Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday April 03 2020, @06:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the battle-of-the-logos dept.

NASA brings back its iconic 'worm' logo for upcoming Falcon 9 Crew Dragon launch:

NASA is officially bringing back its iconic "worm" logo from the 1970s for SpaceX's upcoming Falcon 9 Crew Dragon launch, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine announced today on Twitter. The organization is seeking to "mark the return of human spaceflight on American rockets from American soil."

[...] The worm logo[1] was introduced in 1975 by design firm Danne & Black­burn as part of an effort to "upgrade" the space agency's graphics from the original "meatball" logo[2] that NASA had been using since 1959. The logo is practically synonymous with that era of spaceflight, adorning the Hubble Telescope and the original test flight shuttle, Enterprise. But despite the slick, modern design, the worm logo was officially retired in 1992 in favor of a return to the original meatball logo, which is still used today by NASA. (Although the worm logo did still stick around for merchandising opportunities.)

The return of the worm on the upcoming Crew Dragon launch — tentatively scheduled for sometime in May — will mark a major comeback for the iconic logo, which hasn't been to space in an official capacity in decades.

[1] example of "worm" logo
[2] example of "meatball" logo.

Maybe manned space flight is a merchandising opportunity.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @02:07PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @02:07PM (#978695)

    It always goes to the budget, and it always should. The biggest parts of the US annual budget (aside from all the interest being paid on the debt) are for things that the general population agrees with, or at least in principle. Most people don't have a good grasp on how big some of these budgets are, but they do know what retirement is and medical issues are. And they know that the world is a big scary place with lots of bad guys and terrorists, so they know they need to spend a lot of money on defense.

    Once you step over to the non-discretionary part of the budget, people suddenly get very opinionated. "Why do we need to give money to poor people? I used to be poor and I worked hard, so they should have to work hard too. If we give them food/money/etc., that will just incentivize them to not work hard." Now it has become very personal, so they have strong personal opinions on this stuff. NASA falls into this area (as well as the NSF and basic science in general, but NIH fares a lot better because people generally (and old congresspeople in particular) are afraid to die) where they have to justify spending a lot of money based upon ideals or Buck Rogers optimism. Even the best years of NASA budgets in the 60s were driven more by fear and desire to beat the Russians than it was on the feelings of the wonders of space.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @02:54PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @02:54PM (#978722)

    I think for the budget, the bored public is smarter than you think.

    They can sniff out a bad ROI when they see it.

    Old school space became just another pork discussion.
    Hopefully commercial space can change that game if NASA doesn't screw it up.
    Not sure the logo thing is a good sign in that arena.

    God speed for sure. (Just to think of the exploding heads. ;)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @03:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @03:59PM (#978759)

      I think for the budget, the bored public is smarter than you think.

      I disagree. I think most people are notoriously bad at assessing ROI, particularly for anything with a long term outlook like basic R&D. They will not even question why a fighter jet costs $1B, nor quesiton why we need dozens of them when the existing ones are working very well, but they will get all worked up over $20k spent on gender studies or something like that and will make calls to slash what are meager budgets to start with.

      Real ROI comes from long term thinking and planning. The current covid response shows this even outside the government. This just in time supply chain approach has completely broken down and there are no stores of anything important.