You'd be amazed...there isn't a warning label in print that isn't the result of some nitwit finding new and fascinating ways of mutilating themselves and trying to blame the manufacturer for not warning them.

Now, if we could just apply that logic in practice, and accept the fact that 14 casualties in the course of manned spaceflight is actually a pretty decent average considering the number of launches and people launched over the course of the space program, we'd be in good shape.

Actually Tuero, that was a pretty good analogy. Not painting the external fuel tank white saves about 270 kilograms in weight, and is the reason NASA stopped the practice (LINK).

But if the economics were ok, and the money paid compensated for the lost payload, I would be ok with "sponsorships" (I like the PBS analogy). The flip side is that maybe there are not a lot of companies interested. What does it say about XYZ Cola if your logo is on the shuttle that blows up? How would you like that picture on the front page of every newspaper on the planet?

As far as sending PhDs or MSs into space, I suspect that at least part of it is supply and demand - there are more people who would like the job than positions available. I personally know three people who made serious attempts at becoming Astronauts or Mission Specialists (two of whom have PhDs) and didn't make it. As with jobs here on Earth, when an employer has a bigger pool of applicants than positions, they can get very picky. It is not being a snob, it is supply and demand.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

Ehhhhh, I'd be somewhat skeptical that companies wouldn't be interested. Let's see the good with the bad.

Good -- Shuttle goes up, with the logo on it. EVERYONE sees it, including across the world. Sales go up, big time (theoretically).

Bad -- People may see this as a little tacky. If the shuttle blows up, people see your logo on the shuttle that blows up... but would sales really plummet?

I rather doubt that people would judge the company just because their logo happened to be on a failed mission, and I certainly doubt that companies wouldn't be interested because of the chance of failure.

Of course. Lots of people wanting to apply for a position where they can only fit in a few people. Naturally, with such a large pool to select from, you want to pick the best of the lot; not just a random individual. Hence, you end up getting the best of the best.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

You may be right, I can't say I even understand the Marketing brains in the company I work for. Does anyone buy a product because some particular NASCAR auto is covered with their logo? (I suspect the answer is yes)

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

Yes, of course. In fact, in the movie E.T., just having a logo on the side of a truck was enough for people to cause sales to boom for that company. When you see a logo long enough, you know about that brand... when you know about it, you stand a chance of buying from it. You buy from it, and then find that you like the product. This results in more sales from the company.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

From what I have heard of NASCAR fans, they buy whatever their favorite driver buys and from whomever is sponsoring said driver.

__________________
Keeper of the Jabberwock

One problem with NASA doing advertising is it blurs the line between state and private enterprise. China has many good example of problems this can cause. They tried to get some government departments here to make money with private enterprise. It didn't work very well. Something to do with mailing junk mail with pensions. I can't remember the details but apparently old people recieved advertising for funeral services. Some people thought they were required to use the funeral services to continue to receive their pensions, others just thought the government was telling them to hurry up and die.

I would love to go to space too , but. . .

I hold no PHD (yet) , as much as I would love to go , I realize that not only the multi-billion dollar spacecraft is at stake if everybody on it is not fully qualified , but also the lives of the other Astronauts (Priceless).

Everybody should understand that in any enterprise as inherently dangerous as Space travel should be done by the most highly qualified and educated individuals possible!

If space travel is something anybody seriously wants to do , you CAN have the job , just get the proper education and follow the guidelines set by those wonderfully brilliant people at NASA.

I wouldn't ask my dentist to do my landscaping , yes he could probably do it , but why , when there are plenty of professional landscapers who could do a way better job without the risk of mistake.



Also NASA only wants Astronauts with "The right stuff" , you can't have that without a whole lot of education ( In my opinion)

The key problem I see with the Shuttle is that it is, as you say, a multi-billion dollar spacecraft and just costs too darn much to fly. I like paying passengers, as long as it is done right. Russia apparently can manage it at about $20 million for a passenger without compromising flight safety. For a shuttle, a practical fee would be in the hundreds of millions. The important thing about the paying passengers is that they set a precedent and get people thinking seriously about how they could make money getting people into space. Government manned space programs alone just aren't going to get us very far. Costs aren't going to come down with low flight rates using spacecraft desigined for low flight rates.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

The main problem I have with putting advertising logos on the Space Shuttle is that it would start to resemble Nascar.

And I really, really don't like Nascar.

Good point....
However, I think it was John Glenn who was sitting in the Mercury capsule starring at the controls before lift off and commented " ...and to think all these components were built by the lowest bidder". (Something courageous like that).

He, he

Over the years I've had the opportunity to ask more than one astronaut the following question.

What's it like to sit atop many tons of highly explosive fuel in the most sophisticated creation ever devised by man, composed of millions of intricate interworking parts, each provided by the low bidder?

The usual answer was that they had never thought about it that way.
LOL

All you got to do is design a functioning reusable space vehicle that is as reliable, elegant and safe as the Goodyear blimp. Then you can plaster it with advertising.

Gets more money from different sources. May be it make space travel more cheaper

__________________
=snp