Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's New 'Exploration' Insignia

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the only-on-sunday-are-logos-news dept.

colonist writes "NASA has a new insignia for the program set by the Vision for Space Exploration. This UPI article describes it: "Three spheres--Earth, the moon and Mars--are arrayed in sequence, with the streak of a rocket passing through each. A Latin inscription on the emblem says 'Audentes Fortuna Juvat,' which, translated into English, says 'Fortune Favors the Bold.'" Compare it with other space mission insignia."

5 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. <RANT> by tekiegreg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is NASA more of a marketing organization these days? Quit with the speeches and gimmicks and start working towards actually going somewhere interesting (aka Mars, Moon, etc.). I'd rather my taxpayer dollars do that than hype up going to one of these places :-/

    </RANT>

    --
    ...in bed
  2. Nice to see by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that the new insignia hints at the future without explicitly including specific targets outside of our moon and Mars.

    Visual representations like this can help reinforce what the mission is all about.

    I think its cool.

    --
    My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  3. Re:Why Latin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably becuase it's one of the oldest languages there is, and because space exploration is such an historically significant event...
    *shrugs*

  4. Bold... or Risk-Averse by Azghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Fortune Favors the Bold".

    Too bad it doesn't seem to be true these days. Seems to me that the U.S. is so risk-averse that any attempt at space travel will be terribly expensive and will take decades. Not because the technology isn't there (remember, we DID go to the moon 35 years ago), but because there might be a .001% chance of something going wrong, and we just can't have that!!

    When we DO finally get space travel sorted out, my suggestion is to put the lawyers and insurance CEOs on the first flight and aim it at the sun (Hey, it's Pauly Shore! And Rosie! Ding ding ding goes the trolley!).

    1. Re:Bold... or Risk-Averse by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not because the technology isn't there (remember, we DID go to the moon 35 years ago), but because there might be a .001% chance of something going wrong, and we just can't have that!!

      Actually, the shuttle has a roughly %2 failure rate. By comparison, SARS killed about %4 of the people it infected. And the shuttle is about as stable and mature a space launcher as you will find. So in other words, the technology is still gambling with the lives of astronauts, though it is more vegas roulette than russian roulette.

      As for being terribly expensive and taking lots of time... You're building a space ship. A space ship. How long would it take you to build a plane from scratch? How long would it take you to build a plane from scratch that people could live in? How long would it take you to build a plane from scratch that can work without oxygen, fly above our atmosphere, and let passengers out in the middle of a vaccuum? Did I mention protect the occupants from solar radiation, withstand several thousand degrees of heat, and recycle all body excretia into drinkable water?

      The space plane program is taking forever because the technology isn't there. The kinds of weight-to-thrust ratio to take off without boosters isn't possible without a lot more development of our engine technologies. Remember, our trip to the moon DID cost roughly 200 billion dollars, or 5% of the GDP for several years.

      --
      The ______ Agenda