Been a NASA freak since the Gemini and Apollo missions that I was old enough to follow. Saw the 1st Moon landing in 1969 with Walter Cronkite doing the Play by Play......
1st Moon Crew in 50 Years Includes Woman, Black Astronaut
NASA has named the four astronauts who will fly around the moon late next year
NASA on Monday named the four astronauts who will fly around the moon late next year, including the first woman and the first African American assigned to a lunar mission.
The first moon crew in 50 years — three Americans and one Canadian — was introduced during a ceremony in Houston, home to the nation's astronauts as well as Mission Control.
“This is humanity's crew,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/...oman-3-men
They fly around the moon and return. They won’t even orbit. Pssh, I can do that in my old minivan.
It’s going to be a slightly awkward ride for Christina Koch. There is absolutely no privacy in a capsule.
I think this is pretty cool.. We needed to go back and explore more.
Still curious if the saying remains the same..
Do we still know more about the moon than the bottom of the ocean?
I just don't understand why we haven't been there in 50 years. And why is it such a big task to do with technology we have now vs 50 years ago?
(04-06-2023, 09:32 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't understand why we haven't been there in 50 years. And why is it such a big task to do with technology we have now vs 50 years ago?
The first reason is because it is hugely expensive, even for an economic powerhouse like the U.S. When the Apollo mission was being built out, it employed over 400,000 people and the cost was 5% of all government spending. Apollo not only had to build the spacecraft and the nationwide infrastructure to develop and support it, but the program also had to invent the technology to make it possible. A huge cost both financially and academically. While not as pricey today, thanks to the foundation of Apollo, it is still an expensive undertaking.
The second reason is Mars. The primary motivation for going in the 60s was to beat the Soviets. Once we had won that race and returned hundreds of pounds of material to study, there was no viable reason to return. Now we're trying to beat the Chinese. Science and technology have progressed to the point where we can begin to earnestly consider sending people to Mars, which has been a goal for decades. The moon is the next logical step to develop long term extraplanetary survival technology and equipment. China just adds urgency to it. Not to mention the rapidly growing commercial entities which now not only compete with NASA's once held monopoly on space, but are actually outperforming them.
This next decade is going to be a wonder for space exploration.
Space official calls for China to seize crucial opportunity to establish lunar infrastructure - SpaceNews
(04-06-2023, 11:03 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2023, 09:32 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't understand why we haven't been there in 50 years. And why is it such a big task to do with technology we have now vs 50 years ago?
The first reason is because it is hugely expensive, even for an economic powerhouse like the U.S. When the Apollo mission was being built out, it employed over 400,000 people and the cost was 5% of all government spending. Apollo not only had to build the spacecraft and the nationwide infrastructure to develop and support it, but the program also had to invent the technology to make it possible. A huge cost both financially and academically. While not as pricey today, thanks to the foundation of Apollo, it is still an expensive undertaking.
The second reason is Mars. The primary motivation for going in the 60s was to beat the Soviets. Once we had won that race and returned hundreds of pounds of material to study, there was no viable reason to return. Now we're trying to beat the Chinese. Science and technology have progressed to the point where we can begin to earnestly consider sending people to Mars, which has been a goal for decades. The moon is the next logical step to develop long term extraplanetary survival technology and equipment. China just adds urgency to it. Not to mention the rapidly growing commercial entities which now not only compete with NASA's once held monopoly on space, but are actually outperforming them.
This next decade is going to be a wonder for space exploration.
Space official calls for China to seize crucial opportunity to establish lunar infrastructure - SpaceNews
Agreed; this is like when the USPS made changes to try and perform/outperform against Fed Ex and UPS.
So are we building a launching point off the moon this time? That would make sense to me launching from the moon which has less gravity?
Not the moon, but as good as any place to leave this:
It's happening! Artemis launched late last year and was the first rocket more powerful than the Saturn V from the Apollo era. But it was only slightly more powerful. Starship will be almost twice as powerful at 16.9 million pounds of thrust to Saturn's 9 million. It's going to be a true earth shaker.
FAA issues license for first Starship integrated test flight - SpaceNews
So moving forward, the line will be, " We can put a black / woman on the moon, but we can't <<fill in the blank>>. Sheesh. Lets just send a mixed race tranny up so we can get the box checks over with.
It's not like we haven't sent a black person or a woman to space. I guess it's different because they're going to the moon.
(04-16-2023, 09:35 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]So moving forward, the line will be, " We can put a black / woman on the moon, but we can't <<fill in the blank>>. Sheesh. Lets just send a mixed race tranny up so we can get the box checks over with.
Give Tiger Woods a sex change, and you'd have all the bases covered. White, black, asian, native American, kind of a guy, kind of a girl.
(04-17-2023, 01:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-16-2023, 09:35 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]So moving forward, the line will be, " We can put a black / woman on the moon, but we can't <<fill in the blank>>. Sheesh. Lets just send a mixed race tranny up so we can get the box checks over with.
Give Tiger Woods a sex change, and you'd have all the bases covered. White, black, asian, native American, kind of a guy, kind of a girl.
Good genetic call, sir.
So, per his Wiki (sorry, had to use it), he is one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Caucasian, one-eighth African American and one-eighth Native American. So according to my math, he's of half Asian descent, and yet, he's rarely referred to in media as the greatest Asian golfer of all time. Maybe he bears this title in Pacific Rim media? Might explain why he never really played the race card with the US and European media, to his credit; except when forced to by the idiot Fuzzy Zoeller's of the world. Just an observation.
(04-17-2023, 03:29 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 01:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Give Tiger Woods a sex change, and you'd have all the bases covered. White, black, asian, native American, kind of a guy, kind of a girl.
Good genetic call, sir.
So, per his Wiki (sorry, had to use it), he is one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Caucasian, one-eighth African American and one-eighth Native American. So according to my math, he's of half Asian descent, and yet, he's rarely referred to in media as the greatest Asian golfer of all time. Maybe he bears this title in Pacific Rim media? Might explain why he never really played the race card with the US and European media, to his credit; except when forced to by the idiot Fuzzy Zoeller's of the world. Just an observation.
Did you ask King Wiki if you could use his personal copy/paste template? I don't think anyone is allowed in there without his permission. Don't steal any of his message board cred!
(04-17-2023, 03:45 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 03:29 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Good genetic call, sir.
So, per his Wiki (sorry, had to use it), he is one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Caucasian, one-eighth African American and one-eighth Native American. So according to my math, he's of half Asian descent, and yet, he's rarely referred to in media as the greatest Asian golfer of all time. Maybe he bears this title in Pacific Rim media? Might explain why he never really played the race card with the US and European media, to his credit; except when forced to by the idiot Fuzzy Zoeller's of the world. Just an observation.
Did you ask King Wiki if you could use his personal copy/paste template? I don't think anyone is allowed in there without his permission. Don't steal any of his message board cred!
I assumed he was part owner of Wikipedia and my annual donation goes directly to him.
(04-17-2023, 04:44 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 03:45 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Did you ask King Wiki if you could use his personal copy/paste template? I don't think anyone is allowed in there without his permission. Don't steal any of his message board cred!
I assumed he was part owner of Wikipedia and my annual donation goes directly to him.
Sir Mikesez of Castle Wikipedia thanks you for your generous donation!
(04-17-2023, 03:29 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 01:32 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Give Tiger Woods a sex change, and you'd have all the bases covered. White, black, asian, native American, kind of a guy, kind of a girl.
Good genetic call, sir.
So, per his Wiki (sorry, had to use it), he is one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Caucasian, one-eighth African American and one-eighth Native American. So according to my math, he's of half Asian descent, and yet, he's rarely referred to in media as the greatest Asian golfer of all time. Maybe he bears this title in Pacific Rim media? Might explain why he never really played the race card with the US and European media, to his credit; except when forced to by the idiot Fuzzy Zoeller's of the world. Just an observation.
He's self professed Cablanasian.
(04-06-2023, 09:32 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't understand why we haven't been there in 50 years. And why is it such a big task to do with technology we have now vs 50 years ago?
I think it's because of porn. If you think about it, up through the 60s there was pretty much war and black & white tv. Then in the 70s they came up with nude magazines and XXX movies so people got distracted. Ever since, the evolution of adult filming and easy video access via the phone has pretty much placed a halt on scientific progress. Now, people try go look smart by stating the world started 400 billion years ago and Pluto isn't really a planet but nobody really knows anything more than they did back when man landed on the moon.
(04-16-2023, 09:35 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]So moving forward, the line will be, " We can put a black / woman on the moon, but we can't <<fill in the blank>>. Sheesh. Lets just send a mixed race tranny up so we can get the box checks over with.
I heard Elizabeth Warren is pissed that we are not sending her up into space to represent the Native American race.
Starship launched but the second stage failed to separate. Regardless, it was a successful integrated launch. Lots of good things happened today.