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
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)