NASA decided not to name its new space station module "Colbert", even though it was the top vote getter. But it also rejected "Serenity", despite a furious campaign by Firefly supporters which launched it into second place. "Serenity", unlike "Colbert", actually fits with NASA's theme.
The organization decided to choose "Tranquility" in the end, which they said placed in the "top 10" in its poll. That's true, in the sense that Tranquility placed eighth with 4,500 votes, whereas Serenity clocked in at 190,000 and Colbert received 230,500. Lame.
Wow. What's the point of even allowing a) write-ins or b) public voting at all if you're going to completely ignore the results?
ReplyDeletePublicity.
ReplyDeleteAlso, some of us would like to use the internet as a tool for communication without reducing every interaction to lowest-common-denominator memeticism. NASA underestimated the self-absorbed idiocy of most internet users, and corrected accordingly.
ReplyDeleteIf people were merely self-absorbed, wouldn't they all vote for their own names and the module would be named "John"? On the contrary, these campaigns work because people identify as part of certain communities -- that of ironic Colbert fans, or of imaginative Firefly fans -- and vote accordingly.
ReplyDeleteAnd as David points out, "Serenity" fits the theme; it's pretty much a synonym for "Tranquillity." I can see how it might violate an unwritten NASA rule not to name stuff after random celebrities, but refusing to use "Serenity" just comes off as "Screw you, internet voters."
Yeah, I assumed the "reserve the right to make the final decision" stuff was just about keeping the module from being named the Butt Sex module or something.
ReplyDelete