• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle

  • Like SpaceX. However, when people gush about reusability, they seem to forget the 135 Space Shuttle missions (2 fatal failures , yes.). All done with 5 vehicles. Yes expensive etc, but truly amazing.

    The Space Shuttle was a marvel of engineering. But while it was reusable, it wasn’t actually good at it. Reusability was supposed to bring down cost and turnaround time and it did neither. And not just that, it was actually much more expensive than competing expendable rockets. Plus, it had lots of other issues like being dangerous as fuck. You couldn’t abort at all for major parts of the ascent and there was the whole issue with the fragile heat protection tiles, both of which caused fatalities.

    I think part of the reason why people aren’t impressed by the Shuttle anymore is because it flew 135 missions. It’s 40 year old technology. And it’s not like SpaceX are just doing the same thing again 40 years later, they’re reusing their rockets in a completely different way, which no one else had done before. And in doing so they seem to be avoiding most of the disadvantages that came with the Shuttle’s design.

    Also, I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary. Impressive? Yes, but it’s essentially incremental engineering, made possible by ginormous funding, including NASA money, and a private company doing things that NASA can-t politically afford.

    Sure, I wouldn’t say that no one else could do this with a similar amount of money (and the will to actually do it). Whether you want to call it revolutionary or not is subjective, but they’re definitely innovating a lot more than any other large player in spaceflight. The Falcon 9 is a huge step forward for rocket reusability and SpaceX have also been the first to fly a full-flow staged combustion engine as well as the most powerful rocket ever. They’re making spaceflight exciting again after like 40 years of stagnation and I think that’s what resonates with people.













  • First off, I’m not the arbiter of what does and doesn’t belong to a certain genre. That’s, to a certain extent, subjective and people don’t always agree. However, there usually is at least some consensus in the community, otherwise the genre names would be useless.

    That said, I personally wouldn’t call this melodic death metal either. Most of the song is just clean singing and clean guitars, both of which are sometimes used in melodeath, but they’re not a defining aspect of it. And even the parts with harsh vocals and distorted guitars are missing the riffs that are typical for the genre. It’s closer to a progressive death metal or groove metal sound similar to Gojira or Opeth.

    Overall Jinjer are also definitely not a melodeath band, they’re metalcore, which is often seen as a subgenre of hardcore, not metal, although there are bands that are more on the metal side.

    As I said, I’m not the genre police, this is just my opinion. But I think (sub)genre definitions are useful when talking about music and if we start using them too loosely, they lose their meaning and as a result, their utility.