You have to think brand name, NASA as a brand is a big plus. They could initially have just the space-food, then they could branch out to camping food as well, where they could basically sell the food you are used to, but with the NASA brand, they would probably make more money.

The only down side I can see is that many would object to the federal government going into business, and competing against private companies. So what they could do instead is to license the NASA brand. I'm sure NASA could make some money off of this. It might reduce our taxes (although minimally). I think licensing a brand like NASA is akin to other licensing agreements the feds are already doing. As long as they don't dilute the brand, or put it on bad products, we may as well make some money off of it as it is a national resource.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario's_Tennis

"Mario's Tennis (, Mariozu Tenisu?) is a game for Nintendo's Virtual Boy video game console."

The Virtual Boy video game console provided true 3D display for its games, although in monochrome. It did not require glasses either. It had two displays one for each eye, and you had to look through a neoprene coated eyepiece to see the displays. It didn't do very well, so is not well-known. It was one of the few flops for Nintendo.

I went one better, I used a telescope to burn all sorts of things. It has a somewhat adjustable focus by using different eye pieces, and I could burn wood, and paper, and many other things on a sunny day. The telescope was readily available, so I didn't need to build anything. It was only a 2" refractor, but had plenty of power, much more than a magnifying glass, with a MUCH sharper focus. I did manage to melt metal with it as well.

I always meant to revisit these experiments with something like a 10" or larger scope. I would imagine some really high temperatures would be possible, the optics count for a lot in efficiency.

Many times the reason for a rejection of a paper like this is failure to properly control for possible anomalous conditions. If you don't have an explanation, the minimum you should do is to control for every possible other explanation. If you haven't fully tested whether the phenomenon you observe might be due to something else, then a reviewer must reject the paper.

It is equivalent to the famous Sherlock Holmes quote, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

If you haven't eliminated the impossible, you can't conclude you have found improbable physics.