Congress

Calvert’s intriguing idea

In a speech yesterday at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA), ranking member of the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee said he planned to introduce soon a very interesting piece of legislation. “When I return to Congress after the recess, I will introduce legislation to authorize space advertising for NASA with the goal to bring extra funding for the agency’s prize authority under the current Centennial Challenges program and to raise awareness among private entrepreneurs about the business opportunities in space,” he said. He said he wanted to follow the advertising/sponsorship models used by organizations like the PGA, NPR, and the Smithsonian, all of which were “long-term, dedicated, and tasteful.” The bill would create a commission that would create guidelines for such advertising, with the proceeds going into a trust fund to be used for Centennial Challenges competitions. “As a former businessman, I can easily see how this fund can generate $100 million after it’s up and operating.”

The legislation itself will be introduced some time in the next month or so, Calvert said after his speech. He doesn’t have an co-sponsors for the bill yet, but is looking for some, and plans to talk with Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), the current chairman of the subcommittee, about the bill soon. It’s a very intriguing idea: it provides some needed funding for an innovative, but not well-funded program, and could also raise the profile of NASA in general among the general public. However, how squeamish will people feel about having private companies “sponsoring”, and their logos clearly visible on, taxpayer-funded missions? How interested will companies be in such sponsorships, knowing that their logo could end up on a rocket that explodes or a satellite that fails? And how will private ventures that may be looking for sponsorships as one source of revenue feel about having to compete with NASA?

25 comments to Calvert’s intriguing idea

  • anonymous

    It’s a redundant idea. Northrup Grumman already provides corporate sponsorship, probably to the tune of a couple million dollars, for NASA’s Lunar Lander Challenge through NASA’s X PRIZE partner. The Spaceward Foundation has attracted scores of small corporate sponsorships for NASA’s annual Space Elevator Games. It’s very unclear what new corporate sponsorship capability this legislation would provide that NASA and its non-profit partners don’t already have. Has Calvert’s staff done even a little homework on this one?

    Instead of dreaming up ill-informed and duplicative prize legislation that will probably never see the House floor, Calvert’s staffers need to be working with their appropriations colleagues to ensure that NASA prizes obtain some funding in the FY 2008 appropriations bill. IIRC, the program has had no new federal funding since FY 2005.

    It’s shameful that the authorizers havn’t secured NASA prize funding since creating the program in NASA’s last authorization bill. If Calvert wants bigger or better corporate sponsorships, the best way to do that is to provide NASA with some actual prize dollars, not more authorizations.

  • Let’s see, we can’t fill the skies up with X-planes, but we sure can do a good job of filling up space with junk upper stages and assorted space debris. Now the astute congressman wants to fund the shortfall of an ill conceived idea with advertising revenue? Oh, I get it, we’ll google ourselves into space.

    You know, I think I’m going to have to stick with the space shuttle main engine on this one, Mr. … what’s your name … again?

  • anonymous

    “Mr. … what’s your name … again”

    Is that a troll directed at me?

  • No, it was directed at the esteemed congressman … I’m so sorry, I forget his name already. You don’t have a name, so you’re already good to go for obscurity.

    What we are confronted with is a massive breakdown in American technological expertise, clearly represented by NASA choosing a SRB – Solid Rocket Booster, as sole first stage propulsion of a manned space vehicle. Just looking at it, just look at it – the ARES I, If you can’t recognize a severe institutional competence problem JUST BY THE LOOK OF IT, then you are part of the problem. We won’t be waiting around for any more of your solutions.

  • Friends,

    As a former Congressional staffer who wrote into speeches that the United Space Alliance should be able to sell adds on the Shuttle to free up resources for non-Shuttle technology projects… I understand why Rep. Calvert is trying to break out of the budgetary box on behalf of Centennial Challenges.

    Frankly, I think we should engage with Mr. Calvert in a positive way so that:

    a) his legislation does nothing to preempt the sponsorship market for the entities who run the Prizes, and therefore not mess with a winning paradigm
    b) his legislation not compete with the sponsorship markets for commercial partners of NASA (eg. COTS offerors) or simply companies investing private capital to create new wealth in space (e.g. Bigelow), and
    c) finally, make sure that the prizes funded by these advertising revenues actually be focused on enabling commercial markets, as opposed to meeting NASA mission goals. Calvert’s comments show that he wants to use prizes to stimulate entrepreneurial participation in space. As the Ansari X-Prize showed, prizes only stimulate private investment if there is a market BEYOND the winning of the prize.

    At the Space Access Conference last month I laid out — in somewhat cynical terms — why it is that Congress doesn’t like to appropriate funds for Centennial Challenges. I won’t repeat myself here — I guess I should write an essay for TSR — but in summary NONE of the normal political motivations (good and bad) that earn programs appropriations apply to prizes.

    Prizes aren’t a perfect or a universally effective tool, but they are one good tool for stimulating broader participation and innnovation in space exploration and development.

    We should work with Calvert, and advocate other ideas like ProS[ace’s DOD-based prize legislation, and do other things to find ways to fund federal space prizes. But none of that absolves us from the need to make the political case for Congress appropriating funds for Centennial Challenges.

    – Jim

  • anonymous

    “his legislation does nothing to preempt the sponsorship market for the entities who run the Prizes, and therefore not mess with a winning paradigm”

    Maybe I need to think harder, but I don’t see any way around this. Either Calvert’s proposed authority enables NASA to attract private sponsorship dollars to fund prize purses or not. And if the proposed legislation does do that, gets passed, and NASA exercises the authority, then NASA will be competing for a limited pool of private sponsorship dollars with some of the very non-profits that help manage its prize competitions — a very conflicted and bad situation. It’s an either/or proposition that cannot be modified, mollified, or mitigated — otherwise there’s no point to the legislation.

    Again, Calvert’s staffers should drop this idiotic idea, take some time to understand how NASA’s prize program actually works before getting their boss revved up, and then take measured action on additional authorities only if they don’t threaten to ruin the very program they helped authorize a few short years ago.

    And most importantly, they need to make sure that the program they authorized gets at least a modicum of federal funding.

    “NONE of the normal political motivations (good and bad) that earn programs appropriations apply to prizes”

    While that’s true at some level, the actual and proposed budgets for NASA’s prizes have been so small — in both absolute dollars and relative to the total NASA budget — that a little pressure from NASA’s senior management and/or the authorizers should be more than enough to get the program funded. Unfortunately, as in many other areas, Griffin has not followed through on his early promises regarding prizes, and Calvert and his like are apparently more interested in generating prize legislation ideas than funding.

    “But none of that absolves us from the need to make the political case for Congress appropriating funds for Centennial Challenges.”

    Some of us actually did answer a call to action that was made on this forum last fall, but if we did have any impact, the 2007 continuing resolution negated it. For NASA’s prize program — one of the few exploration programs (maybe the only one) to make any significant achievements (for which Griffin rewarded it with a transfer to the tech transfer boonies) — I’d be more willing to put pen to paper again. But I’m not going to waste my time if Calvert or another authorizer plan to muck up the program or if Griffin is just going to redirect more prize funding to Ares 1/Orion.

    No disrespect intended to Mr. Muncy and his superior congressional experience. My 2 cents… FWIW.

  • Edward Wright

    > Northrup Grumman already provides corporate sponsorship, probably to the tune of a couple million dollars, for NASA’s
    > Lunar Lander Challenge through NASA’s X PRIZE partner.

    “A couple million dollars” does not equal “100 million.”

    > It’s very unclear what new corporate sponsorship capability this legislation would provide that NASA and its non-profit
    > partners don’t already have. Has Calvert’s staff done even a little homework on this one?

    That’s presumably why he’s calling for a commission to study the idea (according to other reports).

    > Instead of dreaming up ill-informed and duplicative prize legislation that will probably never see the House floor, Calvert’s
    > staffers need to be working with their appropriations colleagues to ensure that NASA prizes obtain some funding in the FY
    > 2008 appropriations bill. IIRC, the program has had no new federal funding since FY 2005.

    And since that time, NASA has cut the amount of money it’s requesting for Centennial Challenges from $35 million to $4 million.

    It isn’t obvious that NASA is the right agency to run a space prize program. Mike Griffin doesn’t seem to think so.

    > It’s shameful that the authorizers havn’t secured NASA prize funding since creating the program in NASA’s last authorization
    > bill. If Calvert wants bigger or better corporate sponsorships, the best way to do that is to provide NASA with some actual
    > prize dollars, not more authorizations.

    Only the appropriations committee can do that. Calvert is on the authorization committee.

  • Edward Wright

    > As the Ansari X-Prize showed, prizes only stimulate private investment if there is a market BEYOND the winning of the prize.

    Jim, you cannot prove a generalization from a single data point.

    Prizes were a standard means of financing warships for centuries. Ships for which there was no market beyond capturing enemy ships for prize money.

    Is there a market for stock cars beyond competing in stock car races? Please look at NASCAR or the NFL, then tell us prizes don’t stimulate any private investment.

    > NONE of the normal political motivations (good and bad) that earn programs appropriations apply to prizes.

    One of the prizes NASA cut was for the development of low-cost spacesuits. If there’s an accident a few years from now and someone dies because there were no affordable spacesuits available, how will that reflect on NASA and their political handlers? How many politicians would want to be tagged as not caring about the safety of American space travellers?

    Similarly with prizes for the development of systems with military applications. If other nations develop such systems before the United States does, how will that affect the political careers of the politicians who allowed it to happen?

  • Ray

    It might be worthwhile to check the full text of the proposal (I have a link to it on the Space Prizes blog, or you can check Rep. Calvert’s site – this proposal is on the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 of the speech if you follow the link). The last sentence of Jeff’s post about competing with companies that also might want ad business (and given the proposal’s text I’m thinking more about companies like Bigelow or JP Aerospace that are flying missions rather than Centennial Challenge sponsors) is what I see as the most tricky problem with the proposal. I still think it’s an interesting idea that should be debated more, and it’s good to have Representative Calvert talking about the need to increase Centennial Challenges funding.

  • Edward Wright

    > It’s a redundant idea. Northrup Grumman already provides corporate sponsorship, probably to the tune of a
    > couple million dollars, for NASA’s Lunar Lander Challenge through NASA’s X PRIZE partner.

    “A couple million” does not equal “$100 million.”

    > It’s very unclear what new corporate sponsorship capability this legislation would provide that NASA and its non-profit
    > partners don’t already have. Has Calvert’s staff done even a little homework on this one?

    Presumeably that’s why Calvert is calling for a study commission — to answer such questions.

    > It’s shameful that the authorizers havn’t secured NASA prize funding since creating the program in NASA’s last
    > authorization bill.

    That’s because they’re authorizers, not appropriators.

  • Edward Wright

    > As the Ansari X-Prize showed, prizes only stimulate private investment if there is a market BEYOND the winning of the prize.

    Jim, you cannot prove a generalization from a single data point. The X-Prize is only one example of how a prize competition can be structured.

    Prizes were a standard means of funding warships for centuries. Ships that had no market beyond capturing enemy ships for prize money.

    In the Old West, the government offered prizes (bounties) for killing predators, and sometimes outlaws. There was little market for dead predators beyond collecting bouties and certainly no market for dead outlaws.

    There’s no market for stock cars except competing in stock car races, yet NASCAR stimulates lots of private investment.

    Even COTS uses prizes (awards) for meeting program milestones. The main difference between COTS and other prize competitions is that only two companies are allowed to compete. NASA has not committed to buying a single operational flight on a COTS vehicle, so they are doing nothing to create a market beyond the winning of those awards. Does that mean COTS is unable to stimulate private investment?

  • anonymous

    “It might be worthwhile to check the full text of the proposal”

    I did read the proposal before I posted and have now read it a second time (good blog BTW), but I still remain very non-plussed. At this very early stage of market development, the pool of private sector dollars for any space advertising and sponsorship is going to be extremely limited. And unlike, say, a more mature market like NASCAR racing, space activities simply don’t garner the same repeated exposure and massive number of eyeballs. There’s nothing in the proposal — and I don’t think anything could be put in the proposal — that would prevent NASA from competing for those very limited sponsorship dollars with the very non-profits that manage its prize competitions and with the very teams that compete in those prize competitions (e.g., Armadillo Aerospace has a commercial sponsor for the Lunar Lunar Challenge). And NASA would probably win those sponsorship dollars over the private sector every time. If business has a choice between slapping a logo on Pixel/Texel or the Space Station, they’ll pick the Space Station every time. The managers of NASA’s prize program demonstrated quite a bit of creativity bringing together a highly efficient (especially when compared to other government prizes like the DARPA Grand Challenge) and competitive universe of privately funded non-profits, privately funded teams, and corporate sponsors on very small, shoestring budget. Instead of fueling and enlarging that proven but still fragile engine of innovation, this proposal would choke off the very private sector sponsorship necessary to sustain it.

    The only mitigating factor I see in any of this are the examples of advertising on NASA vehicles (e.g., ISS) mentioned in Calvert’s talk. If Calvert really thinks NASA’s human space flight program managers are suddenly going to turn over new leaf and bend over backwards to be accommodating to commercial activities (sponsorships or otherwise) to funnel money to some prize pot outside of their control, he and his staff are so out-of-touch with how NASA (or any bureaucracy) works that they need to go back and take Government 101 now. Numerous legislators have failed for a couple decades now to try to get NASA’s human space flight programs to be more accommodating to commercial activities. It’s goofy to think that Gerst, Parsons, or some other NASA human space flight manager — with all they have on their plates and their institutional biases — are going to work hard to get sponsorships so that prizes that they don’t manage and that don’t directly benefit their programs get funded.

    Again, Calvert and crew need to stop with the out-of-touch, think-tank approach to governance, roll up their sleeves, understand the real challenges facing NASA’s programs, and do some of the hard politicking necessary to support those programs (i.e., work with the appropriators to get some minimal federal funding to NASA’s prize program).

    And at the risk of going off-topic, I have to say that this is yet another example of Congress not doing its governance job with respect to NASA. Instead of dealing with any of NASA’s real problems — ranging from a Ares 1/Orion system that’s not closing technically, to a budgetarily and politically unsustainable strategy for human space exploration, to a Shuttle workforce that’s not ramping down as it should, to major across-the-board cutbacks in science and aeronautics, to even something as easily achievable as directing a few bucks to a working prize program — Republicans like Calvert are wasting their time on conservative think-tank pet projects and Democrats like Nelson are wasting their time persecuting potty-mouthed IGs. Enough with the crap — start governing already.

    Sheesh…

  • According to both AvWeek and Space News, Biglow plans to use external projectors to display messages including advertising on the exteriors of their inflatable modules.

    That said, I have yet to understand what Biglow sees has their market. Likewise, SpaceHab with their plans to commercialize space manufacturing. I wish them best of luck, but I’m afraid they’re going to need it.

    — Donald

  • Bryan Vetter

    “could also raise the profile of NASA in general among the general public.”

    I think the most important feature about this proposal is to raise the public understanding and enthusiasm of NASA. The more the general public agrees with NASA, the more likely congress approves more money for NASA.

  • anonymous

    “According to both AvWeek and Space News, Biglow plans to use external projectors to display messages including advertising on the exteriors of their inflatable modules.”

    Yet another reason why Calvert’s legislation should be dumped. The International Space Station should not be competing with Bigelow or other private sector stations for sponsorship dollars.

    “That said, I have yet to understand what Biglow sees has their market.”

    I think Bigelow & Co. have hit on what could be a very good initial space station business plan — flying nationally-sponsored astronauts from other countries. Unlike pharmaceutical or materials research, it’s a market that Bigelow & Co. can have a high degree of control over — they don’t have to rely on a minor miracle discovery to convince a whole other segment of the economy to use their facilities. (Those markets can come later.) That said, a degree of skepticism is still warranted until the first Malaysian, Thai, etc. astronauts are named, until Space-X or someone else has a commercial human LEO transport system flight-tested, and until Bigelow has a human-scale station flight-tested.

    One thing I especially like about the Bigelow plan is that they’re pursuing multiple, small stations. This is what I advocated way back in the 80s and 90s regarding what eventually become ISS. Instead of de-optimizing requirements for microgravity applications research, long-duration human research, and other applications just to squeeze them all onto a single facility — and accepting all the engineering challenges that come with erecting such a large space facility — NASA should have pursued separate, small facilities, each optimized for different applications. As the Soviet series of space stations proved, nothing succeeds like success and smaller, bite-sized stations help enormously in doing so. Here’s hoping Bigelow can capitalize on that strategy.

    “Likewise, SpaceHab with their plans to commercialize space manufacturing.”

    What worries me about the SpaceHab proposal is that it appears to be reliant on the ISS. Although COTS may eventually change the paradigm, just the issue of getting access to the ISS facility should be enough to stop any commercial plan involving the ISS cold. When you add in the commercial intransgience and risk-avoidance of NASA’s human space flight culture, the barriers to getting any research or application completed on the ISS in any commercially useful timeframe are just way too high. Commercial U.S. microgravity research and applications have failed so far because they’ve always used (or tried hopelessly to use) the Shuttle and ISS.

    Now if SpaceHab was proposing to use its Apex upper stages as free-flyers for microgravity research, then I’d take their proposal more seriously. Provide access on reasonable, repeatable timeframes (which the pharmaceutical and materials industries like), with FAA (not NASA) red tape (proven to be commercially viable at least for for comsats), and some not outrageous price points, and I think commercial microgravity users and applications would emerge.

    But ISS ain’t that kind of platform and SpaceHab is whistling past their own grave if they continue to rely on NASA platforms and bureaucracy for commercial applications.

  • anonymous

    “I think the most important feature about this proposal is to raise the public understanding and enthusiasm of NASA.”

    I’m sorry to be so negative, but I fail to see how, say, a logo that says “Energizer, Official Battery of NASA” on the side of the ISS — even if that logo is repeated on television in every Energizer commercial — is going to raise public understanding of and support for our public space agency. I don’t think it will do anything particularly negative in terms of public understanding and support for NASA. I just don’t think it’s going to do anything particularly positive, either. I mean, c’mon, there are memory foam mattress commercials that mention NASA on television every night –and those unofficial endorsements don’t result in more public appreciation or federal funding for NASA.

    I think all this legislation could do is take away from Bigelow & Co.’s, or the X PRIZE Foundation’s, or Armadillo Aerospace’s ability to get the same Energizer (or whatever company’s) sponsorship revenue for their own future private space stations, space prize competitions, and space prize vehicle entries.

    But I don’t think it will even do that… I doubt NASA’s human space flight programs are culturally attuned enough and sufficiently incentivized to undertake such sponsorships in a commercially viable way. Even if this legislation got to the House floor and passed (and it’s just the latest in a long string of such proposals, like zero-G taxes, that have gone nowhere), I think NASA would never actually use the authority. It’s just too much at odds with how NASA’s human space flight programs do business (or don’t do business, as the case were).

    Again, instead of floating half-baked ideas, the best thing Calvert can do to help NASA prizes is pressure appropriators to fund them.

    My 2 cents… FWIW.

  • Ray

    I think Jim and anonymous and I are all concerned with how the proposal would affect space businesses whose business plans include their own advertising or sponsorship mechanisms. I’m not sure what kind of wording would accomplish Jim’s points a) and b) above. I will throw out the idea (although I think it’s a weak one) of ISS advertising being a special case. The reason is that advertising/sponsorship has already happened there on the Russian side (I believe). Whether or not NASA does it (possibly taking away ads for commercial space like JP Aerospace), it happens anyway, so why not get a portion?

    I’ve read a lot of criticisms about NASA not acting commercially, while the Russian program does. I haven’t agreed with them (although I think some of it like getting tourists to ISS is good as it breaks ground for future commercial interest) since I don’t want NASA to act commercial and compete with businesses, I want them to buy commercial services instead of making everything internally.

    Are there any variants of this that would work for businesses working for NASA (similar to what Jim said at the beginning of his post)?

    Anyway, hopefully this idea at least gets Congress aware of CC (have most Representatives even heard of it?) and how easy it would be to properly fund it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Imagine the sponsoring possibilities now for the strows diapers….

    Thank you Lisa…

    (BTW this is a ridiculous concept, it is just another last gasp of a failing organization and the toadies that support it….)

    Robert

  • anonymous

    “I don’t want NASA to act commercial and compete with businesses, I want them to buy commercial services instead of making everything internally”

    Exactly. Well put.

    “Anyway, hopefully this idea at least gets Congress aware of CC (have most Representatives even heard of it?) and how easy it would be to properly fund it.”

    That might be a side effect if the proposal got far enough in the legislative process. Honestly, I doubt the legislation will leave the subcommittee, almost certainly not the committee. And if it did, it might create the wrong perceptions among other congress critters about NASA’s prize program, rather than the right ones.

  • Ray

    Jon at Selenian Boondocks had a recent post where he asked “One half-baked idea I’ve been noodling is trying to find some way to find a Congressional (and Senatorial) “champion” for the program … But I wonder if it’s possible. If anyone has an idea for who might be a champion or patron saint for the program, let me know … It’d also be cool to see a congressional hearing about the centennial challenges.” See his full post for the rest. The question I have is whether or not Rep. Calvert could be encouraged to become one of these champions Jon posted about. My first thought was that, because of the local prize-running alliance organizations, sponsors, and general activity, the most likely champions would be the representatives from the districts where the X PRIZE Cup will be held, or other CC competitions that will be held several years in the same district.

    I should also say I’d like to read the Space Review essay Jim Muncy had an idea on writing about the politics of Centennial Challenges, including the difficulties and ideas on surmounting the difficulties.

  • My initial reaction to this was negative as it puts NASA up as a competitor for sponsor dollars. I thought on it awhile, though, and can see a positive. In my past life I learned that you don’t waste time asking for sponsorship money from someone who doesn’t understand the value they receive in return. If they don’t see how they benefit from their corporate logo on the hood of a winner at a NASCAR race, maybe they wouldn’t. Who knows so don’t waste your time. If NASA is allowed to take money this way, they may accidentally wind up educating people who wouldn’t normally be sponsors to be sponsors.

    I’m still leery, though. NASA has a habit of screwing up good space-related ideas lately. Letting them take sponsor money may screw that opportunity for others too. Change is a scary thing when it involves the dinosaur stomping around things it can see or care about.

  • Wow… lots of good comments from people.

    But I have to respond to Ed Wright. You are correct: a single positive example does not prove a logical requirement.

    That said, the prizes for NASCAR races aren’t the real payoff: that comes from the extra sponsorship money a winning team gets. And if the prizes are sufficient to motivate a simple, low-financial-cost behavior, then of course that by itself is the market.

    COTS is *not* a prize using any common understanding of the term. It is a development contract that uses other-transaction-authority powers.

    A prize that isn’t big enough won’t spur huge levels of investment if there isn’t some other payoff. Even prizes that are really big may only spur investment if the level of risk of success — not winning, just of getting the result at all – is too high.

    In short, there are *limits* to the effectiveness of prizes. They are not a panacea. And the NewSpace community must not allow itself to be corraled into a “prize” ghetto. As Ray and Anonymous said, the key is for NASA to *buy* services on a fixed price commercial basis. If NewSpace can’t win procurements on those terms, we don’t deserve to open our mouth about NASA (other than as taxpayers).

  • Monte Davis

    In short, there are *limits* to the effectiveness of prizes. They are not a panacea… If NewSpace can’t win procurements on [a fixed price commercial basis]… we don’t deserve to open our mouth about NASA (other than as taxpayers).

    Thank you for saying it so crisply, Jim. There are some nascent hypocrisies in that area, which find it harder to spread under a clear bright light.

  • Ray

    Spaceref has an article http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22397 about different agencies like NASA and NOAA being mandated to try to allow the private sector to compete for commercial activities done in-house. (I’m not sure why they are called commercial if they’re done in-house, but anyway …). The actual GAO report is dry but oddly interesting. I liked this sidebar:

    “Agency View of Activities That Can Be Successfully Contracted Out: According to agency competitive sourcing officials, they expect the in-house organization to win most competitions. For example, Energy officials told us that they expect the in-house win rate to be higher than the private-sector win rate because most commercial type activities such as cleaning and general maintenance have already been contracted out. The remaining activities are more complex and require greater knowledge about agency operations, which officials said gives agency employees an advantage. Similarly, NASA officials told us that NASA started off about 30 years ago contracting out many of its commercial services and now has fewer such services to compete.”

    I guess we’re all barking up the wrong tree with all of this talk about prizes, COTS, and fixed-price contracts, since they’ve already long since shifted all the work private industry can handle, like bathroom maintenance, to the private sector. Just let the government do inherently governmental activities like “Space Trucking” and “Space Taxi”.

  • […] NASA a new funding mechanism. At the National Space Symposium in Colorado in April, Calvert said he was planning legislation to allow NASA to, in effect, sell advertising or sponsorships on its mis…. The money raised through those deals would go to support prize competitions run by the agency […]

Leave a Reply to anonymous Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>