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:tantamount to treason. (Score 2) 139

No, I suggested that a current rocket, that is currently in use, uses a very reliable engine (and is currently routinely used to launch our critical defense infrastructure - more often that it's US made competitors right now) and will also be used to launch humans in the next couple of years.

Please address all complaints about the current status to your congressman...

Comment Re:Article pretty light on facts (Score 2) 139

My understanding is that Space-X has not actually re-used any engines on a real flight to this point. They have only fired some of the returned ones on test pads. That means any cracks on a returned engine were from just one flight.

It's good engineering design to have it be able to survive a loss of an engine.

It's bad engineering design to have a known failure mode and not address it - especially if humans are going to be on board - even if the rocket can handle the loss.

Comment Re:This is not a serious issue. This is very minor (Score 4, Informative) 139

Plenty of other engines have been inspected on the ground after running one or more full flight cycles on engine test stands (like every engine ever used), so there is actually data on more engine types than just those two. The damage comes from the part where they run the turbines at ludicrous speed for several minutes, not the fact that they re-enter

Standards when a human is on board are way more stringent than for cargo. They have to meet an overall 1 in 500 probability of failure during ascent, and it sounds like the blades are bad enough that that hurts them on meeting this requirement.

That being said, there are plenty of other parts I'm worried about, like structural failures in fuel tanks (they've had two of those that have actually destroyed rockets).

Comment Re:Does this bill mean.... (Score 2) 477

Trump had nothing to do with them cutting the price of those fighters. Just because he says it does not make it true. If you actually look into it, he's taking credit for the fact that the next batch they build (90 as opposed to the initial 10), will cost less per fighter (about 6 -7 million less) than the last batch. 90x6.7 million =~ 600 million. The discussions on those costs started before he was yeah.....liar.

Comment No he Shouldn't (Score 2, Insightful) 383

Snowden made a choice to go further than he should have. He could have become a whistle-blower, and had the protections provided by that, but instead, he chose to just release these documents out there. He clearly had a knowledge that he was violating the law, or he would not have fled the country when doing it.

Comment Re:Why the Hell didn't Let's Encrypt register it?! (Score 3, Informative) 120

The definition of use in commerce (my emphasis added) - right from the USPTO: For applications filed under the use-in-commerce basis, you must be using the mark in the sale or transport of goods or the rendering of services in “interstate” commerce between more than one state or U.S. territory, or in commerce between the U.S. and another country. For goods, the mark must appear on the goods (e.g., tags or labels), the container for the goods, or displays associated with the goods. For services, the mark must be used in the sale or advertising of the services.

Comment Re:Why the Hell didn't Let's Encrypt register it?! (Score 5, Interesting) 120

Well, for one, they don't have to to be the owner of it. In the US, it's first to use, not first to register. It's pretty clear they have been using it well before this application was submitted - an application that says it's not in use by that company yet. I'd love to hope that the trademark office will just reject it, but they'll probably drag this out.

Comment Combinations of other peoples inventions (Score 2) 134

Is it me, or do these patents just sound like "take these previously invented things and put them together". Combinations of things that already have been invented should not be patent-able. On top of that, I'd live to put a very short statute of limitations on filing claims like these. You have 6 months from the time the item was publicly released on the market. That's it. No waiting about for years so you can claim larger infringement.

Comment Just a Communications Handover (Score 5, Informative) 412

ISS does not have a magic WIFI connection to the ground to stream video 24x7 ISS transmits to the TDRS satellites in Geostationary Orbit which in turn transmit to the ground. It takes three satellites to maintain full voice communication all the way around (East, West, Gap). There are handovers of the communications three times every 90 minutes. Brief video outages are to be expected. NASA can't control when those happen. They just happen when the orbital mechanics say they will.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada