[ad_1]
The bacteria survive in NASA's clean rooms by eating cleaning products.
A The NASA The spokesman told me Tuesday that Bridenstine has not yet appointed members to this committee that has not yet been set up. A The NASA The Economic Advisor has reported a study last year, conducted by the Science and Technology Policy Institute, a research center funded by the federal government. The study found that companies such as Citigroup, Barclays, Metlife, and AT & T pay about $ 20 million a year to retain naming rights for sports stadiums across the country. Perhaps a company will want to do the same for the International Space Station.
There has certainly been a market for this idea for decades. In 1966, Tang, the orange flavored powder drink, aired commercials showing astronauts pouring the mixture into a "zero pocket G" during a Gemini flight. More recently, Red Bull sponsored a skydiver jump from the stratosphere in 2012, and KFC paid a company to send a chicken sandwich to outer space last year.
The space is selling clearly. But The NASA should not be on the market.
As a government agency, The NASA has spent nearly 60 years of existence by avoiding subscribing to brands. Unlike their Russian counterparts – who filmed commercials for Pizza Hut, RadioShack and an Israeli brand of milk while in space – American astronauts are doing their utmost to avoid the appearance of promotion or commercial activity. In 1985, The NASA agreed to bring modified cans of Coca-Cola and Pepsi aboard a Space Shuttle flight, but officials pointed out that the goal was not to make a taste test, but to study the effects of microgravity on containers. "The NASA says that other soft drink companies are being asked to design containers for testing of New York Times article of the time said.
The NASA does not charge fees or require licenses from companies and other entities wishing to use their logo. He even goes so far as to describe M & Ms, which astronauts can have on the International Space Station, as "candy-coated chocolates," as Christian Davenport points out. The Washington Post. The space agency does not want to seem to favor one thing over another. The space, says his mission, is for everyone.
Bridenstine's proposal would create a dangerous precedent for The NASAThe future. By suggesting that commercial partnerships could help finance The NASAThis implies that the agency does not deserve to be financed by the usual means – annual budgets carefully negotiated and regulated by lawmakers. And their constituents believe that the space program is important; According to a study by the Pew Research Center in June, 72% of Americans say it is essential that the United States continue to be a world leader in space exploration. If Nike is willing to spend millions of dollars sponsoring the next Mars mission, why should legislators bother to spend taxpayers' money? The leading global space agency should not have to resort to brand sponsorship in the absence of political will. And even if the brands could float the first years of a mission, they might not have the taste of years, or even decades. The NASAMost ambitious missions to carry out.
Source link
