3 ms·
RIP. He made a later flight to the moon, as a command module pilot, the same thing he would have done on Apollo 13. So not on this chart: https://xkcd.com/893/
by benatkin 3y ago
RIP. He made a later flight to the moon, as a command module pilot, the same thing he would have done on Apollo 13. So not on this chart: https://xkcd.com/893/ https://xkcd.com/893/
- M3L0NM4N 3y agoGod bless Artemis.
- andyjohnson0 3y agoHe also commanded two shuttle flights: STS-4 and STS-51-C. Spent 21 days in space according to Wikiepdia. I hope his NASA career brought him well deserved satisfaction.
- Aeolun 3y agoThis is bizarre. We put 11 people on another celestial body in 5 years, and then never any more for 50 years afterwards…
- FredPret 3y agoNASA took up a good chunk of the US economy at the time. Space is awesome but people have to eat. Exploration is only really practical at current budget levels, percentage-wise. Apollo was very early. The tech has to bring the price of a moon landing way down, and the safety level way up for us to do it again. It will be soon though.
- djbusby 3y agoCheck your math here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA I think that <5% is small (de minimus) and NASA ha been below that number for a long time
- dmd 3y agoAnd yet at ~0.5% now vs 4% in the apollo years, in 2022 dollars we're only at about half the funding we had then; not 1/8th. I feel like we could be getting a lot more for that money.
- hotnfresh 3y agoWithout the very-public moon goal and lots of eyes on them, seems like they've got a worse pork problem now. See: the SLS. ISS might also be pretty expensive to maintain? Not sure. Dunno how much scientific value it's delivering, but it's pretty low on the "cool" factor compared to... almost anything else they do, really.
- FredPret 3y agoAre you kidding? 5% of the US government budget is massive. Experimental scientific expeditions are critical, but the correct allocation is far below 1%. I love NASA and the moon landings. It’s super admirable and a huge milestone in winning the cold war. Reading up on it, it’s unbelievable what they got done with ancient technology. But they were really early, and that’s why it was so expensive. It’s much more reasonable to go back in the next decade or so.
- djbusby 3y agoNo, I'm not kidding. 5% (at the peak) is not a good chunk. A good chunk is like >20%
- dotancohen 3y ago> NASA took up a good chunk of the US economy at the time. This is not true, even if it is often repeated. Many other programs took far larger chunks, such that NASA's moon budget would not have greatly affected taxpayers. And the benefits were felt in every single industry, from the bra industry to project management to teaching methods to computers and most obviously to the science and aeronautics communities.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago12 in 3 and a half years, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_walked_on_the_Moon https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_wa....
- CoastalCoder 3y agoWhy does that strike you as bizarre?
- kjkjadksj 3y agoBecause we developed better rover tech that doesn’t put humans at risk where rescue is impossible.
- TMWNN 3y ago>He made a later flight to the moon, as a command module pilot, the same thing he would have done on Apollo 13 Apollo 16 let Mattingly do something he would not have done on 13: A deep-space EVA during the return to Earth to retrieve film from the service module. Only occurred on 15-17.