What year is it?
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
We had greater motivation to go to the moon in the 60s. The USSR was headed there, and the true reason for the space race was military. No way were we going to let our adversaries dominate space from a high tech base on the moon, where they could undoubtably launch an attack on us! Yeah, that sounds silly today but back then we knew so little - in fact, the first man made satellite had just been launched. And not by us. Today, the cold war is over and there's more immediate danger from ICBMs and orbiting weapons platforms than from the moon, so there's no driving need to rush back out there. Even when we do go back, I doubt there will be the public interest there was in 69. Been there, done that. So how about landing a man on Mars? It still won't capture the public imagination. Our droids have already sent us detailed pictures, so there's no real mystery.
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
Jim Crafton wrote:
Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon
I can think of several reasons: 1) Cost - Going to the moon will be very expensive 2) Risk - The first time around we put the astronauts lives in a lot of danger we will try not to do this now... 3) Since the Apollo program ended the US has not had a space ship that could take a human safely to the moon.
John
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon
I can think of several reasons: 1) Cost - Going to the moon will be very expensive 2) Risk - The first time around we put the astronauts lives in a lot of danger we will try not to do this now... 3) Since the Apollo program ended the US has not had a space ship that could take a human safely to the moon.
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
- Risk - The first time around we put the astronauts lives in a lot of danger we will try not to do this now...
This is a big one. Short of the Chinese trying to beat us there I can't see anything that would push us towards the same sort of frantic push. The other related item is the Kennedy assassination that made politicians unwilling to rewrite the nasa program at a moderate level every year and at a major level following each new president. IF Lockheed hasn't factored the 2009 and potential 2013 massive focus changes into their timeline I doubt it'll happen before 2020 if it doesn't end up completely canceled. This is the sort of project that bush should've started his first year in office, with 8 years of the same focus pushing it would be far enough along to have some resistance to random political changes when the new pres takes the office in 2 years.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
Jim Crafton wrote:
Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)!
Back to the moon? Everyone knows that we never made it to the moon. It was all an elaborate hoax. I think "the moon" man walked on was actually some guy's garage in Arizona. Duh. :rolleyes:
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
I wouldn't be surprised if private industry get's tourists in orbit sooner than NASA can hope to get anyone on the moon.
No kidding. When private industry can make a orbital craft for a few million bucks (as opposed to NASA's billions), I wouldn't be surprised if the first moon base belonged to a private company. Hello Total Recall?
Found on Bash.org [erno] hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)!
Back to the moon? Everyone knows that we never made it to the moon. It was all an elaborate hoax. I think "the moon" man walked on was actually some guy's garage in Arizona. Duh. :rolleyes:
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Heh, you could use Blender to fake it now! :) And then post the "evidence" up on You-Tube!
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
Well, I'm no expert on any of that. But, the other day I was watching somethin on the local public network tv channel about the mars robots n such. VERY cool pics n such. I'd rather have the money goin to mars exploration, myself. I mean, well, the moon is just a moon and we can see it pretty well, eh? Mars is a big ole planet that could use plenty of exploration. They found water, maybe if they zero in better next time they'll find fossils or somethin? who knows?
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
Because it's simply Apollo II? Money could be better spent focussing on the shuttle replacement.
-
Heh, you could use Blender to fake it now! :) And then post the "evidence" up on You-Tube!
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
:-D
-
no youtube at work. IS that the frog blender?
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
Nope. It's a vid of Armstrong stepping off the lander with a bit of an unexpected twist.
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
>> is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon hmmm... When was the first time? :doh:
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)!
Back to the moon? Everyone knows that we never made it to the moon. It was all an elaborate hoax. I think "the moon" man walked on was actually some guy's garage in Arizona. Duh. :rolleyes:
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Josh Smith wrote:
was actually some guy's garage in Arizona
you flat earther you... ;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I just came across this, which I suppose is old news at this point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5304086.stm[^] What struck me was the comment about Lockheed hoping to get a replacement for the shuttle by no later than 2014 - when the shuttle itself is supposed to be retired by 2010!! Well what happens if Lockheed's schedule slips (I know, that's unheard of...)? Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon (the article mentions a timetable of around 2020 for getting back to the Moon)! When we were able to get there in 9 (1960 , or thereabouts when President Kennedy made it a national goal to get to the Moon, 1969 when we landed). That just makes me indescribably sad that we've let this go for so long.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
Jim Crafton wrote:
Also why oh why, in the 21st century, is it going to take us *14* years to get back to the Moon
To make a long story short, reuse. How many shuttles were launched? how many pieces recovered to be reused? a lot. Apollo, everything went into museums or were lost forever because nothing was reusable. Dumping Apollo pieces into the ocean and replacing them with factory builds is expensive, and at today's prices massively expensive. That's a lot of raw ore to throw away at every launch. Which means, we are starting over again, throwing away all of the Apollo program and coming at it from different views. There will still be stuff left on the moon, though it is hoped that design work could mean those pieces could later be reused in building a mining or research base. Any design with these ideas in mind get better attention. In the end it is a matter of focus. We are only going to the moon as proof to go to Mars. The moon is closer, and safer for testing the idea of going to Mars. Now that we have found water on Mars, or at least strong enough evidence, we have a strong enough reason to go. Water means oxygen, water means a base could go there, water means who ever gets their first could be staying.... If that is not us, there are a few people who REALLY don't like that idea.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Josh Smith wrote:
was actually some guy's garage in Arizona
you flat earther you... ;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
you flat earther you...
Outer space is for aliens. ;P
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
you flat earther you...
Outer space is for aliens. ;P
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Josh Smith wrote:
Outer space is for aliens.
Inner space is for bacteria.... I prefer Virtual space anyhow. ;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)