Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
NASA Government The Almighty Buck Transportation Technology

NASA Begins Planning the First Human Mission To Cislunar Space (blastingnews.com) 99

MarkWhittington writes: With the first launch of the heavy-lift Space Launch System drawing nigh (for no later than November 2018), NASA is already trying to plan the first crewed space mission beyond low-Earth orbit for the early 2020s. However, budget uncertainties plus a couple of congressional mandates are causing uncertainty for the launch manifest for the SLS.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Begins Planning the First Human Mission To Cislunar Space

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2016 @06:18PM (#51690859)
    oh no no no that wont do. we need trans lunar in the name of equality
    • Caitlyn Jenner? Is that you posting as an AC?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2016 @07:06PM (#51691003)

      "cis" is a Latin prefix that roughly translates to "on this side of".

      It doesn't matter if it was co-opted by some academic leftist tyrants.

      We should take back the words they've co-opted.

      They only have power when they're allowed to corrupt language.

      If we deny them that ability, then they are powerless.

      So I think we should use the term "cis" as the Romans wanted us to, and in this case "cislunar" is a perfectly good use of it.

      By using the prefix "cis" properly in this case, the social justice movement has actually been dealt a blow.

      • by Z80a ( 971949 )

        I'm not entirely sure if that would "hurt" em on any way or shape, or if they would just spin it around to make it fit like: "the CIS white gamergater shitlords are trying to redefine words with their privileges!".
        It's not a sane movement made out of people discussing and thinking, but a spiral into madness made out of an echo chamber fueled paranoia, "politically correct racism" created by insane collectivist ideas and some powerful people exploiting it for monetary gain and/or disruption.

        And by politicall

      • "Cisgendered" was coined as an alternative to writing "someone who identifies with the gender they were born with" and therefore has a valid purpose. You may believe that is unnecessary as there is no such thing as a transgender person, I suppose, but either way you do not control the language.

        Or are you one of those people who are pissed off that "we'll have a gay old time" from the Flintstones has a different meaning than fifty years ago?

        Props for not actually using the term "SJW" though.
        • No, it was coined as a way for those people who are trans to hide the lack of normalcy of their condition. Despite all of the wailing and protesting, being transgender is abnormal. It's a mental defect (gender dysphoria). That's why therapy is part of the treatment, which may also include SRS. That's why it's listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. No matter how much you may rail against it, identifying as the sex you're born with does not give you a special title other than "normal".
          • Lots of people have abnormalities that are in the DSM, so "normal" isn't really a good word here. I'm solidly cisgender, but I've been diagnosed with other entries in the DSM. Do you want to call me "normal" just because I've got a male mind in a male body, disregarding my other issues, or shall we be a little more specific and refer to me as "not transgendered" (in the same way I'm "not schizophrenic")? If you're using "not transgendered", why not just call me "cisgendered"? :

            • Sorry, but normal is the perfect word. Abnormal is different from the normal. You're of a normal gender. I didn't say you were completely normal. If you have other conditions then those are addressed elsewhere. What special pronouns do you want for your special snowflake status?
              • "Normal" is a very unspecific word. There's lots of ways I'm normal, and a fair number of ways I'm not. The DSM is also not engraved in stone, and what it covers changes periodically. It may be useful to refer to me as "not schizophrenic" or "not an alcoholic" or "not a transsexual", being more specific.

                • Still wrong. Normal means you match the sex you're born with. No matter how you want to church it up, there's no term for someone who matches the sex they're born with other than 'normal'. Because that is the norm.
                  • Okay, so I'm normal. That will surprise some of my friends. Does this mean I don't suffer from another thing or two in the DSM, or that I'm normal and abnormal at the same time? Is a schizophrenic or depressive normal if he or she is comfortable in the sex he or she was born with? Because the moment you have to us a phrase like "normal in X", you open up the potential of a synonym for "normal in X".

      • by ailnlv ( 1291644 )

        check your cis privilege

      • You are swinging at windmills here, there is no "blow" to the social justice movement. If anything it is a validation that the prefix "cis-" is not a loaded word that should be fought, but a valid technical term with no more "liberal bias" then any other Latin prefix. Many fields of human knowledge use that prefix in many contexts, always adhering to the original Latin meaning, and none of those uses is a "co-opted by some academic leftist tyrants", instead it is just normal academics practice of using the

    • No, "CIS" is the Commonwealth of Independent States. Apparently they have started a colony on the moon and now NASA is planning a humanitarian mission. There's a typo in the title.

    • oh no no no that wont do. we need trans lunar in the name of equality

      Just call a spade a spade or in this instance Lagrange 4 & Lagrange 5

    • As the resident expert on all things cis and trans, I'm way ahead of you, AC!

      May I recommend Hyperion [barnesandnoble.com] and The Fall of Hyperion [barnesandnoble.com]?

      • Funny, I brought up that series last week on some article about a hyperion where the kids were trying to equate it to be about Borderlands like that is the first usage of the proper name...

  • by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Sunday March 13, 2016 @06:27PM (#51690877) Journal

    I'm tired of your male patriatriachal capitalist hetero lunarism. We demand trans-lunar rights NOW!

    • by reboot246 ( 623534 ) on Sunday March 13, 2016 @06:37PM (#51690909) Homepage
      Check your spelling! The word is privilege.

      But I would mod your post funny if I had any points.
    • The whole abuse of the term 'cis' has always been awkward as all heck. Set it down to SJWs being overly PC who don't want to say "normal people" and "transsexuals".
      • It is politically correct to blame things on political correctness.

      • I am surprised to see that post coming from you. I agree though, cisgender has always seemed odd to me.

        • I can understand your surprise, but keep in mind that proper terminology was appropriated from us by the LGBT movement, so that they could "normalize" cross-dressing fetishes and other activities that are not related to transsexualism. So today we have this weird alphabet soup, where transgender can mean anything. The whole "cis" thing never came from us either.

          It's also why more and more of us are telling the gays to kindly f*ck off. It's really annoying when they show up in discussions among transsexua

          • Nobody has ever really explained to me why people like you should be lumped into a sexual orientation group. I've been told there are good reasons, but they've never been forthcoming. Also, trying to normalize transvestites by lumping them in with transsexuals seems weird to me.

            (Personally, I figure that if I have any business worrying about somebody else's chromosomes and genitalia, I really should be in very close terms with that somebody, and comfortable with talking about such things. In all othe

            • Nobody has ever really explained to me why people like you should be lumped into a sexual orientation group.

              They share no sexual orientation; it isn't a "sexual orientation group". The "T" is lumped together with the LGBIQ into a political group, because they do share common oppressions, and politically speaking it is far easier for larger groups to move the needle than smaller groups. (Note that Intersex and Queer folks are not a "sexual orientation" either).

              Also, trying to normalize transvestites by lump

              • Transvestites are sexually excited by their fetish so sure, lump them with the LGB. They're free to do whatever they want, and we should all keep an open mind about it. However, transsexuals and intersexed have zero to do with sexual behavior, which is the common attribute that groups lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and drag queens / transvestites.

                They just do't get it.

                • Transvestites are sexually excited by their fetish so sure, lump them with the LGB. They're free to do whatever they want, and we should all keep an open mind about it. However, transsexuals and intersexed have zero to do with sexual behavior,

                  Sure; transvestites have different motivations than transsexuals or intersexed people. Sometimes their kink is "autogynephilia". So? How is that my business? Who are they hurting? Besides, sometimes those "transvestites" are simply transsexuals who haven't figured it

                  • Autogynephilia has been debunked. It was created with no evidence by Ray Blanchard, who interpreted other's behavior though the lens of his in-the-closet gayness.

                    Sure, transvestites are free to do whatever they want - except try to tell us how we should act, and that we're just like them - men in dresses. Just because they get their thrills from dressing like women doesn't mean they're like us in any way.

                    They've been acting like dicks for ages, and we want a divorce.

                    • Autogynephilia has been debunked.

                      It's usage as a clinical description of someone who is ineligible for transition services has been certainly debunked. The definition of the word ("a male who gets a sexual thrill from cross-dressing") remains, and this is how I used it. Just because it has lost its clinical value does not mean it has lost its descriptive value, and indeed, this is how derisive words are reclaimed. Also, remember that Dr. Blanchard coined the phrase to replace the infinitely-more-destructive

                    • Nope. The DSM5 categorizes someone who gets a thrill out of crossdressing as having a transvestic disorder or paraphilia, including those who are diagnosed with "autogynephilia".Has nothing to do with transsexualism.

                      Transsexualism in and of itself is no longer considered a disorder in the DSM5. Gender dysphora is no longer, in itself, considered a mental disorder. The problem is the stress caused by the discord between the gender one sees oneself as and the biological gender. It is that discord that is tre

                    • Nope

                      Nope what? As far as I can tell you've just restated my words and agreed with me. Nope what?

                      Transsexuals and transvestites do not "experience a common oppression." A transvestite can always revert to his male role once he's satisfied his erotic needs.

                      So then the transvestite is happy to divulge this information? Or feels the need to keep it hidden? Are you claiming that they would suffer no repercussions from disclosure? No? Then they are oppressed. Just because YOU don't feel sorry for them doesn't mea

                    • The "Trans Day Of Remembrance" is fear mongering for political gain and power, same as any other big lie. Do the math.

                      Jorgensen was feted everywhere she went. There was none of the crap we saw after the whole push for LGB rights claimed us as part of them.

                      Doesn't matter that your country is so f*cked up wrt violence. The only violence on the radar here towards transsexuals is those who are foolish enough to live in the gay village, afraid because they are too afraid to leave the "protection" of the gay gh

                    • Thanks for your blanket dismissals and continual assertions without any support or citation.

                      Thanks for ignoring all of the points I made.

                      Thanks for sharing your OPINIONS

                      Doesn't matter that your country is so f*cked up wrt violence.

                      And you DON'T EVEN FUCKING LIVE HERE. Thanks for sharing your ignorant opinions.

                    • And your OPINIONS are more valid why? Oh, because you said so. Fuck off, asswipe.
                    • And your OPINIONS are more valid why?

                      Because they are backed up with references, evidence and citations?

                      Oh, because you said so. Fuck off, asswipe.

                      It is said that insult is the least classy form of concession. That's OK; I'm happy with any kind of concession.

              • I may not have been clear. Barbara was the one who used the word "normalize", and I was agreeing with her that it seems odd. "Normal" has several definitions. I will admit to being a little weirded out when I first found out a close friend was lesbian, but when I realized that it just meant we had the same sexual orientation (both of us were attracted to women) it seemed to make more sense. (Not that I would turn away a friend for anything not morally reprehensible, of course.) Since then, I've learne

          • I can understand your surprise, but keep in mind that proper terminology was appropriated from us by the LGBT movement, so that they could "normalize" cross-dressing fetishes and other activities that are not related to transsexualism. So today we have this weird alphabet soup, where transgender can mean anything. The whole "cis" thing never came from us either.

            Did Teh Gayz make up Latin as well?

            Seriously, your distain for the term "cisgender" comes from the fact that you think Gay People came up with it (G

            • Think for two seconds. As you say, cis is latin for trans - so how are normal people somehow labeled the equivalent of trans-gendered? Like I said, we never used it until the gay rights movement assimilated us. Now we're kicking back. We've always supported their rights, but enough is enough - we're long overdue for a divorce.

              The bathroom bills will fail in court. Also, it's going to be extremely hard to apply in practice. The first trans-male that is forced to enter the girls washroom will get SO many com

              • Think for two seconds. As you say, cis is latin for trans - so how are normal people somehow labeled the equivalent of trans-gendered?

                I said no such thing. Read for two seconds. I said exactly the opposite. TRANS is the Latin root for "on the other side of"; "CIS" it its antonym, and means "the same side". It means what it means; who brought it into common usage is irrelevant, and in any event, you have yet to present any evidence that it was gay people who brought the term into wide usage in reference to g

                • There is no "on the other side of" or "on the same side of", any more than you could apply the term to any other male and female. It's total nonsense. On the near side of what, exactly - "normal", "male", "female". Cisgender is a bogus made-up term. Transsexuals never used such terms among themselves or with their doctors. There is ZERO proof that transsexuals did, and yet there's lots of proof that transvestites, including many who are gay, wanted to legitimacy of transsexualism - hence the word transgend

                  • There is no "on the other side of" or "on the same side of", any more than you could apply the term to any other male and female.

                    If you're stating that the gender binary is bullshit, I agree. That said, that gender binary is a cultural norm that will continue to exist because it serves the vast majority of the population, and so whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. The language constructs that reference that bullshit gender binary have meaning and function. You might as well be complaining that t

                    • First, the gender binary is a reality for most. Biologically ingrained. Transsexuals, with different brain patterns, etc., show that the binary is most definitely a reality. The only thing socially directed is the expression of that binary. Transsexuals don't as much transition (our brains do not change) as get their body parts in alignment with their brain. Why? Because we can't change the brain - that is our sole tool that we use to evaluate ourselves and everything around us. We don't change how we see o

    • by aliquis ( 678370 )

      The problem with matriactic negroid communist flight is that it never would just result in crap.

    • We need to update the outer space treaty to allow colonies. Once that happens we can start planning manned inter-planetary missions. Inter-planetary colonies and asteroid mining are the only two missions people are willing to pay for, and the Republicans would never allow NASA to compete with private enterprise for the mining riches.
  • Where will the crew be going? Not even NASA knows, but they're going!

    What will they be doing? Proving that they can go where ever it is they're going.

    The whole mission is a billion-dollar joyride. The best self-licking ice cream cone ever!

    • by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Sunday March 13, 2016 @07:45PM (#51691089) Journal

      What will they be doing? Proving that they can go where ever it is they're going.

      And making sure the equipment actually works. I assume you'd be first in line to bitch about NASA not doing any testing if something went wrong.

      Apollo 9 astronauts spent 10 days orbiting the Earth with a LEM, right? I mean, what a fucking waste! They should have just gone to the Moon.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Apollo 9 astronauts spent 10 days orbiting the Earth with a LEM, right? I mean, what a fucking waste! They should have just gone to the Moon.

        If they had gone to the moon and succeeded, we would have saved billions of dollars. If they had failed, and died, we would have lost 3 expendable people, at a time when dozens of Americans were dying everyday in Vietnam, and over a hundred were dying everyday in traffic accidents.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          If they had gone to the moon and succeeded, we would have saved billions of dollars. If they had failed, and died, we would have lost 3 expendable people, at a time when dozens of Americans were dying everyday in Vietnam, and over a hundred were dying everyday in traffic accidents.

          OK, you never get to be in charge of trip planning. "As long as we get back from vacation with 2 of the 3 kids we started with, I'll call it a success. Think of the money we'll save on food and clothes. The vacation will pay for itself in a year!"

        • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
          It takes the shine of these things when people die. I would be very concerned that you seem to need that explained.
      • by delt0r ( 999393 )
        What is the point of the spam in the can. They can test all the equipment they want without anyone in it. Also it is not really a test when you die if it fails. Testing is suppose to be more about well testing before using.
    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      What do expect? Not a single candidate has real space policy and Sanders is the worst! His is
      “I am supportive of NASA not only because of the excitement of space exploration, but because of all the additional side benefits we receive from research in that area. Sometimes, and frankly I don’t remember all of those votes, one is put in a position of having to make very very difficult choices about whether you vote to provide food for hungry kids or health care for people who have none and other pr

  • There have been 312 manned missions [wikipedia.org] to cis-lunar space (the space between the earth and the moon). So how is this the "first"? TFA does not say it is the first, just that it is the first using Orion.

    • The moon-hoax believers must have taken over NASA.

    • MarkWhittington and timothy are just being sloppy.

      Whether you define cislunar space as being the region within the moon's orbit around the earth, or the region where the Moon's gravity dominates over the Earth's, this obviously will not be the first cislunar mission.

      I agree with the first definition of cislunar, but it seems like the distinction isn't useful for missions to LEO. If you imagine the Earth to be the size of a peach, then missions in LEO would be flying within the fuzz on the peach. That doesn'

      • Well, it's bound to be the first manned flight beyond LEO for as long as anyone currently working at NASA can remember.

        • Yeah, and all LEO missions are cislunar. Heck, where I'm sitting right now is cislunar; it doesn't qualify as cislunar space because it's only a few hundred meters above sea level, and hence isn't space. I could get excited about people going translunar.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Apollo 8-17 were all lunar and (barely) trans-lunar, which means they had to go through cis-lunar space to get there. So it would really be "the first cis-lunar mission beyond LEO since Apollo". Or even more specifically "the first mission with a destination in cis-lunar space beyond LEO". Other than Lagrange points, there isn't really much to do in cis-lunar space that you need a human for, so it's going up for the purpose of going up.
  • Computer Information Science Loony Space

    In short, another day at a Fortune 500 job to console hurt computers and fix broken users.

  • "the first crewed space mission beyond low-Earth orbit"

    Seems unlikely, everyone knows that humans can't go past the deadly Van Allen Belt radiation. Looks like another scam to fleece the American taxpayers.

  • by k6mfw ( 1182893 ) on Monday March 14, 2016 @01:35AM (#51691999)
    when they completed TLI burn and as a child watching it on a B&W TV (over the air reception with rabbit ears), the news commentator said "and that's the burn that will take them to the Moon." In that instant everything changed. Going LEO is like a short walk to the corner drugstore. At mission control in Houston the earth/moon trajectory plot was put on the big board, one of the controllers said, "finally we're going someplace!" And that was only 7 years of going around and around in LEO. However, I wonder if the same were to be repeated again, the "magic" may not be there (think of earth rise photo returned by the crew that lead to Earth Day, EPA, NOAA, etc.). Now these days we got a bunch of religious zealots, deniers, SJWs, but the pics and vid are HD.
  • NASA is promoting gender inequality. I thought they were better than that.
  • by flink ( 18449 )

    Doesn't cislunar just mean between the earth and moon? If that's the case, then all the Apollo missions necessarily took place mostly in cislunar space. Maybe first this century, or first for the SLS, but not first full stop.

    • Technically yes, but space enthusiasts tend to split space operations into Earth orbit (from low earth orbit to as far out as geosynchronous satellites), cislunar (in the vicinity of the Moon) and deep space (everywhere else). Obviously these definitions aren't quite right (e.g. the Moon is still in Earth orbit) and I'm not defending their use but that's how it is.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...