SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches

Post by ericye16 » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 5:57 AM UTC

latj wrote: post #522

protonimitate wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something awesome (in the literal sense) and unsettling about watching something and being able to say "I am witnessing history".

Did anyone else notice that the bottom two windows are not different cameras on different boosters? The guy even told us, "I know they look similar but they're different". Nope, they are the same. Watch how you can see two pads and they both land on the pad on the right. And you can see the second booster burning in the same orientation. The roads leading to the pads also make it easy to notice.

Post by gameswithgo » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 6:03 AM UTC

Laforet wrote: post #684

akozak wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he said in the press conference that they weren't planning to reuse the core or boosters. (But then mentioned later they wanted some of the parts? IDK)

Correct, the engines were going to be retired anyway but they are keen to reuse the titanium grid fins on the boosters which cost a small fortune to make. The core actually had older ablative grid fins made of aluminium so no great loss there[0]. [0] https://i.redd.it/l6s2bds7pl801.png

Post by icebraining » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 6:08 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #650

icebraining wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, recognizing the existence of sexist and racist stereotypes is not the same as being sexist and racist. Even if one incorrectly assumes that someone holds such stereotypical views.

If you're incorrect enough at spotting stereotypes, and then flatly assert their use, well... There's now a stereotype being applied, and you're the one that did it. Even if you're arguing against it, that's not a positive thing to do.

Post by Iv » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 6:11 AM UTC

take4 wrote: post #500

Svettie wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, there are indeed many scientists/engineers who look/act "nerdy" or don't have the suaveness of people we typically see on TV. I think what GP is saying is that typically companies will put forward people who are good-looking and charismatic for PR, so it's nice to see someone different and unpolished be center-stage in the public eye.

Why exactly is “good looking and charismatic” a bad thing? To be a good host you need to (should) be charismatic, that’s literally the job.

Post by oska » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 6:15 AM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #517

Old_Thrashbarg wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be pedantic, the poster did say "looks like" and: - "looks like" is associated with physical appearance - possibly things like clothes, jewelry, gender, hair, skin color, face, etc. - "sounds like" is associated with their speech - tone, accent, choice of diction - "acts like" is associated with physical behavior + speech But anyway, I think the point is that, we don't know what mabbo's intent was and 95% likely i…

> To be pedantic, the poster did say "looks like" The phrase "looks like" is commonly used as short hand for "seems like", "feels like", "gives the impression of", etc. It would be the same as if someone said they "appeared to be" professional actors, that doesn't necessarily indicate that it's based on visual cues. Seems like bad form to assign malice to someone based on a likely misinterpretation of their comments,…