80 IQ brainlet here. Could someone with a high IQ please explain why NASA doesn’t just take commercial sponsorships to all their missions to cover funding?

Like just plaster all the spaceships with sponsor logos, give the astronaut suits sponsor logos, call the expensive telescopes the Coca Cola James Webb Telescope, name missions from sponsors like the Spotify Mars InSight mission etc?

Wouldn’t this allow much more space advance as it wouldn’t rely entirely on government gibs?

Demiurge would open those companies on other planets first, because we terraform those planets the law of attraction

>>16695778 (OP)
Fellow 85 IQA brainlet, here. I second this question

I don't know.

Getting commercial sponsorships involved in research potentially brings objectivity into question. Researchers in the public sector are already constantly bombarded with accusations of whether their work is biased by politics or social agendas, throwing in corporate money into the mix would escalate it to a complete clusterfuck. Now on top of everything else you're putting research in the middle of corporate rivalry and shitflinging. Your research now not only has to stand up to the fundamental scrutiny of peer review into whether your work and results are sound, and survive public scrutiny from cunts trying to turn your paper about binary stars into a debate about gender-neutral bathrooms or your findings on climate change into a political talking point for reelections, but now you've also got T-Mobile accusing you of fraud because you were funded by Verizon or whatever and they want to see if they can gain a few points of market share by implying their competitor funds fraudulent research.

>>16695778 (OP)
As a high IQ individual, my advice is to stop thinking about "space" since most of that is a psyop intended to demotivate our innate spiritual tendencies.

>>16695778 (OP)
Already happened and advertisers found their logos didn't get enough publicity from it to make it worth the cost. As for naming things after corporate sponsors, most people simply wouldn't use the commercial name. Sports media agreed to do it for stadiums because sports leagues have contracts with sports media for it to happen. You'd need for science journals to take sponsorships before there would be pressure on them to use the sponsor names of scientific equipment.
NASA has looked into it and concluded it small amount of money it would gain would not be worth the hassle of involving commercial sponsors with their own set of demands that could conflict with those of the mission.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/science/nasa-corporate-sponsors.html
It's worth noting that SpaceX does use the name 'Gulf of America' in its media. While not a commercial sponsorship, the name is controversial and SpaceX openly using it is seen by many as a endorsement of President Trump.

>>16695778 (OP)
>>16695778 (OP)
>it wouldn’t rely entirely on government gibs
this is by design. As I learned here on /sci/ a few months earlier:
NASA is now primarily a jobs program (allegedly). As in, they'll take on a project and deliberately set long timelines so as to keep people employed. That way if they suddenly need people with those skillsets (during a time of war/crisis/tech race), they will specialized personnel already available (as opposed to having to scout them out and/or train them)

I'm just parroting stuff I've read here. Pls verify on your own

>>16696204
>I'm just parroting stuff I've read here.

>>16695778 (OP)
I think it'd be cool if they hosted rocket races...or other events to gain funding. Would be cool.