Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Is someone looking for a job? (Score 2) 78

by pushing-robot (#48901597) Attached to: SpaceX, US Air Force Settle Spy Sat Dispute

The Falcon 9 (1.0 and 1.1 combined) has had one partial failure and 12 successful launches, the Antares one complete failure out of five launches, the Delta II one failure (and one partial failure) out of 152, the Delta IV Medium 20 successful launches with no failures, the IV heavy 7 successes and 1 partial failure on a test flight, the Atlas V 51 successes and 1 partial failure. Yes, the Delta III was horrible, but it was only launched three times back in the 90s and abandoned.

The DoD launch you're talking about happened in 2007. No other US company could get a satellite in GSO at the time. SpaceX had only launched two Falcon 1s for DARPA at that point, both too small, and both failures. Orbital at least had their Pegasus... with ~1/10th the required payload and a poor success rate.

I'm not a ULA apologist, they were simply the only game in town for US satellite launches, and charged accordingly. SpaceX's recent successes have put them on track to become serious competition, and that's great. But you'd be crazy to trust a new space company with high-value payloads until they have a few successful launches under their belt.

Comment: Re:Is someone looking for a job? (Score 1) 78

by pushing-robot (#48901279) Attached to: SpaceX, US Air Force Settle Spy Sat Dispute

There are only three US companies with LEO capabilities: ULA (Boeing/Lockheed), SpaceX, and Orbital.

Of those three, Orbital's Antares is currently grounded after its spontaneous disassembly a few months ago, and our darling SpaceX's Falcon 9 1.1 has only been in use since 2013. ULA's Delta and Atlas have longer and better track records and much higher payload capacity than the Antares or Falcon 9.

On top of that, SpaceX and Orbital have never handled classified payloads before, so that's training and time and effort on the part of the USAF.

While I wouldn't be surprised if there's some palm-greasing going on behind the scenes between USAF and ULA, I also can't blame them for not trusting startups with billion dollar spy satellites.

Comment: Re:This reminds me... (Score 5, Informative) 145

by pushing-robot (#48894893) Attached to: NVIDIA Responds To GTX 970 Memory Bug

You're describing 'TurboCache' (a marketing name if ever there was one).

It wasn't a secret, it was only on very low end cards, and ATI was already doing the same with 'HyperMemory'. Intel, for their part, was exclusively using system RAM at the time (and largely still is).

So what graphics *have* you been buying for the last decade?

Comment: Re:Remember when you guys applauded Holder... (Score 1) 382

by pushing-robot (#48857017) Attached to: FBI Seeks To Legally Hack You If You're Connected To TOR Or a VPN

Technically this is the FBI, so you should be pissed off at Comey, not Holder. Comey is officially Holder's subordinate at the DoJ, though I'm not sure how much the FBI chief really answers for.

And you won't have to wait so long for Holder's departure; he announced his resignation months ago and Obama already tapped his replacement.

Comment: Re:Wait a minute (Score 5, Insightful) 248

by pushing-robot (#48832691) Attached to: SpaceX Landing Attempt Video Released

Less complexity, less weight (and gets lighter as you use it). No pumps, no power source for pumps, no return lines, just a pressurized tank and a few valves.

Of course, you have to know how much you'll need before the flight, and the longer you'll need it the lesser the savings over a traditional system.

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 2) 629

by pushing-robot (#48795093) Attached to: Google Throws Microsoft Under Bus, Then Won't Patch Android Flaw

I know a few people like you, who always buy the lowest-end junk because "they'll have to upgrade it soon anyway". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; they constantly curse their lousy crap and spend more throwing it away and replacing it every 18 months than I spend on decent gear that lasts 6-8 years.

But you should never buy first generation bleeding edge stuff either. The iPad 1G sucked, because mobile phone parts were very poor five years ago. It wasn't 'planned obsolescence', Apple didn't go out of their way to put inferior parts into it, they put in what existed at the time. Now that tablets are a 'thing' and chip designers are seriously targeting them, much better stuff exists-- the current iPad has 8 times the RAM and 10-20x the CPU performance of your model. Software designers would have to cripple their apps/sites to support both the latest hardware and yours, and you're not a big enough market for them to care.

On the other hand, if you'd just waited a bit and got the iPad 2, it would still be supported. Hell, it would still be *sold*, four years after its first release, in the form of the iPad Mini.

A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.