🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan5.162900.14264@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes...
>In article <1iaeeuINN7kq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn) writes:

>NASA is part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.  As such,
>it receives its funding from the U.S. Congress.  Under the U.S. Code,
>NASA can't engage in this kind of fund-raising efforts, nor can it sell
>advertising on rockets, hold bake sales, or even accept volunteer labor
>from corporations (several of which have offered free services to the
>under-funded Space Exploration Initiative).  NASA gets what funding
>Congress allows it and no more.  And that funding is not enough to get
>us "back to the moon... this time to stay."  If you have a problem with
>that, write your Congresscritter.  

How does that work with NASA as a launch service? For example, providing
launch facilities/personell to universities who have constructed payloads
and purchased a launch vehicle from the manufacturer. Or launching a
communications sattellite from the shuttle, owned & operated by a private
sector corporation? I thought part of the initial selling point of the 
shuttle was that NASA could recapture its investment through the "putting
stuff in orbit" business.

What about the big RCA logo on the Delta rockets (as seen in "the 
Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology")? I hope RCA had to pay
for that.

I am not trying to start an arguement or anything, it just seems that
what you said seems to contridect some of the things I've seen from
NASA. And the wonderful publications - I hope you make money on those,
it would be stupid not to.
------
Tim Harincar				Millions long for immortality			
Central Minnesota 			who don't know what to do with
Association of Rocketry			themselves on a rainy Sunday 
soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu			afternoon. -Susan Ertz