🚀 go-pugleaf

In reply to a seemingly-intelligent suggestion about NASA selling 
moon rocks, I, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov, wrote:

>>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.  

In article <5JAN199314212621@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu (Tim Harincar) writes:
>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.

All of the "compensation for services provided" which NASA receives for
this kind of activity is carefully done to be in compliance with the
strict regulations Congress places on Federal agencies.  I'm not sure
exactly where the money goes in the tangled web of money sources and
sinks, but it can't just be used to fund whatever project NASA (or the
rest of the Executive Branch) has in mind without the approval of
Congress.  That would subvert the Constitutional power of Congress to
fund the Federal Government.  (This kind of subversion is at the heart
of the Iran/Contra scandal, where the Executive Branch supposedly sold
arms to Iran, then used the money to fund the Contras without going
through Congress.)  Yes, NASA does get money from providing some
services.  But there are many different "colors" of money.

>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.

Under the terms of some contracts with the Government, suppliers are 
allowed to label the items they provide.  This may have been the case,
here.  Under some contracts, the Government buys "launch services," in
which case the launch service provider has more freedom to put other
things (including logos) on their rockets.  But there are limits, and
NASA has a dozen legal departments which sort through the tangles of
contracts, laws and codes to figure out what logos are allowed to be
placed where and when.

>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.

There are always exceptions and some contradictions which can't be
resolved.  They can get messy.  Sometimes, they go to court.

The "wonderful publications" you refer to, like NASA Spin-Off and
NASA Magazine, are prepared under contract from NASA.  I don't think
NASA "makes money" on any of them.  But making money isn't our job.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "[I swear] I will support and defend the Constitution of the
      United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
      will bear faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
      obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
      evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
      of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

        -- Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavits, the oath taken
           by all new Federal employees.