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.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @06:51AM (2 children)
If only there was some imagery they could use that is rocket shaped and represents real American values...
(Score: 4, Funny) by driverless on Friday April 03 2020, @08:07AM
It'd be rejected as being too political, that image is reserved for representing what Congress does to the people when they're in session.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 03 2020, @04:07PM
SpaceX might have a tirade mark on their F9 imagery.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday April 03 2020, @07:07AM (3 children)
What's not to like?
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 03 2020, @08:03AM (2 children)
Somehow, I never did like that logo very much. Don't dislike it, but don't really like it, either. This logo is cool - https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/nasa-logo-web-rgb.png [nasa.gov] If they added a shark with frickin' lasers, it would be even cooler. Adding "all your base belong to us" wouldn't work, probably, because that game was Japanese, not American. Ehhh - you can only fit so much in a logo anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @01:33PM (1 child)
It's "All your base are belong to us" !
Get it right next time !
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 03 2020, @02:20PM
I are 'Murican. I can appropriate anything I like, and bend, fold, spindle and mutilate as I wish, and that makes it mine.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @08:24AM (5 children)
... worrying about form, not the function. Make the project a success so that the logo (if that stuff is needed all) becomes memorable. Not the other way around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @12:36PM (2 children)
I was going to say focus on the flight, not the image.
Besides, if you think the optics of NASA is something to work on, why not pick the high bar and aim for the 60's instead of the 70's?
God speed and a safe mission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @02:25PM (1 child)
Screeee! Reeeeeee! You dared to invoke GOD!?!?!?! Pray that you remain anonymous - we will be hunting for you! NASA is a government agency, not a church agency, and you may not invoke God when referring to the state! REEEEEE! (heads explode) - The Squad and every liberal douche
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @02:53PM
If you really understood what it means to be a real American and to honor the founding principles, then you wouldn't sound like such a douche yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @01:06PM
Exactly, sometimes I worry my business logo is substandard but then I think of google, very amateurish logo when they launched
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 03 2020, @04:11PM
Do you understand the true purpose of SLS?
The cost of failure is too profitable. And Boeing needs that right now. Starliner. 787 reboots. 737 Max.
As long as you can keep making money with continued delays and cost overruns, why would you strive for success? That's crazy talk!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @01:40PM (5 children)
They "upgraded" from the meatball logo because they felt they had an image problem. They had an image problem because after Apollo 11, people were like "that's so yesterday" and didn't give a shit about any of the other Apollo launches except 13, and they only cared about that one because of the drama, not the spaceflight. The reason we didn't go back to the Moon, or do more missions, was that people got bored and didn't give a shit, and NASA couldn't justify the budget to keep it going.
We put up Skylab, only got it minimally functional, and people didn't give a shit so it got killed.
Also from the 70s is the marvelous "space bus" or tug or whatever, that was going to open up LEO and usher in a brand new era for mankind, blah, blah. They had to kill the rest of the progress in space technology and force just about everything to have to be launched on the shuttle to justify its budget and reason for existing. Thank god the USAF kept the Delta program going or we would have been complete shit out of luck.
The best things and programs out of NASA from the "worm" era came out of the non-human spaceflight programs. The whole reason they went back to the meatball logo was that they wanted to put the stink and malaise of the "worm" era behind them by stoking feelings of nostalgia from the Apollo era, and they wanted a HUGE budget for a new space station that nobody but the NASA contractors wanted to build.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 03 2020, @01:45PM (3 children)
There's the cause, right there. It doesn't matter how interested and inspired the public is in the big things that get funding year after year. The justification of the activity, the value of which need not be close to the level of funding, is what keeps it funded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 03 2020, @02:07PM (2 children)
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)
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
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.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 03 2020, @04:15PM
Ah, but the Space Station (now the ISS).
Now the shuttle had a true justifiable purpose for its high cost. To service the space station.
And the space station had a justifiable purpose for its high cost. To provide a destination for the shuttle.
It's not circular logic. To put it in manager speak: It's no loose ends.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.