Colbert ISS Module: The (Open)NASA perspective
A non-NASA friend recently asked me and some other NASA folks what we thought of the “Colbert” ISS-module naming situation. For those who don’t know about this (really?), NASA held an online vote for naming the yet-to-be-launched Node 3 of the International Space Station (ISS). It gave four specified options (Legacy, Venture, Serenity, and Earthrise) and allowed for write-in votes. Colbert beat out Serenity by thousands of votes. Further rumors of naming the ISS toilet after him fueled the fire, with NASA responding in a nicely done cheeky way.
Today, it was announced that NASA will name the new ISS module on The Colbert Report on Tuesday, April 14th. This is what prompted this post: I’m interested in hearing some folks’ thoughts about this BEFORE it is announced. Opinions abound on the internet, but many people, like my non-NASA friend, are curious what people at NASA think about all of this.
While some might think this is overblown and inconsequential to NASA’s real work, this whole situation has given NASA more attention in the public eye than it has had in a very long time. It touches on themes of sanctity (how sacred do we view our space program?) and listening to the will of the people. Do NASA folks have a sense of humor? Do they watch Colbert?
What do folks think?
18 Responses to “Colbert ISS Module: The (Open)NASA perspective”
Leave a Reply
Dunfield on April 10th, 2009
This is potentially one of the best opportunities NASA has to really connect with a large community outside of its regular crowd. NASA would judge amiss if they passed this up.
Skytland on April 10th, 2009
I agree with Dunfield. This is a golden opportunity for NASA. The question is, will we be bold enough to follow through?
Santiago on April 10th, 2009
This makes me wonder– is the amount of press already generated enough at this point? Will naming the module ‘Colbert’ generate more interest, or simply avoid making people upset with NASA? I doubt people will stop thinking NASA is important if it chooses to not name the module ‘Colbert’. Some bad press might be generated, but not sure the long term impact.
In many ways, no matter what the outcome, this is already a win for NASA, publicity wise.
Gerty on April 11th, 2009
I think it’s great that NASA reached out to the public to name the module. They’ve done it before and generates some great public interaction/education about what’s going on in the agency. That has happened again, except with a different audience. Instead of reaching school kids, they connected with an older crowd who watches the Colbert Report. If not “Colbert” they should name it “Serendipity”, since NASA has been yearning to connect with taxpayers since its inception.
Santiago makes a good point – the publicizing that has already happened is all that we can bank on, but if NASA names it “Colbert”, we venture into unchartered territory. Thousands of people who normally focus on politics will know exactly when the first few ounces of reprocessed urine are used to make an astronaut’s scrambled eggs. Why? Because when something like that happens in a module named after you – you tell everyone you possibly can. Steven Colbert can tell a lot of people.
Controversy when naming a vehicle, by the way, is NOT unchartered territory. Ask some of your elders about “The Unsinkable Molly Brown” (http://tinyurl.com/cwrpqv), or some of your peers about “ISS Alpha” (http://tinyurl.com/dab9xe), and you’ll hear some good stories, depending on who you talk to.
Personally I don’t care what they name it, as long as it’s handled with class, and NASA appreciates the public interest. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Colbert called up the Russians to see if there was a discount (skidka?) for “spaceflight participants” who shared a name with a module!
Vladislaw on April 11th, 2009
From the node to the commode, Colbert will make hay out of this. As long as a new group of typically non-space orientated people are brought into the fold and take an interest in what NASA is doing it is fine with me.
Either name the node after him or the toilet and Stephen will continue to bring new faces to NASA.
Definately a win win.
Michael Frostad on April 13th, 2009
I agree that this is great PR for the Space Industry but I doubt they’ll name the ‘Node’ after Colbert, or the Toilet….but maybe the urine recycling system?
I say this because the ISS is supposed to represent more than a joke to people; it is a physical symbol of hope, a symbol that the nations of the world can work peacefully with each other and accomplish great things, even in the face of great difficulties here on Earth. At least that’s what it represents to me.
Nick mentioned above ‘The question is, will we be bold enough to follow through?’
Is it bold to go with the crowd (the participating crowd) or is it bold to stick to ones ideals for the future? I realize we live in a democracy but sometimes the wind changes direction for a quick gust only. It will definately be interesting to see what happens that is for sure…
Bonus Comment:
If they did name the recycling system after Colbert, I could see him saying something like ‘Taking the waste and cleaning it for you America, because you deserve only the best, and we all know the best is what I provide.’
Larry on April 13th, 2009
4 decades ago, NASA was naming spacecraft after Peanuts comic characters. I think it’s great to bring some fun and “real-world” connections to NASA’s efforts.
“In 1968, Snoopy was chosen as an official symbol of merit for America’s Space Program and to this day, the Silver Snoopy is award to NASA employees who demonstrate excellence in their work. Through the decades, the connections between Peanuts and NASA have remained rich. In fact, the Apollo 10 command and lunar modules were named after Charlie Brown and the lovable beagle.” from http://brianshiro.blogspot.com.....-nasa.html
Bill on April 13th, 2009
I cast a naming vote and remember reading that NASA reserved the right to decide on the final name. What if someone had organized a bunch of folks to swamp the system with a name like “Fricken Idiot”… or something much worse? Should NASA be forced to follow the will of that group? I contend that its not “the will of the people” if one group swamps the system with their preference.
Neil McNeight on April 13th, 2009
I doubt they will name the whole module after Colbert, but I do expect them to turn his name into a backronym of some sort.
Tim Bailey on April 13th, 2009
The whole controversy has been *great* for driving new eyeballs to the NASA website. Colbert himself pointed out that he got about 230,000 votes–almost quarter *million* hits. When was the last time one person generated so much interest for NASA?
The one stumbling block I can see in all this is for NASA to assume a position of condescending or patronizing superiority. I have already seen a complaint from inside NASA that this was “not a contest” and there there should be no expectation from the public that NASA would use their input. That is in complete contradiction to the name of the page: “Help NASA Name Node 3″. If NASA had all the choices of names it wanted, why put up a poll asking for more?
(I fully understand that it stated clearly that NASA has the right to choose any name for Node 3, regardless of the results of the online poll. I took that as a legal move to ensure “poop head” could be thrown out. Other people surely did too.)
In my mind, NASA made a social contract with the public to use the results from the “Help NASA Name Node 3″ page to actually *name Node 3*. It has nothing to do with the symbolism of space and it’s inspirational qualities: those exist independent of NASA.
The opportunity here is to let the public (those same folks that pay taxes and give NASA it’s budget) *actively participate* in their space program and take ownership of the ISS in some tangible way. I want to be able to look up at night, point to the light moving across the sky, and say “that’s my space station! I helped name it.”
robertgoodwin on April 13th, 2009
I was opposed to the idea at first, but now I think it could be a great PR move for NASA. And why not, anyway? We had Apollo spacecraft named Snoopy, Charlie Brown, and Gumdrop, after all!
beth on April 13th, 2009
I say, forget the Node — name Colbert NASA Administrator! Let the fun begin!!!
Natalie on April 14th, 2009
Pretty convincing argument for why it *won’t* be called Colbert. But we’ll find out tonight. I’m on the edge of my seat, I don’t know about you! http://tinyurl.com/cxbopd
Mike Fabio on April 15th, 2009
While I tend to agree with most of the commenters that this is an enormous opportunity for NASA to connect with a different generation of space fans, I’m fairly certain that NASA isn’t ready for that just yet. Let’s not forget: Colbert is a comedian, a media personality, and a powerful influencer, but that doesn’t necessarily make him the voice of the American people. What if another media personality had posed a similar call-to-action? Would we have named the node after Anderson Cooper? Bill O’Reilly? What about other celebrities, like LeBron James or Russell Crowe? What about the paparazzi fringe, like Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan?
The fact is that it wouldn’t matter: there’s just no way that NASA is going to name a spacecraft (or section thereof) after a celebrity unless that name has some deeper meaning. Perhaps a president, a national hero, a famous scientist or explorer…. but not a popular culture icon. I just don’t think NASA is ready to cross that line.
It ultimately comes down to audience. While NASA has the opportunity to reach a young audience, perhaps it doesn’t want to. This is, after all “your space agency,” and that would have to include an awful lot of Americans.
To tell the truth, I voted for Serenity because I like the name. I’m not a huge Joss Whedon fanatic (though I liked Firefly just fine), I just thought it would be a nice name for the node.
What really bothers me about the whole thing is this: if “Colbert” won, then we should name the node “Colbert.” Plain and simple. A contest is a contest, and whoever wins, wins. Right? If the Serenity fans wanted it, believe me, they could have put some effort into campaigning. For that matter, fans of any name could have put some effort into getting votes. Colbert may have been pulling a stunt, and utilizing his massive user base for entertainment purposes, but I think (and maybe I’m wrong) that he genuinely loves space exploration and wants the node named after him.
But what do I know?
Robert Pearlman on April 15th, 2009
As I wrote in the lede to the linked article, I think this shows NASA has both a sense of history, and humor…
NASA names space module for moon base …not Colbert
http://tr.im/iQdw
MP3Phile on April 15th, 2009
I think the PAO squandered yet another opportunity to get people on board with the space program. As mentioned in other posts, Colbert did a great favor to NASA by making this contest a positive PR event that found its way into a great number of mentions in other media outlets, instead of a lame Internet poll that meant nothing in the first place. It was disappointing that instead of swallowing their fear, and venturing into the unknown (the whole point of NASA!), the PAO took the most calculated avenue that was guaranteed not to offend anyone.
Now, if they are smart, the PAO would milk this until the C.O.L.B.E.R.T is launched later this year. Colbert could have a “C.O.L.B.E.R.T Update” bit tracking the status of the C.O.L.B.E.R.T, and an educational spin could be put on it. Assembly, testing, reviews, and all of the other serious engineering work that goes on could be presented in segments that are both informational and funny. They could have Colbert perform some of the live-human testing that will no doubt be associated with delivery of the C.O.L.B.E.R.T.
The sad thing is, I doubt this is the avenue that will be taken. The C.O.L.B.E.R.T will be forgotten, and NASA will remain as something baby boomers remember from their childhood, and younger generations remember from movies about events that the boomers lived through.
Justin on April 15th, 2009
I can’t say that I’m happy with the “compromise.” Good for Steven Colbert, but I still see this as a missed opportunity. If they weren’t going to name Node 3 after a living person, they should have honored the next name in line.
Michael Frostad on April 16th, 2009
I am actually happy with the compromise and the lessons learned for NASA (I hope). Having the Colbert Nation vote was great attention but it still was only a fraction of a percent of the US population, let alone the worlds, and this is an International space station, so I think a compromise was justified.
I agree it would have been nice to have one of the higher ranked ones that fit the theme of the ISS names as the final winner but I also can’t fault the name for giving a nod to the Apollo Program in this the 4oth year since we first landed on the Moon, something Humanity actually did versus the popular Serenity (Awesome little ship by the way!).
I think Tranquility should have been one of the original choices so that’s probably a lesson learned. Next time maybe that’s the first step, a call for suggestions of names and then choose some of them to vote on?