Wake The Kids: CASIS Has A New Logo
CASIS Unveils New Logo Part of Aggressive Plan to Expand Research Partners
“CASIS is determined to facilitate the development of ground-breaking products and technologies on the ISS for the benefit of people on Earth,” said CASIS Interim Executive Director Jim Royston. “Our new logo captures our spirit and mission, and serves as a message to the marketplace that CASIS is a strong partner helping business and researchers harness the power of microgravity and the ISS U.S. National Lab.”
Keith’s note: This is bordering on the absurd. CASIS continues to drop the ball on all of the tasks it is supposed to be doing so as to further the utilization of the International Space Station and now they think that a new logo will “serve as a message to the marketplace”? Newsflash: actions speak louder than logos, CASIS.
Personally, I think the logo looks like something you’d see on an Adobe software package (same font). If this logo is supposed to show the industry that CASIS is serious about space, they certainly picked the wrong logo to do so. What this logo has to do with evoking an image of utilizing the ISS escapes me.
Maybe they were thinking of this movie space ship and its domes when they came up with this logo. The movie title certainly describes how CASIS has conducted itself since last year.
Setting aside other matters, I don’t care for the new logo or the branding released with it vis-a-vis, the “magic of space”. Bring up the commerce, bring back the profits. Bring up the science, bring back the knowledge. The wonder (the magic) of space is fantastic; but one tends to find it in images of the ancient universe, discoveries on distant worlds, going where no one has gone before…
The graphics designer did a cute job. Apparently the CASIS logo was simply an adaptation of the PGA logo, which aligns with CASIS’s current golf and ping pong ball outreach STEM program.
Personally I think the logo looks like something you’d see on an Adobe software package. If this logo is supposed to show the industry that CASIS is serious about space, they picked the wrong logo.
PGASIS
it looks like a new earth to me, a future earth. i like that. i imagine that in the end, that’s what going to space is all about… making life better for humankind, and humans just happen to live on earth. i get it and it seems like a next level thought to me.
If you showed this logo to 1,000 people who didn’t know what CASIS is, do you think even one of them would guess this has anything to do with a space station?
The only message this logo sends is that CASIS stands for vague ideas instead of anything concrete.
Even worse, by making a big deal of the logo rather than announcing anything of substance, CASIS is sending the message that it has nothing of substance to say.
This logo change seems pretty shrewd to me, and is actually a branding strategy that is used by many organizations that are building themselves with ambitions to expand. Sure, CASIS was formed to manage ISS science, but I don’t believe there are any restrictions on what else it could do. After all, CASIS stands for “Center for the Advancement of Science in Space”, a name which conspicuously, and probably very intentionally, omits the ISS. The old logo had a vaguely ISS-looking blob in it. But why brand yourselves to ISS if your ambition is to go further? There are many possible space science projects that a healthy, expanded CASIS could, in principle, bid to manage. The website, which is iss-casis.org, can be seen as the ISS part of CASIS. That’s the page that a someday greater CASIS website could link to, once they expand their operations.
Again, to the extent this is about branding themselves with ISS, it’s a curious change of logo. But to the extent its about seeing yourself more broadly, it’s actually very shrewd.
CASIS was created to do ISS work. I see no evidence that there is any interest beyond that – indeed, they are not even capable to doing their assigned ISS task.
USRA was originally formed to operate the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. They operate a large number of space efforts now. STScI was formed to operate HST, but is looking ahead to operating JWST, and now does science management for a number of other missions.
That you see no evidence of any CASIS interest beyond managing science for the ISS may just mean that you haven’t looked hard enough. Their “aggressive plan to expand research partners” may mean more than you think it does.
CASIS has the opportunity to be sitting pretty for a decade or two, raking in ISS funding. As it does so, it’s going to be developing deep professional relationships with the cream of space scientists, and upper NASA management. That smells to me like the recipe for something bigger.
It’s Management 101 that you avoid overspecific branding if you’re looking to expand. They didn’t have to make a big deal out of this logo change, unless perhaps there is some expansion activity they’re getting ready to kick off. Stay tuned.
Helen, your comments are intriguing. Let me see if I understand what you are saying:
CASIS has big plans. ISS management is ok, but in a way the ISS management activity is a nitnoid effort compared to other larger space-related efforts and opportunities like managing other space programs, systems, and activities they see.
The $15M/year to manage the ISS was a nice starter-kit of federal money. The 1st $15 million and a year of set-up time with nothing much done has enabled CASIS to build a staff, get operations going, get some visibility and branding, and build a power-base. They’ve been really smart about the way they’ve approached things and have been around .gov long enough to co-opt and outwit them at every turn.
So perhaps CASIS looks at the ISS and like many others realizes the Station has a limited life and may have opportunity limits as well, particularly if pursued with mediocre actions.
Smartly CASIS has decided to position itself to do ISS management to an extent, to play through with Nat Lab nominally, minimally. Of a higher priority and interest is to powerfully position CASIS to take over and manage other large space initiatives and programs. Is this what you are saying? Please confirm or corrrect.
Also, I’m not sure I understand your comment “CASIS has the opportunity to be sitting pretty for a decade or two, raking in the ISS funding.” Current documentation indicates CASIS will receive $15M/year for 5 years. From what you’re saying I assume they have aims to change that equation and pulling larger funds from NASA. Correct?
I assume CASIS’s game-play will be to attempt to pull part of the $8 billion dollar HEOMD money away from Gerstenmaier to achieve that objective. I assume they would need to somehow entice NASA to do this, and would need to pull in Charlie, Lori, Waleed, and other key execs with some attractive carrot. Actually I suspect NASA would be thrilled to be able to offload some responsibilities to CASIS so they can focus on things they enjoy controlling more.
Or would the play be more likely to get a line item in the NASA budget to secure larger funding that would move into CASIS hands?
Apparently Korn Ferry has been put in motion to find a dozen top Board members to create a super-power Board to guide all of these activities. You know, billionaires, power-brokers, nobel prize winners, the pope some saints and other notables. Does this align with the formula you’ve indicated? If they play their cards right, they should be able to pull 100’s of millions from gov to build their infrastructure.
“Of a higher priority and interest is to powerfully position CASIS to
take over and manage other large space initiatives and programs. Is
this what you are saying? Please confirm or corrrect.”
Of course that’s what I’m saying. There are excellent examples in other independent space sicence providers that NASA outsources managment responsibility to. Why in the world would CASIS want to draw a line around itself and say that they’re just about ISS? Who’s going to manage cis-lunar science done by Orion for HEOMD? Who’s going to manage NEO science for HEOMD?
“Also, I’m not sure I understand your comment “CASIS has the opportunity
to be sitting pretty for a decade or two, raking in the ISS funding.”
Geez. Pretty simple. CASIS is declared to be the responsible party for providing science access to ISS. It will be compensated for such work, whether through NASA, or independently.
“You know, billionaires, power-brokers, nobel prize winners, the pope
some saints and other notables. Does this align with the formula you’ve
indicated? “
You can build an elaborate house of cards, but we’re not talking about the $8B HEOMD budget. We’re talking about biological and physical science connected to human space flight. Hundreds of millions of dollars? Seems a stretch.
But incredulity and joking about a new logo is the least interesting part of this story.
When you finish your book on the story, I’d like your autograph on the cover.
CASIS will begin to impress me once they sign a couple of real payload commitments for ISS by some big-name US companies who otherwise wouldn’t be flying payloads.
Everything else, like logos, educational programs or nanoracks already in development by industry or academia, is fluff and a convenient excuse for them not doing the job they signed up for.
” Keith’s note: This is bordering on the absurd.”
Oh, I think it is well across the border.
When you are really desperate and don’t know what to do, you always turn to empty marketing gimmicks….”re-branding”. Perhaps marketing hype is all there was to begin with? You know it is marketing BS when, in their press release, they have to tell you how the public will interpret the re-branding. Post hypnotic suggestion?
Am I the only one who thinks it looks like the logo now says “OASIS”, and not “CASIS”? As in “oasis in space”?
Good observation cb. Words like OASIS or even CASINO tend to emerge. CASINO would be appropriate given the gamble Congress and NASA are taking on Frank, Jim, Bobby and Alan. The more you gaze at the logo, the more it looks like a partial erection of a geodesic dome.
There is a question about CASIS funding, perhaps someone here can comment on it. There isn’t much of any reporting or information on CASIS other than what is broadcast on the website. Little business documentation. There is a Reference Model NASA apparently contracted for but it is unclear as to whether it is a requirement or an option.
In the Model on Page 18 is a set of CASIS funding milestones from 2011 to 2020. It shows annual funding from the USG at $15 Million per year to CASIS. It also shows a funding line that CASIS is responsible for raising. The 2012 CASIS raise amount is listed at $2.892 Million dollars. In 2013 it jumps to $5M, by 2016 to $20M in a year and by 2020 to $37M just for that year. By 2016, the USG provides Zero dollars!! and CASIS is fully, privately funded. That would mean that CASIS has to raise over $179 Million dollars of funding by 2020. Does anyone know what private sector organization would put $179M in to CASIS and how they would justify it? Dear Florida: Will you bail them out? Dear Congress: Will you bail them out? Dear NASA: Will you bail them out?
Does anyone know if CASIS has raised even $1 Dollar, let alone the 1st year $2.8 Million? They only have a few weeks left in the 1st year. If they haven’t, do you think NASA will bail them out in 2012, 2013, 2014, etc.? Is it even legal for NASA to bail them out? Maybe CASIS has already raised all the private money. Does anyone know if they have?
The Pebble Watch raised over $10M on Kickstarter. $10M in funding for a flippin’ iPhone watch! Maybe CASIS should put a project on Kickstarter so it has a chance of raising donations to meet its milestones. CASIS would need to identify good pledge prizes though. And I doubt they could offer the Space Station for a $100B donation, well 1/2 of it anyway, although NASA and the USG might go for that.
The NASA approach is spelled out in the FY 13 budget proposal.
“Risk Statement:
If: ISS NPO doesn’t find sufficient investors in space research,
Then: ISS utilization may be below optimal levels.”
“Mitigation:
Maintain portfolio balance between NASA-sponsored and CASIS-developed utilization while CASIS establishes its operations.”
So yes, if CASIS has a hard time raising their own independent money,
NASA will increase its own ISS utilization for space life and physical
science. In fact, management of NASA ISS research will slide over to
CASIS in future years anyway, so maintaining that portfolio balance will
support CASIS. It’s not a bailout, because NASA is just paying to
manage the research it wants to do.
The model is just that. It’s a notional plan for CASIS funding. NASA can’t commit to any funding plan beyond the present FY.
Very informative Helen. So if CASIS does not succeed in raising funds, the management of NASA ISS research slides over to CASIS.
Does that mean that ISS NASA managers like Mary Beth Edeen, Julie Robinson and others will leave NASA and move to CASIS? And then NASA will shift more and more NASA dollars over to CASIS as well? Pretty much outsourcing the ISS usage altogether?
It’s fascinating to see a $100B U.S. asset built and then its use farmed out to a .org firm. It’s interesting to see your other posts that point at CASIS having plans far beyond just using the ISS. It sounds like CASIS has large plans to grow into a global space leader. No wonder NASA and Congress are so pleased with them.
Again, just see the FY13 budget proposal …
“CASIS will oversee all research involving organizations other than NASA, and transfer current NASA biological and physical research to CASIS in future years. Space Operations oversight of existing research projects will be phased out and CASIS will co-select/manage new peer-reviewed projects. As on-going work within the NASA research project offices is completed in future years, extension/renewal decisions should be made by CASIS.”
As to “a $100B U.S. asset built and then its use farmed out to a .org firm”, let’s be clear, a small part of what ISS is doing is biological and physical “science”. ISS was built to do a lot more than this science. As I said, SMD does this kind of thing all the time, where its science management is “farmed out” to independent organizations. Works very well, and lets NASA concentrate on space technology.
I have no idea if NASA managers will move over to CASIS. Why would they do that? Give up a CS position and move over to employment by an NPO? I guess if they love managing science more than they love working for NASA, OK, maybe they’d make that concession.
I have no great qualms with CASIS. It’s a new organization, and they’re trying to find they’re legs. It’s a new way for NASA space operations to do things. ISS utilization will hardly be incentivized by cheerleaders with pretty logos and websites. The fair question would be to ISS users — how well did CASIS do in helping you to do your research?
This is reminiscent of the old CCDS program – commercial centers for the development of space – NASA set a bunch of them up with a graduated scale that changed from one year to the next with each CCDS more or less privately funded after a few years. I think (not 100% certain) that this never happened and that NASA more or less ended up writing checks to cover a substantial portion of CCDS operations for years until these things disappeared or morphed into new entities. As such, I wonder if there are alarm points at which NASA can (or must) pull the plug on CASIS if it fails to meet these funding milestones.
Thanks for the reminder of the nostalgic activities in the 80’s and 90’s. Interesting to see that Battelle had Advanced Materials back then, Penn State on cellular and Clarkson Univ on Crystal Growth. Makes you wonder what the final funded reports on their efforts looked like.
There is a little “TM” on this logo i.e. trademark. I checked to see what the CASIS trademark application [Go here, enter “CASIS” and click on the top result.] looks like It says “Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the stylized wordings “CASIS” and “CENTER FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN SPACE”, with the design of a spacecraft orbiting the letter “C” of the wording “CASIS”.” They included a copy of their logo but did not include this new logo.
I didn’t think tradmarking the “C” word was even allowed, but apparently if something is whizzing around the “C”, it is acceptable. The full word trademark makes sense. No mention of the “A” in the new logo or the new logo at all. Interesting the services are educational only, no mention of lab management, although it does align with what has been done so far. The entire record is a bit odd with C and A and lines of passing wind around a C, but who is really interested in the trademark filing? Nobody.