Live rocket launch in 10mins here

 

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

46 minutes ago, Nowack said:

Its very very old and the lacks an atmosphere, water and a molten core so you don't get erosion or plates moving which change the landscape. 

Bolty will put you on ignore for talking about him like that.

 

7 minutes ago, Cheese said:

 

Superb pics them

3 hours ago, Spider said:

Superb pics them

AI generated.

No one has ever been, and isn't nearby now. 

You've been led up the garden path remember!

4 hours ago, Nowack said:

Its very very old and the lacks an atmosphere

Gigg Lane?

for those wondering, this should give some idea of why we've not attempted a 3 year round trip to Mars just yet

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Zico said:

for those wondering, this should give some idea of why we've not attempted a 3 year round trip to Mars just yet

 

 

 

That looks bigger than some new builds going up round our way.

On 08/04/2026 at 02:32, Zico said:

for those wondering, this should give some idea of why we've not attempted a 3 year round trip to Mars just yet

 

 

 

Built for the size of the mission. You wouldn't go across the Thames on a Cunard liner.

Any one know what the Lunar Lander will look like?

Are they back yet or are we leaving them up there now they’ve done the exciting part?

7 hours ago, Underpants said:

Built for the size of the mission. You wouldn't go across the Thames on a Cunard liner.

Aye, they'd need to build something that could house them for a 3 year mission to Mars including somewhere to keep all the supplies like food and water, it would be massive, and incredibly expensive 

Which is why we sent a robot instead

There's talk of space x sending AI robots out there to start building something where humans might be able to live

To basically see if its possible and to test everything out before risking sending humans up there

Sounds like a sensible approach and something that has never been technically possible until now 

 

1 minute ago, Zico said:

Aye, they'd need to build something that could house them for a 3 year mission to Mars including somewhere to keep all the supplies like food and water, it would be massive, and incredibly expensive 

Which is why we sent a robot instead

There's talk of space x sending AI robots out there to start building something where humans might be able to live

To basically see if its possible and to test everything out before risking sending humans up there

Sounds like a sensible approach and something that has never been technically possible until now 

 

It is an incredibly simple premise really.

You get to the technological stage where sending human beings is unnecessary as it is cheaper, safer and more scientifically accurate to send robots.

Why the fuck idiots start to make themselves look as thick as mince trying to "suggest" that the US didn't land on the moon is for them to deal with. The rest of planet Earth (an almost sphere btw) can just laugh and take the piss out of them.

2 hours ago, Spider said:

Are they back yet or are we leaving them up there now they’ve done the exciting part?

Splash down tomorrow night, about 1 in the morning our time.

29 minutes ago, Zico said:

Aye, they'd need to build something that could house them for a 3 year mission to Mars including somewhere to keep all the supplies like food and water, it would be massive, and incredibly expensive 

Which is why we sent a robot instead

There's talk of space x sending AI robots out there to start building something where humans might be able to live

To basically see if its possible and to test everything out before risking sending humans up there

Sounds like a sensible approach and something that has never been technically possible until now 

 

 

57 years on you would have thought that Artemis II would have got to the moon quicker than when Armstrong and his gang went.

Some might say we've gone backwards with manned explosion.

25 minutes ago, Underpants said:

 

57 years on you would have thought that Artemis II would have got to the moon quicker than when Armstrong and his gang went.

Some might say we've gone backwards with manned explosion.

Progress isn't measured in distance, it’s measured in capability.

We didn't 'stop' at the Moon, we realized that sending a human to Mars is just a very expensive way to let people hang around round a desert collecting rocks and dust

Why send humans on a 140 million mile 3 year trip, to do a job a rover can do for 1% of the cost and 0% of the deaths? 

That's not going backwards, that's called intelligence

1 minute ago, Zico said:

Progress isn't measured in distance, it’s measured in capability.

We didn't 'stop' at the Moon, we realized that sending a human to Mars is just a very expensive way to let people hang around round a desert collecting rocks and dust

Why send humans on a 140 million mile 3 year trip, to do a job a rover can do for 1% of the cost and 0% of the deaths? 

That's not going backwards, that's called intelligence

Utter bollox. Distance is one of the components you measure progress in. As is speed. With every mode of transport this has been the case. fuck me in 60 years we went from not being able to fly to putting a man on the moon (allegedly). In the 50 years since we've been back once and it was slower. 

1 minute ago, Underpants said:

Utter bollox. Distance is one of the components you measure progress in. As is speed. With every mode of transport this has been the case. fuck me in 60 years we went from not being able to fly to putting a man on the moon (allegedly). In the 50 years since we've been back once and it was slower. 

apollo was a cold war race where one thing and one thing only matter, getting there as quickly as possible

artemis was much more controlled, and had other considerations regards human safety and how we should do this kind of thing moving forward, it spent a day in high earth orbit  just hanging around before proceeding, all part of the plan

they also used a more fuel efficient method which used the moons gravity over engines to fire it back home, all part of the plan

your criteria for progress being "faster and further" is way too simplistic, and really does appear it comes from watching star trek or something

 

 

2 minutes ago, Zico said:

apollo was a cold war race where one thing and one thing only matter, getting there as quickly as possible

artemis was much more controlled, and had other considerations regards human safety and how we should do this kind of thing moving forward, it spent a day in high earth orbit  just hanging around before proceeding, all part of the plan

they also used a more fuel efficient method which used the moons gravity over engines to fire it back home, all part of the plan

your criteria for progress being "faster and further" is way too simplistic, and really does appear it comes from watching star trek or something

 

 

Driving to Blackpool used to take us 45 mins when we were kids.. it still takes me 45 mins 35 years later..

Difference being it's much comfier, safer and uses less fuel.. 

 

25 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Utter bollox. Distance is one of the components you measure progress in. As is speed. With every mode of transport this has been the case. fuck me in 60 years we went from not being able to fly to putting a man on the moon (allegedly). In the 50 years since we've been back once and it was slower. 

The Artemis II astronauts travelled further away from Earth than any of the Apollo mission astronauts, so you've just disproved your own argument. We haven't "only been back once" either. 12 humans have walked on the moon, over 6 different missions.

Edited April 9Apr 9 by Cheese

7 minutes ago, Zico said:

apollo was a cold war race where one thing and one thing only matter, getting there as quickly as possible

artemis was much more controlled, and had other considerations regards human safety and how we should do this kind of thing moving forward, it spent a day in high earth orbit  just hanging around before proceeding, all part of the plan

they also used a more fuel efficient method which used the moons gravity over engines to fire it back home, all part of the plan

your criteria for progress being "faster and further" is way too simplistic, and really does appear it comes from watching star trek or something

 

 

I can only go off what you wrote. You said progress isn't measured in distance. I said it is one of the  components in measuring progress. And are you seriously telling me that the extra horse power in the apollo missiond back in the 60s was because of the Soviets?  It was a space race but it wasn't one were a few extra MPH would have made a difference. Anyway at least we went slower back to the moon in a slightly bigger and nicer boat. Might have to wait another 50 years before we set foot on the moon, or anywhere else for that matter, again. That's progress for ya!

24 minutes ago, Underpants said:

I can only go off what you wrote. You said progress isn't measured in distance. I said it is one of the  components in measuring progress. And are you seriously telling me that the extra horse power in the apollo missiond back in the 60s was because of the Soviets?  It was a space race but it wasn't one were a few extra MPH would have made a difference. Anyway at least we went slower back to the moon in a slightly bigger and nicer boat. Might have to wait another 50 years before we set foot on the moon, or anywhere else for that matter, again. That's progress for ya!

You missed the point I uwas makingk7m

Yours was that Apollo was faster as though mph was a measure of it's success 

Mine was they didn't care as much for things like fuel efficiency like we do now 

The mission wasn't slower as such, it was more thought out and considered, it was miles more sophisticated than anything that has come before

And it went further than any human has been before

Progress is being made all the time, it's just not always measured in distance, speed or captain's logs 

Here's the plan 

 

 

6 hours ago, Zico said:

You missed the point I uwas makingk7m

Yours was that Apollo was faster as though mph was a measure of it's success 

Mine was they didn't care as much for things like fuel efficiency like we do now 

The mission wasn't slower as such, it was more thought out and considered, it was miles more sophisticated than anything that has come before

And it went further than any human has been before

Progress is being made all the time, it's just not always measured in distance, speed or captain's logs 

Here's the plan 

 

 

You wouldn't make a good defence solicitor. You've told me things and supplied me with information that Im aware of. Thanks. But you have slightly changed your tune with your progress calculator. There are plenty of ways we measure progress. I get that. But none of us are rocket scientist or rocket engineers. I'm sure if these guys were in this conversation they would bore us all to death with the heat sensor light for the Artemis 2 toilet. But the big glaring lack of advancement to Mr. Joe Average on planet earth is that it took longer to get there. That is a fact. Ages ago on here I was asked what I would like to see with regard manned space travel? I said going to other ther side of the moon would be a start. That has just happened. Even taking into account all the advancements in tech. I find it odd that it was a slower drive.

Maybe because of the price of fuel they had to put it on cruise control because of the cost 🤔

7 hours ago, only1swanny said:

Driving to Blackpool used to take us 45 mins when we were kids.. it still takes me 45 mins 35 years later..

Difference being it's much comfier, safer and uses less fuel.. 

 

The reason it takes the same time is that we have speed limits to obey and the roads are packed with folk doing the same. But we can get to Blackpool quicker if we want. As far as I know there's not a million other people going to the moon and there's no coppers or speed limit in space.

1 hour ago, Underpants said:

You wouldn't make a good defence solicitor. You've told me things and supplied me with information that Im aware of. Thanks. But you have slightly changed your tune with your progress calculator. There are plenty of ways we measure progress. I get that. But none of us are rocket scientist or rocket engineers. I'm sure if these guys were in this conversation they would bore us all to death with the heat sensor light for the Artemis 2 toilet. But the big glaring lack of advancement to Mr. Joe Average on planet earth is that it took longer to get there. That is a fact. Ages ago on here I was asked what I would like to see with regard manned space travel? I said going to other ther side of the moon would be a start. That has just happened. Even taking into account all the advancements in tech. I find it odd that it was a slower drive.

Maybe because of the price of fuel they had to put it on cruise control because of the cost 🤔

I've not changed my tune at all

if you're aware of all the things I've pointed out, then I don't get why you are frustrated at your perceived lack of progress because as far as I can see we've made loads since we first landed on the moon 

and I still can't believe you think it was "slower" to get there this time given I pointed out, and you may already know, they were in high space orbit for a day before proceeding doing tests on life support equipment, and they used the moons gravitational pull rather than putting their foot down when getting back, because artemis is bigger, heavier and carrying more equipment, so fuel efficiency was a key factor 

apollo was all about getting there and back asap, and proving they could do it

artemis is part of a much bigger plan to actually start doing things on the moon other than going for a day trip

it was all about safety and systems testing

if you find it odd it was slower, it's because you don't know anything about the artemis project and viewing it literally as a trip to the moon and back like it was first time

two totally different missions, not really comparable, other than the destination