0893: "65 Years"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
andyfrommk
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:30 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby andyfrommk » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:34 pm UTC

Sad news I'm afraid
http://news.sky.com/story/977119/astronaut-neil-armstrong-dies-aged-82

davepc
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:41 am UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby davepc » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:41 pm UTC

Yes, just remembered this comic. I wonder how close the prediction was.

Daimon
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:24 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Daimon » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:28 pm UTC

andyfrommk wrote:Sad news I'm afraid
http://news.sky.com/story/977119/astron ... es-aged-82


I was just about to post that.

SpeedEvil
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:05 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby SpeedEvil » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

Me too.

I wonder about a little red line on the comic updating.

acd
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:02 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby acd » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:22 pm UTC

davepc wrote:Yes, just remembered this comic. I wonder how close the prediction was.


that was not a prediction, but an estimation of probabilities, based on past general demographic data.

mfb
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby mfb » Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:47 pm UTC

Image

Edgar Mitchell, 1930-2016 :(
Attachments
moon.png

User avatar
Tom
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:29 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Tom » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:18 pm UTC


User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:26 pm UTC

Guess what I was just about to post, after hearing this whilst driving.

Doing better than the mid-point estimate, which is a good thing. But beware of reversion towards the mean.

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby moody7277 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:57 pm UTC

And it looks like we're right on schedule. Curse you actuaries and your depressing statistics!
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.


BoomFrog wrote:I still have no idea what town moody really looks like.

mfb
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby mfb » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:13 pm UTC

Astronauts have better than average healthcare and they were selected for not having any health problems when they became astronauts. I don't know if the graph takes that into account.

6 left:
Harrison Schmitt, 81
Charles Duke, 81
David Scott, 84
Alan Bean, 84
John Young, 86
Buzz Aldrin, 86 <- will get 87 in 3 days

DanD
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby DanD » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:19 pm UTC

mfb wrote:Astronauts have better than average healthcare and they were selected for not having any health problems when they became astronauts. I don't know if the graph takes that into account.


But they also tended to be test pilots, with the associated lifestyle (hard drinking, hard partying, etc). And even after they grew out of that, they do have some additional radiation exposure, not just from the space flight, but from their time as pilots as well. Their cancer risk is probably a decade or so higher than their chronological ages. Plus, of course, the still not fully understood long term health effects of microgravity (admittedly for much shorter durations than many modern astronauts).

User avatar
patzer
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:48 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby patzer » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:04 pm UTC

John Young has sadly passed away.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. –Douglas Adams

User avatar
Tom
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:29 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Tom » Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:26 pm UTC


User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby HES » Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:28 am UTC

So far we're consistently one death behind... which one of them was secretly replaced by a robot?
He/Him/His Image

mfb
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby mfb » Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:33 am UTC

We are following the line quite closely. :(

Harrison Schmitt, 82
Charles Duke, 82
David Scott, 85
Alan Bean, 85
Buzz Aldrin, 87

We also have 8 people (alive) who flew around the Moon without landing.
Frank Borman, 89
Jim Lovell, 89
Bill Anders, 84
Tom Stafford, 87
Michael Collins, 87
Fred Haise, 84
Al Worden, 85
Ken Mattingly, 81

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:23 pm UTC

HES wrote:So far we're consistently one death behind... which one of them was secretly replaced by a robot?


We're well within the projected error bars still.

cct
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:55 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby cct » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:17 pm UTC

The graph shows the expectations for a group of 9 average American males. The 9 specific males were, in fact, a select cohort.

I think the evidence is starting to suggest that the space program selected astronauts for qualities that have translated to slightly longer life spans than average - for those astronauts who didn't die in the course of their work.

Murgatroyd
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:56 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Murgatroyd » Sat May 26, 2018 9:54 pm UTC


User avatar
Tom
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:29 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Tom » Sat May 26, 2018 10:07 pm UTC


User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Old Bruce » Sat May 26, 2018 11:11 pm UTC


This makes me sad too.

mfb
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby mfb » Sun May 27, 2018 3:50 am UTC

:(

Four left:

Harrison Schmitt, 82
Charles Duke, 82
David Scott, 85
Buzz Aldrin, 88

And still 8 people who flew to the Moon without landing. In total 12 people alive who ever left low Earth orbit.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Soupspoon » Sun May 27, 2018 10:10 pm UTC

(I wrote the following in response to something on the Obituaries thread, but it really should have been here. It doesn't need much to work out what point I'm replying to, hopefully.)

I was wondering if we'd get a "send old people to Mars, one-way trip" mission off the ground (and out of orbit, which is the next step), and of course what better old people to send than old astronauts with extraplanetary experience under their space-belts?

The trouble being that it won't stop the Apollo-footers from dying off (maybe a small chance of less stress on Mars, but far more countered with loads of opportunity to hasten their demise, and takes them away from Earthly healthcare even if they just deteriorate 'normally') and then we end up with no-one left alive who has been to the Moon and no-one alive who has been to Mars.

Really, to stop the reversion to zero living people having been anywhere but Earth (and, when we run out of the 'next best's as well, orbits other than Earth's) we need to get someone back to the Moon.

2019 is 50 years since we first got to the Moon. At one point I was very definite that someone would commemorate this by landing back there again. I don't care if it's Branson/Musk/Soros/Elvis/Mickey Mouse, we should do it. (Trump? Can we send Trump there? Just send, obviously.)

Anyway: Random link, not the best news source, but came up in my random search earlier:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -moon.html

mfb
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby mfb » Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:01 pm UTC

The 50th anniversary is approaching: Launch of Apollo 11 July 16, landing on the Moon July 20.

One year without a death, updated graph. We are still on the center line. The red line was a bit too far to the right before I think, otherwise the straight line would be a bit longer:

50years.png


Edit: Based on the python script:

There is a 5% chance of someone dying within 0.1 years (by 2019).
There is a 50% chance of someone dying within 1.32 years (by 2020).
There is a 95% chance of someone dying within 4.77 years (by 2024).

There is a 5% chance of everyone dying within 4.34 years (by 2023).
There is a 50% chance of everyone dying within 9.55 years (by 2029).
There is a 95% chance of everyone dying within 16.26 years (by 2035).

The 90% confidence interval for everyone's death is nearly unchanged. A little bit narrower now.

FOARP
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years" Discussion

Postby FOARP » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:22 am UTC

duckshirt wrote:Why assume nobody else will? It might not be in NASA's immediate plans but 20-30 years is a long time.


Basic fact is that in every decade of my life time, and I'm in my late 30's, a return to the moon/mission to Mars has supposedly been a decade-or-so off. This is because each administration in the US has cancelled the last administration's plans because they hate the idea of funding something for which the other guys can take the credit.

Probably the only good thing the Trump admin has done (apart maybe from the China tariffs) is announce a return to the moon within the next five years. However, the plan is a bit unrealistic and if he loses in 2020 it'll probably be amongst the first thing that the new admin will scrap. I really hope the SLS launches before November and Boeing has made some hefty progress on Orion so those projects can't be cancelled without being seen as a massive waste, but this is basically requiring people to apply the sunken-cost fallacy.

PS - I see that the Artemis 1 launch has now likely been knocked back to late 2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/nasas-large-sls-rocket-unlikely-to-fly-before-at-least-late-2021/). If they do cancel this, I sure hope Buzz Aldrin is around to cuss out whoever makes the decision.

User avatar
Moose Anus
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Moose Anus » Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:53 pm UTC

FOARP wrote:cancelled the last administration's plans because they hate the idea of funding something for which the other guys can take the credit.
Huh, that's a good point. Johnson doesn't get credit for the moon landing even though he was president at the time. I guess there was enough Kennedy love to see that project through and still give him the credit.
Lemonade? ...Aww, ok.

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Old Bruce » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:53 pm UTC

Moose Anus wrote:
FOARP wrote:cancelled the last administration's plans because they hate the idea of funding something for which the other guys can take the credit.
Huh, that's a good point. Johnson doesn't get credit for the moon landing even though he was president at the time. I guess there was enough Kennedy love to see that project through and still give him the credit.

Huh!?

ijuin
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby ijuin » Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:40 am UTC

Nixon was President during Apollo 9-17, but Johnson was President when most of the funding and R&D happened, as well as the entire Gemini program.

FOARP
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby FOARP » Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:07 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:Nixon was President during Apollo 9-17, but Johnson was President when most of the funding and R&D happened, as well as the entire Gemini program.


Nixon would have probably cancelled it if it hadn't been so close to completion - he did scale back the landings and cancel the proposed Venus/Mars missions.But then Clinton did exactly the same to Bush Snr's SEI plans, and Obama cancelled Constellation. Each of these plans would have had us back to the Moon/on to Mars within 10-20 years. Hell, Constellation would have had us back on the Moon no later than next year.

PsiCubed2
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years" Discussion

Postby PsiCubed2 » Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:20 am UTC

FOARP wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Why assume nobody else will? It might not be in NASA's immediate plans but 20-30 years is a long time.


Basic fact is that in every decade of my life time, and I'm in my late 30's, a return to the moon/mission to Mars has supposedly been a decade-or-so off. This is because each administration in the US has cancelled the last administration's plans because they hate the idea of funding something for which the other guys can take the credit.


The difference is that today we are no longer dependent on NASA or any government to see such projects through. I'm quite confident that either SpaceX or a new competitor will land a person on the moon before the 2020's are out.

.

FOARP
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years" Discussion

Postby FOARP » Tue Jul 23, 2019 7:06 am UTC

PsiCubed2 wrote:
FOARP wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Why assume nobody else will? It might not be in NASA's immediate plans but 20-30 years is a long time.


Basic fact is that in every decade of my life time, and I'm in my late 30's, a return to the moon/mission to Mars has supposedly been a decade-or-so off. This is because each administration in the US has cancelled the last administration's plans because they hate the idea of funding something for which the other guys can take the credit.


The difference is that today we are no longer dependent on NASA or any government to see such projects through. I'm quite confident that either SpaceX or a new competitor will land a person on the moon before the 2020's are out.

.


Basically all of that turns on the views of a few unstable men who fund space exploration as a hobby. I hope SpaceX (or Blue Origin or another competitor) succeed but I really don't think we should count on them doing so.

People who bang on about SLS being a money-sink keep missing the fact that Musk might wind up dead or in jail over some BS tomorrow and that might be that for SpaceX. We've also seen some failures in the private sphere (e.g., StratoLaunch).

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years" Discussion

Postby GlassHouses » Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:51 am UTC

PsiCubed2 wrote:
FOARP wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Why assume nobody else will? It might not be in NASA's immediate plans but 20-30 years is a long time.


Basic fact is that in every decade of my life time, and I'm in my late 30's, a return to the moon/mission to Mars has supposedly been a decade-or-so off. This is because each administration in the US has cancelled the last administration's plans because they hate the idea of funding something for which the other guys can take the credit.


The difference is that today we are no longer dependent on NASA or any government to see such projects through. I'm quite confident that either SpaceX or a new competitor will land a person on the moon before the 2020's are out.

.


Of course it's technologically feasible — if it could be done with '60s technology, it has certainly been possible in every decade since — but it is still going to be astronomically expensive, and good luck raising the money.

Since neither the Moon nor Mars are inhabitable in any meaningful sense of the word, there is no profit in sending people there. There was no profit in sending people to the Moon the first time around, either, but back then, the USA and the USSR were both desperately trying to prove they were The Greatest Country Evar, so huge budgets could be allocated with few people complaining.

Good luck trying to stir up that kind of enthusiasm now. I'm not saying it definitely won't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 0893: "65 Years" Discussion

Postby orthogon » Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:41 am UTC

GlassHouses wrote:Since neither the Moon nor Mars are inhabitable in any meaningful sense of the word, there is no profit in sending people there. There was no profit in sending people to the Moon the first time around, either, but back then, the USA and the USSR were both desperately trying to prove they were The Greatest Country Evar, so huge budgets could be allocated with few people complaining.

Good luck trying to stir up that kind of enthusiasm now. I'm not saying it definitely won't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.


I'm really torn. My head says that you're absolutely right: there's really no point sending people; critics of the failure to repeat the manned moon missions do a grave disservice to the brilliant scientists and engineers who have continued to explore space in the intervening half-century, making unbelievable discoveries about the rings of Saturn, landing on comets, and taking beautiful photos of Pluto.

On the other hand, what my heart says can be best summed up by the Onion article on the subject: a human being actually walking on the actual fucking Moon! Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket!
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

PsiCubed2
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby PsiCubed2 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:44 am UTC

GlassHouses wrote:Of course it's technologically feasible — if it could be done with '60s technology, it has certainly been possible in every decade since — but it is still going to be astronomically expensive, and good luck raising the money.


No more than a couple of billion dollars, with current technology. That's money that SpaceX already has, so there is no need to "raise the money". By 2020 it will cost even less.

Since neither the Moon nor Mars are inhabitable in any meaningful sense of the word, there is no profit in sending people there.


Tell that to Elon Musk. He stated quite clearly (and many many times) that colonizing Mars was the entire point of him creating SpaceX.

This is something that Musk clearly wants to do. He has the will, the money and the knowledge. Seriously, wouldn't you jump at an opportunity to land on the moon, if you had SpaceX's resources? I most certainly would, and I wouldn't care whether it would be profitable or not.

(I'm also willing to bet that a guy like Elon Musk wouldn't have too much trouble finding ways to turn his Martian dreams into profit. If nothing else, he could always turn the entire endeavor into a media spectacle and sell ad-spaces.)

orthogon wrote: a human being actually walking on the actual fucking Moon! Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket!


Is the fucking Moon near the regular one? Sounds like a fun place to visit ;-)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby orthogon » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:28 am UTC

PsiCubed2 wrote:Is the fucking Moon near the regular one? Sounds like a fun place to visit ;-)

Not sure how much fun it would be: as I learned from PM2Ring, that moon dust gets everywhere...
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby GlassHouses » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:14 am UTC

PsiCubed2 wrote:Tell that to Elon Musk. He stated quite clearly (and many many times) that colonizing Mars was the entire point of him creating SpaceX.

He can state it as often as he wants, but that doesn't make it any more realistic. I'm sure SpaceX could send a spacecraft to Mars. Maybe they are even capable of sending one with people on board, and the ability to make the trip back. But establishing a self-sustaining colony is a couple of orders of magnitude harder, if it is even possible at all. I'd like to see something more than enthusiasm, which I'm sure Musk has in spades. I would like to see a plan, some bird's eye view of how such a colony would work, on a planet that is not just far away, but much more hostile to life than even Antarctica.

PsiCubed2
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby PsiCubed2 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:21 pm UTC

True, a self-contained colony on Mars is many decades away. And yes, the timeline that Musk is giving is completely unrealistic.

But we weren't talking about a Mars colony. We were talking about a manned mission the Moon, similar to Apollo 11. This is a project that SpaceX is certainly capable of tackling in the near future. They have the will, and they have the dough.

And you've said yourself that they are capable of pulling it off. So what's going to stop them?

Also, keep in mind that there will probably be more players in this field before the 2020's are out. The only real unknown here, is whether SpaceX will be the first to complete a Lunar Return Mission, or some fast-rising competitor will beat them to it.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2151
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Sableagle » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:38 pm UTC

PsiCubed2 wrote:
GlassHouses wrote:... it is still going to be astronomically expensive, and good luck raising the money.
No more than a couple of billion dollars, with current technology. That's money that SpaceX already has, so there is no need to "raise the money". By 2020 it will cost even less.
Source, please? We may be able to lift the mass of the command and lunar modules to low earth orbit for $20M but there's the whole Earth-to-Moon phase to add to that plus actual construction. I wouldn't expect it to cost the full $150bn of the whole Apollo programme with all six landings, but under $5bn seems optimistic.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby GlassHouses » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:30 pm UTC

PsiCubed2 wrote:True, a self-contained colony on Mars is many decades away. And yes, the timeline that Musk is giving is completely unrealistic.

But we weren't talking about a Mars colony. We were talking about a manned mission the Moon, similar to Apollo 11. This is a project that SpaceX is certainly capable of tackling in the near future. They have the will, and they have the dough.

I was responding to you talking about SpaceX being founded in order to get to Mars, so yes, we most definitely were talking about a Mars colony.

PsiCubed2 wrote:And you've said yourself that they are capable of pulling it off. So what's going to stop them?

Change the subject often enough and you can claim anything, eh? I said that I believe SpaceX to be capable of getting a spaceship to Mars. I most definitely did not say they are capable of establishing a colony there. Rather the opposite, in fact.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:20 pm UTC

PsiCubed2 wrote:some fast-rising competitor


I see what you did there.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 0893: "65 Years"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:30 pm UTC

PsiCubed2 wrote:And you've said yourself that they are capable of pulling it off. So what's going to stop them?
Musk's desire to colonize mars will stop spaceX from going to the moon. A manned moon mission would take a major portion of SpaceX's resources, and not provide a much benefit to future mars missions.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eoink, measure and 110 guests