Ya know, if this Bass kid wants to go to the space station, more power to him, but he needs to do like Mr. Tito did, pay out of his own deep pockets! If MTV and his record label want to pony up a few bucks to help him out, that’s fine, but when companies like Radio Shack and, I believe, Procter & Gamble, are talking about sponsoring this spoiled rich kid, it upsets me. If they have nothing better to do with their profits, then I’m going to stop helping them aquire said profits. What do you other Dopers think? Boycott, Boycott, Boycott!!!
Why are you upset? How is this different than any other corporate sponsorship?
Because it is so silly and such a waste of money and resources. He would serve no purpose on the space station except to create publicity for himself and perhaps his record label. Like I said, if MTV and his record label want to sponsor him, fine, but Radio Shack and Procter & Gamble?! They could send someone who really deserves it or who would make a difference and contribute something to the space program, not someone who just wants to sell CDs.
So should only nike and other sporting goods advertise on baseball games? Advertising is about getting your name in places people will see it. There has never been a rule you need to advertise with something you product might in some way have a link with.
Welcome to capitalism 101.
I need to follow this up with one more thought.
I am against selling these seats. This is a goverment funded program and as such this is not a ride at an amusement park. It shouldn’t go to the highest bidder and in that vein I think you are right it is a waste of resources (not money, as the gov’t isn’t spending the money).
But the OP seems to be against Radio Shack and P&G sponsering him, not whether he should be allowed to go in the first place.
I was under the impression that Bass was paying for it himself. If he’s not, if it’s corporate sponsorship…well, that’s a little more annoying. But I think the space program is very important, and also seriously under-funded. Anything which generates funds and/or public interest in it is a good thing, in my opinion.
-
He’s being sponsored because they’re making a television show out of it, which, at the very least, will generate interest in children in the space program.
-
Aren’t there about 86,000,000 better things in the world to worry about? Jesus mary and the lord. If you had the opportunity to go into space, wouldn’t you? And if not, then why the hell do you care?
I’m all for more exposure and greater funding of the space program. And I think kids needs to be made MUCH more excited about science and education in general.
But I’m still against paying for it with private funds, which is what it will amount to if corporate sponsorship starts to take over. Do you really want the space program governed like the rest of politics? People complain about how elected officials are bought, and how elections are decided by big business spending. What will happen if the space program goes down that road? Then what happens to the space program when that company reveals accounting inconsistencies?
Yes, Senator DS from somewhere will certainly have some influence on which avenues the space program pursues, and he (or she) has been bought, but the link is far less criminal than if there is a giant SWOOSH on the space shuttle.
Keep direct purchasing of the space program away.
Just my .02. (Another billion (thousand million for the UK) of my .02 and I can have a seat, too!)
To add to what jarbaby said (and to repeat what has ALREADY been discussed in another thread)…
If you want to rev up interest in science in general or space travel in particular, sending a teeny-bopper’s icon up there is a damned good way to do it. Girls, especially, start to express a decline in science interest in the pre-teen years. Maybe this will catch their attention.
If you want to talk about a “waste of resources” we could go on all day about what companies (or rich people, for that matter) elect to spend money on.
If the 15 stockholders who own 40% of Radio Shack don’t mind the sponsorship, then what’s it matter? They and the rest of their stockholders are the only people they actually have to please. It’s most likely part of their existing advertising budget anyway.
If you want to generate interest by sending up a teeny-bopper icon, fine.
Just don’t put it up for sale.
What I want is lots more people in space. I want asteroid mining, and colonies on the moon and Mars and other places. I want orbital habitats, and spaceborne heavy industry. The government doesn’t want to pay for it (because people in general don’t want their taxes spent that way). So if the only way it’s going to happen is to let private enterprise pay for it, I say go for it.
If Radio Shack wants to hire The Professor and Gilligan to make a space based habitat, go for it! I just don’t want Radio Shack owning a gov’t run program. If Radio Shack buys the entire gov’t program, fine, the gov’t is then out of the space program. Not my ideal situation, but at least then it isn’t my tax dollars being spent to benefit Radio Shack.
We need an oasis for unbiased scientific research. I’m not naive enough to think that is completely the case now, but at least it isn’t nearly as egregious if there were corporate sponsors.
I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. It’s not your tax dollars being spent to benefit Radio Shack. It’s Radio Shack’s dollars being spent to subsidize a government program that your tax dollars are insufficient to fund, and reaping a little benefit for themselves as payback.
Now I don’t want to see a big Coca Cola logo carved into the moon, but if putting some corporate decals on the shuttle, or doing Survivor in Orbit helps us on the way to a real presence in space, I’m all for it.
As far as “unbiased scientific research”, that doesn’t exist anymore, if it ever did. All scientists have to think about who’s paying the bills, whether it be a corporation or a grant committee. Profit and politics always enter into it.
Presently, if a few extra dollars are thrown into the program so companies can say, “official <whatever> of NASA”, no big deal. I’m far more worried of large dollar amounts being tossed in and the programs being controlled by those companies.
Again, I refer you to US election process. If you honestly believe that all those big corp dollars are helping the process, I clearly see where we differ.
Is it that much different than the USPS sponsoring Lance Armstrong in that big bike race in France? Carry on, Lance (Bass).
You do realize that we are discussing the Russian space program, don’t you?
Ferrous, that’s the rub; Radio Shack’s money IS NOT subsidizing the space program, it’s just helping the kid take a joyride in a Russian space vehicle and then taking up space on the international space station. If they want to spark interest in young people, think of how many kids could go to college on that 20 million dollars required to jet Bass up there. That would not only benefit those kids in the short run, but over a lifetime they and their progeny would be enriched, the world would have that many more educated professionals working on the real problems in our world. Instead, boy wonder spends a week in space, and we get to see commercials and print ads touting his adventure for the next 9 months. If he goes or if he stays, the space program will continue.
I doubt we differ much on campaign finance, or the disproportionate power of PACs, etc… Corporations, IMO, definitely have too much power in the current system.
But I don’t see what that has to do with NASA allowing a company or an individual a ride to space in exchange for a big chunk of change that they can use to fund other programs. Of course the paying individual will expect to get something out of it. Either personal pleasure, or advertising, or whatever. I don’t see that as a big problem, as long as they don’t get to dictate NASA policy.
Clearly there needs to be controls. But that doesn’t mean we should completely ban any commercial contributions. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Fireman, the point we’re trying to make is: Lance Bass is a huge star…loved by millions. Those millions will watch the reality show of him going through the training to go up into space. If we’re to look on the bright side of this, millions of kids will see him working with the space program. The space program will get publicity and thus remain active. Did you see Apollo 13, when they were going to put the crew on T.V. so people would get excited about space exploration? Same idea.