oblong

Going up in an Orion would be a lot better than an Apollo command module.  It’s got about 50 % more space but also another crew member. But the interior is also laid out favorably. It’s not cockpit style with switches and dials guages. It’s touchscreens.  
 

embedded in the Apollo 10 transcript is the realization that a “turd” was floating around. Fecal containment devices.  

Artemis III is no longer set as a landing mission. Isaacman reconfigured the plans, in a good way.  I’m still skeptical that will happen as they don’t even have a lander settled yet. But yeah I have been excited for this mission for a long time. I took the day of work for it. 

what is different about Artemis and Apollo is Apollos focus was going to the moon.  Artemis is about deep space with the moon as a steppingstone for that.  They are testing different things.  Apollo was about learning how to do it.  Was the math correct?   Do the radars and communication systems work?   The problems being solved were more practical.
 

We have the tools now for that so focus can shift to the equipment itself like the Orion capsules performance. 
 

Artemis II is going to slingshot around the moon, like Apollo 13 had to do after their problem.  They. will not go into orbit   There’s no need to.  The risk and fuel requirements are unnecessary .  They know they can do it when the time comes. Most Apollo lunar missions started in a free return launch trajectory and once things looked good they altered course for their lunar orbit path.  

Humans have not left earth orbit since December 1972, This is a very big deal for space enthusiasts.  

45 minutes ago, pfife said:

4.54per gallon in Vegas

Sweet gas prices.   If i voted for this,  I wouldnt show up where i bragged about voting for this either 

probably playing with grass or something.

59 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I can report that the 3rd game of the SD series showed up as watchable on the DTV 'fake' DVR service - so I assume the embargo on the 1st two games was just not having all their ducks in a row yet.

Could be. I was able to record it and rewind and all that 

"Professional Hitter"

You had to say that every time Jefferies name was mentioned.

That's why it's in alphabetical order!

42 minutes ago, chasfh said:

This is exactly where I’m at. I recognize Bruce’s exalted status in the American popular musical canon. It’s his sound, that sax-heavy south Jersey sound—it’s just not my bag.

For me I can tell he's heavily lyrically based and I struggle with that.  I need a groove or a hook musically, something to bop my head or tap my foot to.  Badlands comes close to me as one I can listen to regularly, aside from the mid 80's poppy stuff like Glory Days and Dancing in the Dark. But I don't consider that the crux of his catalog.  I've seen videos of boomers at shows singing along with Badlands and I respect it.  Maybe it's how I felt seeing Foo Fighters a few years ago... like "Yes, this is my young adulthood and now I'm in my 50's..." 

I saw him once say that he wanted to be Dylan but Dylan that they played on the radio.

That's gotta cause a conflict for some... who are the good guys?

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

true, but being reversed in real time on broadcast games it a whole 'nother level of exposure to face compared to t some charts on a website somewhere.

yep.  95% of fans don't see those charts.

But when an umpire has to constantly point out his call was wrong in front of the camera?

Prime has a streaming channel of AMC shows and I routinely throw that on if it's BB or BCS.  Even during that format it's better.  BB was great and I get why some like it more than BCS. I'm not knocking it.  BCS had more depth.

29 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

agree. ABS will just act as a limit to how bad a pitch you are likely to be able to 'promote' 

My question was more about any value you place on a catcher for being “good” at it. Is that a thing?  I don’t know. 

I wonder what this will do with pitch framing. 

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

It is exactly set up so no one get to see video before the challenge is made - it has to be a player's live judgment vs the Ump's live judgement. I'm actually OK with that.

Me too. And I will grant hitters leeway early on as they have to learn to trust their instinct. The reactions I’ve seen make it sound like it’s part of a deep strategy. I don’t think so. There’s no time for that.  Some guys may see numbers and find out “I would have won these so I will challenge more”. 

I’ve tried twice to get into him and I just can’t. I know he’s great and am not knocking him or his fans. Just not for me.  

1 hour ago, kdog said:

Tork said that they did not act in time to get a challenge. It's like 6-8 seconds and then the ump moves on. They don't let you check with the dugout. They just have to do it and deal with the consequences. Hinch has not put a limitation on anyone.

I believe it’s less than that. Almost instantaneous. One hitter was denied because he sort swung his bat back up to set himself up for the next pitch. Less than 2 seconds. 

He’s done opening day before. I’m sure he will be there even as a fan if he’s not got an obligation of some sort. 

33 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Beau Brieske #4

I totally read that name too when looking and still skipped past it. 
 

Gehringer wore #3 briefly and Greenberg #7. 

Tiger pitchers wearing single digits as a uniform number  

#2 Al Aber 1953, Elon Hogseth 1944
#5 Jake Mooty 1944
#6 Art Houtteman 1946
#8 Bots Nekola 1933
#9 Jack Flaherty, Jack Wilson 1947
 

6 minutes ago, holygoat said:

I watched a video on the analytics of batters challenging calls, and the short of it said that challenging early in games or in low-leverage ABs is generally unwise unless it's an absolutely egregiously bad call.

And I’m wondering if they are sort of tracking themselves. See how much they can trust their initial gut. “Am I good at this?”

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think Goldwater could have been talked into it. Ike, maybe not so much. Definitely not the Bushes. I'm 50-50 on Reagan, too.

Read up on his wiki page. I don’t think Goldwater would have went along.  He consistently spoke out against the religious right and in tne 80s and 90s said the party had been taken over by kooks. 

Interesting. I will play with DVRing tonight on xfinity 

Goldwater and Ike would not be republicans today. Nixon might have been what Lindsay Graham is. Definitely not the Bushes. Reagan is someone I am not sure on. I could argue both ways.  I wish I could have seen what William F Buckley would have w written 

The abandonment of those principals by those in power, I know many intellectuals still cling to it and are never trumpers, but i mean the politicians themselves,tells me the principals were just bull**** to rope in voters for the real battle-the culture war. 

The best nicknames are ones you wouldn’t know right away