Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Get it here (Score 1, Flamebait) 306

Sometimes, a fixed width is more effective than full width.
Sometimes, a fixed width is cleaner than full width.
Sometimes, a fixed width is more graceful than full width.

There are very few hard-and-fast rules in web design. Always designing to full width is not one of them.

Shame you couldn't spell out "In my opinion." Abbreviations = lazy typing = unimpressive.

Comment Re:Apples and Oranges err... Vistas? (Score 1) 858

Although I almost completely agree with you, I have one piece of anecdotal evidence. I own a first generation MacBook Air (thank you, craigslist!), and it chokes pretty hard on YouTube videos.

Granted, I don't use it to browse YouTube... I use it to be a mobile programming terminal that is as pleasing to the eye as it is enjoyable to use. But there you go: years after YouTube was out, the MBA came out and sucked at playing its videos, especially the new "HD" ones. I'm told the second generation of MacBook Airs have fixed this.

Comment Re:Rebuild? (Score 4, Informative) 325

It depends on the project, but space projects - even small payloads aboard larger craft - are invariably built in sets. Unfortunately, you usually can't just launch one of the "spares" because they're not actually spares. They are identical units that are tested near (or beyond) the point of failure to predict lifetime of the one flight unit. These are called qualification units, or "Qual Units." Occasionally, you'll also have one or two ground-based units (ground-support equipment, or GSEs) that mimic the project's function but aren't necessarily built with space in mind... for example, expensive weight-saving milling operations have been omitted or cheaper wiring (PVC) may have replaced expensive space-worthy wiring (Teflon).

Comment Re:What's the contingency for these missions? (Score 1) 325

For space missions, once something is launched, all design is done. That's a very expensive component: the engineers' time to conceive and design. All that remains now for OCO is to determine the cause of failure, design a way to avoid it, and send the already-made drawings off to the shop again.

The marginal cost is materials + machine shop time + assembly time + testing (not insignificant) + launch costs.

Of course, it would have been cheaper to make the two flight units together initially... machining expenses plummet when increasing the quantity of parts in a batch. Truth be told, there are probably a few OCO's hanging out at NASA now, though they've been tested (think big vibration tests) near the point of failure.

Slashdot Top Deals

The bogosity meter just pegged.