ST-C absolutely dead-on nails the look and feel of ST-TOS in every way. Even their CGI is immaculate.

With that said, they're all interesting. Check 'em all out, make your own decision.

Actually, you're the one being a deliberately obtuse asshole here. You asked for staged combustion engines, I gave you an American staged combustion engine. You claimed it was a "test project with no meaningful thrust", I refuted that by showing that it has a very decent 2.3 MN of thrust in practical use. You argued "but it isn't a first stage engine!" and "it's different from Russian engines", even though neither being a first stage engine nor being a ultra-high thrust engine nor being an oxy-rich engine were any part of your original request, which merely asked for a staged combustion engine.

It's difficult to argue with people who randomly move the goalposts, but your deficient knowledge of the history of rocketry isn't my problem. You got what you asked for, and I don't have a crystal ball to see any of your further requirements.

"Low thrust"? 2.3 meganewtons per nozzle is actually in the same ballpark as all the Russian kerolox engines. The RD-191 has 2.1 meganewtons. There hasn't really been a lot of engines that large. I'm not sure why you're being deliberately obtuse, but if this floats your boat, whatever.

As I said, RS-25 existed long before that. You've just widened their surprise from oxygen-rich staged combustion to staged combustion in general (RS-25 runs fuel-rich).

Doesn't this study show that women and men don't work as well together as they do separately, and that trying to increase diversity results in less effective teams, and was a bad idea all along?

So, the smart thing to do is separate the women off away from the men, encourage them to form teams entirely composed of women, and give them some meaningful tasks to do that won't overly burden them physically and will exploit their particular strengths.

This is very innovative stuff.

They have thrust vectoring, but the fact that the engine thrust (even throttled down) significantly exceeds the terminal stage mass and you only have one landing attempt probably means that the usable range of terminal trajectories is limited (you can't hover and divert the way that the Grasshopper could), and presumably the premature fin failure led to a situation the terminal guidance couldn't deal with. Additionally, the fins allegedly failed in a non-neutral position - in fact, they were in an extreme position. That's like a ship's rudder getting stuck in a "hard left" position. Even with multiple screws, it's still not a nice situation to be in.

This is a popular legend that actually isn't true, the US had had closed cycle engines before the US engineers saw Russian engines (notably the RS-25). The actual problem was that the Russian-style closed cycle works with a high-pressure, high-temperature oxygen-rich mixture, which is a metallurgical challenge. So it's not closed cycle engines in general but oxygen-rich preburner engines in particular.

You'll just swallow a pill and grow a new kidney.

OSX is horrible. Really, really horrible.

Like an OCD wife that puts your tools away while you're trying to use them because everything has to look clean and nice at all times.

Why not shoot a plastic net?

People-wise, perhaps. Supplies-wise, no.

What, rum doesn't get sold anymore? I'd be surprised to hear that.

I pity you for not understanding just how much this is unrelated. But then again, most people have a poor grasp of how language works and evolves, even in my country.

Did you miss the "and" part in this particular quote? It's obvious that x + 10x = 11x. But since you're claiming that the "ten times more" part implies 11x, by your logic, the sentence actually should have meant x + (1 + 10)x = 12x, which for some reason you've declined to argue here. So apparently you don't believe that yourself.

There's no "and" in Michael Faraday's [~1860]

and you won't be able to argue that aluminium actually has a density of ~3.5 g/cm^3. Neither will you be able to argue that Gregory's Handbook of inorganic chemistry claiming

actually talks about a weight ratio of 9:1. (There's an obvious mistake in this passage that actually refers to stoichiometric mass ratios, but this has no bearing on the issue at hand.)

Which could easily be a neat explanation of your recent quotes. Hypercorrection and all that jazz. Especially considering that, as I said, you won't find this in related IE languages.

Is there a way to reclaim Slashdot from this constant barrage of psychological assault on IT professionals by outsiders?

I'm a bit of a nerd and I'm an IT professional. This place used to be a place to find news of interest to nerds and IT professionals. Now it's a place where there's going to be a daily article about how shitty a person I am and how shitty my industry is.

Is this what the rest of you guys come here for? To get shit on daily? It's kinda feeling like Slashdot has just become a bad habit I do when I'm bored because I've done it so many times before.

Is your target audience people who are nerds, or is it people who are envious of nerds? It's kinds feeling like this place has become the latter.