He came, he ran, he won -- sort of. A treadmill that will grace the International Space Station's Node 3 will carry Stephen Colbert's name, after his landslide win in NASA's name-that-node contest.
(NASA)Photos (1 of 1)
COLBERT treadmill? NASA tips visor to Colbert Nation’s vote
By Pete Spotts | 04.15.09
The gravitas of the International Space Station is safe. The last US node, scheduled for launch in February 2010, will be called Tranquility, not Colbert.
The name honors the Apollo 11 landing site. But it’s appropriate for other reasons.
Among its amenities, the node sports a viewing port for contemplating the meaning of life, the universe, and everything as stunning views of the Earth pan by. (For those impatient for the answer to LU&E, it’s 42.)
And the node will host, among other “utilities,” the sanitary facilities — which on Earth probably would be well stocked with heavily thumbed Readers Digests.
But last night, NASA acknowledged Comedy Central comedian Stephen Colbert’s landslide win in the space agency’s online, vote-on-a-name contest for the node.
In a statement, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations, noted that “we don’t typically name US space station hardware after living people.” And, well, technically, that remains true. But you can’t miss the acronym.
Hear ye, hear ye. All rise. The treadmill shall henceforth be known as the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill. NASA even offered up a “mission” patch (see above) for the treadmill. The big question: Will they sell that alongside other mission patches in NASA center gift shops? (I’m not holding my breath.)
It was a politic end to a corner the agency painted itself into by opening the contest to “write-in” names. You can read more about that here. Although the rules were clear about the kind of name NASA sought (invoking a spirit of exploration) and about its role as final arbiter regardless of the contest’s outcome, that got lost in the stampede citizens of Colbert Nation took part in to boost their man to the top of the list. Over at The Space Review, editor Jeff Foust points out odd results from another attempt by NASA to keep its missions in the public eye.
In this case, the agency was trying to pick up on collegiate basketball’s March Madness by pitting 64 missions — past, present, and future — against each other in NCAA-like brackets. Online visitors would vote for their favorite missions. The winners would be paired off against each other in the next set of brackets. The Mission Madness champ would be pegged as NASA’s “greatest mission.”
Among the “upsets”: After the first round ended, a NASA high-altitude balloon still under development beat out the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity 52-48. In fact it made the Final Four, blowing past Mars orbiters, the space station, and the new human-rated launch system NASA is developing.
Along the way to its perch among the Final Four, the still-to-be-launched Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter beat out the Hubble Space Telescope and Apollo 11, when humans first set foot on the moon. Go figure.
Oh yeah, the champ, the “greatest mission” NASA has ever undertaken to date? The still-under-development balloon.
And, Foust asks, in effect, where was the high-profile announcement of the winner? Uh, there wasn’t one.
How could it explain, with a straight face, that a little-known balloon project is considered to be the “greatest mission” in NASA’s 50-year history by the voting public, or at least among those people who voted, and voted frequently?
Excellent question!
[Editor’s Note: The original version of this story used the wrong spelling of Stephen.]
<< Spacecraft sees solar storm in 3-D; it’s the blob! | MainComments
2. DS | 07.20.09
The big question: Will they sell that alongside other mission patches in NASA center gift shops? (I’m not holding my breath.)
Yes, they do. I picked one up this past weekend at the Space Center Houston gift shop. $6 or so with taxes.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
2. Topics about Stephen-smith » COLBERT treadmill? NASA tips visor to Colbert Nation’s vote … | 04.18.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Tom A | 04.17.09
Totally ridiculous on NASA’s part. It would appear that they must be so used to being ignored or receiving attention only as a result of disasters, that they crumple when they get potentially positive attention. They can’t even manage a reasonable rationalization. I mean, come on, they could say “No” and at the same time display a little PR competence and remind us of the idealistic nature of their mission. They could talk about needing to remain above the influence of the commercial market-place — of having clear rules that exclude “Colbert” or any other commercial interest as a possible name. They could read the rules and give us a clear sense of why they ended up choosing the one they did. Instead we get a mealy-mouthed “Nahh, I don’t think so” and a selection from deep on the list that makes no sense, whatsoever.
Way to drive potential constituents away.
Reminds me of the gov’t’s response to Hurricaine Katrina, actually. This may not be anywhere on the same scale with respect to immediate human suffering, but given NASA’s budget and its responsibilities with respect to our future technological development, incompetence in this agency may cost us far more when it’s all added up.