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?

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.

NASA names space module for moon base …not Colbert
http://tr.im/iQdw

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?

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.”