NASA Launches Artemis II Astronauts Around the Moon (nasa.gov) 188
NASA's Artemis II mission has launched four astronauts around the moon and back, marking humanity's first crewed lunar voyage in 53 years and the first test flight of NASA's Orion capsule and Space Launch System (SLS) with people on board. Five minutes into the flight, Commander Reid Wiseman saw the team's target: "We have a beautiful moonrise, we're headed right at it," he said from the capsule. The Associated Press reports: Artemis II set sail from the same Florida launch site that sent Apollo's explorers to the moon so long ago. The handful still alive cheered this next generation's grand adventure as the Space Launch System rocket thundered into the early evening sky, a nearly full moon beckoning some 248,000 miles (400,000 kilometers) away.
Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman led the charge into space with "Let's go to the moon!" accompanied by pilot Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Canada's Jeremy Hansen. It was the most diverse lunar crew ever with the first woman, person of color and non-U.S. citizen riding in NASA's new Orion capsule.
Carrying three Americans and one Canadian, the 32-story rocket rose from NASA's Kennedy Space Center where tens of thousands gathered to witness the dawn of this new era. Crowds also jammed the surrounding roads and beaches, reminiscent of the Apollo moonshots in the 1960s and '70s. It is NASA's biggest step yet toward establishing a permanent lunar presence. Visit NASA's Artemis II Launch Day blog for the latest updates.
Developing...
Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman led the charge into space with "Let's go to the moon!" accompanied by pilot Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Canada's Jeremy Hansen. It was the most diverse lunar crew ever with the first woman, person of color and non-U.S. citizen riding in NASA's new Orion capsule.
Carrying three Americans and one Canadian, the 32-story rocket rose from NASA's Kennedy Space Center where tens of thousands gathered to witness the dawn of this new era. Crowds also jammed the surrounding roads and beaches, reminiscent of the Apollo moonshots in the 1960s and '70s. It is NASA's biggest step yet toward establishing a permanent lunar presence. Visit NASA's Artemis II Launch Day blog for the latest updates.
Developing...
..and back. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If all goes according to plan.. (Score:4, Funny)
Five years old (Score:3)
I had just turned five years old when the Apollo 17 mission happened. Never in my wildest dreams would I have believed that I would be 58 years old when humans finally decided to go back, but here we are. Makes me sad.
Re:Five years old (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no. For years mankind thought he moon was made of cheese, and in the 1960's mankind spent a decade and billions of dollars to develop a rocket to go there only to discover it was just a big rock. Mankind hasn't been back since.
"Ah, the power of cheese!"
(Anyone else remember that commercial?)
Re:Five years old (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in 2019 on the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, someone put up a fantastic web site to play back the mission in real time. Complete with actual radio and mission control comms and telemetry data. https://apolloinrealtime.org/ [apolloinrealtime.org]. Such an amazing historical data trove. I spent several days listening in real time to the flight unfold from launch to moon landing, to splash down. Even though I knew this was just playing back recordings from 50 years ago, and knew the outcome, it was a neat experience and it filled me with wonder and excitement at what was being accomplished as it were. I remember going outside and lookup up at the moon and thinking about people being on it, as someone in 1969 would have done.
Fast forward now to Artemis II and I have such mixed feelings about it, and the space program in general. Anyway I wish them a safe and uneventful journey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gene Kranz's book "Failure is not an option" is one of the best reads a geek can have; it's about all the technical problems they had during the Apollo project and how they solved them.
I was talking with the wife about just this. It started with a TV reporter saying while people were watching the launch, he believed the most important thing was watching the observers, he got a little emotional about a woman hugging her daughter, and telling the girl that nothing will be impossible for her.
I wonder if he knows just how many geeks like me scoffed, I wanted to tell him that there are hundreds of places telling girls that they have no boundaries, and no limitations. Don't need to have bill
Re: (Score:3)
Commander Reid Wiseman and the other mission specialist Jeremy Hansen are irrelevant. Just camp followers for the more important crew members
The white male members of the crew have the least amount of space experience with Jeremy Hansen not having a full day in space yet. I suppose people could complain about the crew having a token white guy as he has no background in engineering unlike the rest of the crew.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Roughly the same age and was sure back then that we'd have a permanent habitat on the moon by 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
I had just turned five years old when the Apollo 17 mission happened. Never in my wildest dreams would I have believed that I would be 58 years old when humans finally decided to go back, but here we are. Makes me sad.
When the moon was blown out of orbit in 1999, taking the Alphans with it, it also created a rupture in space-time here on Earth, which is why we are all living the alternate version where we never returned to the moon.
Remember back when spousal abuse was funny? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Pow, Alice, straight to the moon!"
Actually, it still is. Just that it is women abusing men. Google Women find abusing men funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Takes its sweet time because Congress keeps pulling the rug, you mean? And trust me, the people making the rug pulling decisions aren't "the present generation".
Re: (Score:3)
OK. But I'm pretty sure that generation could have gone to the moon 11 years after without the spousal abuse as well.
A man walks into a bar (Score:2)
A man walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, you just missed it!" The man sez, "Naw", and waves his phone, which has the same image of the big stack on fire as the bar's 72".
Apollo 13 (Score:2)
Dusting off my copy of Apollo 13. Godspeed, crew.
diverse? a woman? a person of color? a canuck? (Score:4, Funny)
It was the most diverse lunar crew ever with the first woman, person of color and non-U.S. citizen riding in NASA's new Orion capsule.
Stephen Miller is gonna have a tremendous fit.
Not diversity hires (Score:5, Insightful)
It was the most diverse lunar crew ever with the first woman, person of color and non-U.S. citizen riding in NASA's new Orion capsule.
Stephen Miller is gonna have a tremendous fit.
The person of color has 3 masters degrees in engineering and science, and is a naval aviator who flew F/A-18 and E/A-18, a served on the International Space Station.
The woman has a masters in EE and 328 days of space flight logged.
These are not diversity hires.
Re:Not diversity hires (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. And yet Stephen Miller is still gonna have a tremendous fit. Probably more so.
Re: Not diversity hires (Score:4, Insightful)
The person of color has 3 masters degrees in engineering and science, and is a naval aviator who flew F/A-18 and E/A-18, a served on the International Space Station. The woman has a masters in EE and 328 days of space flight logged.
so, just because it's a person of color, or a woman, we have to list their degrees and qualifications when they get a job? so, just because it's a person of color, or a woman, we have to be afraid they are unqualified? so, just because it's a person of color, or a woman that means they're stupid and the only way they got the job is because of the color of their skin or the absence of a Y chromosome in their genes?
it's the other way around: just because it's a person of color, or a woman that means they had to work much harder to get their job. I see you didn't list the degrees and qualifications of the white men. I guess just by being a white man that means you're automatically qualified. I must have missed legacy admissions being outlawed
These are not diversity hires.
I never made such a stupid statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see you didn't list the degrees and qualifications of the white men. I guess just by being a white man that means you're automatically qualified. I must have missed legacy admissions being outlawed
The white men on this crew have the least space experience of the four with Jeremy Hansen not having spent a whole day in space yet so I could say he is the token white guy. Christina Koch has almost as much space experience as the rest of the crew.
Re: (Score:2)
The person of color has 3 masters degrees in engineering and science, and is a naval aviator who flew F/A-18 and E/A-18, a served on the International Space Station. The woman has a masters in EE and 328 days of space flight logged.
so, just because it's a person of color, or a woman, we have to list their degrees and qualifications when they get a job?
NASA's crew website high lights their qualifications. The politicized post you made mentioned only diversity, potentially creating a misleading impression. I corrected that.
These are not diversity hires.
I never made such a stupid statement.
Your politicized post would leave some readers with that impression. I corrected that.
Re:Not diversity hires (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Miller thinks that any qualifications they have were just the result of DEI and not hard work.
You can't reason with people like that. It's like religion, they just invent another story to explain why anything contradictory to their belief is actually confirmation of it.
Re: (Score:2)
The person of color has 3 masters degrees in engineering and science, and is a naval aviator who flew F/A-18 and E/A-18, a served on the International Space Station. The woman has a masters in EE and 328 days of space flight logged.
These are not diversity hires.
Exactly! One does not become an astronaut as a diversity initiative. You have to be very qualified. If you are not, people die in space. Glover and Koch are damn well qualified, and it is an insult to claim they are not - which includes the "people of color" and female astronauts that came before them.
Re: (Score:2)
The person of color has 3 masters degrees in engineering and science, and is a naval aviator who flew F/A-18 and E/A-18, and served on the International Space Station.
The woman has a masters in EE and 328 days of space flight logged.
These are not diversity hires.
Really? Could have fooled me ...
Well that's seems quite easy. You can't tell the difference between PR drones and Astronaut Selection folks.
Sure as shit would have been nice to lead off with those actual professional accomplishments ...
The Artemis crew website does that.
Re: (Score:3)
"Sure as shit would have been nice to lead off with those actual professional accomplishments"
WTF? This is NASA. Whatever else you think is going on there, those kinds of things are a given. And the information trivially available.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary stated goal of NASA's Artemis program for several years was to land the first woman and person of color on the moon. It was emphasized repeatedly, trumpeted, and openly stated on NASA's website for years (before it was taken down in March 2025). While I certainly understand your attempt to strawman the point, this doesn't logically mean the woman and person of color on the crew are necessarily unqualified.
It's not s straw man, it is a statement of fact. Something that the original politicized poster omitted. Writing only of the diversity of the crew in a politicized manner creates a false impression. I corrected that.
That fact that reasonable non-political people assume NASA astronauts are highly qualified does not change the deficiencies of the original politicized post.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop pretending that America is still stuck in the 1960's? The overwhelming majority of Americans no longer have a Jim Crow mindset, and no longer regard as remarkable when a woman or "person of color" (i.e., an ordinary person) does something that white people have been doing for years. Diversity is ordinary now, and has been for the past few decades.
Diversity is like a religion with some people - no matter how much you (Americans) repent, you are still a sinner and in need of grace and forgive
Oh no, the crew may seriously be in deep doo-doo (Score:3)
Their toilet isn't working [apnews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
DEI (Score:2)
Unfortunately, yes. That is the direct consequence of DEI. If you hire some people due to their gender, or race, or whatever? Guess what, you call the qualifications of *all* such people into question.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude doesn't like naval analogy.
Re:How to NOT teach AI, about the 21st Century. (Score:4, Funny)
Rum, sodomy, prayers and the lash.
Better?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I still had mod points for your post. Bwah ha ha ha ha.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens at sea stays at sea (Score:2)
Rear Admirals, the head and the poop deck. What's wrong with the Navy?
It can't be discussed. What happens at sea stays at sea. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention all the seamen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Gotta be careful, claiming words like spaceship or spacefleet are AI inventions, or that (solar) sails in space do not exist, would unleash a horde of angry trekkies. They have not yet "set sail" though, they have basically just undocked and anchored further out in the bay area. According to the mission timeline [nasa.gov] it's only after ~24 hours that they will enter a trans lunar orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude doesn't like naval analogy.
Seriously. "Set sail" is a metaphor for beginning a long journey. Only an obsessive moron would decide that's the important thing to exclaim about in an article about the first manned spaceflight to the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972.
On the other hand, if you're a fundamentalist Christian, you might consider naval terminology apt for a mission that somehow pierces the "firmament" and travels through the "waters above". Obviously the hand of God is at work here. /s
(I'm actually a little saddened that I felt th
Re: (Score:2)
Dude doesn't like naval analogy.
Or realize spacecraft could have solar sails.
Who here has a problem with the word “fly”, other than everyone who forgot we invented a word for things that launch themselves off the ground and beyond any aircraft that doesn’t “set sail” when leaving the ground at the not-a-sailport?
Yes. The terminology really is THAT ignorant when talking about space travel, no matter what the Trekkie is bitching about.
Re: Spacecraft can have solar sails (Score:2)
I've been working in this industry for over 3 years and we always refer to it as a "flight", as in "fly". Launch and liftoff just refer to specific phases of what is usually suborbital or orbital flight.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey!
What are you doing, bringing easily observed reality and actual experience into a multi-post dumpster fire of grammar and word choice pedantry?
Why would you do that? This guy is clearly someone that cannot take joy from engineering achievement on a historical scale; instead they want to bitch about some fishwrap hack daring to use a sailing metaphor when writing a news story about exploring new frontiers.
I'd have more respect if he bitched about how cliche it is, rather than how antiquated the metaphor
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey!
What are you doing, bringing easily observed reality and actual experience into a multi-post dumpster fire of grammar and word choice pedantry?
Why would you do that? This guy is clearly someone that cannot take joy from engineering achievement on a historical scale; instead they want to bitch about some fishwrap hack daring to use a sailing metaphor when writing a news story about exploring new frontiers.
I'd have more respect if he bitched about how cliche it is, rather than how antiquated the metaphor is.
Posting AC to avoid burning mod points.
There is something else going on with the diminishes. They are Spacex cult members. We see it when they were complaining about how the First Artemis launch damaged teh launchpad, while bragging how powerful StarShip was, that when it destroyed it's launchpad, it was just move fast and break things, and proof of the path forward into space being on Starship.
So NASA launching a manned ship around the moon, while the best rocket ever built isn't even orbited yet, and
Re: (Score:3)
Posting AC to avoid burning mod points.
HAH! or maybe not!
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard of metaphors? As it turns out, writers like to use them.
And you're going buck wild crazypants on this. Maybe try some CBD or something.
Re: (Score:2)
The terminology really is THAT ignorant when talking about space travel, ...
The ignorance is not realizing that solar sails are a thing, they have been used numerous times.
The’ve been talked about since the 80s and used twice in the near-century long history of spaceflight. The ignorance is trying to claim that spacecraft sail to their destination instead of fly there. You’re only wrong 99% of the time when you say that.
Thank you for doubling down on the ONE feature among spacecraft that barely justifies abusing naval terminology, because pirates are as cool as Star Trek at NASA.
... no matter what the Trekkie is bitching about.
Thank you for doubling down on displaying your ignorance and thinking solar sails are just a Star Trek thing.
Don’t thank me. Thank Star Trek for abusing naval technology long before we i
Re: (Score:2)
The first person to think of the concept of solar sails was Johannes Kepler in 1610, when he observed that comets' tails always pointed directly away from the sun and speculated that whatever force caused that could be harnessed by sails. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in 1921 made the first serious proposal, with the concept of light pressure being fairly well-understood at that point.
As far as Star Trek is concerned, I might point out that while TOS never had solar sails, Deep Space Nine did entire episode cente
Re: (Score:2)
The ignorance is not realizing that solar sails are a thing, they have been used numerous times.
The’ve been talked about since the 80s and used twice in the near-century long history of spaceflight.
Actually it's more than that. But the count is irrelevant being non-zero.
The ignorance is trying to claim that spacecraft sail to their destination instead of fly there. You’re only wrong 99% of the time when you say that.
Thank you for tripping down on your ignorance. The percentage does not matter. The number of craft that has used solar sales is about the same as the number of craft that has flown to the moon. Using your logic we should not say spacecraft have flown to the moon because it was such a rare occurrence. The rarity does not matters.
Re:How to NOT teach AI, about the 21st Century. (Score:4, Funny)
"We're whalers on the Moon,
we carry a harpoon.
But there ain't no whales
so we tell tall tales and
sing a whaling tune."
Re:How to NOT teach AI, about the 21st Century. (Score:4, Insightful)
"how to be triggered by the tiniest shit" - welcome to geekmux's TED talk
Re: (Score:2)
>>Really? Did it? How many sails did it have?
And there's you, leading by example.
Re: (Score:2)
He posts on this web log.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that's bad...
The frog in a wood plane isn't actually amphibious (seriously, you don't want to get it wet and have it rust)
Re: How to NOT teach AI, about the 21st Century. (Score:2)
You will have to be more specific. Which wood plane? The mosquito, the spruce goose or some earlier type?
Re: (Score:2)
You will have to be more specific. Which wood plane? The mosquito, the spruce goose or some earlier type?
Or is he referring to the English plane, a tree? Which appears to be made of wood.
But one thing is for certain, the Spaex fans appear to have move the talk away from their incredibly unparalleled success with StarShip. Why would NASA be bragging about sending people around the moon, when Musk put people on Mars in 2016? /s /h
Ima going to piss them off - good, maybe we can talk about spaceflight, not have an English lesson, with demands for high precision definitions.
Re: (Score:2)
"didja think we were just going to kick around this rock forever?"
pretty much. this is home & there's no other place remotely (pun intended) like it
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Some rare footage does exist of Kubrick directing and the astronauts goofing around https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice special effects! (Score:4, Funny)
Some rare footage does exist of Kubrick directing and the astronauts goofing around https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
What people don't know is that with Stanley Kubrick being a perfectionist, he forced NASA to go to the moon to shoot the faked footage!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unimpressed by the current quality of conspiracy theorists.
We've been able to do photorealism on the desktop since at least the release of UE5, probably before that too. Why were so many people in the comments asking which Hollywood movie studio it was being shot in? Why were they complaining about greenscreens?
Amateurs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite impressed by the realism. The CGI these days is outstanding!
That said, I think they made a mistake by not having any walking-on-the-moon scenes. Were the moon sets just not ready in time?
Kubrick was no longer available and they were having trouble finding someone willing to compromise their vision by adopting his.
Re:Seems pointlessly unsafe (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Seems pointlessly unsafe (Score:5, Insightful)
A dummy load and some chemistry to use oxygen would do the same job with zero human risk.
If they're not putting boots on the Moon, they shouldn't have their asses in the rocket.
The Artemis I [wikipedia.org] unmanned mission flew in 2022.
The Apollo Program [wikipedia.org] followed a similar progression to test things in succession.
Re: (Score:3)
A dummy load and some chemistry to use oxygen would do the same job with zero human risk. If they're not putting boots on the Moon, they shouldn't have their asses in the rocket.
The Artemis I [wikipedia.org] unmanned mission flew in 2022. The Apollo Program [wikipedia.org] followed a similar progression to test things in succession.
And the Spacex program will have expendables on board, because they move fast and break things.
Re: (Score:3)
"a dummy load"
hey, we found the perfect volounteer
Re: (Score:2)
"a dummy load"
hey, we found the perfect volounteer
And I wonder why the pedants have not mentioned that a dummy load is a device placed on a radio instead of antenna for testing purposes.
Re:Seems pointlessly unsafe (Score:5, Insightful)
A dummy load and some chemistry to use oxygen would do the same job with zero human risk.
If they're not putting boots on the Moon, they shouldn't have their asses in the rocket.
I tried finding details of what the crew will actually be doing over the next 10 days and the answer seems to be very little. According to planetary society:
"During the mission, the Artemis II crew will test Orionâ(TM)s various capabilities in deep space. That includes life-support and environmental systems, manual piloting and proximity operations, and communications and navigation systems."
"The crew will also contribute to studies of human physiology, sleep, motion, and other biological responses to space travel."
Re:Seems pointlessly unsafe (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a former submariner boredom is good.
Re: Seems pointlessly unsafe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Concur to a point...a little fire (drill) and flooding (drill) to get the blood moving periodically is good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as a former submariner boredom is good.
Or as a "Triple-A Rated" Bodyguard [wikipedia.org]:
Boring is always best.
-- Michael Bryce
Re: (Score:2)
Artemis isn't sitting around waiting ready for a war. Boredom is not good in most industries, it's an objective waste of resources and human effort. I suspect they won't actually be properly bored and will have a todo list to keep them busy here.
"Studies of human physiology" (Score:3)
The crew will also contribute to studies of human physiology, sleep, motion, and other biological responses to space travel.
i.e.: Fucking. The crew is gonna spend the next 10 days fucking each other's brains out in the name of science. Your tax dollars are paying for it, and you're not even gonna get a copy of the tape.
Re: (Score:2)
The crew will also contribute to studies of human physiology, sleep, motion, and other biological responses to space travel.
i.e.: Fucking. The crew is gonna spend the next 10 days fucking each other's brains out in the name of science. Your tax dollars are paying for it, and you're not even gonna get a copy of the tape.
They could do that on the ISS much better. I suspect that has already happened.
That said, while bumping uglies in space has a certain allure, weightlessness and sex has some interesting side effects. You and your lady friend will need to be inside some sort of hammock/tent-like thing. Or in a really big room, because, well, ask the wife if she likes getting her noggin constantly smacked on the headboard. Because y'all are going to be flying' all over the place. Especially if you bump into a wall - then
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar to Apollo 8. Fly around the moon and return on a free return.
They don't have the lander to test, like Apollo 10 did. Presumably there will be another non-landing mission for that, which also includes insertion into lunar orbit, and then leaving again.
This time there may be an unmanned landing first though, as the two landers being developed are going to be capable of fully automated landings and take off. In fact, in the case of Starship, the landing probably has to be automated for the most pa
Re: (Score:2)
I In fact, in the case of Starship, the landing probably has to be automated for the most part.
I wonder who is going to build the pad or the grabber Starship needs. Same for Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
They're testing a new space toilet and doing some form of trial on the effects of microgravity on human sperm. The three men on this mission are essentially being paid to go to space and jerk off. *AND* they get to tell everybody it was for science!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unmanned: Artemis 1, Apollo 8 and 10 (Score:2)
A dummy load and some chemistry to use oxygen would do the same job with zero human risk.
Like the Artemis 1 mission in 2022?
If they're not putting boots on the Moon, they shouldn't have their asses in the rocket.
Like they did in 1968 and 1969 with the Apollo 8 and 10 missions? Going to the moon but not landing.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to have skipped Apollo 7, the LEO crewed demonstration. Doing Apollo nine-and-a-half, demonstrating mating with the lunar module in LEO might be a good idea though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems pointlessly unsafe (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, because it's absolutely not useful to test emergency procedures in the actual environment to make sure you can navigate if your computer takes a shit. And the best way to know how to do something, is to have people do it. And nobody has actually done that since the early 70s.
You would just have everything be brand new in the first flight? Tell us you know nothing about risk management, without telling us you know nothing about risk management. It's a damn good thing for us that you aren't the NASA Administrator, or in the same zip code as anyone with any authority over how NASA conducts it's manned spaceflight program.
Re: (Score:2)
A dummy load and some chemistry to use oxygen would do the same job with zero human risk.
If they're not putting boots on the Moon, they shouldn't have their asses in the rocket.
Remember kids, spaceflight is hard. Nature does not like us being in space, at all. She puts up serious, difficult barriers that we need to overcome. Just look how hard it was for a new program like Space X to start from scratch even with all of the existing knowledge developed by NASA, ESA, etc.. How many rapid unscheduled disassembly events did they suffer? I lost count. Even the Russians, who arguably have as much or more LEO experience than the US, continue to face challenges. Heck, so do we, as th
Re: (Score:2)
A dummy load and some chemistry to use oxygen would do the same job with zero human risk.
How would this dummy load of your test all the systems? The most logical mission here is to send a crew to the moon and back and have them test the systems in preparation for other crews to follow.
Re:Artemis II? (Score:4, Funny)
Nobody said Artemis 11. Either you are confusing it with Apollo 11, or you need to reconsider your choice of fonts.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said Artemis 11. Either you are confusing it with Apollo 11, or you need to reconsider your choice of fonts.
Well..at least I know why my ASCII font screams out “Fashion Whore!” every time I try and change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(shakes fist) Damn you, sans serif!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny that your subject line is a modification of the Star Trek catchphrase... which was well-known for having an extremely diverse crew, especially for the time when it was made.
I love it when people think Star Trek wasn't what today would be called woke.
Re: Where no woke has gone before (Score:2)
Are you just upset I used the word "woke"
Sort of. It's a diverse crew yes, but the engineering resources, time and consumption of fuel to achieve ?What?????? is not my kind of woke.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got that right. I've been waiting over 50 years for this. The Shuttle was Something. This... is an order of magnitude more.
Goddess, that launch was perfect.