Frazz by Jef Mallett for June 09, 2017

  1. Vote 4 nobody button
    Mr Nobody  over 7 years ago

    McDonald’s first, then Starbucks.

     •  Reply
  2. Bluedog
    Bilan  over 7 years ago

    Seriously? There’s no Starbucks there yet?

    (that covered the most obvious joke)

     •  Reply
  3. Screenshot  47
    tammyspeakslife Premium Member over 7 years ago

    A Tim Hortons on the Moon :D

     •  Reply
  4. Ignatz
    Ignatz Premium Member over 7 years ago

    I think air is probably the first consideration, actually.

     •  Reply
  5. 00712 whiteheron
    whiteheron  over 7 years ago

    Being a semi-romantic, I think it took most, if not all of the mystery out of it.

     •  Reply
  6. Gocomic avatar
    sandpiper  over 7 years ago

    In my opinion, we’re not out there exploring possibilities beyond the moon because NASA and the US government choked when the inevitable happened and people were lost. The momentum to back off was generated as much by the incredible shock that was felt in the NASA community as by the fact that this one major disaster was repeatedly displayed in excruciating detail on monitors all over the world – plain for all to see.

    I believe in the dream, and I regret the loss of a single one of the astronauts who gave their lives, but similar tragic outcomes have been found in almost every effort that involves taking risks to achieve a higher goal. Where would the world be today had some believers not taken the second or third risky attempt after the first ended in tragedy. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe, no loss trek into the unknown. There also is no such thing as a brighter future if one doesn’t try.

     •  Reply
  7. Desron14
    Masterskrain  over 7 years ago

    The review of the first Starbucks on the moon wasn’t that good. “Great View, decent service, but No Atmosphere!”

     •  Reply
  8. Gocomic avatar
    sandpiper  over 7 years ago

    @kroykali: It took the spectacular Challenger disaster to show the public the extent of the dangers of space travel. The Apollo I fire was an ‘in house’ event and public perceptions were limited to news releases and lots of discussion by the pundits, but not major 24/7 on site news coverage.

    I don’t think ‘public apathy’ was the primary force behind the discontinuance. Political fears of public recrimination caused the pols to duck having to answer the ‘why is this happening’ question. From then on, they slowed funding and avoided openly supporting NASA.

    Additional loss of momentum occurred during the mourning period, and also the Challenger investigation and the months of testimony that required. Meanwhile fear grew at the possibility of another such disaster.

    Yes, they had the lifters. They could have corrected the o-ring problems and continued the program after some delay, but they didn’t. In order to ignite a rocket you need fire and many of those involved no longer had it.

     •  Reply
  9. Plsa button
    Richard S Russell Premium Member over 7 years ago

    Yes, it really was rocket science! But here in the good ole “We’re #1” USA, we’d soooooo much rather use all that expertise figuring out ways to blow up the human race instead of advancing it, and that’s where we chose to devote our resources.

     •  Reply
  10. Pa220005
    Fido (aka Felix Rex)  over 7 years ago

    Let’s be honest here. The early days of the Space Race were an extension of Cold War political and military bravado with a dash of science thrown in for taste. Once we beat the Evil Empire to the moon, the motivation quickly evaporated. And I’m saying this as a self-styled, proud Space Geek.

     •  Reply
  11. Desron14
    Masterskrain  over 7 years ago

    Haven’t had a cup of coffee in over 35 years! Nasty, burnt tasting slop! YUCK!!

     •  Reply
  12. Gocomic avatar
    sandpiper  over 7 years ago

    @bigpuma: She might have picked up the clues from her parents’ or other family friends. Plus coffee gets a cameo in almost every tv comedy and many movies. She can’t help seeing it.

     •  Reply
  13. Abposterfin5701
    renewed1  over 7 years ago

    Maybe they discovered that there is nothing there worth going after.

     •  Reply
  14. Taz by abovetheflames
    danketaz Premium Member over 7 years ago

    Mostly we don’t go back because there’s nothing to get. No natural resources to easily exploit and you can’t even grow a decent coffee bean.

     •  Reply
  15. I yam who i yam
    Kind&Kinder  over 7 years ago

    We can’t go back because the aliens already there have issued a travel ban.

     •  Reply
  16. M31 andromeda galexy
    Bysshe  over 7 years ago

    Too expensive. We don’t have the resources we had in the 60’s. Also, we might want to try to mitigate the upcoming “long emergency”—drastic climate change, resistant microbes and insects, oceans dying, etc
and we can’t get past Trump and his circus.

     •  Reply
  17. Picture
    PeterClapp  over 7 years ago

    Republicans don’t believe in government or government projects. So when there’s a Republican president or the GOP controls Congress, NASA gets minimal funding. We’re not looking a “public-private” partnerships for space exploration. What logo would you like to see on the moon? Exxon? Nike? GM?

     •  Reply
  18. Tumblr mbbz3vrusj1qdlmheo1 250
    Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo]  over 7 years ago

    Once the political fortune had been taken out of the very political space program the idea of risking human life fell by the wayside for cheaper robots and drone flights.

     •  Reply
  19. Enterprise at warp 249x249
    RWill  over 7 years ago

    A Moonbucks on every crater.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Frazz