Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Women drivers are returning us to the Moon is a scandal so bad that "Sixty Minutes" appeared at NASA's door. ⏱   (cbsnews.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Apollo program, Apollo 11, NASA, Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, Lori Garver, Bill Whitaker, Blackwell-Thompson, Charlie  
•       •       •

885 clicks; posted to STEM » on 09 Mar 2021 at 1:53 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



45 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-03-08 9:05:44 PM  
Someone has to ask for directions.
 
2021-03-08 9:48:33 PM  
I hope they have AAA ready on the launch pad in case the shuttle gets a flat tire on route.
 
2021-03-08 9:52:35 PM  
That's one small step for woman, though I'll be truly impressed if she wear heels.
 
2021-03-09 1:33:59 AM  
Before I suggest two or three names, are they coming back?
 
2021-03-09 2:56:36 AM  
I don't care if it's a man or a woman, I just want to see us back there in my life time.
 
2021-03-09 2:59:07 AM  
Why are men drivers the only ones who can go to the moon?
 
2021-03-09 3:46:05 AM  

Mugato: I hope they have AAA ready on the launch pad in case the shuttle gets a flat tire on route.


That's assuming that the women astronauts even make it to the launch pad.

blogs.warwick.ac.ukView Full Size
 
2021-03-09 4:22:54 AM  
Why are doing this? There is no stated goal other than the goal we had in the sixties which is be able to state we did it. If this just a jobs program, then there are more worthy things we can be spending money on that make jobs.
 
2021-03-09 4:37:37 AM  

Befuddled: Why are doing this?


https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-m​a​rs/overview

NASA's human lunar exploration plans under the Artemis program call for sending the first woman and next man to the surface of the Moon by 2024 and establishing sustainable exploration by the end of the decade. The agency will use what we learn on the Moon to prepare for humanity's next giant leap - sending astronauts to Mars.
 
2021-03-09 5:11:50 AM  

phishrace: Mugato: I hope they have AAA ready on the launch pad in case the shuttle gets a flat tire on route.

That's assuming that the women astronauts even make it to the launch pad.

[blogs.warwick.ac.uk image 419x304]


Ask you insurance agent just how much more men pay for auto insurance than women and why.
 
2021-03-09 5:18:00 AM  
cbsnews1.cbsistatic.comView Full Size

Charlie Blackwell-Thompson is NASA's first female launch director from a SyFy series.
 
2021-03-09 6:05:25 AM  
At least the moon doesn't have curbs. Could you imagine the cost it would be to fix scraped up rims on the freaking space shuttle?
 
2021-03-09 6:20:41 AM  

Befuddled: Why are doing this? There is no stated goal other than the goal we had in the sixties which is be able to state we did it. If this just a jobs program, then there are more worthy things we can be spending money on that make jobs.


Yeah, but there are also a lot of far less worthy things to be spending money on as well. Maintaining infrastructure and experience for a national human spaceflight program isn't the worst thing we could be wasting money on. I'd much rather the money be spent on unmanned space exploration but, unfortunately, NASA has its orders and has no choice but to hope the sunk cost (and perhaps national pride) will motivate missions that actually take advantage of the ability to land humans on the moon. At the very least, a successful landing might inspire more interest in spaceflight and STEM fields.
 
2021-03-09 6:50:37 AM  
The real scandal is that I was 5 years old last time a human was on the moon, and I'll be nearing retirement before we get back there.

And I don't care what your genitalia happens to be as long as you are the best person for the job. But if you get picked solely (or even largely) because you check the right social justice boxes, you will be mocked.
 
2021-03-09 7:14:34 AM  

dittybopper: The real scandal is that I was 5 years old last time a human was on the moon, and I'll be nearing retirement before we get back there.

And I don't care what your genitalia happens to be as long as you are the best person for the job. But if you get picked solely (or even largely) because you check the right social justice boxes, you will be mocked.


If you want to one day colonize the solar system, you'll need to bring along people that are not supermanly jocks. That means women, and men who are less physically good.
If you can bring women to the moon, who are less physically resistant than the astronauts of the Apollo program, then you have caressed a threshold. Also, considering that men and women bodies react differently to many factors (cripes, heart attacks don't even have the same symptoms between genders), I'm sure it's important to bring women to those sort of trips in order to gather important information that'll be of use in the next decades.
 
2021-03-09 7:25:17 AM  

Befuddled: Why are doing this? There is no stated goal other than the goal we had in the sixties which is be able to state we did it. If this just a jobs program, then there are more worthy things we can be spending money on that make jobs.


We are in a new space race, this time with the People's Republic of China.

That's why.
 
2021-03-09 7:34:33 AM  

dittybopper: We are in a new space race, this time with the People's Republic of China.


A race for what? Bragging rights? Those don't feed people or provide energy to power our economy.

If there was some reason to go, even something that is really stretching the possible like what's presented in the following, it could be justified to go back. But currently there is no reason other than fee-fees.

Luna Ring: Nikola Tesla's Dream Of Wireless Electricity May Finally Be Possible
Youtube iLKaxm5oH6s
 
2021-03-09 7:57:27 AM  

Befuddled: dittybopper: We are in a new space race, this time with the People's Republic of China.

A race for what? Bragging rights? Those don't feed people or provide energy to power our economy.

If there was some reason to go, even something that is really stretching the possible like what's presented in the following, it could be justified to go back. But currently there is no reason other than fee-fees.

[YouTube video: Luna Ring: Nikola Tesla's Dream Of Wireless Electricity May Finally Be Possible]


Really.  We've been to the moon. What more is there to do there? And don't give me the colonization shiat. Let's "terraform" earth first.
 
2021-03-09 8:02:47 AM  

dittybopper: Befuddled: Why are doing this? There is no stated goal other than the goal we had in the sixties which is be able to state we did it. If this just a jobs program, then there are more worthy things we can be spending money on that make jobs.

We are in a new space race, this time with the People's Republic of China.

That's why.


John F. Kennedy said in the 60s "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." and in the 2020s we do things because we farking can. It should also be pointed out that the amount of money spent by NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to what the military gets, and we learn a hell of a lot more from space exploration than we do from blowing each other up.
 
2021-03-09 8:17:34 AM  

Befuddled: A race for what? Bragging rights? Those don't feed people or provide energy to power our economy.


Nobody in this country is starving, except voluntarily.   The United States is one of the few nations on Earth where the rich people are thin and the poor people are fat.   Despite all the bullshiat about "food deserts"*.

And yes, research and development in things like military technology and space exploration drives innovation, while actually costing very little.  Remember that the people that make and support that kind of stuff, from the highest executive down to the lowest janitor, are gainfully employed when they might not otherwise be so.  And it's much more efficient for the government to pay people for working than it is to pay them for not working.

But yes, this *IS* important even if you set those factors aside, unless you're OK with perhaps the most assholishly totalitarian capitalist nation ever to become the preeminent superpower in the World.

This isn't like the old rivalry with the USSR.   The USSR never had the economic muscle to provide for both its people and to rival the West militarily, *AND* it was crippled by its own political dogma.

The PRC already has the second largest economy in the World, only slightly behind the USA, and it's growing.  The People's Liberation Army (which encompasses all of the military) is building up and modernizing its military both in terms of technology and in terms of doctrine at a pace that started out gradually in the 1980's but has accelerated over time.  They've been doing it *SMART*.

When I first came to notice the PRC, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) was a brown water navy.  Meaning it was basically a riverine force with limited offshore capability, with the exception of their submarine fleet which, while capable of longer reach, their nuke boats were *LOUD* and their conventional boats were Soviet castoffs from the 1960's and derivatives thereof.

Since then they've become a competent green water navy (ie., competent in coastal and continental shelf operations), and they're verging on becoming a blue water navy.   They've already done circumnavigations like the US Great White Fleet** did back in the early 20th Century.   They have 2 active aircraft carriers, a conventional STOBAR carrier being built, and they've already started cutting metal for their first nuclear powered "supercarrier".   Their nuclear submarines are quieter, but even more worrisome is they have the World's largest fleet of AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) conventional submarines.  They're quieter than nuclear subs, and they don't need to surface to recharge batteries like a normal conventional submarine.

In space, they've already done things no one else has done.   They put a rover on the back-side of the Moon.  They're about to land their own rover on Mars in a few days.  They have plans to put people on the Moon, and longer term goals for Mars.

And they've worked pretty hard to suck all of the manufacturing out of the United States and put it in China through unfair trade practices, in order to weaken the hegemony of the United States.

It is their stated goal that just like the 20th Century was "America's Century", they want the 21st Century to be "China's Century".

Maybe you've got no problem with that.  Maybe you're OK with ceding World leadership to a country that has, and is still, running upwards of a million people through concentration camps because of their religion, and that actively suppresses dissent not just within it's own borders, but world-wide by flexing its economic muscle.

Quite frankly, though, I'm not, and I'm willing to spend a lot of money to prevent that.


*I live next to an official USDA "food desert".  It contains a clean, well stocked supermarket.  Meanwhile, my father lives in the middle of nowhere and has to drive 15 miles to get to a supermarket.  He's not in a so-called "food desert".

**Named because the hulls were painted white, the Navy's peacetime color scheme.
 
2021-03-09 8:30:21 AM  

Nick el Ass: dittybopper: Befuddled: Why are doing this? There is no stated goal other than the goal we had in the sixties which is be able to state we did it. If this just a jobs program, then there are more worthy things we can be spending money on that make jobs.

We are in a new space race, this time with the People's Republic of China.

That's why.

John F. Kennedy said in the 60s "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." and in the 2020s we do things because we farking can. It should also be pointed out that the amount of money spent by NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to what the military gets, and we learn a hell of a lot more from space exploration than we do from blowing each other up.


That's not really true.

The military, especially in wartime, drives innovation.  Computers, aircraft, ship technology, radar, radio technology, nuclear technology, all have been either invented for, or were greatly advanced by military conflict.  I flew down to Florida a few weeks ago, on a jet aircraft.  The axial flow jet engine was developed for military aircraft during WWII, for example.  Without that innovation, I would have probably had to fly in a Lockheed Tremendous Constellation or whatever would have replaced the Super Connie.

Reach into your pocket and pull your phone out.  The genesis of that device was electronic computers built to break enemy ciphers and to calculate artillery tables.  The spread-spectrum portion of the radio part was developed originally for LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) radars and radio communications.   I could go on and on, but you get the gist.
 
2021-03-09 8:31:37 AM  

Mugato: Befuddled: dittybopper: We are in a new space race, this time with the People's Republic of China.

A race for what? Bragging rights? Those don't feed people or provide energy to power our economy.

If there was some reason to go, even something that is really stretching the possible like what's presented in the following, it could be justified to go back. But currently there is no reason other than fee-fees.

[YouTube video: Luna Ring: Nikola Tesla's Dream Of Wireless Electricity May Finally Be Possible]

Really.  We've been to the moon. What more is there to do there? And don't give me the colonization shiat. Let's "terraform" earth first.


We already are, and have been for a couple centuries, give or take.
 
2021-03-09 9:02:43 AM  

dittybopper: And they've worked pretty hard to suck all of the manufacturing out of the United States and put it in China through unfair trade practices, in order to weaken the hegemony of the United States.

It is their stated goal that just like the 20th Century was "America's Century", they want the 21st Century to be "China's Century".

Maybe you've got no problem with that. Maybe you're OK with ceding World leadership to a country that has, and is still, running upwards of a million people through concentration camps because of their religion, and that actively suppresses dissent not just within it's own borders, but world-wide by flexing its economic muscle.

Quite frankly, though, I'm not, and I'm willing to spend a lot of money to prevent that.


Putting a woman on the Moon somehow fixes all that? And why do you hate America?
 
2021-03-09 9:08:56 AM  

padraig: dittybopper: The real scandal is that I was 5 years old last time a human was on the moon, and I'll be nearing retirement before we get back there.

And I don't care what your genitalia happens to be as long as you are the best person for the job. But if you get picked solely (or even largely) because you check the right social justice boxes, you will be mocked.

If you want to one day colonize the solar system, you'll need to bring along people that are not supermanly jocks. That means women, and men who are less physically good.
If you can bring women to the moon, who are less physically resistant than the astronauts of the Apollo program, then you have caressed a threshold. Also, considering that men and women bodies react differently to many factors (cripes, heart attacks don't even have the same symptoms between genders), I'm sure it's important to bring women to those sort of trips in order to gather important information that'll be of use in the next decades.



This is true, but we're not really at the colonization stage yet.   We're still in the exploration stage.  We need "Steely-eyed Missile Persons".   We're not ready to send colonists yet.

Which is why I say we should send the best *PEOPLE*, not ones specifically picked because they check the right boxes not related to the job at hand.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that I don't want another Amelia Earhart, someone who is not competent enough for the job at hand but is doing it simply because of their genitalia or skin color.   If the most competent person is a left-handed red-headed albino African-American female dwarf amputee, so be it.  Also, Rule 34.

And let me explain the Amelia Earhart thing.   Earhart crashed every single aircraft she ever flew.  She was not a natural pilot.  What she would do is get to the point where she wasn't crashing her current airplane anymore, then immediately move up to a more complex and difficult airplane to fly.  And then she'd crash it.

She also didn't know Morse code, which was the de facto world-wide communication standard for ships in those days, something important to know when large parts of your route are over the sea.  Plus, she foolishly got rid of her 500 kHz trailing wire antenna.   The frequency of 500 kHz was the world-wide emergency frequency for ships, and all ocean going vessels had to maintain a watch on that frequency 24 hours a day, 7 days a week when at sea, either by having an operator at the radio, or by a mechanical device that would ring an alarm when an SOS was heard.

Also, there were enforced "quiet times" every 30 minutes in order that weak SOS signals could be heard.  That's why clocks in ship radio rooms look like this:

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size


Those red and green wedges were the "quiet times", when all ships and shore stations were required by international law to be quiet so emergency radio traffic could be heard.  Red was for the 500 kHz frequency, and green was for 2182 kHz (a frequency that Earhart didn't have)*

Not only that, but all ships were required to have a direction-finding antenna capable of taking bearings on a 500 kHz signal.

If Earhart had kept that antenna, *AND* known Morse code, she could have transmitted on 500 kHz and received a bearing from radio operators on the USCGC Itasca (whose equipment could only transmit Morse), and then just follow the reciprocal of that bearing.

But she didn't know enough about radio, something *VITALLY* important for the success of her journey, to know that getting rid of the 500 kHz antenna, and not knowing Morse, would kill her and her navigator, Fred Noonan (who didn't know Morse either).

A nice long article arguing that her lack of competence killed her and Noonan:

https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/A​r​chives/Research/ResearchPapers/Electra​Radios/ElectraRadios.htm

For the TL;DR types, this is the exit quote:

The radio equipment aboard the Lockheed Electra flown by Amelia Earhart, NR16020, was probably adequate for flying U.S. domestic civil airways of the mid 1930s. For the round-the-world attempt it was entirely inadequate.


*Her radio could transmit on 3105 kHz and 6210 kHz, based on a 3105 kHz crystal installed.  Note that 6210 is exactly twice 3105, something easily done with a simple circuit..   It also transmitted and received on 500 kHz, but with the removal of the 500 kHz trailing wire antenna the remaining antenna would have been far, far too short to be effective.
 
2021-03-09 9:11:43 AM  
I've been watching For All Mankind so this is relevant to my interests.

/Her name is Molly Cobb
 
2021-03-09 10:32:18 AM  

padraig: dittybopper: The real scandal is that I was 5 years old last time a human was on the moon, and I'll be nearing retirement before we get back there.

And I don't care what your genitalia happens to be as long as you are the best person for the job. But if you get picked solely (or even largely) because you check the right social justice boxes, you will be mocked.

If you want to one day colonize the solar system, you'll need to bring along people that are not supermanly jocks. That means women, and men who are less physically good.
If you can bring women to the moon, who are less physically resistant than the astronauts of the Apollo program, then you have caressed a threshold. Also, considering that men and women bodies react differently to many factors (cripes, heart attacks don't even have the same symptoms between genders), I'm sure it's important to bring women to those sort of trips in order to gather important information that'll be of use in the next decades.


THIS.  Even if there aren't significant differences between how the genders react to extra-LEO space there's value in the confirmation of no such significant differences.
 
2021-03-09 11:14:46 AM  
NASA is some of the best money you can spend, in that for Every dollar invested, two or more come back to us in spin off inventions, technologies, new industries and companies. These things make us a world leader as well as making life better for everyone.  The old saying is that we're not shooting piles of cash into the void, but rather that the money is spent on the ground, helping the economy and generaying jobs.
 
2021-03-09 11:28:23 AM  

Mugato: We've been to the moon. What more is there to do there?


Going there makes it easier to go elsewhere.

If you can't think why we would want to do that, I'll just say it straight, as you would to a child.

Asteroids are full of really rare, expensive things.

Mining a single asteroid would give you more wealth than currently exists on all the Earth.

Your company would be richer than every company, government, and individual combined.
 
2021-03-09 11:31:05 AM  
Also, having the ability to nudge an asteroid out of orbit and have it hit a target on Earth is a rather large tactical advantage.

Best to not let the Chinese get that first.
 
2021-03-09 11:32:10 AM  

Befuddled: dittybopper: And they've worked pretty hard to suck all of the manufacturing out of the United States and put it in China through unfair trade practices, in order to weaken the hegemony of the United States.

It is their stated goal that just like the 20th Century was "America's Century", they want the 21st Century to be "China's Century".

Maybe you've got no problem with that. Maybe you're OK with ceding World leadership to a country that has, and is still, running upwards of a million people through concentration camps because of their religion, and that actively suppresses dissent not just within it's own borders, but world-wide by flexing its economic muscle.

Quite frankly, though, I'm not, and I'm willing to spend a lot of money to prevent that.

Putting a woman on the Moon somehow fixes all that? And why do you hate America?


Why would it have to be a woman instead of the best person for the job?

Also, it won't "fix" anything, except that it will deny a propaganda victory for the PRC.   If we get there before they do, they can't claim that America is no longer the greatest World power.  If they get there first, they can claim that, and that has strategic implications for how nations in the World, especially in Asia, decide who they want to be aligned with.

You've got  *VERY* short-sighted view on this.   One might almost say a typically American view.  You care about what's in front of you right here and right now, not what happened in the past, what will happen in the future, or what is happening on the other side of the World.
 
2021-03-09 11:36:08 AM  

Befuddled: dittybopper: And they've worked pretty hard to suck all of the manufacturing out of the United States and put it in China through unfair trade practices, in order to weaken the hegemony of the United States.

It is their stated goal that just like the 20th Century was "America's Century", they want the 21st Century to be "China's Century".

Maybe you've got no problem with that. Maybe you're OK with ceding World leadership to a country that has, and is still, running upwards of a million people through concentration camps because of their religion, and that actively suppresses dissent not just within it's own borders, but world-wide by flexing its economic muscle.

Quite frankly, though, I'm not, and I'm willing to spend a lot of money to prevent that.

Putting a woman on the Moon somehow fixes all that? And why do you hate America?


They are putting people on the moon, some of them happen to be women.

Why do you have a problem with that?
 
2021-03-09 11:38:43 AM  

dready zim: Befuddled: dittybopper: And they've worked pretty hard to suck all of the manufacturing out of the United States and put it in China through unfair trade practices, in order to weaken the hegemony of the United States.

It is their stated goal that just like the 20th Century was "America's Century", they want the 21st Century to be "China's Century".

Maybe you've got no problem with that. Maybe you're OK with ceding World leadership to a country that has, and is still, running upwards of a million people through concentration camps because of their religion, and that actively suppresses dissent not just within it's own borders, but world-wide by flexing its economic muscle.

Quite frankly, though, I'm not, and I'm willing to spend a lot of money to prevent that.

Putting a woman on the Moon somehow fixes all that? And why do you hate America?

They are putting people on the moon, some of them happen to be women.

Why do you have a problem with that?


Because don't you know that unless proven otherwise, the best person for the job is always a straight white male ?
 
2021-03-09 1:21:17 PM  
NASA's new race to put a woman on the moon, is a publicity stunt.


There is nothing to send a live human back to the moon for that a bot could not do.
And take way less to send on such a mission without all the demands of keeping humans alive on the moon.

A bot on the moon could be assumed to do no fewer days of work for us than we've averaged on mars.
Kinda makes sending any live humans back to the moon look like an irrational consumption of resources when a bot could stay longer and get more done and be easier to send up, with no need to also bring it back.


Sending people to anything past an orbital st6ation appears quite the pointlessness endeavor to me.
thus, a publicity stunt and little else by my eye.
 
2021-03-09 3:03:34 PM  

PvtStash: NASA's new race to put a woman on the moon, is a publicity stunt.


There is nothing to send a live human back to the moon for that a bot could not do.
And take way less to send on such a mission without all the demands of keeping humans alive on the moon.

A bot on the moon could be assumed to do no fewer days of work for us than we've averaged on mars.
Kinda makes sending any live humans back to the moon look like an irrational consumption of resources when a bot could stay longer and get more done and be easier to send up, with no need to also bring it back.


Sending people to anything past an orbital st6ation appears quite the pointlessness endeavor to me.
thus, a publicity stunt and little else by my eye.


The bolded part is shown to be horseshiat with one word: improvising.  Robots can't do that but humans can, and commanding a territory *always* involves some measure of improvisation, and you can't predict what will need to be improvised until one is in the situation needing it.

Put Humans *everywhere*.
 
2021-03-09 3:17:37 PM  

PvtStash: NASA's new race to put a woman on the moon, is a publicity stunt.


There is nothing to send a live human back to the moon for that a bot could not do.
And take way less to send on such a mission without all the demands of keeping humans alive on the moon.

A bot on the moon could be assumed to do no fewer days of work for us than we've averaged on mars.
Kinda makes sending any live humans back to the moon look like an irrational consumption of resources when a bot could stay longer and get more done and be easier to send up, with no need to also bring it back.


Sending people to anything past an orbital st6ation appears quite the pointlessness endeavor to me.
thus, a publicity stunt and little else by my eye.


The moon is going to be our orbital station for launch out into the solar system.
 
2021-03-09 4:07:21 PM  

dittybopper: Why would it have to be a woman instead of the best person for the job?


Okay, then why would putting the super-duperly bestest person ever on the Moon fix all that?

dready zim: They are putting people on the moon, some of them happen to be women.

Why do you have a problem with that?


Why do you also hate America?

I'm trying to oppose child trafficking the destruction of our nation's democratic form of governing. Maybe both of your have no problem with that. Maybe you're OK with that. Quite frankly, though, I'm not, and I'm willing to spend a lot of money to prevent that.
 
2021-03-09 4:22:21 PM  

dittybopper: Nick el Ass: dittybopper: Befuddled: Why are doing this? There is no stated goal other than the goal we had in the sixties which is be able to state we did it. If this just a jobs program, then there are more worthy things we can be spending money on that make jobs.

We are in a new space race, this time with the People's Republic of China.

That's why.

John F. Kennedy said in the 60s "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." and in the 2020s we do things because we farking can. It should also be pointed out that the amount of money spent by NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to what the military gets, and we learn a hell of a lot more from space exploration than we do from blowing each other up.

That's not really true.

The military, especially in wartime, drives innovation.  Computers, aircraft, ship technology, radar, radio technology, nuclear technology, all have been either invented for, or were greatly advanced by military conflict.  I flew down to Florida a few weeks ago, on a jet aircraft.  The axial flow jet engine was developed for military aircraft during WWII, for example.  Without that innovation, I would have probably had to fly in a Lockheed Tremendous Constellation or whatever would have replaced the Super Connie.

Reach into your pocket and pull your phone out.  The genesis of that device was electronic computers built to break enemy ciphers and to calculate artillery tables.  The spread-spectrum portion of the radio part was developed originally for LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) radars and radio communications.   I could go on and on, but you get the gist.


I was thinking more about bombs and exploding things, and space leads to innovation with thing like satellites for navigation, etc... but is also a big moral boost when war doesn't do anyone any good. Especially when they last for nearly 20 years.
 
2021-03-09 5:42:32 PM  
dready zim: Mining a single asteroid would give you more wealth than currently exists on all the Earth. Your company would be richer than every company, government, and individual combined.

I've been a sci-fi geek all my life and I'd love nothing more than to see a colony on the moon and Mars and having someone invent light speed travel. I'm just saying there's so much that we could be doing right here on earth that sending people to the moon, the only intent being to thumb our noses at another country seems like a poor allocation of our resources now, at this time in history.
 
2021-03-09 6:00:07 PM  

Nick el Ass: and we learn a hell of a lot more from space exploration than we do from blowing each other up.


Actually, one of the things we seem to learn the most from the space program is how to more efficiently blow each other up.
 
2021-03-09 6:09:59 PM  

Befuddled: dready zim: They are putting people on the moon, some of them happen to be women.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why do you also hate America?


What's so American about not having equal opportunities for women?
 
2021-03-09 6:12:08 PM  

Mugato: dready zim: Mining a single asteroid would give you more wealth than currently exists on all the Earth. Your company would be richer than every company, government, and individual combined.

I've been a sci-fi geek all my life and I'd love nothing more than to see a colony on the moon and Mars and having someone invent light speed travel. I'm just saying there's so much that we could be doing right here on earth that sending people to the moon, the only intent being to thumb our noses at another country seems like a poor allocation of our resources now, at this time in history.


It's not thumbing noses, it really is the time to decide who is going to be the major player in the new frontier which is off-planet.

It has never been an either/or situation, we can and should be doing both.
 
2021-03-09 7:07:35 PM  

dready zim: What's so American about not having equal opportunities for women?


Your fellow America-hater, dittybopper, is the one who doesn't want a woman to be the one to set foot on the Moon, not me. Your deep-seated hatred of America is seriously impeding your reading comprehension.
 
2021-03-09 8:49:58 PM  
It's just a logical fallacy that we can't explore space and work on domestic problems at the same time. It's not a zero-sum game.  And I gotta re-affirm, the benefits of the space program contribute to making lives better here on Earth. And considering what a teensy fraction of the budget NASA is, if you want  ore domestic programs funded, you can find that money elsewhere in the existing budget. Or, you know, ask rich people to step up and pull their fair share of the tax load, instead of a minuscule fraction of their wealth.
 
2021-03-09 9:05:02 PM  

Any Pie Left: Or, you know, ask rich people to step up and pull their fair share of the tax load, instead of a minuscule fraction of their wealth.


I agree with everything but the last part. The really rich don't pay taxes. They have tax lawyers, park their money overseas and the Republicans.

I'm all for space exploration, if there's a clear objective for it other than dick waving with other countries.
 
2021-03-10 5:26:58 AM  

Befuddled: dready zim: What's so American about not having equal opportunities for women?

Your fellow America-hater, dittybopper, is the one who doesn't want a woman to be the one to set foot on the Moon, not me. Your deep-seated hatred of America is seriously impeding your reading comprehension.


At no point in this thread have I stated hatred for America, your unthinking nationalistic outlook and state based paranoia is seriously impeding your reading comprehension.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.