Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 14, 2019

The sudden removal of Nasa's head of human exploration William Gerstenmaier on Wednesday is a clear sign the White House is increasingly frustrated with the agency's efforts to return humans to the surface of the moon by 2024.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Other technological nations will figure out that the US is so consumed with infighting, debts and divisiveness that they could start launching farther, faster and better.

#1 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-07-14 06:52 PM | Reply

"Climate change" at NASA

#2 | Posted by CutiePie at 2019-07-14 07:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What does this mean to their Muslim outreach I wonder.

#3 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-07-14 08:50 PM | Reply

What does this mean to their Muslim outreach I wonder.

It means you are a bigot.

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-07-14 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

This guy is given an impossible task then demoted. That sucks. It's a shame they're wasting the time of these experts. The folks at NASA shouldn't be a part of political games.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-07-14 09:00 PM | Reply

If you want to go to the moon you have to fund it. In the late 1960's NASA got the equivalent of $45Billion 2019 dollars. That is more than double the amount they got for 2019. We are asking them to return to the moon, upgrade the GPS systems, Maintain the weather satelite system, Protect us from asteroids, monitor the sun for CMEs, and monitor global crop conditions with a budget half the size of the 1964 budget which had the moon landings as it's only mission

#6 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-07-14 10:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

It's plausible that the technology in 1968-69 was insufficient for an actual moon landing.

Discuss.

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-15 12:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 4

No, it's a clear indication that he knew too much.

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-07-15 02:08 AM | Reply

It's plausible that the technology in 1968-69 was insufficient for an actual moon landing.

It's also true that tv and movie and special effects technology wasn't good enough back then to fake a moon landing.

You can relax.

#9 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-07-15 02:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-07-15 12:55 AM | Repl

Your actually trying to hint we didn't go to the moon? LOL

Do you think the Earth is flat also or vaccines are an evil plot to cause autism?

#10 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-07-15 02:39 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

It's plausible that the technology in 1968-69 was insufficient for an actual moon landing.
It's also true that tv and movie and special effects technology wasn't good enough back then to fake a moon landing.
You can relax.
#9 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN AT 2019-07-15 02:31 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2

Uhh.. so you don't like 2001? Too hokey for your Pakistani sensibilities?

You are familiar with the theory that Stanley Kubrick was scouted by Rumsfeld for the moon landing production? He borrowed their precious Zeiss lens, secret technology at the time, and in return..

#11 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-07-15 03:42 AM | Reply

#11 | Posted by redlightrobot

If the landings were faked, how to explain the Apollo landing lower stages, gear, and rover tracks that can be seen in photos taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)?

Apollo 11: www.youtube.com

Apollo 12: www.youtube.com

Apollo 16 (gear & rover tracks): www.youtube.com

#12 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-07-15 05:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well the LRO was obviously fake as well. :-)

#13 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-07-15 07:42 AM | Reply

Discuss.

#7 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-07-15 12:55 AM

This is sufficient.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-07-15 08:53 AM | Reply

#11 | Posted by redlightrobot
If the landings were faked, how to explain the Apollo landing lower stages, gear, and rover tracks that can be seen in photos taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)?
Apollo 11: www.youtube.com
Apollo 12: www.youtube.com
Apollo 16 (gear & rover tracks): www.youtube.com
#12 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2019-07-15 05:38 AM

Staged, yes. I've just given a couple hours to performing reviews, I'm going to need to recharge before I attempt to give you anything you will appreciate.

In the meantime, the technology wasn't really up to par, let alone that there is no engine noise audible, but astronauts are clear as a bell.

So, you believe the emergency landing story and all? Well, we all have our deliberate self-delusions I suppose. Mine is that half-and-half is close enough to cream.

#15 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-07-15 08:56 AM | Reply

Also, the camera work is really bizarre, not just the orbital movement.

#16 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-07-15 08:57 AM | Reply

Why can't 'Murica get back to the moon? A partial list of reasons follows:
-our primary and secondary schools struggle to produce graduates with the STEM skills needed, because parents and elderly taxpayers think Jesus should be in public schools, taxes are too high already and their children can work in the steel mill/auto plant/buggy whip factory, just like they did
-Our manufacturers cannot build the parts needed to assemble the vehicles to be used because their production is out-sourced to Bangladesh/Vietnam/Mongolia
-Tax dollars for the project have been given to corporations, which have decimated their R&D budgets and spent their additional cash on stock buybacks and executive bonuses
-Politicians are unable to collectively support large national projects like this Moon Shot, in part, because of reasons including Jesus told them not to support it, they have a fear of race/sex mixing on the job and a belief that the Apollo space program was a hoax
-The project was proposed by a guy who cannot think past lunch (or the back nine), much less drive a complicated, long-term program to fruition, and who will forget he said anything about this by next week

#17 | Posted by catdog at 2019-07-15 09:32 AM | Reply

It's plausible that the technology in 1968-69 was insufficient for an actual moon landing.
Discuss.

#7 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-07-15 12:55 AM | REPLY |

The technology in 1968-69 got us to the moon therefore it was sufficient, therefore it is not plausible that the technology in 1968-69 was insufficient.

I have meet and greet tickets to speak to Michael Collins the Command Module Pilot on the Apollo 11 mission at EAA Airventure next week.

The air control tower at Whitman field in Oshkosh becomes the world's busiest during the EAA fly-in. On July 23,2017 Whitman field with it's 2 runways had 2,275 air operations. O'Hare had 2,522. The difference is O'Hare's 2,522 flights were spread over 24 hours while Whitman field had 2,275 in 10 hours. The air controllers a O'Hare have 105 air operations per hour. Whitman has 227. The air traffic control tower at whitman is more than twice as busy as O'Hare Even the Raw total of air operations is 3rd in the world behind Chicago and Atlanta with LA several hundred behind Oshkosh

There are several videos from airventure landing planes 2 at a time on on runway. Everything from Biplanes to B-52s and B1s. This year the fighters are featured. They have received intention to attend responses from every single P-51 in flying condition in the USA. The pilots camp on the grounds next to their planes.

fox6now.com

#18 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-07-15 12:09 PM | Reply

Too mnany Russian •••clowns, here. ESAD Russians.

#19 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2019-07-15 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the White House is increasingly frustrated with the agency's efforts to return humans to the surface of the moon by 2024

???

"For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago". - Donald "One of the Greatest Memories of All Time" Trump, June 7 2019

#20 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-07-15 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah lets ditch the smart experts and put in a trump cult member. They're always so great on topics like scientific advancement.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-07-15 04:33 PM | Reply

It's plausible that the technology in 1968-69 was insufficient for an actual moon landing.

Discuss.

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism

It's plausible that a lifelong aristocrat, elitist, sex predator, criminal, and con man is sufficient to fix the united states.

Discuss. If you're dumb enough to think this is worth discussion.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-07-15 04:35 PM | Reply

22

speak....you don't have to work so hard to fall for a joke everyone else got.

that was a troll post

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2019-07-15 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How did his Bolton moustache not protect him?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-15 05:04 PM | Reply

speak....you don't have to work so hard to fall for a joke everyone else got.

that was a troll post

#23 | Posted by eberly

Of course it was. That's all he has left. So i responded with equal seriousness.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-07-15 05:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

25

I'm just going to give that the FF it deserves and move on.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2019-07-15 05:38 PM | Reply

Apollo 11 Highlights 21:20, again 21:58, etc - how does the module make such sharp movements? All footage with the "glowing" moon appear to be using models. For some reason that footage is obviously faked.

#27 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-07-15 11:03 PM | Reply

25:34 Another thing - why is the lunar footage black and white and hard to focus while the decent back to Earth is color and sharp?

#28 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-07-15 11:09 PM | Reply

"It's plausible that the technology in 1968-69 was insufficient for an actual moon landing."

It's much more plausible NASA knew how to use a slide rule, and you're an idiot.

MUCH more plausible.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-16 12:27 AM | Reply

"It's plausible that the technology in 1968-69 was insufficient for an actual moon landing."
It's much more plausible NASA knew how to use a slide rule, and you're an idiot.
MUCH more plausible.
#29 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-07-16 12:27 AM

But we'll never know - NASA "lost" the telemetry data. Along with all technology involved. Sloppy? Inept? Deliberate?

Btw - any ideas about the module precision movements I posted above and the use of color for splashdown and not the exploration itself?

#30 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-07-16 12:49 AM | Reply

Another thing - why is the lunar footage black and white and hard to focus while the decent back to Earth is color and sharp?

#28 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT AT 2019-07-15 11:09 PM | REPLY |

Because the lunar footage was sent from the moon, displayed on a CRT and what you saw came from a camera pointed at the CRT and the splashdown was filmed directly on Earth?

#31 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-07-16 12:25 PM | Reply

Another thing - why is the lunar footage black and white and hard to focus while the decent back to Earth is color and sharp?
#28 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT AT 2019-07-15 11:09 PM | REPLY |
Because the lunar footage was sent from the moon, displayed on a CRT and what you saw came from a camera pointed at the CRT and the splashdown was filmed directly on Earth?
#31 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2019-07-16 12:25 PM

Do you feel satisfied with that answer? I don't. Why don't we have the full-color footage? Where is it? Why is the only color footage taken from the capsule pointing up at the parachutes and absolutely none on the mission?

What is your take on the precision movements of the lander? Again, a black and white camera on the orbiter which is also fairly clear for the most part. Why the different types of footage and different cameras?

#32 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-07-16 06:18 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort