Email To My Kids And Grandkid About The SpaceX Starship Prototype SN8 Test Flight

 Here's a view of the SN8 flight taken from the home of Mary the "Boca Chica Gal", who lives right outside the exclusion zone around the SpaceX Boca Chica, Texas production and test sites and launch pads. Mary makes lots of SpaceX videos. She stayed instead of moving away because she wanted to see it all despite the noise, danger, possible people intruding to get a good view, etc. 

This video has several recordings of the flight. My link should start it right at Mary's view, which I thought looked nice. 

SN8 has 3 Raptor engines, which are different from the engines in the Falcon 9, which uses engines called Merlins. The completed Starship will have a lot more Raptors; I don't recall exactly how many. 

This part of the whole Starship system is called Starship, but this is the second stage. This second stage is a bit taller than the old Space Shuttle standing vertical attached to its main booster with two solid rocket engines attached. The first stage of the two part Starship system is called Super Heavy. When Starship is on top of Super Heavy, they will be a bit taller than the Saturn V Apollo and Skylab launch systems.  

One engine cuts off fairly early. That was planned, i.e., not a flaw. A second engine cuts off shortly before the highest point, also planned. 

When it turns to horizontal, that is also planned. Starship missions to the moon or Mars will be reentering Earth's atmosphere at extremely high velocities. The turning sideways slows the rocket down without using fuel, and not using fuel is extremely important. This makes the rocket serve as its own parachute, so to speak. The turning and falling down sideways is called the belly flop maneuver. 

There was a problem with the pressure in the fuel tank just before landing, I think it was, which caused an engine to not put out enough thrust for a safe landing. There was a lot of fuel left in the tanks, thus accounting for the huge explosion. 

You will see headlines talking about the crash and explosion like this was a failure. This was not at all a failure. This was a tremendous success for both humankind and Elon and all the SpaceX team. We're the only known life, just a tiny speck, in a vast but possibly unliving universe. Our job is to spread life through all the galaxies.

Paul Simon's great, but they can't all be winners.

Some things serve us by being bad examples. That video is one of them.

I just watched it for the first time I can recall, hoping and expecting you were being overly negative. I was wrong.

This remake is bad too. https://t.co/LGULpkVF1M

— Chuck Baggett - @ChuckBaggett Charles Baggett (@ChuckSciTech) July 27, 2020

Paul Simon Delightfully bad video.

Grieg – In the Hall of the Mountain King

Gimmicky but I liked it.

Twitter Suspension Appeal ChuckBaggett one more time

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can word an appeal better, or any other steps I can take to more effectively attempt to get my @ChuckBaggett Twitter account unsuspended?

Below is my latest Twitter account suspension appeal for my @ChuckBaggett account.

Your email said my @ChuckBaggett account was suspended due to:

Violating our rules against posting violent threats. You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people.

Below is the one purportedly offending tweet out of my over 250,000 total tweet. It starts with @libertarianism because my tweet was a reply to a tweet from @libertarianism.

@libertarianism Libertarians are better known for defending the right to own and carry weapons, with some advocating privately owned nuclear weapons. Many libertarians love that Gadsden flag with the snake that means, if you bother me too badly, I'll kill you.

This tweet does not contain a violent threat against any person or group. 

This part, "Libertarians are better known for defending the right to own and carry weapons, " is what I consider to be a fact. It's certainly not a threat of any sort or a wish for harm to befall any person or group. 

This part, "with some advocating privately owned nuclear weapons," is a fact. Some people who identify as libertarian do say they accept the private ownership of nuclear weapons." Me saying that other people hold that view is not a threat or a wish for harm to befall anyone. 

This part, "Many libertarians love that Gadsden flag with the snake that means, "If you bother me too  badly, I'll kill you," is not a threat to any person or group, nor a wish for harm to befall any person or group. 

This is my curse, the Gadsden flag.

The Gadsden flag is a flag that was popular in the American Revolution, and is still popular today, and especially popular among people who support the right to bear arms, which includes libertarians and millions of billions of other people. The Gadsden flag as I'm referring to it has a rattlesnake on it with the words "Don't  Tread On Me." 

People who like the Gadsden flag don't see it as threatening; they see it as the opposite, because to them the rattlesnake is a creature that is very reluctant to strike humans. Rattlesnakes may hide from humans, and they warn those who come too close by rattling their rattles, which allows people to protect their safety by taking a detour away from the rattlesnake.

I don't like the Gadsden flag because to me it seems like a threat. I feel like the Gadsden flag can be be seen as threatening, as if the rattlesnake in the Gadsden flag, if it could talk, is saying "If you come too close, I'll kill you." 

I was not threatening to kill anyone by expressing my negative opinion of the Gadsden flag, nor was I wishing harm to any person or group. 

If @libertarianism, the account I was replying too, interpreted my tweet wrong, I'm sorry they interpreted my tweet wrong, but my account should not have been suspended due to their misinterpretation of my tweet. 

If there are any other tweets you think are threats of harm to any person or group, or a wish of harm to a person or group, please let me know about those tweets, so I can explain to you why they are not threats to or wishes for harm to any person or group and are thus not in violation of Twitter rules. 

I am very sorry I used the phrase "I'll kill you" and will attempt to write more clearly in the future. 

===================================

I don't like the Gadsden flag as a symbol for libertarianism,
 but many libertarians do. To me it's threatening looking.
I don't like it because it's threatening looking.
I can picture the snake, if it could talk, as saying something like,
"If you step on me, I'll kill you." The phrase "I'll kill you" in
the preceding sentence, and its appearance in
this sentence, are not threats by me to kill anyone or any group,
not wishes for harm to any person or group. 

Twitter has rejected my account suspension appeal again. I've appealed yet again.

I know it might seem like I'm beating my head against a brick wall repeatedly appealing suspension of my @ChuckBaggett account, but I've read claims that accounts have be reopened after a much longer period of suspension than mine, and after filing repeated appeals, so I'm acting on the chance that that's true. I don't know if I an make my chances any worse than they seem now.

Twitter has rejected my appeal of the suspension of my @ChuckBaggett account once again. It's been suspended since July 8th. I've appealed again. Here's the text of my latest appeal. It's run together blocks because Twitter provides only the most primitive tools for writing appeals in, as if it is 1995 instead of 2019.

You are misinterpreting a completely harmless tweet as a threat or promotion of violence and have senselessly and unjustly suspended my account.  Your email about the suspension showed one tweet that you claimed was a threat or promoting violences, but it wasn't, and since it wasn't, you should not have suspended my account, and you should now correct this error by unsuspending my account. Here's a link to a blog post I wrote on why your judgment about what my tweet meant and why you should restore my account. Reply to Twitter re @ ChuckBaggett account suspension  Please ask @Delbius to look into this. I have used Twitter for over a decade for several purposes; one of those purposes has been to campaign for peace, non-violence, and a respect for human rights. I'll be glad  to delete any content you indicate as being threatening or a promotion of violence. 

I linked to a website written by someone else expressing their views, not mine. Surely we are allowed to link to websites as part of a discussion?  I tried to convey how the popular Gadsden flag symbol turns me off because it makes me feel like people using the symbol like it because it is threatening, because the rattlesnake is a symbol of the threat of being bitten by a rattlesnake.  This was not a threat to attack anyone. The phrase "I will kill you" in that tweet what I feel the people who like the Gadsden flag are trying to say by wearing it. I am not one of them. My account has ten years of my writing and is the only real connection I have with the world and it's cruel and hurtful to deprive me access to it because your system has made an error in interpreting my completely harmless and non-threatening words. 

Reply to Twitter re @ ChuckBaggett account suspension

​​It might be a waste of time to reply to this email from Twitter re my appeal of the suspension of my @ChuckBaggett account, but I did anyway. I get a bit emotional about losing access to my account for such a bogus, incorrect and unfair reason. 

I have access to this email address. The tweet shown as a threat or promoting violence was not a threat and was not promoting terrorism. I was stating my view that libertarians aren't seen as the noble defenders of peace, that some of them have extreme views on private weapon ownership and that some of them love imagery that seems threatening to me.
I have never threatened anyone on Twitter and have never and will never support violence or terrorism. Your system judgment of that tweet was in error. I'd be glad to delete any tweets you say are threats or promote violence but you've disabled my ability to use the account. 
The tweet shown as being in violation of twitter rules was  a reply to @libertarianism. I wasn't having an argument with @libertarianism and have never had any hostile discussions with them and have never had an ill will toward them. 
I've supported international peace, demilitarization, nuclear disarmament, an end to conflicts and wars in Yemen, Syria, and any and every other place plagued by violent conflict consistently for as long as I had my account. It would be hard for an account to be more of a supporter of peace and nonviolence than mine. 
You let me use other accounts. I'm the same person regardless of what account I use. I'm not being threatening or supporting violence or terrorism in the other accounts I use. I wasn't being threatening or supporting violence or terrorism in my @ChuckBaggett account. 
Please restore my @ChuckBaggett account. 

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:04 PM Twitter Support wrote:

Hello,

We received your appeal regarding your account. Please reply to this message and confirm that you have access to this email address. Once we receive your confirmation, we’ll review the information you provided and will respond as soon as possible.

We typically suspend accounts for violations of the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules) or Terms of Service (https://twitter.com/tos). Additionally, repeat violations may result in permanent account suspension.

Thanks,

Twitter Support

Help | PrivacyTwitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103

My latest appeal to have my @ChuckBaggett Twitter account unsuspended

My Twitter account @ChuckBaggett, twitter.com/chuckbaggett, was closed on July 8, 2019, for what I think was an automated system misinterpreting my words in a way that an insightful human should recognize was not a violation of Twitter rules, as it was a use of a phrase that could be seen as violating Twitter rules but in context was not, which is a situation explicitly recognized as being possible in the Twitter rules at What is not a violation of this policy?.

We recognize that some people use violent language as part of hyperbolic speech or between friends, so  we also allow some forms of violent speech where it’s clear that there is no abusive or violent intent, e.g., “I’ll kill you for sending me that plot spoiler!”. 

 The email suspension notice I got on July 8, 2019, was as follows:

Violating our rules against posting violent threats.

You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people.

Chuck Baggett: There is only struggle. @ChuckBaggett @libertarianism Libertarians are better known for defending the right to own and carry weapons, with some advocating privately owned nuclear weapons. Many libertarians love that Gadsden flag with the snake that means, if you bother me too badly, I'll kill you.

What I trying to say there was that while libertarians may think of themselves as being champions of peace, of non-aggression, I think they are actually seen as champions of the right to use force, as evidenced by their support of the 2nd Amendment, right to bear arms, with some even going to the extreme of defending the right of individuals to privately own nuclear weapons, and I included a link to article espousing this viewpoint; and that the Gadsden flag, a symbol from the American revolution with a rattlesnake and the motto "Don't Tread On Me," is seen by some libertarians as meaning something like, "I'm extremely reluctant to use force, so if you don't directly threaten me, I will leave you to go about your business as you choose," but which to me conveys something more like "Cross me and I'll kill you." 

 I am posting this here in hopes that maybe someone at Twitter or someone who knows someone at Twitter will see this post and be kind enough to help me get my account unsuspended. Maybe @TwitterSafety or the head of Twitter Trust and Safety, Del Harvey, will see this and take mercy on me. 

My latest appeal to Twitter was as follows:

Your determination that my account posted content that was threatening and/or promoting violence was in error. My account did not post content that was threatening and or in error, and should not have been suspended, and should be restored.
I think the problem may be that I posted a reply with the phrase "I'll kill you" and your automatic moderation system detected that and responded inappropriately.
I was using the phrase to show how I interpret a symbol commonly used by libertarians. It was not a threat. It was similar to the not violating uses described in your help files at https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/violent-threats-glorification quoted below:
"What is not a violation of this policy?"
We recognize that some people use violent language as part of hyperbolic speech or between friends, so  we also allow some forms of violent speech where it’s clear that there is no abusive or violent intent, e.g., “I’ll kill you for sending me that plot spoiler!”. "
I was not being threatening nor promoting or glorifying violence or terrorism.
I have been a consistent campaigner for peace, non-violence, and non-aggression for over 45 years. It is immensely sad and senseless to have my Twitter account I loved using closed in such an incorrect misinterpretation of my words.
Please call me at 601 362-6145 to discuss this matter. I think talking about this would be more useful than using these forms.
Please restore my account. Thank you.

.