NASA's New 'Exploration' Insignia 171
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."
Why Latin? (Score:1, Insightful)
<RANT> (Score:5, Insightful)
</RANT>
Nice to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Visual representations like this can help reinforce what the mission is all about.
I think its cool.
Re: - You have to sell it to congress (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Latin? (Score:3, Insightful)
*shrugs*
Re:Why Latin? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you look at this one, it has the phrase in Latin on one side, and English on the other side of the patch.
That said, it should also be noted that Latin is a rather clear language. There is a reason that French and English are used in diplomacy, they can be interpreted in many different ways, there is alot of 'wiggle room' within them. Let's look at this short phrase. 'Fortune Favors the Bold'.
Does this mean that people who write their name in bold will do better than those who write it in italics? How about Fortune, are we talking about luck or a magazine?
While few 'speak' the language, Latin still remains one of the more 'universal' languages out there and since NASA is working with other space agencies more and more, it might be good to have a descriptive phrase that translates quickly into other languages.
Bold... or Risk-Averse (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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!).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just these days? As I recall, the focus of NASA back in it's heyday was scoring propaganda victories in the Cold War.
The single most practical reason for the moon landing was to show up the Soviets.
Re:Bold... or Risk-Averse (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the shuttle has a roughly %2 failure rate [strategypage.com]. 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.
Fortune? (Score:2, Insightful)
Fortune? How Ferrengi of us. As American Indians are rumored to have said, "Moon people, watch you land! These guys will try to take it."
(One thing about slashdot is that you can mispell just about any word, and nobody complains. But, mispell a Trek word and you are vaporized by the masses.)
Re:Nice to see (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be interesting to see what happens to this program after the election. The cynic in me sees Karl Rove sitting in his office at the white office toting up electoral college votes. Florida, of course, comes out at the top of lists in play he has to win. Its likely it will close in 2004. If you want to swing a few hundred thousand votes in Florida your way, look to the space coast around Cocoa Beach and Melbourne which is extremely dependent on the manned and unmanned space programs for its economic existence. Would Karl rather they were:
A. Facing unemployment and economic collapse when the manned space program craters after the Shuttle and ISS are end of lifed
B. Drooling over the prospects of a decades long manned program to the Moon and Mars which will be a huge boon to the local economy, and Florida as a whole, and keep all the NASA employees and contractors employed for life working on a very cool project.
Its pretty easy to announce this program, put next to no money in it and cement the vote of everyone who's livelihood directly or indirectly depends on the manned space program. The space program is a prestige thing for all of Florida supporting it is the smart move if you want their votes. After the election and at the point they might have to bend metal and start spending real money on it is when you will see how much the Bush administration really cares about this.
Its a pretty strong tell that they completely ignored this program in the State of the Union address. If it mattered to them they would have put it there front and center instead of goofy things like dealing with steroids in athletics.
If the program does stay funded after the election and in fact starts to see some serious funding then the fallback rationale for this program is its another payoff to the big aerospace companies which are big backers of the republican party. They are giving them a lot through missile defense and other defense programs so I'm not sure this is a likely explanation especially as slow as the money ramps up. If it was like the huge payoffs to the drug companies, the energy contracts and the likes of Halliburton they would be throwing billions in to it right away.
This programs fatal flaw is that it is so slow and it will take so long to achieve any interesting milestone that the political climate is certain to change. This changing climate is one of the key contributors to the disaster that ISS turned in to. One thing Kennedy did right was to set the goal early in his administration and set the major milestones, and the major expenditures to occur within his potential eight year term. That was a sign he was serious. The fact both Bush's waited until late in their administration to set the goal and the goal is so far out that they wouldn't have to fund when it got expensive is another tell that this initiative is another one of their many sucker plays.