Comments on: KSC launches a website

By: jondiced

jondiced — Tue, 26 May 2009 11:19:39 +0000

I thought that was the whole reason for having private enterprise in the first place!

By: khms

khms — Tue, 26 May 2009 06:01:37 +0000

I don’t know.

Both sites have far too much glitz for my taste, but the official site at least *looks* more informative. The visitor center site just seems … blah.

Both sites remind me of the old German joke about the Amiga – “klicki-klicki bunti-bunti” (clicky clicky colored-ly colored-ly).

I’ve observerd that sites I visit often tend to have very little glitz, and sites with lots of glitz seem to have trouble making it onto my interesting-site list. It’s obvious enough that by this time, heavy glitz automatically makes a site seem uninteresting to me.

Don’t misunderstand me: that doesn’t mean I prefer sites that show signs of obvious neglect, because I don’t. But I prefer that the work goes into the content, and into making sure the site conforms to standards, and that you can actually find what you’re looking for (and preferrably without having to trust some unknown author’s javascript or – worse – flash or java).

Part of that, incidentally, is making the navigation obvious. I detest sites that have three or four menus, all different, and none of the entries have obvious labels.

By: KC

KC — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:15:34 +0000

>Either that, or production and brand-preservation standards have seen a meteoric plummet >at our favorite space administration.

Yes because that of course is *so* much more important than space exploration!

By: John Betts, Jr

John Betts, Jr — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:55:07 +0000

Oh… my… god…

What is with the NASA meatball? About ten years ago I worked at NASA HQ as senior graphic designer (during the Goldin theocracy) and never would such a massively modified insignia been allowed to wander out into the public. I’m hoping this one is some sort of non-NASA, fan-created monster. Either that, or production and brand-preservation standards have seen a meteoric plummet at our favorite space administration.

By: MadScientist

MadScientist — Mon, 25 May 2009 07:26:42 +0000

OK, OK, I’ll stop with the jokes about going into town in a Space Shuttle costume and wagging a bucket under everyone’s noses to raise funding for space projects. The shuttle costume’s probably not a great idea anyway; with my artistic talents it’d look like a giant phallus.

By: earthandbeyond

earthandbeyond — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:26:08 +0000

Mmmm, Kentucky Space Chicken.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 25 May 2009 02:13:44 +0000

Launches a website? http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com has been the official visitors complex website for probably a decade. And the newest design layout is at least a half year old now.

By: Dwatney

Dwatney — Mon, 25 May 2009 00:23:49 +0000

I’d say something, but you would make my text transparent!

By: cope

cope — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:00:53 +0000

I have been told by an knowledgeable astronomer here in Florida that NASA is required by government decree to re-bid their web building contract every few years (2? 3?) so there is little consistency over time.

Please keep in mind that the purpose of the vendors of KSC is to show a profit. That is not in the NASA mission statement. NASA’s goal is to make information available to everybody as cheaply as possible. KSC’s goal is to make money.

By: John Paradox

John Paradox — Sun, 24 May 2009 22:27:40 +0000

Idea: (stupid maybe, but)
Everyone who goes to the website buys a COLBERT patch, and mention that you came from BA. Enough sales, maybe Stephen will have our favorite astronomer on the show?

J/P=?

By: Jon Lester

Jon Lester — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:35:40 +0000

All opinions about public versus private sector incentives aside, it sure has taken long enough for NASA to learn from the Russians how to diversify their funding sources!

By: sophia8

sophia8 — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:14:03 +0000

@ bigjohn756: The commercial KSC is using an up-to-date branded CMS based on the latest MS .asp technologies. The NASA KSC site, however, has to use NASA’s own custom-built CMS, which appears to be quite elderly in programming terms and in need of a complete overhaul. (A bit like NASA itself?)
So the difference is down to money, but not in the way you mean. NASA just can’t afford to splurge on shiny new web tech (neither can it make money from ads on every page).
I’d have thought you’d be happy to see a gubmint dept trying to save money.

By: T_U_T

T_U_T — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:02:36 +0000

government run health care

And government protection of environment, government police, prisons, courts, army, even private executive orders are much more effective than government laws. Yes that has to be true. It is because your single payer socialized healthcare is twice as expensive and half efficient as private healthcare in all other civilized countries. Oh wait.

By: Whomever1

Whomever1 — Sun, 24 May 2009 18:57:10 +0000

I agree with Shane–I don’t see any great inadequacies with the NASA website, though I usually enter by way of the JPL site. There’s no store where I can buy T-shirts with an Apollo logo on the official site. But I didn’t see anything on the commercial site that made me excited about space. I suppose that for the official site some administrator goes around and tells each and every department–”Justify yourselves for the taxpayers!”–so the site lacks something in cohesiveness. And it changes regularly, so it can’t be focus-grouped as easily. Those are both positives to my mind.
I have to say (for the JPL.nasa.gov site) I dislike the “Top Stories” deal where they rotate between three images and you have to wait for it, and they click on the one that’s coolest.

By: Shane

Shane — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:25:51 +0000

I had another look at the official NASA site and I can’t see any glaring inadequacies with it. The KSC site appears newer and has more superficial bells and whistles than the NASA site. The KSC site probably isn’t as big so wouldn’t require as much to completely overhaul. I don’t think it is as simple as public vs commercial site thing.

By: bigjohn756

bigjohn756 — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:15:32 +0000

Of course the commercial site is better. It has to be in order to make money. The government site has no such constraints. They get their money no matter the quality of the product. This is no surprise to me.

The same thing holds for government run health care, education, etc..

By: Shane

Shane — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:10:13 +0000

Oh to see a launch. But from Oz it is a little difficult. However we do have launch facilities here in Oz at Woomera and this past week saw the successful launch of a HIFiRE (Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation) payload. It is a joint US Australian hypersonic and scramjet thing. Woomera is in the middle of the South Australian desert, and is a bugger to get to, and the launch site is probably a restricted area, but it is closer than Florida.

Almost forgot the link to the story… by golly this edit function is cool…
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25530288-5016574,00.html

I have been to Woomera once but unfortunately I was just passing through. It really is out the back of Woop Woop.

By: Michael L

Michael L — Sun, 24 May 2009 15:52:37 +0000

I’d say that it’s pretty sad that the official gov’t site is worse. This all contributes to NASAs image problem IMO. They want people, especially young people to get excited about Space, yet make it hard to learn about it! When I was a kkid, it was something very simple that got me excited – Brook Bond Tea collector cards, “The Race To Space.” I know we live ina different age, but surely there are lessons to be learned from the past and can be implemented in a website.

By: Jewel

Jewel — Sun, 24 May 2009 15:43:07 +0000

We went to Kennedy Space Center for my 28th birthday. We were living in Key West at the time, so we drove up for the weekend. Went to Universal Studios, too. We both enjoyed KSC quite a lot. What I’d give to actually see a launch, though. Someday someday…

By: Shane

Shane — Sun, 24 May 2009 15:21:00 +0000

Heh, it is a bit like the flying brick (the shuttle) and Scaled Composites Spaceship One. Both are fully functional and will do what they’re designed to do but one is mighty purty compared to the other.

By: IVAN3MAN

IVAN3MAN — Sun, 24 May 2009 15:14:23 +0000

Phil, maybe it’s because, at the commercial website, the web-developer(s) is/are paid more?