12 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 33.8 ms ] thread
No cost? The funds came from somewhere. Very cool if outside sources were backing this for the benefit of everyone. I guessing it's from taxes though.
I assumed it meant no cost at the point of consumption. Because it’s a government agency I assumed it’s funded by tax money.

I’m ok with my tax money being used for public-access educational programming, à la PBS.

Could you be more pedantic? Yes, all human activity has some cost. When this is in marketing copy, it clearly means consumers are not charged for consumption.

If it helps, the US federal budget for 2023 appears to have been projected at $6.35 trillion. Thankfully, all of this stuff is public, so taking a quick look at NASA's slides (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fiscal_...), I'm going to guess this falls under "STEM Engagement," which probably encompasses more than just this, but totals $157 million. So somewhere around 0.0025 cents out of every tax dollar. It appears I paid about $50k in federal income taxes last year, so I paid about $1.25 toward NASA's entire STEM engagement activity, some portion of which is represented by this streaming service.

And there isn't any question about where the funds came from. "Outside sources" can't donate to specific government activities, only to the Treasury's general fund. Donating directly to a specific activity violates Congress' Constitutional power of the purse. If you're wondering "what about PBS?" They're not a government agency. They're a private nonprofit funded partially by grants from the government.

(comment deleted)
Consumers are still charged, if they are taxpayers, so therefore it is not free and should be stopped from being marketed as such.
I'm happy for a few (and I'm sure it's a few) of my tax dollars to be spent this way. Actually, I'd like to see more of my tax dollars spent on educational efforts, at least ones that have the potential to be effective.
No indication was presented if it were a positive or negative use of taxes rather the point is calling tax-funded programs "free" is deceitful, at best.
I think this is a great idea, but I lament the pattern of just throwing Plus at the end of everything. It's been used to the point of having no meaning now. Can't blame NASA though.
I'm surprised when organizations can't think of a good name for something they don't open it up for suggestions from the public. Yeah you can't just make it an open internet vote or you'll get something horrific, but with a modicum of moderation you can get something better than [brand name]+.

Off the top of my head:

NASA Voyages

NASA Liftoff

Stars On Demand

Hubble

Giant Leap

Nasa McNasaface

Unedited_moon_landings.mpeg

Buzz

NASA Streaming Service

All of which sound better than NASA+.

(comment deleted)
I thought this was a joke at first but this seems intriguing. Is it like what NASA TV was but for the internet/youtube age? (do we still say "internet age?")

I'm curious to see how they'll maintain a certain quality of production value for the shows.

That's what it looks like. I imagine it will be very similar to other platforms where they have a library of documentaries, educational programs, project overviews, live streams and archived live streams, etc... available to watch whenever. I suspect a lot of the programs they've previously broadcast on NASA TV will be put on there to seed it with content.