the great promises, the people will come. Didn’t work.
I believe you’re thinking inside the wrong framework, just like they were.
Insurance used to be the single most boring possible product to sell to anyone. It was a tired cliche. Today insurance commercials have become a not-insubstantial slice of our popular culture through their use of humor…one of those basic human elements that lift all of us to better places. This positive connection to their cores was the hydraulic lift able to raise their consciousness about the subject matter (and the companies involved).
“Have you bought any horse drawn wagons recently,”
Hansen has been selling them for 40 years and do not seem to have a problem getting rid of them.
Builder of Authentic Horse-Drawn
Stagecoaches, Wagons & Carriages
http://www.hansenwheel.com/…
Yes and there is a niche market for record players and antique tires (pre 1925) as well. But none would justify the type of advertising Keith is talking about. They advertise to their niche markets by websites, social media and networking of customers for those products.
I’m not sure if you put that the right way. While you can’t sell _anything_, the trick really is about finding the right hook. With a good one, I think you can sell almost anything. I even know an aerospace/science program manager who was once described as someone who “could sell ketchup flavored ice cream to a nun in a white habit.” The problem for NASA, and advocates of human spaceflight, is that we’ve spend half a century _failing_ to find a good hook for selling the projects we’re interested in. And, as you point out, we haven’t been too imaginative about or interested in hooks that we, personally, wouldn’t be excited about. But that doesn’t mean a sufficiently good hook doesn’t exist.
Right. Then explain Mountain Dew.
? Do you mean the advertisement with the UFO?
Since we’re on the topic of Tang, some of my favorite mentions include in a forum about back in the days someone said he drank Tang back in grade school though it didn’t help with his math, he felt cool like an astronaut. In another forum (usenet) discussion about orange soil uncovered by Apollo 17 crew, someone asked what is it. Another answered, “Tang.”
I wonder if Tang connects with young people, or is it only older people that can get the nuances. For me, I know of it but never drank it.
I drank it on each of my 3 Devon Island expeditions and a European version at Everest Base Camp.
Because no one follows space on the “News” as “News” no longer follows space as a live story, nor has it since network news vanished by about 1990. Tang would be wasting money. On the other hand, the upcoming Dragon DM-2 flight could be a chance for “News” to take one small step toward redemption, unless Breaking News (such as another death of Kim Jong-Un) occurs. To put it another way, where is Walter Cronkite now? In the mean time, NASA and SpaceX have their own channels, and neither advertises Tang.
Never said NASA should advertise Tang. They never did. Tang advertised Tang.
I know:–’round-the-clock Artemis coverage provided by the NASAWatch Network on the Everyday Astronaut Channel, brought to you by…Tang!
I’m think of retirement – not starting a TV network. Just sayin’
I was actually thinking of YouTube and the channels that NASA, SpaceX, Everyday Astronaut, etc, have. I was kidding about a network, but actually a number of YouTube channels do form confederations to provide, for instance, round the clock coverage of StarHopper construction. Even when it is only a tanking test, it seems that the web cams of SPadre aimed at SpaceX in Bosa Chica have 1K viewers or more. NASA and SpaceX share coverage of joint projects. In fact, as you are already a known media presence, I’ll bet you would clean up on YouTube! Given your passion, your voice would be opened up to a much larger social media ocean. In any case, YouTube is where people watch space happening, and, given the numbers that are displayed under “viewers”, YouTube is where access the NASA channel. I know nothing about cable.
That would, probably, sell as well as the old cable television fishbowl channel. Let’s face it, most of time the astronauts aren’t going to be doing much of anything. It take half a week to get from the Earth to the Moon. The crew will probably be spending most of their time sleeping and reading ebooks. With modern automation, they probably won’t even be spending much time on flipping switches and exchanging technobabble with mission control. Who would want around the clock coverage of that?
“No one”? Really? You have data to show that 0% of people behave the way you suggest? As for advertising, what kind of car are the DM-2 crew driving to the launch pad and what logos are on it? No one advertises in a fashion that is connected to space any more. Got it.
When your article mentioned Tang, all I could think of was the TV coverage I remembered from Apollo, where they sponsored the network coverage. I didn’t consider what I now think you mean-sponsorship by posting highly visible corporate logos. For an audience large enough for Artemis to be gathered for the visibility to benefit Tang (or any other sponsor) to take this on, will depend on NASA (and news of all types) doing a better job of getting the word out. Since Tang has lost the reputation that it had in 1969, judging from the other comments, maybe Tesla could be a sponsor!
Exactly. Or Mountain Dew. Or Starbucks. Or whatever.
Brands sponsor activities based on their demographics and much sponsoring those activities increase the awareness of their brand. So the question is what brands would benefit from the demographics of NASA TV?
The demographics of NASA TV? I can’t see many brands which would benefit marketing to that audience. But some companies have done well by associating their brand with something that isn’t too mainstream but tied to a political or social idea.
I’ll use the example of soccer and the US Women’s team as an example, since I’m a fan. They have numerous sponsors and it isn’t because many American viewers follow the games. It’s because they want to look good, in terms of gender equality, inclusiveness and (I guess) the idea that promoting equal treatment of women just looks good. (And, just to deflect some mistaken comments, I’m all for those things. I’m just describing them in the practical, cynical way a company would think when they are looking at the bottom line.)
Sponsors are, in effect, associating their brand with things which create a good, positive corporate image for themselves. I think that mean the company’s products don’t have to be connected to the things they sponsor, or the use of their products by the people they sponsor. It just needs to be connected to the image their company wants to project.
Still it has to link to the demographics. For example, Starbucks sponsoring programs that benefit small farmers in emerging nations fits with the demographics of Starbuck’s core customers that are brand loyal.
The firms that made those old science sets in the 1950’s and 1960’s would have been a logical sponsors of NASA TV, as would firms like Aurora, Monogram, and Estes that made space models to build. But the kids today seem to have little interest in those activities given sales figures.
Good gosh man, I do not ever want to hear that drink product and NASA used in the same discussion again. Every time it is there are nothing but smirks.
On the positive side, for many years when companies wanted to associate themselves with greatest they used a NASA space related image like the Space Shuttle.
The FedEx Superbowl commercial showing a FedEx lander making a delivery on the moon was priceless.
You are a space person. So you smirk. So do I . But we are space people. Not everyone is a space person. SO long as space people think like space people when it comes to reaching new audiences they will reach no new audiences.
But when marketing professionals tell space persons what they should be focusing on to get public interest, asteroid defense, SBSP, economic expansion into space, to build public support space persons aren’t interested. I know, I have Ph.D. In business and have been teaching marketing strategy for 30 years. I published studies at ASCE conferences showing what the general public would support as space goals and space persons aren’t interested in listening because it’s not what they see space is about.
Elon Musk grabs the public interest launching his Tesla to Mars and all he got from the most of the space community was grief for endangering space with Earth Germs and making the FH test flight a “joke”.
The public supported Apollo not because it was about space, but because it’s was a sporting event against the Soviets and NASA was our team that we were cheering for. And that is why advertisers linked marketing to it, just like they link local marketing to local sport teams. It was no different than the polar first competitions from earlier in the 20th Century, good old national competition to show which nation is best. That BTW was the genius behind President Kennedy and how he sold Apollo. It’s in his speeches if you see it, a classic battle between good and evil to “sail the new ocean”.
Once the game was over and space became an international activity average folks just stopped caring. And today the general public not the space people, sees little reason to cheer ISS, flags on Mars or the Moon because it’s not seen like a good old fashion sporting event. So why would advertisers try to link it to anything they want to sell to it?
So the space community has two choices. Either link space to the things the public is actually interested in to build more widespread support or recognize that if space as they see it, an international science activity, is going to stay a niche area only of interest to the segment of the population interested in such things. Put it simply, you could appeal to the popular music crowd or the classical music crowd. But you aren’t going to sell appreciation of classical music to the general public no matter how hard you promote it.
Elon also doesn’t seem to care much about endangering his car factory with earth germs either
He just looks at the virus as another problem to solve with the application of the method of science. But that is another long story and off topic story of how the world has changed since the 1960’s in terms of the level risk folks are willing to accept. The technical term in the communication literature is “risk amplification”.
Dr. M. The scientific and technological triumph of Apollo was all the more obvious by the comparatively primitive technology available to the citizenry of the day. The contrast between Apollo and commonly available technology couldn’t have been more vivid. wasn’t that a large part of the marketing appeal? Apollo personified a very desirable future.
“Long Distance” phone calls were still part of the landscape, for instance. While color television was used for some TV shows, black and white still ruled. Personal portable telephones were in the distant future. Car phones required a trunk full of equipment.
But Apollo? This was a gleaming and miniaturized personification of the future! To a large extent, it was Apollo that promised big changes, and soon. Thinkers like Alvin Toffler were igniting a social discussion about the role of technology in our future. Topics of the day included terms like ‘information overload’. And while the word ‘computer’ conjured rooms full of blinking lights, the term also reminded us that these machines would change us forever.
“Time” magazine wondered, in a 1965 story, just how we would fill the endless leisure hours created as computers increasingly did our work. We couldn’t ‘see’ the future, or computers, but we could see Apollo.
The promise of high-tech was just around the corner, a wide technological tidal wave that would ‘lift all boats’. And, Apollo benefited from association with the space race, with America increasingly in the lead, especially after the incredible Apollo 8 mission of Christmas 1968.
Wouldn’t this appeal to any company?
Now comes Artemis, and as you’ve pointed out, this is an entirely different critter existing in an entirely different social fabric.
It is very hard to see how Artemis benefits from any comparison with Apollo. Indeed, the space community will be more successful with a low profile and ‘steady as she goes’ approach to establishing a permanent Clarke Station; counting on a broader commercial tie-in isn’t productive.
Disagree Michael, and with Dr M. See my response below. Space activities, especially frontier exploration, involve elemental core-human themes that will resonate with an audiences of humans…if they are presented competently.
Doing so even in advertising can raise the space consciousness of many. ‘Space’ is a fun pursuit even if done vicariously…if the sharing is done well.
“Space activities, especially frontier exploration, involve elemental core-human themes that will resonate with an audiences of humans”
I may be in a cynical mood, but I wonder about that. Space activities certainly resonate with you, and many of them resonate with me (ISS and most of the Shuttle program being exceptions.) But how widely do they resonate with all the people in the country or the world?
I’m concerned that we (people who want to promote spaceflight) may be living in a sort of echo chamber. We know the concepts which resonate with _us_. I and my colleagues can and have given well-received talks on the subject to amateur astronomy clubs and at science fiction conventions. I know what resonates with that sort of audience. But I don’t think those same themes resonate with other people.
How would the same message play if you were talking to a taxi driver? I use taxi drivers as an example because I took taxis on a regular basis when I lived in San Antonio, and many drivers like to talk with their customers. Some were really interested when I said I worked on NASA contracts and what that involved. But as many asked questions like, “So, as a scientist, do you _believe_ in Jesus Christ?” So I’m not sure if prompting human spaceflight and promoting the themes that advocates (or the people they frequently talk to) are the same thing.
The Apollo 8 reading of Genesis from lunar orbit resonated with many whether they were space fans or not. Spaceflight was the conduit; the feeling/inspiration/uplift was core human.
Then why didn’t that support for space continue as we moved into the Internet age? Yes, for 60 years folks were interested in the bright new future of technology, but then the modern environmental movement arrived and demonized that future (Nuclear Power evil, SST evil, automobiles evil, etc.) of technology, something it is still doing today (GMO evil, Airlines evil, Geoengineering evil, automobiles still evil, etc.). But it was mostly independent of the Space Race other than seeing if America or the Soviets were ahead on advance aerospace technology. But when we beat them with by reaching the Moon first we finally realized just how far behind Russian technology was not only in space but in other areas.
The media got bored and the public got bored.
The media bought into the evils of technology crap and saw more engaging stories therein.
NASA, mostly, never learned how to tell an engaging story. They’re still struggling with this.
Public got bored because the dream of going themselves died when space transportation was not instantly commercialized and industrialized like every other form of mechanical transportation ever developed.
I don’t think so. I think the public interest dropped when spaceflight started to seem routine. Consider the drop in coverage between Apollo 11 and 12, and the jump in coverage with Apollo 13 (after, and very definitely not before, the accident.) The first Shuttle flight got attention. Did STS-63? I don’t think even die-hard spaceflight fans remember which one that was without looking it up.
On the other hand, NASA does get lots of negative attention when things go wrong. So that means making it an adventure isn’t a good approach. Adventures, almost by definition, involve risk, danger, and the chance that the ending won’t be a happy one. (See quotes by Shackleton, Amundsen, and for that matter Tolkien, on the subject of “adventures.”)
And that does raise an interesting marketing question. If things need to be safe and routine, how do you promote them and get people interested? There are plenty of successful industries, with good public images, who depend on being safe, reliable and unadventurous. Airlines don’t stay in business by promising people a thrilling, dramatic flight. My local power company doesn’t talk about how, if it weren’t for them, the lights could go off at any time. Maybe NASA should look into that, rather than trying to make every mission look like an adventure.
“Then why didn’t that support for space continue as we moved into the Internet age?”
I back in the days working in the space program and NASA was one of the coolest things to do. Nowadays it is Google, FB, etc. and these companies ***pay*** much more and without bureaucracy legacy so really smart young people can be much more mobile in the company.
This is probably where SpaceX has an edge above the old space, and able to do a design from scratch without baggage from Apollo and Shuttle. However, with this new space we really don’t know what their actual plans and progress is except what Musk and Bezos say in their press briefings.
I think, in line with Mr. Spencer’s comment, that NASA fell behind and stopped being the future. Just consider computers. I wasn’t around in 1968, so someone can correct me. But at that time, weren’t computers and _NASA’s_ very advanced computers, considered new, futuristic, and made people think of what computers might be like in a decade or two. Apple could have (and may well have) marketed their very first computer as something like what NASA used but now small and inexpensive enough that you could have it yourself. Today, I hear the exact opposite. When people hear about the computers NASA uses on flight missions, they just don’t understand why those computers so less capable than their own smartphone. No one is going to look at the computers used on SLS or Orion and say, “Wow I wish I had something like that.” And I don’t think any software company would want to market a product as being like the software on Starliner.
Yes, good observation. It reminds me when in the early 1990’s a professor asked if there was anyway he could get some data he had on punch cards from the 1970’s put into a format he could use on his PC. After asking around the IT folks I finally tracked down what was probably the last punch card reader still in use in New Mexico, at the NASA WSTF. Yes, the software problems on Starliner, along with those associated with the SLS don’t give NASA much of a futuristic image anymore.
As I pointed out (poorly, it seems), Apollo was a very effective stand-in for a visible future we could all see but did not have.
Not wanting to push the comparison too far, but here’s my interpretation of popular sensbilities:
Dude.Artemis is a bigger Apollo. Ho hum. Ho hum.
And still shi**ing in space is a hassle.
Oh. And, like Apollo went to the moon with less than an iPhone is not helpful. Ho Hum.
Because, dude! I have an iPhone in my b>pocket! So, NASA! whatcha got!? A bigger capsule?
Ho hum.
Answer #2, inspired by Dr. M and the consequences of the internet age. some foreseen, some not:
The number of amateur radio licenses in the US reached record highs, currently more than 730,000 licensees. Many, including me, wondered if the internet would kill the hobby. Hasn’t happened.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…
John Williams does a pretty good job of it!
“Once the game was over and space became an international activity average folks just stopped caring.
We all grow up playing the same sports that professionals play so we can relate to the “game”. I believe once more people are actually playing the game it will be different.
If Lady GaGa sings a song in a suborbital flight and tweets it to her 75 million followers and the video goes viral and gets a billion views things will change.
Yes, but I don’t see NASA offering her any rides to the ISS. And imagine the outcry among the space followers if NASA did offer her a ride.
I agree but Darn! Jake Garn got a ride.
I’ve tried to make a similar point to people in the magnetospheric science community and I got nowhere. They’ve been harping on how a major space weather event (like the Carrington event of 1859) could cause blackouts all across the world. I’ve suggested that that argument is a bit dated and perhaps overdramatic. Today, it would be a better approach to say that such an event, or even a milder and more likely one, could shut down wireless and cell coverage. People might not be able to text or check Facebook for hours! But that idea never got any traction with the scientists I talked to.
Perhaps the parallel to the effect of Covid, and the inability to manage it, would bolster your argument.
We aren’t a people who plan ahead very well. Poor infrastructure maintenance stands out, though dwarfed by the failure to provide new infrastructure; high speed surface transportation between close cities is helping the Chinese economy grow, in the way that our interstate highways contributed in America.
It is true, and worth saying, that the efforts of FEMA when left without political meddling are often extraordinary.
The smirks come from non-space people. Please re-read the parts about companies wanting to associate themselves with greatness and look at the Super Bowl XLI FedEx Moon Commercial 2/4/07 https://youtu.be/eZcl2TJwOT8
NASA could have adverts at the entry of every jetliner or any other product (except that drink) informing the level of NASA effort that supports the product.
Broadcast satellite operators could have on-screen graphics that inform viewers that in-space assets are being used to bring the content to the viewer.
ISS could do a better job at advertising the product research being done. (cringing allowed).
Imagine if a med or vax for CV-19 was found based on ISS activity …
Realistically, what space products are there that are usable on Earth?
All I remember from way back are Tang and space food sticks, both of which were terrible. Later, there were slipper socks.
Today? More storable food? Odor-suppressing long-duration clothing? Reactionless tools?
You are missing the point, Sir. It’s not about marketing space products, it is about associating ANYTHING with spaceflight because it can (it ought to, if done well) resonate with the public.
The VW ad wasn’t marketing the LM, it was exploiting the LM’s coolness, profoundness (of the endeavor), and it’s utility.
It is about raising the space consciousness of the public in positive ways.
Exactly.
Tang and space food sticks were products used in space. VW’s, so far, are not.
Didn’t Audi do some sort of space rover toy/prototype a few years ago. totally unrealistic, but looked good for the cameras?
“Didn’t Audi do some sort of space rover toy/prototype a few years ago. totally unrealistic, but looked good for the cameras?”
That sounds like the same purpose as the “NASA 2020 Mars Rover” Parker Brothers Concepts built for Delaware North Corp, to advertise the KSC Visitor’s Center.
https://www.parkerbrothersc…
But VWs ad presupposed that people knew what a LM was. In 1969 or 1970 they might have.
I was a kid in 1969, but we were traveling in Europe and the Middle East, and listened to the landing in a campground in Italy, and I assure you that *everyone* knew what a LEM was in 1969.
Just wait if Tom Cruise takes a ride to space to shoot parts of a film I would think that would get exploited by adverstisers.
Yep, put up some billboards, like in sporting events and in public transportation, for products not related to space. But that (probably) won’t happen in a NASA module.
Of course, but all of those advertisements will be aimed at those who are fans of Tom Cruise, not those who follow space.
Oh come on, it doesn’t matter what the product is as long as you can tie it to the event.
You saw how hostile some of the posters to NASA Watch were to his doing a movie on ISS. Do you really think the hard core NASA followers would approve of a mere actor defiling a temple to science like the ISS by using it for a movie?
I think it would depend on the plot and how technically accurate the movie was. But the other important issue is what audience you are playing to. The hard core NASA followers might hate it, but they are a pretty solid constituency. As much as we complain here, and in other forums (and with justification), I don’t see that group calling their congressmen and telling them to cut NASA’s budget. But that solid constituency isn’t very big. If the movie attracts a little bit of positive interest (or even name recognition) from a much, much larger group, it might not matter what the hard core space enthusiasts think of the film.
I know some people think there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I disagree. Mr. Lovell’s book, “Lost Moon” and the resulting “Apollo 13” movie didn’t come out until 1994. He thought of writing a book on the subject in the early 1970s, but no one was really interested. In the introduction to the book, I believe he said it was mainly because very few people wanted to associate “Apollo” with “accident” in the public mind.
If Mr. Cruise does film a movie in space, it’s going to be a feature film and (knowing his past work) about something dramatic. Would it really help NASA or a NASA project to get a reputation for things involving an accident, or danger, or anything similar? Probably not, but I can see how that would also associate them with adventure, which might not be bad. But that’s not a sure thing.
Poppy-cock. The Martian was dramatic and lots of people enjoyed the film and felt good coming out of the theater.
The ‘villain’ was the head of NASA but his villainy was rooted in standard bureaucratic evils common across many organizations. Just about every other association with NASA (all the workers) was positive.
“Would it really help NASA or a NASA project to get a reputation for things involving an accident, or danger, or anything similar?”
Many within NASA have sung the praises of the film Gravity, for one of Hollywood’s better depiction of spaceflight despite the unrealistic representations of Kessler syndrome, ease of changing orbits, etc. So much so that NASA pushed stories through their PR channels about the film being shown to the crew on board the ISS.
There’re no Artemis inspired ads because most people don’t know about Artemis, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Apollo was famous because it’s a national effort with 5% of the federal budget invested in it, this makes it an easy target for funding cuts and a target for the “why not spend money on Earth” crowd. We now know Apollo model is not sustainable, so Artemis flying under the radar and doesn’t follow Apollo model is an improvement.
On the practical side, nowadays a lot of NASA hardware is owned by commercial partners, so 3rd party cannot use their images freely, makes it harder to do ads based on them. SpaceX used to have very liberal license for their images, but they changed it to restrict commercial use because people are using Falcon images in all sorts of places and that’s not necessarily what they wanted to happen.
“people don’t know about Artemis”? Numbers please. How do you know that they do not know? Serious question.
Actually, that’s something NASA media relations should probably be doing, and I don’t think it would cost all that much. Do a survey of a few thousand random people and ask what is the first thing they think of when they hear “Artemis”. Is it “Huh?”, “Greek mythology”, “Is that someone’s name?” or “NASA”. I don’t know, but I suspect NASA wouldn’t be on the top of the list. The same sort of survey in 1966 would probably have put “Apollo” higher up the list. (And, along those lines, many people involved in the Juno mission were not happy in 2007, when a film of the same name was released.) How much would a survey like that actually cost?
You can get some ideas using internet analytics, for example using Google Trends you can compare the # of people searched “NASA Artemis” with # of people searched “International Space Station”, a lot more searches are performed for ISS than for Artemis.
OK that is one metric. But can you really make a determination in the public knowledge of Artemis on that alone?
“We now know Apollo model is not sustainable, so Artemis flying under the radar and doesn’t follow Apollo model is an improvement.”
But it IS following the Apollo model with an unsustainable heavy lift rocket that is way over budget and has blown the schedule by 4 years and counting for the first test flight. SLS and Orion will be chopped just like the Saturn V and the Apollo program.
Has anyone done a poll on Artemis? I get out to do public talks and instruction a fair amount. I’ve done several virtual talks in the last month. I have not found anyone outside of space circles who is aware of a NASA Moon program. For the talks I went looking on YouTube for a film clip I could use to talk about the mission and there was almost nothing available. Some people are aware that Space X is going to the Moon or Mars (they really do not know for sure where) and they wonder if NASA has a role. Around the time of the Moon landing anniversary there were a few people who had heard something about NASA trying to do a repeat. At the International Astronautical Congress there were a few people who were aware (that is mostly space circles) but even there not too many knew about Gateway or why it was needed, which meant they really were not aware of how the mission was supposed to work or what its purpose was.
Well, it looks like Tesla and NASA are making the most for DM-1’s product placement and logo opportunities!