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
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.
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.
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?"
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 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!
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.
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.
the russains can't use Colbert the toilet
Fair enough, from now on americans can't hide in the Soyus module.
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.
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.
...
The South lose, in large part, because they had 1/2 the population of the North.
Then there was the railroad thing - the South didn't have much, and what it did wasn't connected conveniently for internal travel by rail.
And of course the lack of heavy industry - no cannon foundries means no cannons but what can be bought overseas.
And the State's Rights issues made federal level taxation nearly impossible, so the Confederacy had a bitch of a time paying for food, weapons, ammo for their armies. Which is why the Confederate armies were starving in the midst of a prosperous agrarian society.
Lot of reasons the South lost. Free Trade wasn't among them, nor was lack of workers' rights (note that they were significantly absent in the Union, Europe, and basically everywhere at that time).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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!" In the South, from most historical accounts, it was more a of "Leave us alone. It's our decision." These were issues that went all the way back to the Revolutionary War and the Articles of Confederation. It's no accident that the South took the name of Confederate States of America. They wanted a strong State government with a weaker Federal one. The North favored a stronger Federal and a weaker State.
Even if you look at how people identified themselves abroad back then. Northerners usually referred to them selves as Americans or from the US. Southerners usually referred to them selves as coming from a state, like "I am a Virginian". This was a social dynamic that would have come to a head eventually. Mass media and Lincoln just brought it to a head.
Anyway the anti-slavery acts (commonly called the Emancipation Proclamation) wasn't created till after the war already started. If you wanted to be cynical, you could say that it may have been done, not for the betterment of man, but to incite revolt in the CSA. If the slaves thought that hindering the CSA would by them freedom, then they might rise up against their government. Fighting an uprising at home not only saps troops from the front to fight it, but also has a sizable effect on troops moral.
The economics was also a lot more complex then that. Prior to mechanization, manpower was the only way to get things farmed or done. The south needed masses of manpower, and slavery was the cheapest way to do it. Freeing the slaves was seen as depriving those slave owners of their economic livelihood. To the mechanized north, the need for slave labor wasn't a high, so it ddn't have the same economic weight.
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. The only goods it needed where some raw materials, but those were available to them after the opening months of the war because of their ability to create finished goods. And that same ability allowed them to cut off the South from their trading partners.
If I may paraphrase: If you don't think that resources are important to fighting and winning a war, just ask Germany. Either Nazi or Imperial.
"To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
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.
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.
BTW, I'm from South Carolina so I'm quite used to all the rationalized arguments from Southerners trying to explain why worshipping the flag of a pro-slavery insurrection is cool and really patriotic. "Heritage not hate," huh?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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