Pretty much just kerosene. So not the best, but not horrible. It just uses LOX and RP-1 (highly refined kerosene) for fuel.

“lack of experience in the area…”

Boeing dwarfs SpaceX in experience building spacecraft.

Mercury and Gemini spacecraft were both built by the McDonnell Corp. That company merged with the Douglas Aircraft company (which built the 3rd stage of the Saturn V rocket) becoming McDonnell Douglas in 1967, which merged into Boeing in 1997. Boeing itself co-manufactured the space shuttle orbiters with Rockwell.

On paper and judging from experience and history, if you were going to pick a single company to build a spacecraft, it would be them. Not some brand new company run by a space-obsessed software engineer.

Clearly Boeing has huge cultural issues and has for a while.

Just saying if you wanted to go off experience alone, they’re the best there is.

That is a notable change from “we’re just double checking things on the Starliner, which we think we can fix. We expect them to ride it home soon” that has been the message for a long time. Now it’s “we’re looking at all options”.

Or what has been called one of the most historic and tumultuous years of a century (1968)… Yeah.

Now I gotta look up 1973. Never heard it mentioned in this context…

Answer:

• Roe vs Wade
• Vietnam War officially ended, US pulls out of Cambodia
• OPEC oil embargo started
• Wounded Knee occupation
• Major flooding of the Mississippi River
• New tallest building in the world (Sears Tower)
• Nixon goes to China and US opens official office in Beijing
• Battle of the Sexes tennis match
• Secretariat wins first triple crown in 25 years, smashing records
• “The Miller Test” for obscenity is established by the US Supreme Court
• Two notable commercial airline crashes with fatalities (both in Boston, interestingly)
• Egypt and Israel sign peace accord
• Much of the Watergate scandal played out in 73, though Nixon didn’t resign until August of '74

That’s what the saying means. It doesn’t mean perfect isn’t good. It means perfect is great, but don’t let it stop good.

They technical don’t make airframes or doors either (and still don’t until their buyout of their supplier goes through).

They did it once, then did it again and not only is it still just a fine, the fine didn’t even go up. Given inflation since then, the fine actually went down in real terms.

That’ll teach them for sure! /s

My thoughts exactly.

I initially read that as “Florida scrambles to get retired teachers to return to combat.”

Which isn’t really wrong either.

Every decade after the 1920s has been special for cinema for the generation that treasured it.

Their claims are based largely on building artificial islands which extends their 200 miles from the coast claims (by aging more coast). This US claim isn’t extending coast (so no control of the water column or surface), only continental shelf and mining rights

I think that’s the basic premise of the Star Trek hypospray. Pressure pushing in medicine rather than a needle.

Exactly. Early Marvel was deeply about character and their depth and character flaws that made them interesting. Thor, Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanov, and especially Tony Stark were interesting and complex personalities. (Bruce Banner and Clint Barton…eh).

The stories in recent Marvel products are fine. Mildly interesting serials. Ok popcorn fare.

But the character development has been getting more and more lacking. Even Thor has been reduced to ‘dumb blonde’/‘dumb entitled rich kid’ gags.

I think that’s part of what makes Loki one of the only really interesting outings for Marvel recently. He stayed reasonably conflicted and complex.

I assume someone somewhere decided that it was going to net a profit (after already sunk production costs and yet-to-be-spent promoting costs and other obligations) of less than $30 million.

So if given the choice between hoping it maybe makes $20-40 million in net profit vs a guaranteed $30 million as a tax write-off, that’s easy math for the number crunchers.

I have no idea but they could also have decided they didn’t want to spend to promote it. It costs a fortune in money up front to promote movies these days, even after the movie is ‘in the can’. Money is getting more and more expensive with interest rates going up, so financing even promotional costs is more expensive.

Did you read the article or any others about it? Human creativity is the heart of copyright law. If humans didn’t make it, no copyright. At least under the latest ruling.

At least in the USA: You absolutely can control the distribution of your likeness if it wasn’t taken in public.

Photos of you in public can’t be controlled because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. If someone takes a picture of you privately, even if not for commercial purposes, you can absolutely control the use of that image unless you release it.