I miss NASA's "worm Logo"

[Robotengineer]

I like the 'meatball' logo, I just think it needs a new font. Something smooth.

[GeneCash]

I remember one of the NASA administrators (Dan Goldin) **HATED** the worm logo with an absolute passion, and he's the one that brought back the meatball.

Several of my friends mention times he threw hissy fits where a worm logo hadn't been replaced, like on the JPL floor, which cost big bucks to chisel it out and put in the meatball.

He also instituted "better, faster, cheaper" (and the joke of course was "pick any two") so he was quite the ........ and did a lot of damage to NASA.

[Pipcard]

I like the "meatball" logo because I feel that it's timeless: it can fit in the 1960s, today, or the future.

The worm is also cool, but I think it mostly belongs in the 70s/80s. Maybe that's because it was only used in those time periods, but there's something about the aesthetic.

I also like the "wormball/meatworm."

Edited June 16, 2015 by Pipcard

[lajoswinkler]

I like the worm logo. o.o

[Albert VDS]

They are a dirty blue Frisbee with bird poop and a weirdly red twig on it?

You sir, need to see an eye doctor.

[Whirligig Girl]

That's just taking wrong and making it wronger.

ok.

[benjee10]

ok.

Personally I loved it! The worm has something gloriously retro yet futuristic about it at the same time. Combining it with the worm looked super cool.

[Camacha]

You sir, need to see an eye doctor.

I have pretty decent eyes, thank you. And somewhat of an imagination, also thank you.

[razark]

I don't think so. The normal meat ball is starting to look dated to me. Gregroxmuns redesign looks more modern, that being said I like Novas the best.

The meatball is old. So are a lot of countries' flags. That doesn't mean we need to go replacing them with something else.

"Progress" for the sake of progress is not progress. It's silliness. Changing the logo didn't actually accomplish anything, except require a lot of changes in signs, stationery, vehicle paint jobs, etc. Why bother changing it? Did someone call a meeting and say "You know, this logo is old. It's the same one we went to the moon with. We need to move away from that image and reinvent ourselves! We don't want anyone thinking we can't keep up with the times."

ok.

I like the stars. Without them, it just looks so flat and lifeless. (That goes for the worm logotype, too.)

[Camacha]

The meatball is"Progress" for the sake of progress is not progress. It's silliness. Changing the logo didn't actually accomplish anything, except require a lot of changes in signs, stationery, vehicle paint jobs, etc. Why bother changing it? Did someone call a meeting and say "You know, this logo is old. It's the same one we went to the moon with. We need to move away from that image and reinvent ourselves! We don't want anyone thinking we can't keep up with the times."

You might want to inform yourself on why companies decide to change logo's over time.

[razark]

You might want to inform yourself on why companies decide to change logo's over time.

NASA isn't exactly a "company".

[Fel]

I don't think so. The normal meat ball is starting to look dated to me. Gregroxmuns redesign looks more modern, that being said I like Novas the best.

"Modern" is just fashion forced upon consumers due to dwindling sales. By being exposed to it constantly you begin to accept it and view it as an improvement instead of simply reverting to 16-bit colour schemes.

Couldn't help myself. Behold, the meatworm (or wormball)

I actually like it more than I thought I would.

Long live the wormball!

- - - Updated - - -

You might want to inform yourself on why companies decide to change logo's over time.

NASA isn't exactly a "company".

Usually there's a gain to be had, be it better relations with foreign investors, or removing yourself from the past and presenting yourself as having new goals and new visions. A logo change means quite a bit and is never done simply because someone wanted a new artistic style, research was actually done to verify that the new logo would have a large enough benefit to warrant the change.

[Camacha]

NASA isn't exactly a "company".

For these intents and purposes they are exactly the same.

Usually there's a gain to be had, be it better relations with foreign investors, or removing yourself from the past and presenting yourself as having new goals and new visions. A logo change means quite a bit and is never done simply because someone wanted a new artistic style, research was actually done to verify that the new logo would have a large enough benefit to warrant the change.

Now you are overestimating a lot of decision making. Some companies will do that, a lot of them will not (and really do not need to either). Personal opinions and feelings of prestige of the higher ups in a company play an excessively large role in the process, even when things are a really bad idea. Just ask any designer that has ever gone through the process and you will hear stories of people hiring designers for their expertise, only not to trust them with any actual design decisions or for their expertise.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Camacha

[NovaSilisko]

While we're on the subject of branding and such, this is an excellent time to insert a link to this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4856810/pepsi_gravitational_field.pdf Supposedly (and likely) the document that led to the change in pepsi's logo a few years back.

[Fel]

While we're on the subject of branding and such, this is an excellent time to insert a link to this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4856810/pepsi_gravitational_field.pdf Supposedly (and likely) the document that led to the change in pepsi's logo a few years back.

XD I remember that just by the title and the reference XD

I'd say it is unlikely the official document that lead to the change, but easily likely a joke "leaked" to create viral advertisement.

Still as utterly absurd as when I first read it. All Illuminati at first, then acting like we're talking about material physics, orbital mechanics, and all sorts of insanity.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Fel

[Newt]

Another thing to consider, one that I geenrally follow, would be the idea of different things in different places. The worm, is nice, but a very nice feature of it, one that I beleive was deliberatly made as part of the design: It photocopies well. The meatball can photocopy, but having multiple layers of colour and dots and writing lumped together over a single mass is not good for makign quick black and white duplicates. A single, monochrome, bold logo is.

At the same time, the worm (as has been noted) lacks really any information, a kind of futuristic, 'retro-looking', thing, whereas the meatball has some symbolism. It seem that the two very well have their places, and there seems to be no particular reason not to use both.

For the record, I like the wormball.

[razark]

The worm, is nice, but a very nice feature of it, one that I beleive was deliberatly made as part of the design: It photocopies well. The meatball can photocopy, but having multiple layers of colour and dots and writing lumped together over a single mass is not good for makign quick black and white duplicates.

I will admit, as much as I like the Meatball, it can be a pain to get it working properly on paper sometimes. There are specific files created for the color and black & white versions, though.

[Zucal]

One interesting almost-compromise is the NASA emblem from Interstellar.

[Herr Rictus Bingo]

I love the Worm one, here I created an album about graphic chart of the "worm" on vehicule, spacecraft etc... enjoy

Javascript is disabled. View full album

And for the end here goes the 70s feels train

All abord the feels train !

Edited June 16, 2015 by Herr Rictus Bingo

[rtxoff]

Worm logo FTW !

[sj176]

This might not be entirely relevant, but has anyone noticed the Apollo 16 patch says bam on the left side?

[NovaSilisko]

That's almost certainly a joke on the part of whoever made the vector graphic, not something on the original patch. I don't think the patch material had enough fidelity for that.

[Camacha]

While we're on the subject of branding and such, this is an excellent time to insert a link to this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4856810/pepsi_gravitational_field.pdf Supposedly (and likely) the document that led to the change in pepsi's logo a few years back.

If that is an official document indeed, some advertising or design company got rich writing many, many hours for that... erm... fairytale

Another thing to consider, one that I geenrally follow, would be the idea of different things in different places. The worm, is nice, but a very nice feature of it, one that I beleive was deliberatly made as part of the design: It photocopies well. The meatball can photocopy, but having multiple layers of colour and dots and writing lumped together over a single mass is not good for makign quick black and white duplicates. A single, monochrome, bold logo is.

Well, there you go. These are actual reasons why things get changed once in a while, and ease of reproduction across a variety of media is actually something designers worth their salt will take into account.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Camacha

[Newt]

That's almost certainly a joke on the part of whoever made the vector graphic, not something on the original patch. I don't think the patch material had enough fidelity for that.

My bet would be that it is the initials of the artist, Barbara (A?) Matelski. I will go past an original patch later today, so I can check and confirm its presence.

[Fel]

That's almost certainly a joke on the part of whoever made the vector graphic, not something on the original patch. I don't think the patch material had enough fidelity for that.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/333653main_16-lg.jpg

It appears close enough to be on the original (no crapipedia), so it likely is initials. Artists are well known for hiding their initials in some way on their artwork, sometimes even in unique and different ways.