Almost there...

:) it's surprising how much better that looks to me.

the other thing i guess is a lot hairier... maybe it would be a better use of your time to focus on other stuff

Not really much I can do about that...

At least, not much that I'm going to do now.

yeah, i think you are right.

The library doesn't support anti-aliasing. So my options are really limited.

Actually, I think it does support it. Wow, there's a lot of things this library can do.

In any case, the color is much better, and I think the lines look better too.

There, pushed it out.

Better color scheme?

i liked the blue, but the links stand out better. i was wondering about those.

The links were pretty bad. Hmmm.

Looking at canva.com/learn/website-color-schemes and trying to find one I like.

that reminded me of something similar but i recall being better, but i can't find it...

i think you had good colors though. the link color was just too light.

It wasn't really that readable. It was readable, but...

oh, i like that.

Yeah, I've always liked dark on light.

Didn't change the button colors, but I think I'll leave it be. That color seems fine enough for the purpose.

and also the BBC: bbc.com/news/science-environment-43063379

Oh, tweets post very nicely!

sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/…

There is a video...

Should these questions have starman removed? I thought from this meta people had agreed it should be made a synonym of tesla-roadster

Also, it this question about where the Roadster's keys are off-topic as "not about Space Exploration"?

Just miss the half million page views yesterday mark...

@PearsonArtPhoto IMO on the close approaches page, the text should have more contrast from the background before hovering.

The close approaches is impossible to read without highlighting for me.

@called2voyage You are right! Can't fix it for a while, unfortunately...

I knew I forgot to check one of the pages before I did things... Sigh.

I should be able to fix it in about 4 hours.

@PearsonArtPhoto Sounds good

@uhoh just to keep long conversations from comments, is SX.SE what people call it, or just what geoff called it?

I usually call it Space.SE

@Edlothiad i often call it sx.se because i prefer to type fewer letters.

sx is also a common shorthand if we all know what we mean. at least, i use it.

I just wish we could call the site SpacEx, but...

The site temp icon is SX, so I suppose SX.SE is valid shorthand.

we're the other spacex :)

LOL

I mean, we might as well be Spacex.SE, with the number of SpaceX questions we get.

Emailed by someone who works for CNET, wanting to ask me a few questions.

hey you're our star, man.

Just emailed off the responses. Will be interesting to see what they make of it.

They asked for my background. I included that I am a moderator here.

@PearsonArtPhoto Did you give them a link to a question to include for another booster badge? :)

No.

I was looking at the SpaceX manifest and noticed that almost all launches till the next Heavy are LC-40 or SLC-4E. Nothing else is yet scheduled at 39A. Wonder why? May just be, without knowing a site, Reddit list is just defaulting to LC-40?

3 are enough for me.

They have a pic of a Heavy side core rolling into the HIF.

Nose cone looks like it took a lot of heating.

Width makes me think that is LC-39A HIF.

Nice.

Or the low-pressure area over the nose cone causes the soot from the engines to precipitate there.

Good point.

Almost a question, perhaps?

i vote question. that's sort of an interesting phenomenon.

Asked.

Almost..

Done

I now collect images, so I can use them in questions and answers, since they are such cool images.

@CBredlow Asked your question. Will also answer it. You were supposed to ask, but I got tired of waiting. :)

Nah, will do dark on light, light on dark.

I still think it's a bit uncomfortable to read when it's not highlighted, I realise that's not the point, but it's quite hard to see, just my 2 cents

these are details now, really. it looks pretty good. i'm conditioned to dark layouts now, i find them easier on the eyes most of the time.

Oh ya, it's not the end of the world, but it also looks less legible on my screen compared to the above screenshot.

Oh now it's fabulous! Thanks @Pearson!

No problem:-) Thanks for point it out to me:-)

And now CNET (They emailed me a few questions first) cnet.com/how-to/…

I reckon by 2091 SpaceX will have built the Ridiculous BFR, be building there Ludicrous BFR and going plaid (bonus points for the reference)

Yeah, probably.

@Edlothiad Spaceballs of course.

@kimholder - You had asked that question I was looking for ;) On a Super-Earth 1.5x the volume and mass of Earth, would our rocket technology allow us to reach orbit?. But no one gets into it about the denser atmosphere though. I wonder if spaceplanes start to make sense at that point...

@Mazura i think that was my second question here ever. eventually i was talked down by the old hands, that's how i remember it. These things get really, really complex.

Yeah, I'm reading that comment thread. You sounded like such a noob. Now I thought you worked for NASA or something ;)

denser atmospheres give you more lift, but also more heating. you still aren't going to be able to use it to get anywhere near orbital velocity.

@Mazura yeah.... yes, i remember feeling that way.

i have actually stated on my profile that i'm just a person who asks a lot of questions, because with points comes this impression i know a lot. i just know little patches here and there.

I know KSP. So... I know nothing ;)

I don't get it though. Even in your question, did you not know about staging? That WB question is really irking me. It's as if the question should contain "SSTO" and it's like that's what everyone assumes a rocket ship is. Maybe I've just seen footage of Apollo rockets staging too many times...

And that the STS was the pinnacle for spaceship building or something ;p

Ain't nobody talking about the tanks on the Falcon... it's been about engines ever since we started flying.

my short bio is that i gave up on space completely after watching the space shuttle turn from my hero spaceship into a complete fiasco and turned away from space at the age of 15 or so.

and then - spacex.

i have wanted to play ksp to develop my feel for orbital mechanics, but i keep putting it off. i find the rockets actually annoying. i don't care about the rockets.

If it could've landed with the Hubble back inside it, then I'd +1 the STS.

i want to just do the burns to see how to do transfers and all that. the rocket is supposed to just work.

@Mazura i don't know if you remember all the part about how it was going to launch every week, and be super cheap, and it would build us multiple fancy space stations that put the iss to shame....

@kimholder It's the hardest game I've ever played. Highly recommended.

and take us back to the moon to stay, in the 80s, and, and, and....

Super cheap, contracted to the lowest bidder, who has to make it in parts and ship it on rails...

Now I see where KSP gets it from ;p

@Mazura see, that actually doesn't make me want to play it more... i'm not a rocket girl. i need this exposure to understand colony design better. to me the rockets are a detail.

It's a steep learning curve... that leads to other steep learning curves

You can mod it to be almost completely automatic. And then do the parts you want to. I like launching spaceplanes. Orbital maneuvers I use the computer (MechJeb)

@Mazura For abstract "scaled up Earth" planets you can't actually say much definitive about the atmosphere, unfortunately -- there are too many variables. I estimated 10km/s per surface g as the total cost including atmospheric drag of getting to orbit in my ridiculously-large-rockets-for-ridiculously-large-planets calculations, which is a decent fit for Mars and Earth.

@kimholder There are cheat commands that let you not worry about fuel. F12 I think opens the menu.

Guess when Reddit found my site...

@PearsonArtPhoto Oh, that's really good to know. I'll have to remember that.