Still waiting on this. (new window)

They should slide me $$$$$$$ for pretending that I'm Miley's boyfriend.

Nobody knows a good fake moon landing when they see one better than NASA, am I right guys?

Congrats John Carmack.

why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

greenz: why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

Yeah and why try to make a better car, since we already have the Ford Taurus?

Suck it, deniers:

Carmack was pissed that they took second. The company who got first got an extra day to try, where as Carmack didn't, and it was impossible for him to get another flight permit.

1.5 mil isn't that much of a reward for getting something to the freakin moon

coinspinner: greenz: why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

Yeah and why try to make a better car, since we already have the Ford Taurus?

Hahaha, I remember that car.

coinspinner: greenz: why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

Yeah and why try to make a better car, since we already have the Ford Taurus?

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison. The original Taurus SHO was a great car. Was affordable and had an awesome V6 engine made by Yamaha. Then Ford decided to "make a better car" and the result was crap. SO maybe sticking with a design that led to 11 of 11 successful flights might be a great idea.

Angrarulz: coinspinner: greenz: why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

Yeah and why try to make a better car, since we already have the Ford Taurus?

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison. The original Taurus SHO was a great car. Was affordable and had an awesome V6 engine made by Yamaha. Then Ford decided to "make a better car" and the result was crap. SO maybe sticking with a design that led to 11 of 11 successful flights might be a great idea.

Yeah, my car knowledge isn't that great, my point was that why not try to look for better options, especially with a price tag of $1.65 million. Especially given that they had plenty of problems with the original lunar landers.

Angrarulz: coinspinner: greenz: why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

Yeah and why try to make a better car, since we already have the Ford Taurus?

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison. The original Taurus SHO was a great car. Was affordable and had an awesome V6 engine made by Yamaha. Then Ford decided to "make a better car" and the result was crap. SO maybe sticking with a design that led to 11 of 11 successful flights might be a great idea.

11 of 11 successful flights? First off, there were 17 Apollo missions. Apollo 1 was a pad test that ended in the deaths of 3 astronauts. Apollo 13 very nearly ended in the deaths of 3 more save for the heroic actions of a lot of engineers and the astronauts themselves.

So to be fair, call the Apollo Program 15/17.

Manhigh: Angrarulz: coinspinner: greenz: why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

Yeah and why try to make a better car, since we already have the Ford Taurus?

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison. The original Taurus SHO was a great car. Was affordable and had an awesome V6 engine made by Yamaha. Then Ford decided to "make a better car" and the result was crap. SO maybe sticking with a design that led to 11 of 11 successful flights might be a great idea.

11 of 11 successful flights? First off, there were 17 Apollo missions. Apollo 1 was a pad test that ended in the deaths of 3 astronauts. Apollo 13 very nearly ended in the deaths of 3 more save for the heroic actions of a lot of engineers and the astronauts themselves.

So to be fair, call the Apollo Program 15/17.

not a bad passer rating, one sack and 1 interception? 15 tds?

Done it hundreds of times, where's mah money, biatches?!?



/hot laaaank

Virulency: Manhigh: Angrarulz: coinspinner: greenz: why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

Yeah and why try to make a better car, since we already have the Ford Taurus?

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison. The original Taurus SHO was a great car. Was affordable and had an awesome V6 engine made by Yamaha. Then Ford decided to "make a better car" and the result was crap. SO maybe sticking with a design that led to 11 of 11 successful flights might be a great idea.

11 of 11 successful flights? First off, there were 17 Apollo missions. Apollo 1 was a pad test that ended in the deaths of 3 astronauts. Apollo 13 very nearly ended in the deaths of 3 more save for the heroic actions of a lot of engineers and the astronauts themselves.

So to be fair, call the Apollo Program 15/17.

not a bad passer rating, one sack and 1 interception? 15 tds?

Even better if we call it a batting average of .882

Wow, tis sad that we have to be talking about HUMANITY'S MOST EPIC EXPLORATION EVER in terms of sports stats. I hope you are all farking trolls. fark, I wish I was in a god damn space ship now. But no, lazy masses are more interested in watching farking football than space travel (Well, I'll admit a couple of people farting around in LEO or listening to dead air at Mission Control makes for pretty goddamn boring programming... way to suck, NASA TV). shiat, wouldn't football on the moon be so much more badass than in full gravity? Not to mention basketball... 60 foot hoops? Shortsighted society we have here.

Really, we (Americans, at least, as a society) like sports so much, seems odd somebody hasn't done a better job of leveraging that interest to advance development of space. Sure we have DisnESPN and the like using shiattons of satellite bandwidth, but why the hell hasn't somebody gone and started a low-G sports league by now? Guess the investment would be a bit much for a what's currently a non-existent market. If only space travel could attract more glazed-over eyeballs.....

Good Behavior Day: Virulency: Manhigh: Angrarulz: coinspinner: greenz: why are they researching ways to land on the moon if we've already done it in 1969...

Yeah and why try to make a better car, since we already have the Ford Taurus?

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison. The original Taurus SHO was a great car. Was affordable and had an awesome V6 engine made by Yamaha. Then Ford decided to "make a better car" and the result was crap. SO maybe sticking with a design that led to 11 of 11 successful flights might be a great idea.

11 of 11 successful flights? First off, there were 17 Apollo missions. Apollo 1 was a pad test that ended in the deaths of 3 astronauts. Apollo 13 very nearly ended in the deaths of 3 more save for the heroic actions of a lot of engineers and the astronauts themselves.

So to be fair, call the Apollo Program 15/17.

not a bad passer rating, one sack and 1 interception? 15 tds?

Even better if we call it a batting average of .882

Still room for improvement though, which was my point.

Will Zombie Stanley Kubrick film the landing video?

only a matter of time... and matter

strip mining the moon ?

helium 3 says how you doin

pope183: helium 3 says how you doin

And fusion research says "not very well". Really, if there's going to be a cash cow in space in the next 20 years, 3He is not it. 50, maybe, but even then the real potential is going to be in manufacturing goods and infrastructure for people who actually want to live in space.

But why wait around to develop a containment system for the finicky process of reburning a paltry dusting of solar ash when there's already a far bigger fusion reactor pumping out 400 trillion terawatts into the uncaring universe? With a single square kilometer of mylar (roughly 5 tons depending on thickness) you already have the makings of a gigawatt powerplant.

Rdyb sounds like he always got picked last in dodge ball.