NASA Unveils Artemis Program Identity
Earth Blue, Rocket Red and Lunar Silver: A New Identity for Artemis Program to the Moon, NASA
“With this in mind, NASA is unveiling the new Artemis program identity, a bold look that embodies the determination of the men and women who will carry our missions forward. They will explore regions of the Moon never visited before, unlock mysteries of the Universe and test the technology that will extend the bounds of humanity farther into the Solar System.”
Marc’s note: Hey NASA Watch readers, what do you think of this new “identity”?
as a substitute for real progress (a clearly defined mission goal, a carefully thought out program of missions supporting return and continuing into the future, a unifying statement “We choose to go to the Moon …” that rallied the nation, a coherent policy/strategy for co-operating with other nations, etc) we have a nice looking logo. Sort of follows from that survey (kids in US/Europe want to do blogging, etc; kids in China want to do Engineering).
Get rid of the Mars in background. But at least the basic patch design doesn’t include that red planet.
Well, if they don’t get a budget increase to get the program underway, at least we’ll have the cool Artemis logo and gif.
Rule of thumb, when the logo arrives, and soon after the order sheet for the coffee mugs and shirts, the program is on the ropes.
So Falcon, Dragon etc. are on the ropes since they have logos?
LOL. Yep, good one. No, I’ve only experienced the rule of thumb in NASA traditional “Programs”…from SLI, to NGLT to Constellation…etc.
That can go both ways. When the people involved start producing unofficial logos and putting them on shirts and mugs, it can be a sign things are really taking off. The Navy, for example, didn’t invent or officially endorse those “FUBAR Construction Company” signs. And at a IGY Antarctic base (with some serious issues between the scientists and base commander) someone put up a “United Mine Workers, Weddell Sea Local” sign over their deep ice pit (excavation to study ice sedimentation).
Decent.
Ooh, a shiny new logo!
Meh. If shiny new logos could get us into space, we’d be halfway to Alpha Centauri by now.
Wake me when we see a shiny new policy on pensioning off the kafkaesque in-house space transport development bureaucracy, contracting transportation out, and doing some actual exploration again.
No surprise people here are complaining about it but I like the idea of program logos, mission patches, and the like. Gives a visual connection and makes you feel like you’re a part of the mission.
United flight 143, from Denver to Tokyo, doesn’t have a logo or a mission patch. And I don’t think anyone thinks of those flights as missions. That’s really the problem I have with programs like Artemis. They are a series of one-off adventures. Even the Space Shuttle flight and the ISS “Expeditions” are thought of in that way. It’s not a routine, repeated transportation service or disconnected from what people do at their destination, or a regular posting or job assignment.
(Although, I know some commercial aircraft, the ships that is not the flights, do have names and logos, and I really like the tail art Frontier uses.)
It’s not too bad looking — for a logo designed by a committee.
It’s not bad.
Pretty good. How many billions and conference meetings did it take? Any money left in the budget for the actual mission?