# NewsGraphic designers try to redesign the NASA insignia

#### boogabooga

##### Bug Crusher
Actually, I rather like art deco myself.

One of my favorite buildings:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Museum_Center_at_Union_Terminal"]Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I can reverse the question. Why revert to an 80 year old style instead of inventing a new one?

#### RisingFury

##### OBSP developer
Urk. Are they quite sure those people were actual graphic designers? :blink:

Yea, I could do better with my very limited skills...

#### ISProgram

##### SketchUp Orbinaut
Yea, I could do better with my very limited skills...

IMO, a lot of people on this forum could do better, limited skill or not. A few of those concepts look a bit ridiculous to me.

I like the meatball as it is. No spaghetti or sauce.

#### Pipcard

##### mikusingularity
Donator
The last one looks very messy and at the same time, very bland.

#### Loru

##### Retired Staff Member
Retired Staff
Donator
Not sure why they've chosen those particular logos.

Hmm. My 3 propositions of modernizing (with keeping feel of the original) done in like 20 minutes:

#### T.Neo

##### SA 2010 Soccermaniac
There's also the NASA logo seen in Interstellar;

#### MaverickSawyer

##### Acolyte of the Probe
There's also the NASA logo seen in Interstellar;

That's actually not a bad logo.

#### Keatah

##### Active member
There is absolutely no need to change the current meatball logo. Everybody knows it for what it is.

Some points of discussion:
This perceived need to make a new logo is a classic case of makework.

All the efforts I've seen to date seemed to result in flat or cluttered messes. Some just reek of lameness. Some are hard to read or look unbalanced.

Whenever a logo needs extensive explanation as to what its elements represent, then it has already failed. When a logo that has elements which could have multiple interpretations, then it is a winner.

The problem with graphic designers is they depict only their interpretation of the subject matter in their own convoluted way - thus requiring an extensive explanation. A good designer will get out of their own world and represent the subject for all to understand and appreciate.

The idea of "looking dated" is just something created in your own head. The existing logo looks as good now as it did when it was drafted 52 years ago.

Last edited:

#### RonDVouz

##### New member
The idea of "looking dated" is just something created in your own head. The existing logo looks as good now as it did when it was drafted 52 years ago.

The proof that even NASA thinks so is going from that hideous 80's style logo BACK to the original.

#### Pipcard

##### mikusingularity
Donator
I would agree that the "meatball" is timeless.

#### RonDVouz

##### New member
And I like the shirt that Buzz Aldrin has been wearing lately. LOL

#### Andy44

##### owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
The meatball is timeless. Maybe you can do better, but you could also do a lot worse than to keep it.

The worm logo, which is NOT 80s, but rather 70s, definitely looks like something you'd see on the set of the original Battlestar Galactica. I didn't know it was considered art deco, as art deco was really a popular style in the 20s-50s. I am just old enough to remember the 1976 US Bicentennial celebrations, and the "official" logo, which has a lot in common with the NASA worm. So this was definitely a 70s thing.

In any effort to dream up a new logo it's important to remember that what you're making should be able to last. The worm logo was kind of cool, but it was definitely born of what was trendy at the moment, which is why by the mid-80s it was already wearing thin.

Something else I think is important is that changing your logo every 10 years is a stupid idea. It gives the impression that the institution itself can't figure out its own identity (which is unfortunately a bit close to home for this agency). They strayed from the original and then went back to it for a good reason.

---------- Post added 10-11-14 at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was 10-10-14 at 10:15 PM ----------

Since I brought up the subject of 70s styles, I'd like to mention as another example the logo of the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team, which I was a huge fan of growing up.

This is their current logo, a much more "classic"-looking logo, reminiscent of the logo from the 40s:

Current:

1948:

And this was the Phillies' logo from the 1970s-80s. People like me still like it, but only because we grew up with it. Also, hipsters may think it's cool...

Last edited:

#### n72.75

Tutorial Publisher
Donator

#### statickid

##### CatDog from Deimos
Donator
graphic designers!! looks like first week freshmen who are actually majoring in business. :rofl:

meatball all the way! I love the Meatball. The real way to "update" a classic and well loved logo is to simply clean up its lines a bit. IF I did ANYTHING, I'd probably just adjust the curvature of the lines a smidge, or tweak the existing font slightly.

the one with the "rocket outlines" is absolutely hideous. :compbash:

The first one with the hubble photo... the first rule of graphic design is that PHOTOS ARE NOT GRAPHIC DESIGN :facts:

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator
Yes, art is very subjective.

Of course. It wouldn't be art otherwise. I for example really like the 1970s style NASA logo for its reduction and simplicity.

#### Loru

##### Retired Staff Member
Retired Staff
Donator
I'm not saying they're inexperienced. It is art and there are no rigid rules of logo design. Looking on those propositions however, I'm under impression, that they spent like 5 minutes of actually drawing them while this was opportunity to freely promote their businesses even more.

#3 is only one that looks like someone put some effort in.

However that's only my opinion

#### Unstung

##### New member
I'm not saying they're inexperienced. It is art and there are no rigid rules of logo design. Looking on those propositions however, I'm under impression, that they spent like 5 minutes of actually drawing them while this was opportunity to freely promote their businesses even more.

#3 is only one that looks like someone put some effort in.

However that's only my opinion
My post was a response to the overall feeling of the thread, and I know you haven't said they were inexperienced.

I don't feel familiar enough with graphic design to critique any of the logos, yet this thread is attracting plenty of opinions. What I do know is that it would be easy for myself to replicate all the designs. However, just because the logos are low-hanging fruit does not mean they're bad. I too prefer the original meatball and worm logos but I really can't say why.

It took me four years of snapping photos, learning about cameras, and reading about composition and lighting for me to know why I like or hate a particular photograph. I am comfortable with explaining my opinions of artwork in that medium. I was foolish before then.

I'd just ignore something like this but the posts in this thread compelled me to write my own thoughts. But you may be right that this was an opportunity for quick self promotion. Then we'd be giving the studios what they want, attention.

#### statickid

##### CatDog from Deimos
Donator
In this thread, we find that members think they are expert graphic designers and it's getting increasingly infectious as the thread grows longer.

Here are some of the studios' portfolios:
http://visualdialogue.com/all
http://www.rodrigocorral.com/
http://toposgraphics.com/

No, they're not inexperienced. Yes, art is very subjective.

I'll make the basis of my judgement clear.

The portfolios of these designers reveal the main problem. This subject is not their specialty...period.

Secondly, the designs lack the motivation of pay. It is obvious they didn't spend much time on these and why should they? They don't have a $20k contract with NASA to redesign the logo. And possibly most significantly, the designs do nothing to acknowledge the context and rich history of logo design within the aerospace and spaceflight industry. This last reason is probably responsible for the general negative reception to these mock-ups. #### Unstung ##### New member I'll make the basis of my judgement clear. The portfolios of these designers reveal the main problem. This subject is not their specialty...period. Secondly, the designs lack the motivation of pay. It is obvious they didn't spend much time on these and why should they? They don't have a$20k contract with NASA to redesign the logo.

And possibly most significantly, the designs do nothing to acknowledge the context and rich history of logo design within the aerospace and spaceflight industry. This last reason is probably responsible for the general negative reception to these mock-ups.
This kind of attitude is why I made my comment in the first place. So you concede that these studios are not just a bunch of inexperienced "first week freshmen".

Ugh, here we go.

I know enough to be aware that photography can be included in graphic design. Can you see my signature? It's essentially composed of two photos (the subject, although from a video game, and the background). It's definitely not a logo, to be fair, but that doesn't mean logos cannot include a complex drawing.

As for claiming that logos are not any of these studios' specialties, or the studios having experience making logos, I urge you to look closer. Several book and magazine covers look like they can pass for logos.

I already said it's a logical assumption "that this was an opportunity for quick self promotion". It's still only an assumption. One could equally assume that the companies want to present their work in a good light with appealing designs to be advertised. Maybe they got paid for the commission. I could claim that all simplistic logos are rushed because they are easy to reproduce like the five presented in this thread.

I find the meatball and worm logos very appealing, and there is some interesting symbolism in the meatball design. However proposal #4 is simplistic and has meaning and #5 also has meaning. The meaning the logos have are a much better justification for their beauty than claiming they're ugly for no other reason than you think they look ugly.

And possibly most significantly, the designs do nothing to acknowledge the context and rich history of logo design within the aerospace and spaceflight industry. This last reason is probably responsible for the general negative reception to these mock-ups.

I think this is just nonsense, but do you care to elaborate? The meatball logo was drawn in the 1950s, before there was any notable space industry to take inspiration from. As for the aviation industry, I am clueless.

Replies
1
Views
137
Replies
0
Views
211
Replies
11
Views
844
Replies
21
Views
897
Replies
24
Views
761