rImITywR

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, they changed it in the last couple of years. It used to be that you held the power button to power it off. Now you have to hold the power button AND a volume button for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That indeed looks like an M.2

What is so infuriating about that?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

With open source firmware. Preferably QMK + VIA.

[–] [email protected] 101 points 5 months ago (42 children)

“The Year Of Linux on Desktops”. Been hearing this for decades, but it might actually be happening.

Been hearing this for decades.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

You could try this

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What you're talking about is usually referred to as a de-orbit burn. Sure somebody could call it a reentry burn, but not SpaceX. What SpaceX calls a reentry burn is the maneuver when a Falcon 9 booster lights its engines as it first hits the atmosphere to slow down and move the heating away from it's body. Neither the super heavy booster nor the ship make a maneuver like this.

IFT3 did not make a de-orbit burn, and there is not one planned for IFT4 either.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

IFT3 was technically suborbital, but only barely. Like a couple hundred km/h short. Literally a couple of seconds longer second stage burn would have put it into a stable orbit. Or the same velocity just with a lower apogee. They intentionally left the perigee just inside the atmosphere so a deorbit burn was not required. This is also the plan for IFT4, iirc. I think they are talking about the bellyflop/suicide burn. It was not planned on IFT3, but is for IFT4.

Both the booster and the ship have attitude control thrusters that you could see firing during the live stream of IFT3. Early prototypes used nitrogen cold-gas thrusters, but were planned to be upgraded to methane/oxygen hot-gas thrusters at some point. I don't recall if/when they were.

[–] [email protected] 167 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (13 children)

the explosion, which took place at its Boca Chica Starbase facilities

The raptor testing stand at McGregor experienced an anomaly

Well, which is it? I'm going to trust NASASpaceflight over this article and go with it was a McGregor. No where near Starbase. And that means it will likely have no effect on IFT4 as this article says.

edit: Adding to this, the author of this article has no idea what they are talking about.

The Raptor engines that are currently undergoing testing are SpaceX’s Raptor 2 engines

So clearly nothing to do with IFT4, as Ship 29 and Booster 11 are already outfitted with their engines, non of which are Raptor 2s.

On its last flight test, IFT-3, Starship finally reached orbital velocity and it soared around Earth before crashing down into the Indian Ocean. On the next flight, SpaceX aims to perform a reentry burn, allowing Starship to perform a soft landing in the ocean.

IFT3 burned up on reentry, maybe parts of it made it to the ocean, but it was not crashing into the ocean that was the problem. IFT4 does not plan on doing a reentry burn. No one does a reentry burn from orbit. Starship uses a heat shield like every other orbital space craft. They are planning to attempt a landing burn, that is probably what they are talking about.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Warm white LEDs inside of coloured glass bulbs to make LED Christmas lights that don't look like gamer vomit.