undefined

points

[-]

I tuned in for 60 seconds, the presenter got everything wrong, and I just tuned out until liftoff.

She called the top of the ET (well, it's no longer an ET, but it's the stage that was the STS ET) the "upper stage". She said that the propellents are stored at thousands of degrees below zero. And so on. This is a NASA presenter?

by magicalist2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> She called the top of the ET (well, it's no longer an ET, but it's the stage that was the STS ET) the "upper stage". She said that the propellents are stored at thousands of degrees below zero. And so on. This is a NASA presenter?

To be fair to her, she seemed to explicitly refer to what sits on top of the core stage, it just wasn't in the diagram she was gesturing to the top of at the time.

To be fair to you, I think the cryogenic comment was worse and she actually said "thousands of degrees below Fahrenheit".

The problem is they're trying to run hours of programming leading up to this launch for some reason, but aren't willing to force the experts to come in to do the commentary. They should have given her a script.

by Am4TIfIsER0ppos1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Jesus! Why is there a presenter? Why isn't it just a livestream of the mission control radio chatter? That sort of shit belongs on some 24/7 news broadcast.

by gm67838 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Same reason the livestream mentioned jobs about a dozen times in the 10 minutes I watched, NASA is in a fraught position and this is their way of fighting for some continued funding. A 'mass media' event captures more attention than a minimalist stream of chatter. (And a less cynical interpretation is also that getting the public interested in and engaged with space missions is part of their mandate.)

by rdevilla3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

You are not the target audience for this sort of presentation. Media directed at the laity is more about being directionally than quantifiably correct, and is full of metaphor and embellishment to capture the imagination rather than communicate something with precision.

People who want the actual details and numbers will read.

by robotresearcher3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I firmly believe you can have both exciting, inspiring, and factually correct communication if you make that a priority.

The experience of hearing factual things presented with passion and obvious expertise is in itself inspiring. Why settle for less?

by jeffrallen3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Bring back John Insprucker.

by tigerlily3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I for one am begging God that this is merely April fools all the way down.

by lukan1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If it would be, then a fake explosion after start as climax before revealing it, would be quite a joke. Probably will yield mixed reception, though.

by chasd004 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

i'm sure the whole talk track was piped through an AI for clarity and excitement and the presenters were told to read the script.