Tory Bruno confirms “Observation on SRB#1”.

Yeah, NSF are pulling in other angles and it definitely blows chunks and yaws slightly. Centaur burn went long - I wonder if that impacts the second burn.

Meanwhile ULA: “Everything performing nominally”

Actually rewatching it, it looks like might have been a nozzle failure on one of the GEMs. There’s a big flare before clouds obscure the rocket - much bigger than the ice. After this, one side looks to have a bigger exhaust plume than the other, and burns out slightly sooner.

Yeah, NSF are speculating about it.

In space now. Chilling second stage.

Launch looked a bit chunky but I guess that’s just the solids.

… for you.

Because the minor diameter of the barrel is 5.56 mm and the major diameter is 5.69 mm. If the bullet were smaller than that then the propellant would blow past it. They didn’t make a 'murican millimetre like they did with the imperial system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delisle_scale

Why would you do this to me?

               PSI
 0                             100
 ┣━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┫
Dead                  Potentially survivable
               Vs
               Atm
 0                             100
 ┣━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┫
Dead                           Dead
               Vs
               kPa
 0                             100
 ┣━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┫
Dead                      Totally  Fine

I just learned about °Ré and °Rø and now my head hurts.

Why a spoon, cousin? Why not an axe?

Your mind makes it real.

Should have gone with the Barbasol canister.

I think it’s more that they haven’t tested the software changing mode mid-mission. At least that’s Scott Manley’s impression(@5:50ish).

Given the software issues thus far, I can see they’d be a bit wary that flipping that switch could cause problems.

I would think they could set it back to autonomous mode but that they have to do the testing and validation to prove the system will tolerate the change with no issues.

Yeah, tineye doesn’t find any matches for it but does for all the others.

The backlight could be sunlight, but the it wouldn’t be deep-sea. It could be another submersible with a light, but I don’t know why two would dive together. The bokeh looks pretty weird also. I think it’s AI.

Only honks.

Then I guess you can fit about 500 tons of giraffe in it.

If it’s a cube, I’d have questions before they got to 8m.
If it’s 1m², but 500m tall, I’d have … different questions.

I’d love to have human editors to fix up stories, but we have the technology now. There are FOSS tools like redpen that will help with spelling and grammar. AI tools ought to do a somewhat reasonable job of appraising a piece of text and yeah, a second human ought to sign off before publishing. I’d have thought content management systems would have review stages like software development. Authors could accept or override suggestions, but be required to acknowledge them. Like why isn’t journops a thing?

I think you might be right. Another article by the same author seems like it could be entirely made up, only citing Wikipedia for things like the definition of the word ‘confidence’. I don’t know what would prompt it to leave these ‘fill in the blank’ sections though.

I understood [reference] and am continually amazed how news sources don’t have some kind of automated review process to stop stupid errors like that.