RoverAndOut

Massive news that will have a big impact on the Presidential race. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has just died. Ultra conservative and a chance for the Democrats to make the court more liberal (currently 5-4 conservative). Republicans in Congress are keen to drag this out for a year in the hopes of a Republican winning the presidency, maintaining the balance (probably with another ultra conservative too given the likely nominees) but Obama has already announced his intention to nominate a candidate and seek to get him confirmed before the election. This will be a massive talking point and, if Obama can't get his nominee confirmed, means the next President will be guaranteed a Supreme Court justice, and given there's another 3 over 70 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 82), it will bring into focus the possibility that the next President could appoint up to 3 or 4. CNN all over this if you want an American viewpoint.

It's been well reported that Trump has contributed to Hillary in the past. She attended his last wedding but says it was because he's big in New York and she was a New York Senator at the time, but supposedly her daughter Chelsea is good friends with Trump's daughter Ivanka (the one he wants to bang). Some have suggested that Trump is a Democratic sleeper agent, such is his perceived benefit to the Dems if he wins the nomination, but I'm pretty sure most of those theories are made in jest...

So how do we do it? First 40 qualifying obits in different languages count, regardless of which ones? Won't this lead primarily to people building up a bank of decent news sources, say the equivalent of the BBC in every European country? I do get that his is hugely debatable and there is no definitive right and wrong answer but something in me says you should get kudos for finding an obit for David Bowie in, say, Latin or the aforementioned West Flemish. I just can't see how this could be integrated as a bonus though. Also worth noting that I assume no one would have to look through 291 languages, different people would find different ones, and also, would we expect Terry Wogan, for instance, to be obit-worthy in Creole? It's only the stratospheric ones that would be worth deep searching, and you can't expect more than 3 or 4 of them in a tops in a year. Anyway, just my thoughts, I don't mind what's eventually decided.

As my last post was well received, and since I find myself with a little free time again on a Saturday morning and I was curious, I thought I'd investigate the Russian programs, not least so that the comprehensive up-to-date lists of early astronauts and cosmonauts are close together. While the Russian programs were smaller, it's quite complicated as the Soviets started out with 20 candidates, of which 12 went into space on various programs, along with 3 who weren't in original 20. From tests, 20 candidates were put forward to go to 'Star City' and train and, of these, 6 were selected for accelerated training and were known as the 'Vanguard Six', the Soviet equivalent of America's 'Mercury Seven'. During training, 2 of the 6 were replaced. The eight selected were: Yuri Gargarin - First man in space on Vostok 1, b. 1934, d. 1968 Gherman Titov - First manned mission lasting a full day on Vostok 2, b. 1935, d. 2000 Andriyan Nikolayev - Part of first simultaneous manned flights on Vostok 3, Soyuz 9, b. 1929, d. 2004 Pavel Popovich - Part of first simultaneous manned flights on Vostok 4, b. 1930, d. 2009 Anatoly Kartashov - Suffered minor haemorrhaging in a centrifuge test and was replaced, never flew in space, b. 1932, d. 2005 Valentin Varlamov - Injured a cervical vertebra in a swimming accident during training and was replaced, never flew in space, b. 1934, d. 1980 Valery Bykovsky - Replaced Kartashov; longest solo orbital flight on Vostok 5, also flew on Soyuz 22 and 31, b. 1934 (aged 81) Grigori Nelyubov - Replaced Varlamov; dismissed from program in 1963 for drunk and disorderly conduct and committed suicide three years later, b. 1934, d. 1966 Of the remaining 12, 7 more went into space on various programs, as listed below: Vladimir Komarov - Voskhod 1, Soyuz 1, first cosmonaut to go into space more than once, first man to die on a space mission when Soyuz 1 crash landed, b. 1927, d. 1967 Pavel Belyayev - Voskhod 2, b. 1925, d. 1970 Alexey Leonov - Voskhod 2, first spacewalk, Soviet commander of Apollo-Soyuz mission 1975, b. 1934 (aged 81) Yevgeny Khrunov - Soyuz 5/4, b. 1933, d. 2000 Boris Volynov - Soyuz 5, 21, b. 1934 (aged 81) Georgy Shonin - Soyuz 6, b. 1935, d. 1997 Viktor Gorbatko - Soyuz 7, 24 and 37, b. 1934 (aged 81) The remaining 5 selected for initial cosmonaut training were: Ivan Anikeyev - Dismissed from program in 1963 for drunk and disorderly conduct, never flew in space, b. 1933, d. 1992 Valentin Bondarenko - Died due to injuries sustained in a fire during a low pressure isolation experiment, never flew in space, b. 1937, d. 1961 Valentin Filatyev - Dismissed from program in 1963 for drunk and disorderly conduct, never flew in space, b. 1930, d. 1990 Mars Rafikov - Dismissed from program in 1962 for "a variety of offenses, including womanizing and 'gallivanting' in Moscow restaurants, and so forth", never flew in space, b. 1933, d. 2000 Dmitri Zaikin - Backup commander for Voskhod 2, left the space service in 1969 due to stomach ulcers while training for the Soyuz program, never flew in space, b. 1932, d. 2013 In addition to this, 3 cosmonauts went into space who were not part of the original 20. These were: Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 6, first woman in space, b. 1937 (aged 78) Konstantin Feoktistov - Voskhod 1, first civilian in space, b. 1926, d. 2009 Boris Yegorov - Voskhod 1, first physician in space, b. 1937, d. 1994 Knowing where to stop the cosmonaut list is tricky, since the next program, Soyuz, started in 1967 and has continued ever since (which is pretty impressive all things considered). I have decided I will list the first stage of Soyuz, up to the Soyuz 11 disaster in 1971, after which there was a 2 year gap. This roughly correlates with Apollo 17, the last pre-Space Shuttle astronaut mission. (Vladimir Komarov, Soyuz 1 mentioned elsewhere) Georgy Beregovoy - Soyuz 2, b. 1921, d. 1995 Vladimir Shatalov - Soyuz 4, 8 and 10, b. 1927 (aged 88) Aleksei Yeliseyev - Soyuz 5/4. 8 and 10, b. 1934 (aged 81) (Boris Volynov, Soyuz 5/4, 21 mentioned elsewhere) Valeri Kubasov - Soyuz 6 and 19 (Apollo-Soyuz mission), b. 1935, d. 2014 (Georgy Shonin, Soyuz 6 mentioned elsewhere) Anatoly Filipchenko - Soyuz 7 and 16, b. 1928 (aged 87) Vladislav Volkov - Soyuz 7 and 11, b. 1935, d. 1971 (Viktor Gorbatko, Soyuz 7, 24 and 37 mentioned elsewhere) Vitaly Sevastyanov - Soyuz 9 and 18, b. 1935, d. 2010 (Andriyan Nikolayev, Soyuz 9 mentioned elsewhere) Nikolay Rukavishnikov - Soyuz 10, 16 and 33, b. 1932, d. 2002 Georgy Dobrovolsky - Soyuz 11, b. 1928, d. 1971 Viktor Patsayev - Soyuz 11, b. 1933, d. 1971 Soyuz 11 was the first craft to successfully dock with the Salyut space station. While re-entry was successful, all three cosmonauts were found dead in the capsule after a malfunction caused the capsule to depressurise. So, in summary, one of the accelerated Vanguard Six cosmonauts is still going, 3 of the other early entrants are still living, the first woman in space is still alive and 3 of the other cosmonauts from early Soyuz missions are still pegging. Apologies if this lacks a little of the clarity of the first one, the Soviet side was harder to research accurately and I included a little extra information as I think the cosmonaut program is less well known overall than the astronaut program. Hope it serves its purpose though. Overall then, I make it 21 Americans and 8 Soviets still alive as of February 2016 from missions up to 1972.

Think you eventually came around to my way of thinking (namely that Mars is more the focus than the Moon and that governments don't have the resources or the appetite for doing it, certainly not both). China seems the most likely. Of course, what would be best is if the human race came to an agreement that space exploration is about more than narrow national interests and pooled their resources (this already exists in small ways, with organisations like the ESA and the Russian-American collaboration on the ISS (although I know they do their work independently for the most part when they're up there) but the chances of that happening are virtually nil. I think the main reason for a Moonbase is to enable experimentation in microgravity and find out more about the Moon. Is there anything we get from going there that we don't get from being on the ISS? Not really, But how cool would it be to have humans living on another celestial object? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't satisfy a congressional committee but...

Yeh she 'looks' fine, but..... Her parents would've bounced off each other to get to that age. It might've been the way it was cut, but she raved on about being alone for the last 12 years. And at the end she had a good greet because the bloke who walked out on her then , had been cremated the day before. I'll stick with my prediction ,unless anything major happens in the show. Like her getting it on with Bobby George. She was able to suck the life out of any room she was in. And that guru was pretty pessimistic about her. But hey ho, she's going to spend 4 months a year living in a little flat off an Indian family's home, so maybe she'll be fine. But I share your doubts... Rosemary Shrager shows every sign of keeling over any time soon. She's one of those that will be sudden but unsurprising, a bit like when the Two Fat Ladies pegged it. Just googled her name to check the spelling and the second prediction on Google was 'Rosemary Shrager dead' so it doesn't look like we're the only ones expecting it.

Sanders won't run as an independent if Hillary beats him. Trump could do anything but if he loses the nomination it won't be to Kasich, unless something drastic happens. The 'establishment' fight is between Rubio, Bush and Kasich. Still remains to be seen if Rubio can recover from his hammering by Christie at the last debate, Bush is recovering and has money to spend, Kasich is short on money and banked everything on New Hampshire (barely focused at all on Iowa), hence one of the reasons he did so well. I did see on CNN suggestions being made that the 'establishment' may have no option but to fall in behind Trump, who has started to sound more conciliatory to the party leaders in recent weeks, because they cannot, under circumstances, allow a President Cruz. So long as the field stays crowded (still 5 reasonable candidates) then it favours Trump, who can win primaries with only 35%, with other votes split. Bloomberg seems only to be interested if it's Sanders and Trump at the tops of the main party tickets, if it's moderates then there's no real gap for him. Bernie's won 15 delegates to Hillary's 9 (aka 5:3 or 60:40 just like the result said). Superdelegates don't technically count towards the primary delegate count, the point that's being made is that of the superdelegates linked to New Hampshire (state party chairman, committee members, Governor, Senator, Congresswoman), all but 2 are declared Clinton supporters so will vote for her at the convention, which is why it will end up even (of the other 2, one is required to only vote for the eventual nominee and the other is currently undecided). We'll also note that eight years ago, it was the support of vast numbers of superdelegates that swung it Obama's way over Clinton, so what goes around... In the end, if Bernie ends up winning numerous primaries and pulling ahead, superdelegates will fall into line behind him. Most primaries are winner-takes-all, not proportional, so primary winners start accumulating delegates quickly. Basically, superdelegates alone won't swing anything Hillary's way so no need for the conspiracy theories. What a shame, he was on an upward curve! From 12 votes in Iowa (0.00%), he got 133 in New Hampshire (0.05%). On this trend, in 1000 primaries time he'll get 50% of the vote. Also worth noting that he finished with less votes than Rand Paul (1900), Mike Huckabee (215) and Rick Santorum (155) who had all quit the race before we got to New Hampshire in the first place...

Oh sod it, I'll have a go. Quite an interesting concept, after all how many huge deaths can there be in a year, especially one in which we've already lost Bowie and Rickman, while picking those who get the big points (i.e. not the old and decrepit) is a total lottery. As for the languages cap, think I'm with Magere. A week is plenty of time (although I get that people have 1) jobs and 2) several deadpools to attend to at any one time) and it's not as if the onus is on one person to find them all to gain their points, anyone can contribute a qualifying obit in any language and they count for everybody. I guess it's only an issue when you're seeking unique pick points. But how long does it take to type <celebrity name> <'dies' in any particular language'> into google? You know, 291 times...

They seem a fairly liberal bunch in Dixville Notch. 4 votes for the socialist and 3 for the only thing resembling a moderate Republican. Wonder how the two Trump voters feel living there...

The other D means Derby, as prominently displayed on the website. Fair enough. In my defence, it was late when I sent that and I was keeping half an eye on what the Americans call 'Football'.

That was bloody hilarious. I watched it. All standing there, smiling awkwardly, not coming out. Then at the end when they realised they still hadn't got Kasich! Summed the lot of them up IMHO.... Wish I could say the same about their rhetoric/policies. Truly horrific for the most part. Kasich seems a decent sort (remember the days when Republicans were moderate?) but hasn't a hope in hell of the nomination. It was fun to see Christie knock Rubio about a bit though, smug S.O.B. that he is.

As someone who joined the Deathlist properly in 2015 (ostensibly to enter Biblio's By-Election Bingo), having been a casual observer for some years previously, I had neither the time nor the confidence to 1) Find out the rules of all these dead pools and 2) Decide on a list of names to enter into any of them. Having them all in one place should be far more straightforward so I thank Sir Creep for the suggestion and the others for explaining, most notably msc. I shall endeavour to do better and enter at least a few of them in 2017. One question that occurs: do the Shadow Lists count towards anything or are they just to allow us to feel smug if we do better than the committee? Also on a frivolous and totally trivial note, what does DDP stand for? (At a guess the DP is Dead Pool...)

Very interesting question. As I recently posted on the Astronauts thread, the youngest moonwalkers are now 80 and the oldest is 86. So, barring any of them living to the ripe old age of 100, they'll all be dead before 2036. So the questiion is will any human set foot on the moon before 2036? Right now, I'd say it's unlikely, but at the same time, it's such a long time that surely someone's got to get there sooner or later. Not sure it will be another American though. Chinese maybe, Russians. Someone random like the Indians. Maybe it's a possibility that before the last moonwalker dies we may see the first interplanetary walker if we get to Mars. They keep saying it's relatively feasible, so 20 years is a pretty sizeable length of time. Gosh maryport, you've really got me thinking now.... If a large nation is prepared to put the effort and treasure in it, it can be done in decade, so why not? Mars is quite a bit farther. To get people there is not technically feasable now. On the other hand the Moon: been there, done that. I've always thought the Moon will be a first target for something like permanent habitation, but I may be proved wrong. PS: Schmitt, cause he's daft. I do agree that Mars is not quite there yet, but all the planning and research is being put into getting to Mars, not the Moon. I also agree that the Moon makes far more sense in terms of at least getting there and seeing how easy we can make it now, and maybe establishing some kind of human presence there if possible but I think, based solely on what I've vaguely read and seen, a lot of the people working in this field see it as 'Moon or Mars' rather than 'Moon then Mars', which would seem to make more sense. Regarding the large nation bit, I think you're right in terms of it being feasible within a decade (if it was in the 60s it sure is now) but it's whether there's the will to commit that kind of money to the project. In the U.S. it would have to come from the private sector, someone like SpaceX, in collaboration with NASA, but NASA seem more keen on the ISS and probes than human space flight. Russia's economy is not in great shape so it's hard to see how they finance such a project, even with Putin's Soviet-era personality cult. China would be the most obvious candidate but I can't say I know too much about their space program (I know they've landed a rover on the Moon, maybe one on Mars too? They also have a small space station unless 'Gravity' lied to me...) and not to mention the long awaited downturn in the Chinese economy. But it's an interesting discussion. Personally, I think it would be wonderful to go back to the Moon, but the politics and economics of it seem to put most governments off.

Very interesting question. As I recently posted on the Astronauts thread, the youngest moonwalkers are now 80 and the oldest is 86. So, barring any of them living to the ripe old age of 100, they'll all be dead before 2036. So the question is will any human set foot on the moon before 2036? Right now, I'd say it's unlikely, but at the same time, it's such a long time that surely someone's got to get there sooner or later. Not sure it will be another American though. Chinese maybe, Russians. Someone random like the Indians. Maybe it's a possibility that before the last moonwalker dies we may see the first interplanetary walker if we get to Mars. They keep saying it's relatively feasible, so 20 years is a pretty sizeable length of time. Gosh maryport, you've really got me thinking now....

Went for Aldrin. 2016 seems set to go into big name overdrive and Aldrin's 86 and had his share of wild living.

Ok, so up until today I've refrained from clicking on this thread but as we're into primary season, I decided I should see what people are saying. I'm a Brit but very into American politics and have watched a few of the debates and watched the Iowa results come in, so I think I have a decent handle on what's going on, and hopefully can clear up a few of the hypotheticals and musings that people seem to be coming up with. First, the Republicans. Cruz and Trump occupy similar ground and appeal to similar voters. Carson is also included in this group, what we could charitably describe as the 'nutjobs'. Carson will drop out soon enough, maybe after New Hampshire (he took a break after Iowa to go home to Florida, apparently to 'get some clothes', which is of course precisely what you do in the middle of a Presidential campaign...) but it's hard to see Cruz or Trump giving up the ghost so long as they keep getting 20-odd percent of the vote in the various primaries. The Republican 'Establishment' want a 'mainstream' candidate to emerge that they can coalesce around. Kasich, Bush and Christie are all vying to be that guy, and are pinning all their hopes on doing well in New Hampshire, but Marco Rubio's strong third place in Iowa has now made him the favourite to take that mantle, even though he is only 'mainstream' when compared to Cruz and Trump and not when compared to Joe Public. Even so, he's the most telegenic and the closest the Republicans have to an Obama figure (young, ethnic, inspirational) and Republicans are coming to the opinion that he's their best hope. The expectation is that it will boil down to Cruz v Trump v Rubio in the coming months and how that works out in the voters minds is hard to say. Rubio could benefit if Trump and Cruz take votes off each other, but if one of them can harness the majority of 'nutjob' support in the state, then the current polls still say they'll win it. In Iowa, Cruz, Trump and Carson got nearly two thirds of the votes cast, so even if Rubio unites the 'mainstream', he's still supposedly only going to be able to win states where the vote is heavily split (unless the Republicans realise that Rubio is the only one likely to have any appeal whatsoever to independents and Democrats). This could end up being quite the fist fight and could go all the way to the convention, but more likely is that somewhere along the line, it will all get worked out and there'll be a consensus candidate. Then again, we assumed that would happen with Obama and Hillary and they went almost all the way. Which brings me on to the Democrats. O'Malley was supposed to be the plucky underdog to Hillary but Bernie rained on his parade when he got involved and he had no chance. Sanders has an appealing message, in the same way Trump does on the Republican side but as with Trump, it's hard to see how his views will translate into 1. Electoral victory and 2. Action once he gets into power (the Republicans who control the House are going to replace Obamacare with an American NHS? They're going to sanction a $15 minimum wage? Exactly.) A tough primary battle is not necessarily a bad thing for Hillary - the expectation was it would be a coronation and this way, she'll have to earn the nomination, which makes her a stronger candidate and shows the Democrats have vetted their candidates just as the Republicans have. Things between Bernie and Hillary have been needle-y but not openly hostile and I think they'll stay this way. They keep extolling the virtues of their 'issues driven' debates rather than the personal attacks that the Republicans have engaged in. I still think Hillary is in prime position to win the nomination, probably sometime in April. The only thing that could truly sink her is if the email scandal results in criminal charges but all the evidence is that it's another Republican exercise to discredit her and will eventually be resolved one way or another. If Bernie was to win, then all bets are off for the Presidential election. So what happens when the nominations have been made? All this talk about third party candidates, etc. Unless things descend into all out war between Hillary and Bernie (and I don't think that they will - she's learnt from last time and doesn't see Bernie as as big a threat as Obama was) then there won't be any issue for the majority of Democrats in supporting her. Bernie won't do anything to sink Hillary's chances in the general election - he may not be wild about her policies but he wouldn't want to be the guy that let President Cruz or President Trump (or President Rubio for that matter) into the White House. So as and when he concedes (and probably at the convention too) he'll give a big speech on party unity, in the same way Bill and Hillary did in 2008. I think most Democrats will support Hillary - regardless of their personal opinions of her, the chance to elect the first woman President will see them over the line. The Republican side is where the big question mark lies. There won't be an 'establishment' coup if Trump or Cruz wins the nomination and I can't see Cruz mounting a third party bid when he feels he's the true Republican rather than the black sheep of the family. He's also friendly with Rubio and Rubio's supposedly suggested he's get a seat in his cabinet. Trump is a law unto himself and did say at the first Republican debate that he would not rule out running as an Independent if he didn't win the nomination. He has since backtracked on that and said he would support the nominee, largely because I think he assumed he would be that nominee. If he isn't, a lot will depend on whether the nominee chooses to engage with him or if Trump thinks America is truly screwed by President Clinton (or President Sanders) and decides to back off to prevent this happening. Michael Bloomberg is the joker in the pack. He's a moderate, a former Republican and a former Democrat. He has a vast fortune which allows him to run his own campaign, but if Hillary is the nominee I don't see him entering the race. I don't think he could win even if he entered the race but he could possibly nick the votes in the middle and make a number of swing states ultra swingy. Some on here have talked about the possibility of a three-way tie between the three of them but in that case there wouldn't be a winner. The Electoral College requires a candidate to receive 272 votes to be President and if three candidates got a sizeable number of electoral college votes then no one would be able to get to 272. Of course, it is possible for a third party candidate to receive 20% of the vote nationally and still not receive any electoral college votes, as Ross Perot did in 1992. And in the highly unlikely event that there is no winner on the night in the Electoral College, then the Constitution states that the election of a President descends to the House of Representatives, with each states' representatives getting a single vote between them (so 50 in total) and a winning candidate must receive 26 states votes (a majority). This ballot can be held as many times as necessary to elect a new President but, in reality, the Republican would almost certainly win as the Republicans hold a large majority in the House. Anyway, we've descended into the realm of complete fantasy now, it will never get that far. In conclusion, a lot depends on who the Republicans choose and that won't be known in all likelihood until May/June at the earliest.

With the death of Edgar Mitchell, I found myself wondering how many of the men on the moon were still going. Having read this entire thread, I see no one has published an up-to-date list in quite some time so, with nothing to do this morning, here goes: 1. Neil Armstrong - Apollo 11, b.1930, d.2012 2. Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin - Apollo 11, b.1930 (aged 86) 3. Pete Conrad - Apollo 12, b.1930, d.1999 4. Alan Bean - Apollo 12, b.1932 (aged 83) 5. Alan Shepard - Apollo 14, b.1923, d.1998 6. Edgar Mitchell - Apollo 14, b.1930, d.2016 7. David Scott - Apollo 15, b.1932 (aged 83) 8. James Irwin - Apollo 15, b.1930, d.1991 9. John W. Young - Apollo 16, b.1930 (aged 85) 10. Charles Duke - Apollo 16, b.1935 (aged 80) 11. Eugene Cernan - Apollo 17, b.1934 (aged 81) 12. Harrison Schmidt - Apollo 17, b.1935 (aged 80) While I'm at it, here are the men who flew to the moon (or intended to), but didn't get out: 1. Frank Borman - Apollo 8, b.1928 (aged 87) 2. Jim Lovell - Apollo 8 and 13, b.1928 (aged 87) 3. Bill Anders - Apollo 8, b.1933 (aged 82) 4. Tom Stafford - Apollo 10, b.1930 (aged 85) 5. Michael Collins - Apollo 11, b.1930 (aged 85) 6. Dick Gordon - Apollo 12, b.1929 (aged 86) 7. Jack Swigert - Apollo 13, b.1931, d.1982 8. Fred Haise - Apollo 13, b.1933 (aged 82) 9. Stu Roosa - Apollo 14, b.1933, d.1994 10. Al Worden - Apollo 15, b.1932 (aged 83) 11. Ken Mattingley - Apollo 16, b.1936 (aged 79) 12. Ron Evans - Apollo 17, b.1933, d.1990 (John W. Young and Eugene Cernan also flew on Apollo 10, the test run for the Moon landing, but are included among the moonwalkers) And finally, the pre-Apollo astronauts: The Mercury Seven Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, b.1926, d.1967 John Glenn - First American to orbit the Earth, b.1921 (aged 94) Scott Carpenter - Second orbital Mercury flight, b.1925, d.2013 Walter 'Wally' Schirra, Third orbital Mercury flight, b.1923, d.2007 Gordon 'Gordo' Cooper, Last American to fly in space alone, b.1927, d.2004 Donald 'Deke' Slayton, b.1924, d.1993 (Alan Shepard already listed above) Project Gemini 16 astronauts took part, 3 Mercury veterans, 11 who took part in Apollo missions to the moon. The only others were: James A. McDivitt - also part of Apollo 9, b.1929 (aged 86) Edward H. White - first American to walk in space, b.1930, d.1967 Early Apollo missions Roger B. Chaffee - Apollo 1, b.1935, d.1967 Walt Cunningham - Apollo 7, b.1932 (aged 83) Donn Eisele - Apollo 7, b.1930, d.1987 David Scott - Apollo 9, b.1935 (aged 80) Rusty Schweikart - Apollo 9, b.1935 (aged 80) (Gus Grissom, Edward H. White and 'Wally' Schirra also involved but included elsewhere) So 7 of the men who walked on the moon are still going, 9 of those who went but didn't get out are still alive and 4 of the early Apollo astronauts are still going. That said, looking at the ages, the next 10-20 years will probably see all of them off sadly. True pioneers. I've not bothered with the shuttle crews, 1. Because there's so many of them and 2. Because most of them are not really likely to die in the next couple of years. I've also steered clear of the cosmonauts, not because I don't respect them equally but simply because I know virtually nothing about the Russian space program. I'm sure someone better informed could update that list if they wished to. All I know is Valentina Tereshkova is still going strong at 78. Hope someone finds this interesting/useful! EDITED FOR GLENN AND CERNAN

The Daily Fail is very keen that we know that Keith Vaz has deleted his social media accounts and Twitter is rife with speculation that something may be about to break about him (but then again when is Twitter not rife with allegations about something or someone?) Some linking it back to a Sun front page from last year claiming 'Top Labour MP is paedo'. I do not wish to sully this fine site by posting the image of the front page but the Fail article is here. He did support Janner during his allegations, so make of that what you will. Should he fall, it will mean points for Bibliogryphon, Shaun and Maryport. And in researching that, I've discovered I do not have Danzcuk among my picks like I thought I did. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?! More to the point, how come only two did end up picking him...?

Watching a bit of the Syria air strikes debate, there has been alot of mention of the absence of the 'Honourable Member for Ilford South'. A quick Google search reveals that 63 year old Mike Gapes has been rushed to hospital suffering from those classic 'chest pains'. Looks like he's recovering after surgery but one to watch. Annoyingly, I know he was on my longlist but did not make it to my shortlist. I believe should he stand down or die he would be a unique pick for a very smug Voice of Young Maryport. http://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime-court/ilford_south_mp_mike_gapes_in_hospital_following_emergency_surgery_1_4330563 As for Shapps, he's on my list so I'd like to see him fall on his sword, although I would also like to point out that Maryport putting him in as a late replacement prevents me getting some very valuable unique pick points if it happens. Grrrr....

Got to be Crowe. I seem to recall this being a man who was almost certain he wouldn't see the Cricket World Cup Final and that was at the end of March, now there's an outside chance he could make 2016. Starting to think he has a touch of the Wilko Johnsons about him. Still picked him though.

Finally! I was beginning to think we weren't going to have a by-election at all! Great to get a success right out the gate and put a score on the board. Regarding when the election could be held, it is quite common for them to be held just over a month after the vacancy emerges. I don't think Corbyn will want to wait until the new year to get it filled, not least as it increases the Tory majority slightly. In the last parliament, both Manchester Central and Cardiff South and Penarth had vacancies on 22 October 2012 that were filled on 15 November 2012; Rotherham had a vacancy on 5 November 2012 and it was filled on 29 November; Middlesbrough had a vacancy on 13 October 2012 and it was filled on 29 November. So plenty of examples of it being held before Christmas. Even closer, Feltham and Heston had a vacancy on 10 November 2012 and that was filled on 15 December, so plenty of scope to cram it in before Christmas. In all, there were 6 (SIX) by-elections between August and December 2012! Just think if we hit that kind of run now!!

Wallis was nearly 40 when Edward abdicated she had not had children with her two earlier husbands. The important thing to note that if Edward had not abdicated and other events had taken their course when George VI died in 1952 Elaizabeth would not have been the heir presumptive as the daughter of a brother the throne would have passed to Richard, Duke of Gloucester but he died in an air crash which would have restored Elizabeth to the throne but much later than actually happend. Yes, my thinking was that Wallis was probably past it. Not to mention the spurious rumours (that I'm sure are easily disprovable) that Wallis was not....all woman. But regarding the other points, as has been said several times in different ways, my understanding was that you can't move around once in the order of succession, just move down if new people enter above you. But on this point, since I'm feeling mischievous, anybody know if Prince Andrew married a dollybird and got her up the duff whether that child would enter above Beatrice and Eugenie or not? I assume any new children of his would be subject to the new anti-primogeniture law? One of those 'what if' questions eh? Well, there are various possibilities of course. With Edward still on the throne, it would all depend on what view he took and to what view the King in the 1940s was still able to make command decisions. If Edward had still insisted on going to Germany (as he did in 1937 against government advice) and remained on friendly terms with Hitler and co, then undoubtedly people would have been uncomfortable. The Germans clearly saw him as an ally and said that his abdication was a huge blow to the Nazi efforts at a peaceful relationship with Britain. The government were very suspicious of Hitler and of Edward's relationships with Nazis but whether they'd have been brave enough to consider treason then I'm not sure. That said, there are examples in other countries of revolutions not looking to get rid of the monarchy, just the monarch. And Britain has always been abit iffy about removing the monarchy altogether. So perhaps the solution would have been a coup to remove the King and replace him with his far more upstanding and far more wholesome family-man brother Prince Albert, Duke of York. In other words, maybe our history would have a colourful chapter where the King was deposed by force but after that, history remains pretty similar: Prince Albert becomes George VI, Britain enters the war against Hitler, the war ends with the Allies victorious, the now-Prince Edward, having been exiled to the Bahamas for the course of the war, would then be allowed to live his life in exile in France (if the new French republic would take a former Nazi-supporting King). Simplistic to say, because you could argue that a lack of militarisation in the run-up to war caused by having a Nazi King may leave us more vulnerable during the Battle of Britain etc, and if the Nazis had successfully invaded, they'd have installed Edward as a puppet King anyway, but I suppose it's take what you choose to take from the endless possibilities.

Unlikely as William is already older than she was when she took the throne. It would probably take for William to die tragically young and for George to live as long as Philip for us to have any chance. The better chance will lie with George's children's generation. I thought it might be interesting to extend this idea with a hypothetical timeframe: The Queen is currentlly 89 and her mum lived to 101. Let's assume she lives for a slightly less long time than her Mum and say she dies in six years' time at 95. In 2021, when she goes, Charles will be 72. Let's assume he also has enough in his tank to reach 95, given the longevity of both his parents (assuming he doesn't abdicate at any point). That takes us to the year 2044, meaning that Prince William will be 62. Asssuming this run of very good luck continues and William also reaches 95 (aided by the advances in medicine we will see by then), George will take the throne in 2077 at the age of 64. Assuming our boy George doesn't turn out to be like Boy George and has children of his own one day, they will presumably also be middle aged by the time they take the throne. Hence, we will really need an untimely death or a scandal to force William or George to abdicate early for a youthful monarch to take the throne again and have any chance of breaking Lizzie's record. The only other very slim possibility would be for George to have a child later in life but the pressure on him to marry and produce "an heir and a spare" early on means this is extremely unlikely too. (The variant on this would be if Prince George was gay or impotent and Charlotte had a child later in life as there would be, initially, less pressure on her to reproduce until George's problem was discovered, leading to a younger niece or nephew taking the throne.) Otherwise, the pattern will just keep repeating of the next in line taking the throne sometime in their 60s or 70s, meaning Lizzie's record will remain unassailable until something calamitous happens leading to the early death or abdication of a monarch to push a younger person onto the throne. There's no guarantees what will happen. After Victoria's record-breaking reign, Edward VII (who had been Prince of Wales for 60 years, so only a couple less than Chuck) only lasted 10 years on the throne. George V then celebrated a Silver Jubilee in 1935 but died not long after aged 70 (10 years younger than his dad). Edward VIII abdicated and George VI died in his mid 50s which brings us to Liz. Admittedly, modern medicine, cleaner living and good genes being passed down mean Charles and William both look like having good innings left in them but who can say. An interesting note at this time of great record-breaking is what the situation would be if history had taken a different course: had Edward VIII not abdicated and kept his throne (aside from all the cosying up to Hitler that might have happened) he didn't die until 1972. Assuming he didn't have any children as King (just as he didn't as Duke of Windsor), then Princess Elizabeth would have remained first in line to the throne into her mid-30s and come to the throne 5 years before what in actual fact was her Silver Jubilee. Had this happened, she would now be in her 44th year on the throne and quite considerably short of Victoria's record. Realistically: Elizabeth could get somewhere close to 75 years on the throne, though what state she'd be in by then is impossible to tell. Phil's got 5 years on her and is in worse health so he's got maybe 5 left in him optimistically. If she did get close to 75 years on the throne, then Charles would be pushing 80 when he came to the throne and there'd be all sorts of questions about his suitability, especially if he was to suffer some sort of ill health in the next 10 years. William would be pushing 50 by the time he became Prince of Wales and Georgie Boy would be 20-odd. 10 more years before George gets married and has a bambino and we're looking at a new heir around 2037. Regardless of when he gets the throne, lets say George, with the benefits of 21st century medicine also lives into his 90s, he would be alive past 2100, when his son/daughter would be 63 - and they haven't necessarily come to the throne yet. For the Victoria-Elizabeth pattern to repeat again, it would require George's child to come to the throne before the age of 25 and I'm not sure how that can happen unless something happens to William. Charles' health is fairly unimportant, because so-long as William's fighting fit for a while, the record won't be broken by George or likely by his child. Regarding what she's set her sights on in terms of length of reign, I don't think she cares in the slightest really: she's seemed thoroughly disgruntled by all the fuss about her beating Victoria and has practically been dragged kicking and screaming by her courtiers to acknowledge it publicly.

I'll be honest: when I saw that Gorman had died, it crossed my mind that I wondered of the fate of the other 'bastards' and whether she was the first to peg it. A quick Google search led me to this article from 2004 about a reunion of the 'bastards' and listed the names I mentioned above. If I'd read on, it does mention the death of Nick Budgen in 1998 as another 'bastard', the term being used to refer to the 8 Tory MPs who had the whip withdrawn over Maastricht. Interestingly, the article makes no mention of Michael Carttiss but Wikipedia includes him as having the whip withdrawn. Maybe he couldn't make the aforementioned reunion. It also includes Allason who refused to back a confidence motion in the government over Maastricht. If we were talking about the specific people Major was referring to, they are believed to be Michael Howard, Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley, all of whom are still going strong. Howard is 74 and now a Peer of the Realm and riding the House of Lords Gravy Train. Speaking of trains, Portillo can usually be found on BBC2/4 riding a train somewhere or other and is 62 and Peter Lilley I'm astonished to discover is the only one of our little band of rebels to still sit in the House of Commons, aged 72. Not sure Body's got too many more years left in him, Taylor, Gill and Shepherd all appear to be in decent health but could likewise drop dead any time. Interesting fact I've found regarding Teddy Taylor: apparently he is one of only 2 survivors of the first ever edition of Question Time in 1979. The other is Irish poet and novelist Edna O'Brien. Rupert Allason, as mentioned, looks like he could go on forever, plus he practises the Maharishi Yogi's Transcendental Meditation. Then again, it didn't do much good for Lennon and Harrison. Wikipedia lists a further 18 rebels who voted against the government, all but 3 of which are still in the land of the living. Looks like this will be an area of rich pickings over the next decade or more as they range in age from 80s to 50s.

Doubt John Major will be going to her funeral. She becomes the second of his so-called 'bastards' to die. Here is a list of the infamous 7 and their current statuses: John Wilkinson - d. March 2014 Teresa Gorman - d. August 2015 Sir Richard Body - Alive, aged 88 Chris Gill - Alive, aged 78 Sir Teddy Taylor - Alive, aged 78 Tony Marlow - Alive, aged 75 Sir Richard Shepherd - Alive, aged 72