Charles Conrad

Astronaut Alan L. Bean, Lunar Module pilot for the Apollo 12 lunar landing mission, holds a container filled with lunar soil collected while exploring the lunar surface. Astronaut Charles “Pete” Conrad Jr., commander, who took this picture, is reflected in the helmet visor.

Credits: NASA

Good quotes to use on the ap lit test
  • Heart of Darkness: the whore the whore (Kurtz talkin about Marlow's unbuttoned shirt like dayuuum)
  • Hamlet: 2 b or not 2b (that is the original way it is written. you will look like a fool if you don't write it JUST like that)
  • Tale of Two Cities: It was the best of times, it was the bratwurst of times (the book takes place in Germany during the Bratwurst empire's 30 year reign)
  • Frankenstein: AAaaararrraaaagghhhHHhhh!!! (The monster's cries as he was birthed from Frankenstein's fertile womb)
  • The Master and Margarita: Hella rad (Professor Woland describing his thoughts on his friend Hella)
  • Paradise Lost: Shit where did i put it (a direct quote from God as he checked his purse AGAIN)

MOONWALKERS - ALL 12.NASA color photograph, 10 by 8 inches, of the Apollo 16 Command Module orbiting the moon with an Earth rise in the background. EXTREMELY RARE, SIGNED BY ALL 12 MOONWALKERS: ALAN BEAN, ALAN SHEPHARD, NEIL ARMSTRONG, BUZZ ALDRIN, GENE CERNAN, CHARLIE DUKE, HARRISON SCHMITT, JIM IRWIN, EDGAR MITCHELL, CHARLES CONRAD, DAVE SCOTT, and JOHN YOUNG to Simon. Photographs signed by all of the men who walked on the surface of the moon in the 20th century are impossible to duplicate today as only 8 of the moonwalkers are still living. They are extremely rare and desirable. In this photograph, all 12 men have signed on the image of the lunar surface.


It’s really not fair y’know? I mean, I didn’t get that on the job training most dads get… I wasn’t there for your first skinned knee, or the day you come home from school cryin’ ‘cause somebody said something mean to you. Here’s the thing, as much as we hate this moment, I gotta admit I love bein’ here to have it with you.


Remembering Apollo 12 - Launched this day in 1969.

Apollo 12 launched on schedule from Kennedy Space Center, during a rainstorm. Thirty-six-and-a-half seconds after lift-off, the vehicle triggered a lightning discharge through itself and down to the earth through the Saturn’s ionized plume. Protective circuits on the fuel cells in the Service Module (SM) falsely detected overloads and took all three fuel cells offline, along with much of the Command/Service Module (CSM) instrumentation. A second strike at 52 seconds after launch knocked out the “8-ball” attitude indicator. The telemetry stream at Mission Control was garbled. However, the vehicle continued to fly correctly; the strikes had not affected the Saturn V Instrument Unit.

The loss of all three fuel cells put the CSM entirely on batteries. They were unable to maintain normal 28V DC bus voltages into the heavy 75 amp launch loads. One of the AC inverters dropped offline. These power supply problems lit nearly every warning light on the control panel and caused much of the instrumentation to malfunction.

Legendary EECOM John Aaron (the original NASA “steely-eyed missile man”) remembered the telemetry failure pattern from an earlier test when a power supply malfunctioned in the CSM Signal Conditioning Equipment (SCE). The SCE converts raw signals from instrumentation to standard voltages for the spacecraft instrument displays and telemetry encoders.
Aaron made a call, “Try SCE to aux.” This switched the SCE to a backup power supply. The switch was fairly obscure and neither the Flight Director, CAPCOM, nor Commander Conrad immediately recognized it.

Lunar Module Pilot Alan Bean, flying in the right seat as the CSM systems engineer, remembered the SCE switch from a training incident a year earlier when the same failure had been simulated. Aaron’s quick thinking and Bean’s memory saved what could have been an aborted mission. Bean put the fuel cells back on line, and with telemetry restored, the launch continued successfully. Once in earth parking orbit, the crew carefully checked out their spacecraft before re-igniting the S-IVB third stage for trans-lunar injection. The lightning strikes had caused no serious permanent damage.

Initially, it was feared that the lightning strike could have caused the Command Module’s (CM) parachute mechanism to prematurely fire, disabling the explosive bolts that open the parachute compartment to deploy them. If they were indeed disabled, the Command Module would have crashed uncontrollably into the Pacific Ocean and killed the crew instantly. Since there was no way to figure out whether or not this was the case, ground controllers decided not to tell the astronauts about the possibility. The parachutes deployed and functioned normally at the end of the mission. (source: wikipedia)

anonymous asked:

by thefemalekipling do you mean like rudyard kipling? Because that dude has written some pretty questionable stuff, like "the white man's burden". if indeed you mean the female rudyard Kipling, what's your opinion on kipling's brand of racism?

I took my time to fully research this before I answered, its something I have been thinking about and wrote about recently in my essay about Shakespeare and my issues toward ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ which led me into looking at my qualms with the western canon as a whole. I think I can split this ask into three parts:

  1. Yes the femalekipling does indeed refer to the writer Rudyard Kipling
  2. Yes the man is a very questionable figure when it comes to his writings on Imperial Britain
  3. My opinion on Kipling is complex, one I haven’t made an absolute decision on because it affects any writer i come in contact with

I completely agree with you in terms of Rudyard being questionable, in fact I find that such a fitting term in describing him. He’s a great writer but then again he is a purveyor of Imperialism. Kipling represents a system of thinking that I do not support but as a young black woman studying a literature degree I am tested on a daily basis on making judgements and giving allowances to every writer I encounter, particularly white writers. 

Interestingly enough I haven’t read any Kipling in great detail; the name came from a comment my friend made about me in a picture and I always like to have my social media monikers chosen by my friends. In that sense, I didn’t chose it because of any meaning outside of it being a reminder of my friend, but it does have meaning. 

I was actually thinking of changing it because of my views on what the term ‘female’ denotes in our society and my discomfort towards ideas of gender— perhaps I should have been looking a little further. Both terms I use are problematic and maybe it says something that my immediate criticism lay amongst ideas of womanhood and gender as opposed to race and colonialism.

As a black woman it’s the decision I make everyday on how my intersectionality works, for its never completely democratic. The comment my friend made I took as a compliment, stating that I, as a young woman, have similar status of an established and acclaimed writer. That was endearing to me. But people are complex, ridden with flaws that I think we don’t always chose to show when it comes to those who represent the brightest of our society.

Rudyard Kipling has that tainted reputation as being questionable, but the same can be said and has been said about Joseph Conrad, Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare to say the least. John F Kennedy routinely committed adultery, Winston Churchill embodies some of the most horrendous opinions held by British society at that time. But Kennedy represented a better, more socialist America, and Churchill is responsible for keeping the spirits of the British people alive during the war. Both still have other shortcomings and moments of glory that cannot be quantified into good and bad by simple addition and subtraction.

 Where do we place people like this? We must not wholly condemn them but neither can we absolve and commemorate them either. I think that one thing shouldn’t destroy evidence of the other, we should allow ourselves to see people as people and not gods or monsters.

I guess to answer your question it should be can we still celebrate problematic individuals? Its something that relates back to the issue with Casey Affleck winning the oscar despite numerous sexual harassment allegations. Is it possible to separate art from the artist? To reclaim texts such as The White Man’s Burden with a turn of irony that condemns colonialism and neo-colonialism in the form of western volunteering enterprises that do not provide sustainable solutions? I honestly still don’t know but I also think that reading should always allow for the complexity of a text just as we should allow for the complexity of an individual. In no way does that mean that I like Kipling as a person but thats not my job as a reader and a critic. Our ideas of morality are not as distinct as we would like them to be; should you strip away Kipling’s Nobel prize? Should we really even care about such awards that are still operating in a system that clearly benefits and celebrates a particular type of writer and particular kind of voice and style?

How can you live and read in a world that is inherently problematic; in which the very foundations of literature today are often having to adhere to reductive standards of acclaim? I can only provide you with open ended questions to this complex issue but I guess its just to say that the Kipling racism is a part of an institution of racism which I am wholly against. But Kipling is more than the racism he is complicit in when writing, but we should never reduce him to less than that either, or forget that facet of his work.

But thank you for your question, I enjoy discussing critical theory and I respect you for being able to call me out on something like that. I’m not a perfect person, still learning but appreciative of developing from my lapses of awareness. I hope this answers your question.