POLL: Sponsorships on the space program?

[Demon-Xanth]

Would you be okay if NASA took sponsorship money, and placed logos on the shuttle and the like, to reduce the taxpayer's burden of the space program's costs?

Edit:
Now with 100% more POLL in the thread title.

 

It would be a nifty idea but personally I would not like to see any banners on our space equipment.

 

[Yossarian]

Absolutely. Space missions are cool and all but I'm not that happy with the idea of a trillion dollar boondoggle paid for with my tax dollars. It does remind me of the "Planet Starbucks" line from Fight Club though....

 

[Warthog912]

Originally posted by: Roger
It would be a nifty idea but personally I would not like to see any banners on our space equipment.

agreed, if I'm paying any of it, I'd rather pay all of it and be done with it. In this case, a nike check would be kewl though.

 

[DT4K]

What we really need is for a private company to run NASA. I'm sure it would be much more cost-effective. Only problem is there is no profit to be made. (in the economic sense)

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

I wouldn't like it, but I would consider it a necessary evil given the estimated costs. Hopefully, they'll devise a cheaper solution instead.

 

[Gyrene]

Anything to get the space program some more money.

 

[matt426malm]

Newt Gingrich (believe it or not) was associated with a plan to offer cash prizes to the first companies that make accomplishments in space. 20 billion for manned mars mission, couple billion for sample return, plus there were prizes for orbiters and all kinds of other stuff. Not a bad idea in my opinon. Offering the money couldn't hurt.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Newt Gingrich (believe it or not) was associated with a plan to offer cash prizes to the first companies that make accomplishments in space. 20 billion for manned mars mission, couple billion for sample return, plus there were prizes for orbiters and all kinds of other stuff. Not a bad idea in my opinon. Offering the money couldn't hurt.

You're still limited by the amount of prize money you're willing to give the winner.

If Company A spends 500 billion for a manned mission to Mars, the prize money has to at least cover the expense of the trip. Otherwise, what's the point? Besides, who else besides NASA has the money or technology to even attempt a trip like this? Lockheed-Martin, or maybe Boeing?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Space exploration is so universalt for humanity that it should be the responsibility of the people, not private sponsors, and not private corporations.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Newt Gingrich (believe it or not) was associated with a plan to offer cash prizes to the first companies that make accomplishments in space. 20 billion for manned mars mission, couple billion for sample return, plus there were prizes for orbiters and all kinds of other stuff. Not a bad idea in my opinon. Offering the money couldn't hurt.

You're still limited by the amount of prize money you're willing to give the winner.

If Company A spends 500 billion for a manned mission to Mars, the prize money has to at least cover the expense of the trip. Otherwise, what's the point? Besides, who else besides NASA has the money or technology to even attempt a trip like this? Lockheed-Martin, or maybe Boeing?

I personaly think 35 billion would have been a more reasonable offer to cover expenses. 500 billion is WAY more than a Mars mission would require. That proposal included building space ships in orbit which is not the way to get to Mars for a reasonable cost.

No company may be willing to risk the manned mission costs. The smaller missions could bring big publicity say 300 million prize for an orbiter and it would be concievable that a company would go through with that.

The government can't be the only ones involved in space forever. It's a good way to sort of pass the torch.

Plus it doesn't cost anything to have the offer on the table.

 

[Compton]

Originally posted by: Shanti
What we really need is for a private company to run NASA. I'm sure it would be much more cost-effective. Only problem is there is no profit to be made. (in the economic sense)

It would be a risky investment, but mining operations on planets could be profitable..

I think it would be funny to see VIAGRA on the side of a large rocket.

 

[KarenMarie]

anything that lessens the burden on the taxpayer gets my vote!

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Compton

Originally posted by: Shanti
What we really need is for a private company to run NASA. I'm sure it would be much more cost-effective. Only problem is there is no profit to be made. (in the economic sense)

It would be a risky investment, but mining operations on planets could be profitable..

I think it would be funny to see VIAGRA on the side of a large rocket.

Mining lunar soil for heavy hydrogen isotopes for use in fusion reactors - need widespread fusion first.

Asteriods - Great source of platinums, perhaps Mars could be of benefit if asteroids were mined.

Tourism is another possibility. Also probably a buck to be made supplying goods and services to those on a mars colony. You could do it at a much bigger profit then if stuff was imported. Those making the goods then need goods and services, possibly could become self-sufficient. All the minerals on earth are on mars plus a good deal of water. Power from imported nuclear plants to begin with, Mars is reasonaby acitve geologically. You could use geo-thermal power. Solar wouldn't work well, neihter would wind (100mph plus winds but at < 1% earth's atmospheric pres.)

 

[Justin218]

sponsorships from companies would not even pay for the toilet on the shuttle most likely, so what's the point?