mclumber1

3 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Can’t wait for all the high def pics of the moo’s surface!

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I'm guessing that they must've re-established contact with the signal, because for a while after the landing they simply couldn't.

Tweet from Intuitive Machines, the maker of the lander:

Quote

 After troubleshooting communications, flight controllers have confirmed Odysseus is upright and starting to send data. 
Right now, we are working to downlink the first images from the lunar surface.

This lander was the first in history to use cryogenic propellant (liquid oxygen and methane) and successfully land on the moon.  All previous landers have had to use (or attempted to use) storable (but incredibly dangerous) propellants like hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.  Methane/oxygen or hydrogen/oxygen are the fuels of the future for these missions.

This is why we need to develop brain to phone telepathy technology

10 minutes ago, Nokra said:

I'm curious, what would you have liked to see instead? 

I think the consensus among people who didn't like last week's TDS is: Pointing out the weaknesses of the Democratic nominee is treasonous. 

22 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Thanks I hate it

I dunno.  I'd love a movie/miniseries version of the World War Z book.  The Brad Pitt movie didn't do the book justice.  

He's definitely going to have to sell off assets to pay the judgement if his appeal fails.  If he appeals that is.

Trump can run a business in New York in 3 years.  I think Gemini describes his future pursuits quite well:

"The scene is bustling and chaotic, typical of a busy New York City street. A bright yellow hot dog stand sits on the corner, emblazoned with the words "Trump's Top Dogs" in faded red paint. Behind the counter stands Donald Trump, his signature comb-over slightly askew and his expression one of deep discontent. He wears a stained white apron over a dark suit, looking out of place amidst the greasy tongs and bubbling hot dog water. Customers mill around, some pointing and whispering, others simply waiting for their orders. A pigeon lands on the counter, scattering mustard packets, and Trump swathes it away with a grimace. The overall image is one of humor and absurdity, highlighting the contrast between Trump's former grandeur and his current, more humble circumstances."

Oldie but a goodie:

Trump has been fined on the order of $350 million by New York State.  If he loses the appeal, this could be curtains for many of his businesses and properties in the state. 

8 minutes ago, Chris- said:

Russia’s performance in the war wildly undercuts any notion that they could pull off a feat like this. I don’t doubt that they want a weapon like that and are taking efforts to build it, but I’m skeptical it is anything more than a speculative threat at this point. This just strikes me as political saber rattling trying to capitalize on recent (but probably not dire) intelligence. 

Russia knows how to build nuclear weapons, and they know how to build spacecraft.  It isn't hard to imagine them being able to integrate the two into one platform.  My biggest worry (if it is never used) is what happens to it after the satellite that carries the weapon fails?  The object that everyone is currently tracking is in low earth orbit.  Eventually, the orbit will decay and the payload will reenter the atmosphere. 

1 minute ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

They park nuke in orbit?

I want it to be UFO tech.  

My theory is that the US, along with Russia and a few other countries have absolutely retrieved UFOs and related technology, but have had a bitch of a time reverse engineering it.  Russia has figured out some trick to manufacture, or at least better understand how the alien technology works, and is getting ready to weaponize it.  

31 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Uh...what new Russian capability could this be? Their most-recent hypersonic missile was basically a dud and they can't really make them in large quantities. Cyberattack capabilities?

Space based weapons system? 

I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with that "He gets us" commercial itself.  On the other hand, the group that funded it doesn't actually follow the teachings of Jesus. 

Qchuds are going to lose their minds now!

18 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Fox Cinematic Universe

Brilliant

Swift is to the right what Musk is to the left:  A person that used to be (and ought to still be!) squarely in their camp, but they've become sellouts.  At the same time, I don't think Swift would be so anti-conservative if they weren't so anti-Swift to begin with.  It's a bit of a vicious cycle.  

Buy this woman a supersonic jet!

55 minutes ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

For breaking their rules? If so, amazing! 

 

EDIT: I took a look at this sub and their first rule is "no anti-Libertarian trolling" and as I scroll through there threads many are just socialism/communism trolling memes. So the actual rule is: We must be SAFE to HATE other things in a protected manner where we are not hated! I fucking love how dumb Earth is! 

The sub actually used to be really good about sticking to libertarian ethos.  They wouldn't ban anyone (except if they broke site wide rules) and there was good debating.  Now it's as bad as r/conservative or any of the leftist circlejerk subreddits - they'll ban you for the slightest instance of you not toeing the line. 

10 hours ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

I got banned from r/libertarian

Listening to The Daily this morning on my way into work, and I had a scenario pop into my head concerning this case.  While I don't think the following outcome is likely, it would sure be interesting!

SCOTUS rules that Trump violated the 14th Amendment by engaging in insurrection/rebellion, however the court is sympathetic to Trump's lawyer's argument that a state (or states) can't remove a person from the ballot based on the reading of that amendment.

Quote

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

14.3 states that a person can't become any of the named positions (and arguably President as well), but it doesn't say they can't be a candidate.  So if states want to exclude Trump from the ballot based on January 6th,  they can't.  However, if Trump wins a particular state, the state could refuse to certify their win.  A 2/3rds vote by Congress after the election, but before the electoral votes are certified would permit the state to move forward and give those EVs to Trump.