Slashdot Mirror
NASA In Colbert Conundrum Over Space Station
After Stephen Colbert won the vote in NASA's contest to name a new module on the International Space Station, NASA found itself in a tough spot. According to Reuters, "Contest rules stipulate that the agency retains the right to basically do whatever it wants," but it may not be all that easy. At first NASA floated the idea of naming the new module's toilet "Colbert." But Last Thursday Congressman Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., urged the agency to respect the people's wishes. And Colbert turned up the heat on yesterday's weekly show: "So NASA, I urge you to heed Congressman Fattah's call for democracy in orbit. Either name that node after me, or I too will reject democracy and seize power as space's evil tyrant overlord. Ball's in your court."
I'm sorry, if NASA wants to give in, then fine, but at this point Colbert has reached the level of 4Chan for these pranks.
First he changes Wikipedia, then he gets a bridge in Hungary named after him, now a Space Station module.
There is NO reason why NASA should bother, and I'm getting bloody sick of his internet vandalism.
If NASA were smart they would name the thing "Colbert" and encurage the chap to do a "ISS Report" or similar NASA/space oriented report on his show at regular intervals. Keep space research in front of the people. Even to the point of reporting on NASA's own humorous internal mistakes/problems/gaffs with actual data supplied by NASA. National / International attention and it costs them nothing.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Based on yesterday's post. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/31/1332257
Think Deeply.
A vote for serenity is a vote for dictatorship!
I, for one, welcome our new Colbert overlord.
Except that this one probably isn't a prank.
April fools?
well, after the Reagan years, I still wonder how comedians can pretend to have to subvert the thoughts of a few millions of people with these jokes...
on a more serious note, all those people entered a competition and they have to play by the rules as anyone else... if NASA said they have the final word and also that suggestions from the public were welcome as long as they were in harmony (pun intended) with the project, then get lost Colbert... stop these "free" publicity stunts or else... run for local elections...
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
Nuff said?
Besides... the people that don't know who Colbert is will think the name is fancy, what with the silent "t" and all.
I am NOT a big fan of Colbert. I think he's funny - but also an idiot. But, NASA should think twice about a generation that grew up watching Daily Show and Colbert - and gained a cynical attitude of everything the Government does.
NASA needs to offer something. Hell.. why not name it after Colbert? They could offer to go ahead and name it after Colbert - if he maybe does a few segments about NASA in a positive light.
There are some of us younger (well I think younger at 27) people that think NASA is the last place government should cut funding..
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I understand why NASA put a clause into the rules stating that it can do whatever it wants... There needs to be a way out in case some yahoos try to name the station something inappropriate, however there is nothing wrong with Colbert. It's one thing to put the literature into the rules to make sure that the name of the new module isn't "Enola Bay" and another thing to just change the name on a whim because a few people at NASA were hoping on "Serenity". Sounds a little petty to me.
Bad: Colbert takes over outer space. Good: Keifer Sutherland leads a ragtag band of monsters in a tale of self-discovery with plenty of hijinks on the side.
/.ing!
They're lucky the winner was Colbert.
Imagine what it could have been named if the 'b-tards' over at 4-chan got involved.
Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
More proof, if any were needed, that NASA is totally clueless about external communication & PR.
Any kind of PR pro would have predicted this - its not like it has never happened before in public naming competitions and even elections.
So, suck it up guys. As another poster has pointed out, play the game and make it work for you.
What I cannot understand, though is why, in these cash-strapped times, they did not auction the name off? Could have raised some much-needed funds.
Yes, I realize that it's kdawson... but still.
Even after reading the article, I still fail to grok what the "tough spot" is. Is it just that they don't want to name it "Colbert"? That's not a tough spot, that's just obstinance.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
seize power as space's evil tyrant overlord. Ball's in your court.
until this part, i totally believed this article.
ok go ahead and mark me as flamebait or troll. I'm just saying what i read and interpreted. I still really can't believe that people voted for Colbert. GO COLBERT!!!
next thing thats gonna happen is the ISS is being called the CSS: Colbert Space Station XD
wait, i thought the toilet on the space station was the o-gee-whiz?
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
Global Crossing?
Worldcom?
Enron?
Or the eventual bid winner with a last minute snipe...
The Pirate Bay!
Something similar happened in The Netherlands, although on a smaller scale. Some company ran a contest to name a new type of potato chips (en-uk crisps) and internetters voted en masse for the name "WithoutStyle", after the similarly named blog. In the end, the company bended to the pressure, although for a short time only.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
the NASA requirement is that the person who it is named after has to affix the signage.
they have 1 year to comply (a their own expense).
he.he.he ..
--- This meme is memory intensive
Someone pee in your coffee this morning?
Colbert's involvement got them way more exposure than they otherwise would have seen. They should roll with it and continue the visibility.
What I cannot understand, though is why, in these cash-strapped times, they did not auction the name off? Could have raised some much-needed funds.
I imagine that's just what Blagojevich said to his advisers just before putting Obama's senate seat up for auction.
You'd rather have OMGPONIES?
Chaka Fatah is proving once again what a moron he is.
-=Maggie Leber=-
Better a joke than stupid hero worship (I'm looking at you, Reagan International Airport). At least a joke name indicates that there is some thought going on.
Seriously, why shouldn't we honor someone who has helped millions of young Americans (1) enter the political discussion and (2) become aware of government folly. Colbert's more important to the zeitgeist than Serenity, that's for sure.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
That's what you get when you give a large, disorganized group the right to make a decision. They will likely make the one choice you didn't want. Frankly, they're lucky not to have the thing named with some sort of phallic euphemism one would expect from a classroom full of 12-year-old boys.
Stop asking the "interwebs" their useless opinion on something, and use it as an opportunity for raising the funds necessary to do what they want to do. This is a perfect opportunity for product placement and naming rights.
Sell the naming rights to, say, AIG or General Motors or Chrysler, for several billion dollars they have lying around, and allow them to install some sort of immensely powerful, solar-charged LED signage viewable on the planet's surface by anyone with a cheap pair of binoculars. They could, in turn, sell advertising on the sign to others, creating the first space-based branding/advertising medium.
Goodyear would likely jump on this in a heartbeat.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines - Unknown
You'd rather have OMGPONIES?
Who wouldn't?
With more than a billion potential voters, they could have voted for it to be named after a Dikshit.
Businessman Anurag Dikshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anurag_Dikshit
or politician Sheila Dikshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Dikshit
Hey, if it was named the "Dikshit" module of the ISS, it would never be mentioned in the news (except in India, of course).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
That is the sound of the significance of this event breaking the sound barrier as it passes over your head.
Colbert is a satirist. His job is to lampoon the establishment, popular culture, fad, etc, etc. He has just lampooned public voting competitions, which have been in vogue of late. Internet, SMS, email, telephone based, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that these "votes" are little more than popularity contests decided by people with too much free time and little else to do with it. Colbert has simply shown how inherently vulnerable these votes are to manipulation. PZ Myers has been doing this sort of thing for years.
Public poll competitions are a thinly disguised publicity stunt. Frequently, they simply demean and trivialize the event they are promoting. In the case of NASA, this poll has been a farce from day one. Even before Colbert, justifiably, entered the competition, the top contender for the module's name was "Serenity", an obvious reference to a recent sci-fi/fantasy show.
This was a billion dollar module meant for serious scientific research and NASA, itself a multi-billion dollar publicly funded institution, had chosen as it's first choice of name, that of a fictional spaceship from some bubblegum space opera made for teenagers, which pays only lip service to scientific fact and theory. This was a (supposedly) serious scientific and educational organization about to name a space station component after something that has never and can never exist. The level of unprofessionalism beggars belief.
What is anyone supposed to think of NASA after such a stunt? Is the whole organisation composed of people who base their ideas on TV shows and loopy ideas instead of hard theory? Considering the organization's continued stance on the Space Elevator concept, despite its proven absurdity over the course of over 50 years, I would have to say that, yes NASA is composed of juveniles who have their heads in the clouds and no idea how to get their actual bodies up there.
For get "Xenu". "Serenity" was and is the real problem. Frankly, Colbert has stepped in and dignified the proceedings by finally putting and end to the debacle. NASA will save itself a lot of face in the long run by naming the module "Colbert" as a reminder of their own folly. Naming it "Serenity" would be a permanent stain on whatever dignity the organization is supposed to have.
And organisation that allows idle tweenagers, teenagers and twenagers to name space modules, rockets, or satellites is an organisation that has no right to send such things into orbit.
May the Maths Be with you!
Oh please, get over yourself. It is a name. A NAME! That is all. As if ANY of NASA's naming has ANY meaning whatsoever anyway, its all non-sequiturs, nothing to do with what the piece of equipment does. Oh my God, NASA had an open poll to name something and people didn't vote for something SERIOUS! WOES THE WORLD! It's all a joke! Waaah! WE NEED TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY PEOPLE, IT IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!
Enjoy his humor for what it is and play with it. Name the toilet after him.
I'm off to take a "Colbert", back in 20 min.
Hey, do you have a portable "Colbert"? My Depends box is empty.
I can't believe I bothered to write this. What a waste of effort, bandwidth and humor.
NASA shouldn't name the entire node after anyone that isn't famous for doing good deeds for space. Heck, Jimmy Doolittle would be an excellent choice as the father of avionics.
Didn't Serenity get a lot of votes because of its fan-base as well?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/ (the film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_(Firefly_vessel) (from the TV show)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_(film)
Probably not so much because of:
http://www.serenity-band.com/ (the Austrian Metal band)
While the relief a toilet can enable, and that quiet time alone (hopefully it's a room with a view of the planet) could be described as Serenity, I doubt that is what voters were thinking.
Name it after Tek Jansen and everybody wins.
NASA shouldn't have solicited the public if they weren't prepared to observe the result; it's not as though something like "FUCK CHINA" or "WET SNATCH" had been chosen.
I'd predict that giving the module a popular name would buy NASA some goodwill with the TV-watching demographic, and some public/media interest. If it turns out to be a PR disaster, NASA should rename the module at that time.
Finally, IMO Colbert has earned recognition for the free publicity he's already given to NASA.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
With an entire town...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_or_Consequences,_New_Mexico
Ralph Edwards frowns on Colbert's shenanigans.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Who the hell is stephen colbert?
The first Colbert suggested by wikipedia is :
Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619 -> 1683), French minister of finance under King Louis XIV
This state servant was one of the primary artisan of the present French situation, where we have national or quasi-national big corps, with very tight links with the central administration.
Colbertism, named after him, is a form of mercantilism where the good of the nation is only really the good of the ruling class.
Perhaps this historical view is not completely irrelevant for NASA...
Now, for international observers, perhaps your TV host is famous in the US, but US is not the world.
Maybe they should go with that it may give the Fox execs the boot up the ass to re-launch the series. But then again if you boot a Fox exec up the ass is he going to know where you hit him????
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Just tell him if he would truly like it named after himself, he needs to be there, in person, to officially open and dedicate the module.
End Transmission....
They have really backed themselves into a corner... They have to name the module Colbet.
But its not a bad thing. This is all publicity for the space station.
And that his full name was given in the summary: Stephen Colbert. (Sorry to snark, because I'm an American who lives in Europe [France even], but honestly...)
I think a lot of you are seriously overstating Colbert's contribution to society.
Before Colbert, I forgot NASA still existed.
Flush an effigy of Colbert out the air lock of the ISS and broadcast the event live.
The thing is, Republicans tend to be bigger spenders on space than Democrats, particularly manned space flight. Democrats tend to argue that putting people in space is a luxury and we should be spending money on the poor, or, pursue unmanned flights for the science.
Republicans tend to argue that manned space flight is a national security thing. It doesn't hurt the cause that two of the largest Nasa facilities are in traditionally Republican areas - Texas and Florida.
IF you name this station after a liberal, you may as well push the dang thing into the atmosphere,for all the support that it will get.
This is my sig.
In order to qualify, that asshole needs to be dead. And, he needs killing.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I say name it after his brother. In other words, name it "Colbert" but pronounce it with a hard 'T'.
....they would refuse to give into the Colbert, and the resulting broohaha will give them publicity that money simply can't buy. The fly in the ointment, of course, is that now the congressman who can impact their funding, is on Colbert's side, so they wouldn't want to piss him off. Of course, he may be a smart congressman too, and may be after the publicity that results from Nasa not giving in - it would certainly raise his public profile.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
Because the name would be even worse than 'Colbert'? Sup guys, just heading over to the Coke module...
And just as many understate it. The Daily Show is the #1 source for political info among a large section of Americans. The Colbert Report isn't far behind.
It's like a gateway drug for young people. First they start watching the Colbert Report. Then they get hooked on the Daily Show. Then they start dabbling with the source, the talking head shows on MSNBC/CNN/etc. Pretty soon, they are waking up early on Sunday mornings to get their fix of talking heads.
The sad thing is, I'm only half joking.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
/b/ was trying to name it the "Low Orbit Ion Cannon"
The civil war was about slavery and Lincoln's election, as an abolitionist Republican, arguably precipitated it even before he was sworn in, just like Obama's reputation as a liberal took the market for a nosedive.
For proof:
a) the confederate constitution is a copy of the us constitution, but, with a clause adding that slavery is a natural right and the government cannot ban slavery.
b) the most contentious issue between north and the south, was, in fact slavery. It existed with the infamous compromise in the original constitutional convention, with a series of incidents running all along the 1800's leading up to the civil war - bleeding kansas, dredd scott, the compromises.
c) abolition was the animating social issues of the day.
It's true that there were other issues. The south, being agrarian, favored free trade so they could buy cheaper British manufactured goods. The north was protectionist, and the south saw this as a sort of blackmail. As it is, the north became an economic powerhouse and won the war BECAUSE of its protectionism. This debate continues to this day. Right now the southern and agrarian ideas of free trade carry the day but the thing is, any study of history shows that free trade and a lack of workers rights makes you lose wars. Just ask the south.
But really, the civil war was about slavery.
This is my sig.
Because we would have ended up with the "sexypokerpalace.com module"
Just ask Mister Splashy Pants.
Meta will eat itself
NASA is great at wasting money. Take a look at the ARES project compared to the Direct project. Instead of using existing engines, and existing boosters, and existing tankage, they've decided on using new engines, new boosters, etc. The ARES I can't even lift the Orion module into orbit. They've been trimming weight, and removing features from Orion just to make it light enough for ARES I to lift. As it is Orion will have to use its service module engines to make orbit, which cuts into its usefulness once it gets into orbit. The fuel tank on the ARES V is a 10 meter diameter tank. It cannot be made at the same plant that makes the current 8.4m tank used by the shuttle without retooling the plant. The delays between the end of the shuttle program and the start of the ARES V production mean that most, if not all, of the experienced workers will be gone. ARES V is also huge. They will need to restructure the launch pads, reinforce the cawlways, build a new crawler, etc before ARES V can be launched. ARES I doesn't have the capacity to launch cargo. So until ARES V and all the infrastructure stuff happens, astronauts won't have anything to do when they do reach orbit, except spend time at the ISS.
On the other hand, Direct's rocket, the J120 uses existing rocket engines, existing tankage and manufacturing facilities, existing launch facilities, and can be made ready to fly by the time the current shuttle program ends. Basically they are taking the shuttle launch configuration, removing the shuttle, and sticking the shuttle's engines on the aft end of the fuel tank. They are placing the payload on top of the fuel tank. This configuration can lift two fully fueled Orion modules into orbit, or an Orion and a space station module. It and its big brother the J232 can be built for less money than the ARES project, meaning the extra funding can be directed to science payloads. Also, because they use currently manufactured parts, they maintain employment at the various plants that make shuttle parts.
So... ARES project: expensive, underpowered new rocket, and a huge gap between last shuttle and first launch, causing multi-year layoffs.
or... DIRECT project: cheap, effective rocket using existing parts, with virtually no gap between last shuttle and first launch, meaning continual employment for many.
Of course, NASA's going the more expensive route.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
.. to refer to Chaka Fattah as Arthur Davenport, it doesn't sound so pretentious.
is that the people can vote for anything they want and not care about the consequences. this is why we have the republican system that we have, with laws being made by what was originally supposed to be the best and the brightest in congress and the presidency. of course, again, the people were NOT supposed to determine who was in congress or the presidency directly.
shame on colbert for making a farce of democracy and showing exactly why the founding fathers of america tried to prevent the people from directly selecting the government.
OK, so NASA is unwilling to name the node after a living entertainer who regularly voices polarizing opinions. However, they want to save face and not appear to override the vote. Here's a solution: double down.
Allow Stephen Colbert (the character) to hold a second vote to select a Truthy, flag-waving name for the station. Stephen Colbert (the character) could have no end of fun with this. By closely controlling options in the second vote, NASA and Colbert (the person) could ensure a name that NASA could accept.
The floor is now open for suggestions (subject to host approval)!
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
If Colbert as evil space-tyrant would just take the name 'Xenu II', we could just name it 'Xenu' and Colbert could still claim victory.
Just call it Blench Treetops (Anagram for Stephen Colbert), which you should do if you're on board it...
I'm from Minnesota. We elected Rudy Perpich and Jesse Ventura as governors. We elected Michele Bachmann as representative from the Si(x)th Congressional District. I've watched the hardest-hitting coverage of the last election on the Daily Show. I saw in the paper this morning that the courts have ruled only 400 more ballots will be recounted in the Senate race, making Al Franken's victory almost assured.
I think it's time we recognized the need for real comedians in our government structure. Now, Colbert is still alive and being funny, so he's not a good candidate for naming a government something after him, so I'm going to propose naming it after George Carlin.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
... because, as has been pointed out, the people who spammed NASA's poll were less interested in what the module got named, and more in doing the bidding of Mr. Colbert. But what the hey. Let's go ahead and name it Colbert. (I just wonder what sort of copyright issues might come up out of this - can a government entity use a copyrighted name for a publicly funded project? Hmmm...)
I have a reason for suggesting we go ahead. There is one other person whose name is guaranteed to be associated with Earth, even if we manage to blow ourselves up / pollute ourselves out / stage a mass evacuation to Mars. His name is on a plaque in the Sea of Tranquility at the Apollo 11 landing site.
The name there is Richard Milhouse Nixon.
If we want any extraterrestrials who happen along our system after we're gone, let's at least give them a choice to determine who represents humans best. Then they can pick between a crooked politician and a comedian who can get a fan base motivated to trash Internet services.
Makes you proud to be human, don't it?
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
NASA runs on public money. Selling the name would have maybe gotten them $100k at the most. Having a competition (especially one as controversial as this) gives them invaluable public face time.
NASA has to sell their image, because as soon as people stop caring about space is when they loose all funding.
So, can the companies that currently make the Space Shuttle pieces "go into business for themselves" and make Direct a reality?
The ability to use existing components should help drop costs extensively (as you've pointed out), and most of those components are already "man rated" I would think (or does the whole system need to be tested again also?)
That would provide the first Commercial Manned Launch Vehicle. Launch a "manned module" and "payload module" to heft several satellites at a fraction of the cost (or two payload modules with automated satellite launches once you get enough practice/confidence). I'd imagine that sort of system would pay for itself quickly given the current rates for commercial launches.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Serenity now !
"...yesterday's weekly show?"
he would say that he was going to name one of HIS modules after Colbert. That way he could get ppl to thinking about his work. Right now, Bigelow is dying a slow death.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
given the choice of Serenity or Colbert, I take Colbert. Serenity was from a good show/movie, but it still does not have anywhere NEAR the popularity that Colbert does.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Serenity should be the name of a spacecraft, not a mere room on a space station. For a mere room "Colbert" is as good as any other name. It does, however, make me wish I had written in the name I thought of after the promotion was over:
"The Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room".
Now *that's* a name for a room on a space station. And you could probably get Howard Johnson's to pay something for the naming rights. If they're still in business, of course. The one I went to as a kid is now a Hooters.
Nuff said.
Buy him off: Name it Serenity, but put him in space on a shuttle flight.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
What I cannot understand, though is why, in these cash-strapped times, they did not auction the name off? Could have raised some much-needed funds.
Perhaps, but that might be only marginally better than having an Internet naming contest with write-in votes. An auction like that would almost certainly attract people like Larry Flint, Golden Palace Casino (famous for ther unusual publicity auction bids), pron kingpins and other wealthy pranksters looking to pull a publicity stunt. Really, the only logical choice was to do as we do here on Slashdot with the polls, limited choices and no write-ins (although CowboyNeal would probably win the vote if they included him in the choices).
I could care less if they named the station after Colbert, in fact I think they should given that name won the vote.
However, I'm curious to know what the reaction would have been if names like, let's say, Limbaugh or Hannity had won. I somehow have a feeling that people, at least around here, wouldn't be quite as supportive of the name.
I find the Daily Show and Colbert Show amusing, but I find it somewhat troubling that people actually watch those shows for legitimate news and take them as great examples of satire. I have a hard time taking them seriously when their satire is selective to whatever viewpoints they don't agree with. At best, their shows are editorials presented in a comedic format.
People who enjoy these shows really have no business criticizing shows on Foxnews, for example, given that ultimately it's the same thing.
I've got no problem with those shows being on television, but I have a problem with the way people put the Daily Show and Colbert Report up on a pedestal.
Trust me, this is much better.
Oh, and get one of the astronauts to wear red all the time.
He won the vote - that proves his point that he can cajole the (fifteen to seventeen year-old North American male) public into stuffing a ballot box.
I have to say that if he continues down this road, one he's clearly been down before, it signals the beginning of the end to those of us not wearing the jersey.
April Fools or no, give it up and be a man, Coal Bear. Rather than suggest something interesting or meaningful (I submt 'The Colbert Brown Eagle'), he perpetrated this out of pure vanity, and I for one, have to offer him the North American finger gesture signifying my indignance.
There. I did it. Now I will move on with my life.
I think Colber[t] actually pronounces his name as ColberT in private. This is based on me catching him one time on air saying ColberT when there was no comic reason for him to do so. ( I hate saying there's no comic reason for something since there is always the possibility that a joke flew by undetected ) It's unlikely that someone who had always pronounced their name one way would slip, though not impossible.
The name of a pod has no effect on it's usefulness. It's just a freaking name! Being named Colbert or Xenu (which would have been funnier than Colbert) is really immaterial to any science, like studying the effects of weightlessness on Twinkie shelf life, that they do up there.
What's wrong with humor in space? It's part of putting people in space. Humor and satire comes with them.
It's interesting to wonder about who exactly is pissed about a space station module being named Colbert.. Xenu would have been easy to dismiss for religious tolerance reasons, even people who hate scientology may legitimately be offended by someone poking fun at them, but the name Colbert isn't obviously offensive in any way. Yet the offense exists, or there would be no challenge to the nodule being named Colbert. The interesting question is who is being offended?
Serenity seems to have less offense value than Colbert. If it had won on it's own merits, nobody would have objected, and it wouldn't have even made the news. The people who are offended by the nodule being named Colbert aren't offended by Serenity.
I think there are people for whom space is sort of a religion. It's like a girl they've built up in their minds to some ideal that nobody can ever live up to. In their imagination, it has to them all the attributes they need it to have to be their holy land, the place where all their favorite sci-fi stories took place. And mere mortals can't go there - only NASA annointed astronaughts, so nothing ever happens there to destroy their preconceptions of the holy place.
Yeah, it's a girl and a religion. The probes NASA sends are like these folks' dingaling. Naming one of their nodules Colbert is like painting their dingaling pink.
These people need to snap out of it, and a pink dingaling paintjob is just the ticket. When and if people really start to live and work in space, outer space will offer just as many wedgies and swirlies to these people as earth has justly given them. These people need to realise this and work to correct the here and now, and not wait for the prophesised heavenly age of outer space where losers are cool for being losers. Believe me, the folks really doing things in space, aren't these people. They are winners of a game requiring non-loserness. The people these people worship are more like a boy band with a fanbase of stupid thirteen year old girls. These losers are the thirteen year old girls who have gone off the deep end - not the average fan. These losers are the drunken sports fans who paint their hairy chests, backs and beer bellies blue to cheer on their favorite football team shirtless while it snows.
Somehow, these people are being given more importance than they deserve. They are the base, they make the party. NASA uses these devout space-cultists as pillars of it's church. Without them, they'd have no cult. For that reason, NASA is afraid to alienate them. But that's exactly what they should do, since they alienate everyone else.
...
I'm surprised at how many here think that the ISS isn't just a little bit more deserving of esteem. The outcome has a little bit of Idiocracy about it.
I think they should consider a nominal sum from his show for every year the module is up in space since it is advertising for his show. But hey don't stop there Coke might want to subsidize a module as well!
Might have something to do with that being against the law.
Not that it would have done any good either way, as any funds raised that way go into a general fund and are doled back out by Congress. (Which is a feature, not a bug. It's designed to prevent federal agencies from circumventing the budget or selling off federal resources for personal or agency gain.)
Remember that Transylvania used to be part of Hungary, and has a Hungarian-speaking minority even to this day...
I think what everyone is missing here is that someone in our government actually had the chutzpah to tell NASA to respect the wishes of the people.
You must not watch the Daily Show or Colbert--both shows constituently point out that one of the major problems with our current society is too much news coverage. Twenty-four hour news is useless--simply a bunch of talking heads sitting around trying to make news. If you must watch your news, watch a half hour of local and a half hour of national. If you want to know more, read about it....
Good point. Mod up guys. Shame they can't, but probably a good thing...
So, can the companies that currently make the Space Shuttle pieces "go into business for themselves" and make Direct a reality?
They could if they were willing to pony up the dough. It's probably not a sound investment though. In a strictly commercial environment, existing cargo launch facilities are cheaper than developing your own. As far as the commercial manned launch aspect... well, there aren't that many of us millionaire playboy space tourists out there.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Any kind of PR pro would have predicted this - its not like it has never happened before in public naming competitions and even elections.
They did predict it- they made a rule ahead of time to make sure they retained control over the name in such an event.
So, suck it up guys. As another poster has pointed out, play the game and make it work for you.
They sent a spokesman on the Colbert Report to play along with Stephen even as they got the word out about the space station. All Stephen's viewers, anyone reading news reports about this "controversy," and everyone in this thread, are all learning about the ISS as well. I'd say NASA has made it work for them quite nicely.
This isn't an April Fool's joke. It broke over a week ago.
Even if you look at how people identified themselves abroad back then. Northerners usually referred to them selves as Americans or from the US.
Hmmm, no actually it was common up North to be affiliated with one's state. Remember that states were actually responsible for raising forces for the union army back then. So you would have the New York and the PA and Massachusetts units all joining.
Civil War was about States rights vs the rights of the Federal Government. Slavery just was the right that was most publicly in contention. In the North, it made an easy target; "See the evil slave holders!" I
You know, I used to think so too, but the smoking gun for slavery is the confederate constitution. When the USA rebelled against the King, they put into the constitution things a system of government to prevent such abuses. When the South rebelled, they KEPT the US Constitution, and only altered it so that they were allowed to keep slaves.
Protectionism didn't win the war for the North any more then free trade or workers rights made the South lose it. What wins wars historically is three things, beans, boots, and bullets. Or to put it more succinctly, resources. The South lost because it needed to import most of it finished goods. The North didn't.
Point is, those industries do not exist unless they were protected. If those industries do not exist, the North is in the same boat as the South. But the North pursued a policy of developing native industrialization through protectionism, got the industry, and won the war. Protectionism worked.
This is my sig.
The problem is not the quantity, but the quality. There is nothing wrong with 24-hr news coverage if it is in-depth and of good quality.
What we have is LCD news round the clock. It blows, I agree.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Now that Congress has stuck its big fat.... finger into the issue it just isn't funny anymore.
One thing Congress is good at is ruining a great joke.
Wow, Slashdot rising to defense of kdawson? This mod made no sense until I looked at my calendar!
According to Ona via Google Define "colbert" means
a germanic name made up of the elements "col", possibly meaning "cool", and "beraht", meaning "bright".
Space is pretty cold and an orbiting space station is a pretty bright object that can be seen with the naked eye.
What I think could come out of this is a specific analysis of internet sociology. I could speculate that had the "Serenity" fans known what Colbert and his fans were up to, and had they been as well connected as the Colbert and his fans, this would be a different conversation.
His brother came on the show and made a point to pronounce it ColberT, to which Stephen replied with something the FCC doesn't like no matter how you say it...
> The name of a pod has no effect on it's usefulness.
That's true. But there's still an official level of propriety on the order of the Queen of England's at the highest level. It's the same ghostly frowner who disapproved Clinton playing sax on Arsenio Hall, who thought the Beach Boys would be a terrible image to have play at the White House, who doesn't like Obama making jokes, and a hundred other things.
NASA did this before once, with the naming of the aerodynamic test shuttle vehicle "Enterprise", after guess what ship, in response to mass pressure. Of course, no real shuttle would be named that. :rolleyes
NASA Manager 1: So, they really chose "Colbert"? Sheesh.
NASA Manager 2: Ya, what can ya do? Anyway, the fine prints says we can now choose to use that, or just fall back on the name we picked out by committee.
Nasa Manager 1: What was that?
Nasa Manager 2: "The People's Valuable Scientific and Industrial Value Benefits Research For The Future Podule"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Hell, we almost got a bridge in Hungary named after Colbert.
Would these 250K retards vote for a 16-year old to be the President if Colbert asked them to do so? It does not matter how silly or important a particular election is... a vote is as important as anything and must be from within and not based on campaigns. Yeah.. I know it is just a name, but it is a name for something owned by all. While it is 20/20 hindsight, seriously who in NASA would have thought someone would campaign on a talkshow? If NASA goes by the rules, they have the right to pass on Colbert.
Generally speaking, isn't there a strong tendency to avoid naming things after living people for such things? Or, at least, non-retired people? (that is, in the non-commercial world :) )
SC has stated in interviews that the family pronounces it with the hard T. His father wanted to use (revert to?) the French pronounciation, but did not do so in deference to HIS father. So, in honor of his (by then) late father, SC changed from the hard T as he left South Carolina to go to Northwestern.
</anecdote>
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
At least some people in the space community seem to have a sense of humor about this: the Mars Society has renamed its analog Mars research station after Colbert for a week. ;-)
How To Get Humans To Mars
I think Colber[t] actually pronounces his name as ColberT in private. This is based on me catching him one time on air saying ColberT when there was no comic reason for him to do so.
Some Evidence suggests otherwise.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
The North won the war of attrition by dragging out the conflict until their superior manufacturing gave them more guns. They also held the Navy, which provided the ability to blockade and keep the South from fully trading with Europe and arming itself.
The South started with more soldiers, officers, and munitions, because southerners were disproportionately represented in the military then to (when the "standing army" was basically an officer corp that you conscripted soldiers for).
Each southern state confiscated the Federal weapons caches in their territory, and held it for their defense. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia did most of the fighting, with the deep south states providing limited troops to the border. Had Lee had all the munitions and troops at his disposal and went on the offensive, the war would have ended quickly with a southern victory. If DC and Maryland fell to CSA control, Tennessee held, and Kentucky captured, you'd have likely had a quick resolution.
Instead the south hoped that the north would grow tired of its war of conquest, and in time, the superior population and manufacturing base gave the northern army the ability to persevere.
Colbert, although I am a fan, should not be abusing such well-intentioned public contests for his own personal gain, and NASA is right in wanting to change the name, but finds itself in a PR predicament in trying to involve the public yet not enabling someone prominent to turn a public contest into a self-serving ego booster (Pun intended).
Ok..... So Colbert won the contest, although he *did* use his TV show and it's massive audience to do it, of which your Average Joe has neither. This is obviously quite unfair to the rest of those that wrote in, but the agency did have the contest, YET reserved the right to change the name.
A good compromise would be to allow Colbert to name the new module, but should allow something reasonable (not like 'Comedy Central', or some other grandstanding term), and other than his, or anybody else's name.
NASA made a good call in this one by disagreeing.
Quote from Calvin And Hobbes: "A good compromise leaves everybody mad." (One of my favorite quotes!)
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
isn't this what NASA wanted? publicity?
Give him the name and we may keep paying attention.
They should name the toilet on the ISS "The Colbert Toilet" and present him with a plaque on the show. Colbert would be able to make a great joke about it. NASA would be able to name the module Serenity. Everyone wins.
Just name the module "O'Reilly"
I agree we need democracy in orbit. There is no better method of decision making than letting the American people decide. For example, the shuttles themselves should be designed and built by the people. And the voters should decide who gets to be on the crew.
Wait, wtf am I talking about? Just call the damn thing Serenity already and tell Colbert "you can't take the sky from me".
I don't think something like a Space Station module should be named after a pop culture icon (who's still in the middle of his career at least).
Now, NASA is going to have to cede some ground. I think the smart thing to do would be to play off Colbert's own humor. Last year, the director of the National Portrait Gallery put Colbert's portrait in the bathroom. Maybe NASA should do something like name a bathroom after him (or a toilet playing off recent news).
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
They should be big boys about this, and realize their error, and own up to it. They did not realize how popularity played in this contest, thinking only of the uber geeks out there, and forgot about the fan geeks. An opportunity was presented and someone took it, and even though that person does not have any real interaction in the science or space community, we should honor them by playing by the rules set and winning. All is fair...remember that NASA!
The space station is not big enough for colbert's ego.
"Module Colbert: higher than Rush Limbuagh has ever been"
"Module Cobert: around the world 16 times a day"
Slightly OT, Colbert to Stewart:
"I actually have a part of a space station named after me, and all you have is the planet Uranus and that wasn't really on purpose now was it"
After Colbert requested that the Smithsonian declare him a national treasure and put his portrait in the National Portrait Gallery - they agreed and put the portrait by the restrooms - perfect!
They got lots of publicity and increased attendance, he gave them free plugs over multiple episodes - win-win.
So NASA should learn from this and do the same - "resist" initially, then give in, and name the toilet Colbert (or something similar - to provide him with enough comic fodder).
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2008/04/stephen-colbert-declared-a-national-treasure/
"Serenity Colbert". Make it sound like a persons name. It uses the first and second place names. People might call it Serenity for short, but it still is a win for Stephen Colbert (Serenity Colbert/Stephen Colbert - they are very close). Or is "Colbert's Serenity" a better name?
Ham it up a bit. Publicly denounce Colbert in a humorous manner then challenge him to a leg wresting contest. He will have to say yes, so pick the burliest NASA employee to go up against him.
Colbert wins becuase he gets more amusing footage for his show, NASA wins with extra publicity. And NASA gets to name the station whatever they want. (well if they lose I guess they better be ready to live with Colbert Station 1)
Better a joke than stupid hero worship (I'm looking at you, Reagan International Airport). At least a joke name indicates that there is some thought going on.
In trying to best tailor a response to you, I clicked on your name and saw your journal. What do I see near the top, but a short discussion of heroes?
You wished then for heroic values, in addition to heroic actions(Michael Phelps dissapointed you). By many measures, Reagan did both.
It's pretty clear that despite your yearning for genuine heroes, you adhere to a political ideology that eschews heroes. You talk up a sneering comedian, and you disregard one of the finest men seen last century.
I'm guessing there are some substantial incongruencies in your beliefs, but I won't go off venturing guesses about them. Perhaps you hold heroes in highest esteem when they hold heroic values, but don't accomplishing anything of greater importance then an evening's entertainment?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Protectionism is why the South is so far behind the rest of the states
To say the South is protectionist is completely backwards from history. The south is ALWAYS a free trading place, and the north is the one that is generally more protectionist. In fact, you are so wrong, it is almost fair to say that if the civil war was not about slavery, then it was most certainly about trade.
Protectionism is actually why the North went so far past the south. The south, and all rural areas of the USA, want the right to sell their produce to as many people as possible, and to also shop for the lowest bidder for a product. The north, on the other hand, except for the last 40 years or so, has typically erected barriers to imports so that its own manufactured goods could compete, guaranteeing jobs for its own people, and, above all, locking in the rural states as markets for their products.
This is true even to this day. Free trade is advocated by rural states and by the south. If the north could get away with it, it would shut down free trade in a heartbeat - Ohio, PA, Mass, New York, and now Michigan, they don't want foreign goods and never have.
Woodrow Wilson and his understudy FDR adopted free trade when the Democrats had the "solid south" - and they rationalized it to the northern liberal progressives on the grounds of breaking out of the trusts and corporations that dominated the day. Years later, Republicans picked up the free trade banner when the "solid south" switched from Democrats to Republicans.
This is my sig.
MISspell Colbert !!
Name it after Colbert, but MISSPELL the name...
Cotberl
Coblert
Celbort
Coblert
I'm not really interested in why NASA doesn't want to name the space station after Colbert. I think the real question is "Why did they want to name it after disposable underwear in the first place"?
The Dartmouth Review never supported NASA so there is no reason for NASA to support one of their scum now! http://www.nofactzone.net/wp-content/images/dartmouthalumni.pdf
/. readers = geeks
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
I like >90% of the planet have never heard of Colbert.
This may be because he(?) is a US TV personality. Having the name of someone few people have heard of on an international project may make more people in the USA aware of something outside their borders. This has to be a good thing.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Colbert is one of the very few people in the news business who have made a point of promoting NASA and space in general. Given how few friends NASA has outside the geek community, I say NASA should give Colbert what he wants and reap the rewards of the kind of good publicity one simply cannot buy.
Tech Public Policy stuff
He's given NASA a couple of segments on his show which were essentially humorous promotional pieces, one of which was an interview with the ISS astronauts. That's more than you will ever do for either NASA or the space program.
Tech Public Policy stuff
before there was anything in it for him. How many regular MSM news shows have you ever seen with interviews from the ISS? Or with any NASA astronaut? Why would he stop just because NASA gives him public recognition?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Yeah, yeah.. he's a mirror - look at him, and see yourself..
The shtick is old, that's all I'm saying. He could learn a few lessons from The Onion, but then again, I don't his viewers 'deserve' to be 'enlightened' to that degree.
I don't think they're capable of the introspection he's ultimately trying for. There are too many people satisfied with the Lobby.
You all seem to be missing the point
This is a publicity stunt from day one by NASA, not Colbert. Colbert only encouraged viewers to contribute to this and they did... which is good for both parties.
Now, NASA is saying "no... not Colbert"... but really this is just more publicity for them to attempt to deny what the people have asked for. This article is an example of that.
NASA is milking you and you don't even know it.
In the end... it doesn't matter what it is called. It's the debate they want.
So if you are uniterested in NASA in general, but debate on this topic at all... then you lose. haha.
Might have something to do with that being against the law. Not that it would have done any good either way, as any funds raised that way go into a general fund and are doled back out by Congress. (Which is a feature, not a bug. It's designed to prevent federal agencies from circumventing the budget or selling off federal resources for personal or agency gain.)
Which explains the Exxon Condoleezza Rice, I mean the Exxon Altair Voyager.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
He has a running joke where he gets out-of-control mad and chastises himself, saying "keep it together, Colbert!"--pronounced Cole-burt. It's a bit of meta-humor.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Name it "Stephen Colbert's 'Serenity Station, a Tek Jansen Adventure!' (Hereinafter referred to as 'Serenity')"
I swear before all the God's of Fun Geekdom, this is what they should do.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Heh, anyone that hold's Ronald Reagan as 'one of the finest men seen last century' has mathematically verifiable 'substantial incongruencies in your beliefs'.
Ah Conservatives, forever ignoring the actual results of their policies in favor of their belief in what 'should' have happened.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
An intriguing idea. But wrong. In the USA, we had a very tiny "long service professional" army before WW2. We didn't go the Officer Corps with conscript troops technique so common in Europe at the time.
And the South did NOT start the war with more soldiers. More officers, perhaps, but not more infantrymen.
The USA didn't maintain large Federal arsenals. Which is one reason that in First Manassas, some Confederate soldiers went into battle without weapons (and with instructions to pick up a rifle from the guy in front of them when he was killed). Or with flintlocks, or smoothbore percussion muskets (both obsolete for decades, but common as hunting weapons). Or even with shotguns.
Umm, no. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia fought the Army of the Potomac for years. But most of the fighting was actually going on further west, between Grant/Sherman and various Southern generals. Keep in mind that the "Glorious Fourth of July" was as much about the surrender of Vicksburg to Grant as it was about the retreat of Lee from Gettysburg.
If Lee had had every soldier in Confederate service under his command, he'd have sat outside the siege lines at Washington while Grant and Sherman destroyed the Confederacy behind him. Contrary to popular rumour, the war wasn't just between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. It wasn't even mostly about them - those two Armies fought over an area that wouldn't make three good counties in west Texas, while the rest of the war went on elsewhere.
Note also that Lee wasn't the military wizard he's usually portrayed as being (and I'm a Southerner saying this). If you want the real military wizard, look carefully at General Jackson, who, unfortunately, was killed early in the fighting. Or General Forrest, perhaps, who was an unmitigated scoundrel, but a hell of a cavalry officer.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Hero worship of a very flawed hero (so flawed as to be nothing like a hero) is stupid.
Oh God, I hope you're not referring to Reagan in that phrase. If you really think Reagan is one of the finest men we saw last century, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Colbert's more important to the zeitgeist than Serenity, that's for sure.
But you can't rub one out thinking about the characters on The Daily Show.
Personally, I think Serenity is the best name. Would be good to keep that name alive. I like the idea of naming the toilet Colbert though!
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
I find it amusing that NASA finds 'Colbert' distasteful, yet are willing to name it after a ship on a science fiction show that gained cult popularity. The Browncoats are soooo disappointed.
This particular disagreement is of course fundamental to the issue of the 'hero.' A 'Hero' essentially by definition, will overturn established orders and interests, will do something out of the ordinary. This will result in some people despising him while others praise him. The heroic soldier on the battlefield must have his enemy, Reagan had communists to stare down, and Che Guearva had bougeouis to murder.
Ultimately I might be on the wrong side of history, or you might be. Either way it's important to recognize why certain people are adored by some and despised by others. An inability to understand an alternative view, though you may disagree, certainly won't do one any good.
In concerning oneself with athletes as potential heros, we pare down the field to those who do impressive feats with no lasting significance. You're right to be dissatisfied with what passes for a hero.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.