Wasn’t sure where to put this, but thought it was a nice write-up of the surviving Apollo astronauts.
Wispy
The Eye of Sauron after Visine.
I’m just over here Beavis snickering right now.
Is it this? Is it that? What the H do we know about anything?
Considering that we can’t detect ~95% of the universe (dark matter, dark energy) not as much as we used to think we did. Of course, that’s exactly what makes scientists happy — new science!
Well, we do know that H makes up 75% of the baryonic matter of the universe. So that’s something. 
So, hydrogen makes up 2.5% of the universe. That’s not helping much. 
I take it they’ve ruled out two neutron stars standing on each other’s shoulders.
Sorry, I keep leaving that places. I’ll go get it and put it away.
If the best theory of the makeup of the universe suggests that 95% of it is “dark matter” and “dark energy” that we can’t detect, it suggests that the theory is wrong. If you need a fudge factor that large, there’s a problem with the model. Just like epicycles to explain the motions of the planets suggested that the geocentric model of the solar system was wrong.
Not necessarily - ‘can’t detect’ means just that. No one could detect microorganisms until the invention of the microscope. But they existed.
We’re really at the beginning of cosmological discovery - there’s a LOT we don’t know and won’t know in our lifetimes. Our theories will grow and possibly change - doesn’t mean that what we know now is ‘wrong’ - just incomplete.
And don’t think that scientists haven’t considered that theory is wrong. There are ongoing efforts to come up with new theories to explain all the various observations without resorting to dark matter and dark energy. It’s just that those two concepts remain the best ones right now to explain what’s seen. Heck, even Einstein didn’t like the idea of the cosmological constant, and he’s the one that came up with it in the first place!
Another from the files of the Things-NASA-Would-Rather-the-Public-Not-Know Dept.:
“This isn’t Omicron Ceti Three, budddy.”
I would argue that, without a theory of gravity, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the use of epicycles. Epicycles fit in just fine with the prevailing views of the time. What showed the major flaws in the geocentric theory was Ptolemy’s equant. While it made the math work and allowed for extremely accurate tables of planetary position, it was hated by pretty much everyone because it flew in the face of the foundation of the geocentric theory. (I can talk about this a lot if needed because history of astronomy is actually my area of expertise. 
)
Dark matter and dark energy are essentially placeholders. No one thinks that the current cosmological explanations will stay this way, but we have to start somewhere.
Ah, gravity — the fly in every physicist’s ointment. It has no defined connection to anything else, yet it influences almost everything. We weren’t even sure it obeyed the light speed limit until just a few years ago, as I recall (much to the chagrin of David Weber).
I learned about this from reading A City on Mars ! It’s got all the juicy astronaut stories.
Of which there are very few, what with “astronaut” being some of the most tightly vetted jobs in the universe. Boringly stable bunch, for the most part.