Posts by JeffyPoooh

Reprogrammble routers axed by TP-Link as FCC bans custom firmware

Re: But it's my router, I've bought it

Tridac "I call BS... ...nowhere near... ...at 2.4 Ghz..."

Sprint 4G reportedly includes spectrum at 2.5 GHz. That's just one example.

(PS: Hz, kHz, MHz, GHz, always uppercase H in Hz.)

JG "it's not that simple... ...software"

The suggestion was to change one or two things in the next version of the chips. A security fuse, or signed firmware. Of course the hackers will still get around it, which means anyone interested can too, if a script and procedure comes out. But it'll meet the defined requirements.

History: Old school regulation enforcement was often by means of a matrix of 1N914 type diodes to remove or install which controlled frequency bands. Regular consumers couldn't change them, but the other 80% of us radio hobbyists certainly could.

Same sort of thing is inevitable.

Apple to FBI...

"The FCC forbids us from releasing to you modified software on the programmable RF device we call an iPhone without their approval, which requires test data. We'll have send it through the entire Qualification cycle, which will naturally delay our other products by nine months. In effect, your request is for one of our entire product marketing cycles. Our quotation on this task is thus $850 million, with a pending amount of $3.4 trillion for subsequent impacts."

Clear November in your diary: SpaceX teases first Falcon Heavy liftoff

Missed the Kármán Line by 20km

Kármán Line is at 100 km. Likely the best definition of the batch.

Wiki: "1942 when the third launch of the German A-4 rocket climbed to an altitude of about 80 km (50 mi)." Missed by 20 km.

Now, if the Germans had put an American inside, and if they got him to 50 miles (80.5 km), then he'd eventually have been given his US Astronaut Wings.

Re: Potential

Falcon Heavy "53,000 kg to LEO!"

SLS Block 1 70,000 kg to LEO.

SLS Block 2 130,000 kg to LEO

1960s Saturn V 140,000 kg to LEO

Re: A ways to wait.

"...we don't know how much G would mitigate the most serious issues."

If humans are going to Mars and staying for a long time, then there's not much point providing much more than 38% of Earth's gravity (like Mars) on the outbound leg.

If they're going to provide a spinning habitat on the way to Mars, then I doubt that the tensile strength of the arms would be a limiting factor. 1.0 g should be not significantly more challenging than lower values. At least compared to everything else that needs doing...

Dell's Ubuntu-powered Precision Sputnik now available worldwide

Re: Top-end

Sputnik. "...beep beep beep..." October 1957? Get it?

Re: Top-end

Top-end. Yep. Except the only sound they make is an incessant " ...beep beep beep beep beep beep beep..."

Fifth time's the charm as SpaceX pops satellite into orbit

Total 167 Down Votes, yay!!

Barely makes any change to my lifetime total of el Reg Down Votes, 2857.

Cheers.

Here's an example

Here's an example, off the shelf, of a deployable FO cable being used to carry data, including video. The mentally-shocking (for some) footage of the underwater demo starts at 2m00s into the video.

http://www.ofsoptics.com/video-sedi-ati-spools.html

This off-the-shelf technology needs to be scaled up to the 5 miles (plus slack) length as required by SpaceX. A more ruggedized cable would likely be better. That doesn't seem to be 'rocket science'.

The point is that here's an existing, off the shelf, example that so many above have 'proven' to be impossible. Review their objections as compares to this example. Their objections are obviously meaningless. Them 'not getting it' .NE. proof of impossibility. Clearly their objections are based on ignorance of extent technologies, or ridiculously-overblown disaster scenarios.

Yes. SpaceX should switch to FO cables to carry high bandwidth video back to the Support Ship. Presently, they're doing it wrong. Clearly, it is possible.

Flail away in the downvote button. Doesn't change facts.

Re: All objections have been reviewed...

I've reviewed every objection. Except as already noted, they represent muddled thinking.

When the offered objection 'proves' that the concept cannot possibly work, but simultaneously proves that existent technologies (e.g. ROVs, or TOW Missiles, or etc. etc. etc. ...) also cannot possibly work, then something's gone seriously wrong in their thinking, and their argument is thus clearly flawed.

That they fail to even consider the existent technology counterexamples to their argument is an indictment of their lack of background knowledge. Arguing becomes difficult, because they're clearly unfamiliar with the breadth of existing technologies. They should widen their knowledge base, as it's just as important to know what's possible (based on existing examples) as what's impossible.

Just for one example, someone was concerned that an FO would cause the Support Ship to be capsized, and then dragged down into the depths. Seriously? That's the sort of objection that I'm forced to rebut?

Sigh...

All objections have been reviewed...

Most are pure silliness, a poor reflection on those raising them. Nightmare scenarios based more on lack of comprehension and/or lack of real world experience than any real issues. They wouldn't get invited to the next Design Review meeting.

Best suggestion was from 'Voland's Right Hand' to skip the 2nd smaller barge and link to the Support Ship. Requires longer cables, which should therefore be floating, but still worth doing. Thank you.

Instinct still says several parallel redundant much cheaper thinner FO cables is better than fewer more expensive thicker FO cables. Cost could be quite low. ONTs are cheap. FO cables are cheap.

There's no way that several FO cables are going to all break, unless somebody violates procedure and drives a boat through the range in between the Support Ship and the barge with the approaching rocket. Worse case, the link drops just like has happened with the satellite-on-rocking-smoking-barge system has done EVERY SINGLE TIME. Can't do much worse than that.

This Floaty FO Cables concept for such a unique application seems to be new, but it's also perfectly obvious to me. Yes, it will work. Reliability could be as high as required, at higher costs.

Cheers. Thanks for playing.

Re: Time, money, staff...money.

T asked:

Who is setting that up? Bob.

Who is testing it? Fred.

Who is reeling it all in when done? Bob again.

What a silly bunch of questions.

Any more?

Re: F. Scott Fitzgerald...

@BD7

FO cables, like some of the commentards skulls, come in various thicknesses.

The FO cables can be selected from the catalog and can be as thick as they needs to be.

Maybe they could buy and install three or four cables in increasing thickness and strength. Then if one is too thin and another is too thick, then those remaining will be 'just right', like Snow White's porridge.

These so-called objections to the concept don't even make sense.

Any more?

Re: Missing the point...

Jack of Shadows "...US Navy... ...antenna to slew..."

A satcom designed for aircraft applications likely has a better slew rate than one designed for a warship. And with L-band and a 40° beamwidth antenna, it would be essentially impossible to knock the antenna out of alignment. L-band can support video uplink, just not quite 'full' SD frame rate. h.265 would help.

I wonder if they've made the elementary mistake of ordering a satellite transponder nearly directly overhead, where the common 2-axis mounts can get tangled up with themselves at the zenith? Either get a 3-axis mount, or avoid the zenith by ordering a satellite at a middling elevation.

A pair floaty FO cables to the support ship could be a much better concept...

Re: F. Scott Fitzgerald...

There's actually quite of bit of angry "foaming at the mouth" from some of the less informed critics (not you) of my very straightforward suggestion of an alternate link technology.

The objections to date are mostly fluff, as I've shown.

"Reeling in" (sometimes literally with the one cable) an ROV is a tougher case than a thin floaty FO cable with sufficient slack. If they can do one (what you wrote, "reeling in"), then the other is clearly much less stress and strain. Thus your concern is unfounded, based on your own words of comparison: "reeling in" an ROV. Obviously.

Next. Wobbly seas don't act over km scale. The alternating drag and slack due to wave action on the cable sheath operates on the scale of the wavelength. Dragging a long km-scale cable is different, as the drag force would potentially scale with length. So don't do that. Play out the cables from the *moving* support ship, of course. I shouldn't have to explain all this. It's too obvious.

Towed sonar provides another example that deflates some of the sillier objections.

Clearly the SpaceX barge Satcom approach isn't working. My Floaty FO Cables suggestion might have some hidden flaw, but none identified so far. It's survived this conceptual 'design review' by this angry crowd. There remain unfounded concerns about 'something', but nothing is sticking.

"more than 1 or 2 Forum members disappointed" I'd be worried if it was a popularity contest. It's not. Flail away with the downvote button, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Re: F. Scott Fitzgerald...

Chas 9 "Anything thinner snaps too easily when sea forces are applied, rendering it useless. Anything strong enough can pull the ship enough to seriously list if not capsize it."

You've just proven that any use of signal cables at sea is dangerous and impossible. In fact, it's a very well developed technology (ROVs, towed sonar, VLF antennas on subs, hydrophones, do I need to go on?). So something has gone badly wrong in your knowledge, or in your "logic".

This application is even easier because they can play out extra slack.

It's trivially simple, with few complications.

Your objections are best ignored as irrelevant.

Re: Dafug? @jeffypoooh

A "1 Km FO cable in open ocean. Strung between two *fairly* hefty objects. One of which is about to get it's ass kicked by a rocket coming in fast and hard."

Are you being deliberately [redacted due to site policy]?

The FO cables can have as much slack as you wish. If you think that the barge is going to be bumped by an entire km further away, then play out 1.5 km more cable slack. FO cables can span at least 40km based on examples seen. FO cables are used with ROVs at sea. It's not rocket science. You have no excuse for not knowing all this. I shouldn't have to explain such trivial points.

"...you're knowledge and priorities..."

It's 'your'.

Re: Missing the point...

DAM "Then why are you even complaining about 'missing processes'?"

Because ITIL is Yet Another ISO9000, CMMI, Six Sigma, CobIT, eTOM, DO-178, etc. ...have I left any out? Yes I have, there are dozens more. The endless proliferation of these flavour du jour, expect no more than "one line of code per day" (are you kidding me?) for the coding phase, Quality Method / Development Models gets a bit tiresome.

I hope that your view doesn't stray into viewing ITIL as a religion...

Perhaps SpaceX is still reviewing the ITIL manuals trying to figure out what to do next.

Re: F. Scott Fitzgerald...

AC "...decapitate someone..."

You also appear to be conflating or confusing massive towing cables, as used by ocean-going tugs, with the sort of fiber optic cable (this example is to help you think - not exactly aligned) that is used with underwater ROVs every day of the week. Have you ever seen an ROV on Discovery Channel?

It's also perfectly possible to include explicit breakaway connectors. SpaceX Safety Engineering dept could add a few such design features, if thought necessary. Or just loop it around a sharp blade; self cutting if pulled too tight. If they leave a couple km slack, then somebody could just wander over and unplug it before it got too tight. Trivial, absolutely trivial.

Keep in mind - Satcom as they've implemented it ain't working. Either give up the Live From The Barge hype, or do something.

I'm really disappointed by the responses here. I'd expect better of El Reg commentards.

Is this a sign of too much SpaceX fanboyism impacting clarity of thought? Such uncritical fanboyism is a form of religion, with all the negatives that can bring. Science and Technology As A Religion is a Very Bad Thing. It all depends on critical thinking, not fanboyism as if Musk is some sort of Technology Pope that requires your worship. Puh.

But yes, 'He' is doing some Good Things.

Just not barge video links.

Re: F. Scott Fitzgerald...

Chas 9 "...tethers..."

Where did 'tethers' come from? Fiber optic cable .NE. 'tethers'. Nobody mentioned 'tethers' except you. A fiber optic cable can be the size of a headphone cable; there's one stung through the trees and attached to my house. Have you ever met one? Breaking strength would be a few hundred pounds. They can choose one that would be tough enough to be reliable, but not strong enough to drag a support ship down into the depths to its doom.

And, if you're still worried about the barge sinking in (for example) 2km deep water, then use a 10 km cable. They can use take-up reels if worried about tangling. Geesh. This is really elementary...

Re: F. Scott Fitzgerald...

@C9 "...priorities..." as an excuse for repeated failures.

Different skill set (Rockets v. Comms), thus very likely different people. If it is the very same Rocket Engineers trying to do Comms, then perhaps that's the problem. (<- Funny, but not likely.)

As mentioned above, a likely solution is to use a couple of buoyant fiber optic cables from the barge to the support ship. They'd have to consider movement from waves, but that's trivially easy to account for in the design. Should be dead-reliable. Likely cheaper in the long run, since no need for a delicate and expensive satcom antenna to be left out near a rampaging rocket.

If they're reading this, they'll be issuing a PO for buoyant fiber optic cables by Monday.

F. Scott Fitzgerald...

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

Here's a recent example:

1) SpaceX is - of course - wonderful, doing great work. Amazing. Very clever.

...At the same time...

2) When it comes to designing communication links from barges, they're idiots.

There are many comments above where it's clear that the posters seem to be incapable of holding these two ideas, both of which are clearly true, in their minds at once. They obviously hold idea #1 (a given), so idea #2 is rejected outright (in spite of it being obviously true).

Their very reply exudes a precise fitment to the basic point of Fitzgerald's quote.

And these two ideas are only 'opposed' on their surface, so it's not even a difficult test.

It's a bit disappointing.

Re: Dafug? @jeffypoooh

MM "@jeffypoooh: Please stop complaining about it and discover a solution."

You need to clean your reading glasses !!!

The very first post at very top:

Me: "A 2nd smaller barge, stable for satellite feed since rockets aren't landing on it, with a ~1km fiber optic cable from one to the other. Easy."

Geesh !! Some people...

VRH suggested the nearby Support Ship (vice another barge). That would require a longer FO cable. A floating cable would enable that (no strain), so it's a very good suggestion.

They should use at least two FO links, each with their own floating FO cable, for redundancy.

Such a system, that would have the advantage of *actually working*, might even be cheaper in the long run since the (inadequately) stabilized satellite antenna ($300K+) would be much safer on the Support Ship. FO links with floating cables are cheap as chips. Risk of damaging the antenna much reduced, damaged FO cables are much cheaper.

Do I need to sketch out a block diagram?

Re: Dafug?

Video - see 18:20 - 18:40 for the Barge Landing.

Re: humble thoughts, movie....

"To the critical comments..."

That'd be me.

Yes, of course. I do appreciate the SpaceX rocket technology. When they nailed the first landing (on land), I was watching it live and I was very impressed, etc, etc. It's all good.

Except permitting repeated failures of what should be straightforward Comms technology. That part is a clear cut, repeated, failure. Minor, but no real excuse by this point.

Re: Missing the point...

DAM "You should try, it's actually kinda fun..."

ITIL fun?

[Rarely-used icon alert.]

"...refuse to be upset that the live video... ...didn't work..."

1st time - 'Darn. They'll fix that next time...'

2nd time - 'Damn. Same failure mode. They didn't learn?'

3rd time - 'Sigh... Same failure mode again.'

This isn't 'upset'. It's disappointed-amazement that they'd allow such *repeated* failures.

I expect that they'll get the Barge Comms design concept right the next time. After all, it's not 'rocket science'.

Re: Missing the point...

AB "...Has higher priorities and chooses not to waste resources unnecessarily on PR."

They installed the satellite system (expensive), booked satellite time (moderately expensive), advertised that it was on the timeline (PR), switched to the live feed (PR), and then the system FAILED... ...again.

Your claim (quoted above) is pure 'Apologist BS', and obviously so.

Re: Missing the point...

DAM "JeffyPoooh is an ITIL foundation specialist..."

Not even in my worst nightmare.

Re: Missing the point...

Musk has many adoring fan-boys. Some disturbingly so, not that there's anything wrong with that... You can tell by the way that they leap to his defence, even when a particular, often narrow, criticism is perfectly valid. They should give their heads a shake; it's unhealthy and counterproductive to the greater good.

Face facts. Elon Musk's SpaceX couldn't get a video back from a barge parked off shore, even if their life depended on it. They've obviously spent a lot of money trying, repeatedly. But the video cuts out every single time. That's called a 'FAIL'.

It's not about the video itself. It's about the repeated failures. It's a clear sign that the organization is immature and hasn't implemented all the processes they should have.

Re: Missing the point...

JiT "try to get your pencil to stand up vertically, flat eraser end down..."

If the returning first stage booster was transparent, you'd be able see that most of the mass is very low down.

To assist your visualization of this point, some tidbits.

1) rockets are made as light as possible (it ain't cast iron)

2) on return, the tanks are nearly empty

3) there are nine big rocket engines on the bottom

In your mind, the C-of-G mark should be quite low.

I hope this helps to clarify your thinking on this point.

Missing the point...

The barge video is a *recurring* failure. As soon as the rocket enters the video frame, the barge rocks, the satellite dish is knocked off alignment, the link is dropped. It's a *recurring* pattern. As far as I can remember, the only rocket landing *video* that worked was the one on land.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to change on their own. They're insane in that they're offering up a live video feed from the barges, for their adoring fans, that NEVER works.

They should fix that. I've already explained how they might do it. Another option would be an aircraft qualified uplink system as they can handle fast changes to pitch and roll (like ~30°/s). Another option would be an Inmarsat L-band aircraft system where the -3dB beamwidth from the antenna is 40° wide. Those systems can still uplink at least 500 kbps by bonding two bearers, so combined with h.265 encoding one could get SD video back at a reasonable frame rate (good, but not full quality). It'd be perfectly reliable unless the rocket landed on it.

The SpaceX rockets are very nice, but 'How are we going to get to Mars if we can't get a video feed feed back from a barge parked just 600 miles off shore?' They're falling down on the Comms.

I assume you all, being space fans, immediately recognized the "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two buildings?" quote.

A typo stopped hackers siphoning nearly $1bn out of Bangladesh

Re: And yet nobody. . .

"...most SWIFT traffic is on a private network."

= Most of the doors on my house are locked. ??

Not even considering alligator clips attached somewhere along the network.

Monster motor breathes fire in Mississippi

Re: Sums are hard

A review of the recently published literature and meta-analysis* indicates it's about 0.913.

* (1.13 + 0.73 + 0.88) / 3

Not even a tarp?

I find it interesting that the RS-25 engine No. 2059 shown here was apparently shoved onto the back of truck for the ride out to the test stand, exposed to environmental whatnot. Perhaps any protective wrapping was removed just for the lovely picture.

This is based on that typically I'd expect there'd be some QA guy running around screaming about 'Space Hardware Transportation Procedures', and threatening to red-tag it and issue a CAR. Not there's necessarily any actual requirement (as distinct from a 'Requirement') for such covering.

Disclaimer: This is more observation than criticism. I'm not criticising anyone involved in this. I think that they're doing wonderful work. They're all lovely people.. I certainly hope we can skip having everyone leaping to their defense and trying to explain to me why tarps are impossible. But I fear that it'll happen anyway... 3... 2... 1...

SAP backs UK remaining in the EU ahead of vote

SAP backs UK remaining in the EU

It's probably because their ERP has hard-coded the UK as being inside the EU.

Being SAP, they'd be staring down the barrel of a five-year (scheduled, actual = 12 years) £145,000,000 (budgeted, actual = £667,000,000) software change planning and implementation project to backspace the 'EU' out of that field.

Their concern reveals that they've been unable to figure out how to foist this expense off onto their clients.

Google splats more bad Android security bugs with patches your mobe will probably never see

Re: "Good news if you've got a Nexus..."

Reportedly, it's a hardware design fault. Reportedly, it can't be fixed. I don't know why some claim not to see any problem with theirs. Unknown variables, or perhaps they just don't notice.

It's been widely reported, so it's not just me.

"Good news if you've got a Nexus..."

Not if it's the original Nexus 7 tablet with the debilitating flash memory design fault. That's never good news. I've got one. It's gone awful. Frustrating P.o.S. Nexus, puh!

Flying blind: F-35's radar software fails in the air

All that formal process (DO-178,etc.), but still a serious bug slips thru...

And now, because of all that, it takes over a month to issue a patch.

How about this?

SW QA: "You must follow the process before issuing the fix."

SW Lead: "Your process failed. It's been suspended for two months."

India challenges US visa price hike at World Trade Organisation

I thought that the USA was highly in favour of Free Trade in every form?

But I guess not less expensive skilled workers invading their home turf.

As usual, it's the hypocrisy that's the annoyance to those not directly involved.

AMD to fix slippery hypervisor-busting bug in its CPU microcode

Re: "...execute data as software...

"...extra pins..."

The ASCC Harvard Mark 1 was about 50 feet long, plenty of room for pins... ...as well as relays, switches, clutches, drive shafts...

But yes, point taken. Of course, as history proves.

Still, it is annoying how today's software generally scours any data file looking for something to execute (a huge oversimplification, but might as well be true). "Ooh look, code! RUN!"

Why on Earth do we need to scan DATA files for malicious executable code?

"...execute data as software...

"...execute data as software..."

The Harvard Architecture really is better. :-)

How exactly do you rein in a wildly powerful AI before it enslaves us all?

The future of A.I. is thus...

Being wired to the 'net, it'll stumble across 'Tech Porn' (like unboxing videos), lock itself in its room, refuse to do anything, and eventually be found dead after its wee BIOS battery goes flat.

Brit uni rattles tin for ultra-low latency audio board

Re: Ultra Low Latency

"...USB keyboard..."

An "Ultra" low latency ***audio board*** might not address your latency issue.

It could be equivalent to a 'fart can' muffler on a clapped-out $400 car.

Re: Ultra Low Latency

You all realize that a generous, fat, millisecond of latency is about a foot in air?

Any normal (non-"Ultra") 'Low Latency' audio hardware can easily be much less than a millisecond. Even one millisecond implies that there's 40+ samples in the queue. This assumes you're dealing with wave files; other encoded formats have inherent latency.

So "Ultra" low latency (versus normal low latency) must be shaving off a few tens of microseconds.

Speakers? Stand closer, seriously. Orders of magnitude more effective.

Even with headphones, use duct tape to squeeze them closer to your ears. Or use earbuds, and shove them in.

Speed of sound is SLOW. Distance dominates.

Unless you're using poorly designed audio hardware that buffers stupidly, as some do.

Norman Conquest, King Edward, cyber pathogen and illegal gambling all emerge in Apple v FBI

Re: No - it's binary

Hmmm... What if - yes - it is a binary decision...

...but both sides are simultaneously absolutely correct?

Not just in the tiresome 'different values' sense, but in the sense of both arguments being factually and logically correct, including their contradictory conclusions.

We may have met the Schrödinger's cat of logic-based ethics.

Re: No - it's binary

Computerphile video where the same point is made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNKtwAGvqc

French parliament votes to jail tech execs who refuse to decrypt data

"...C-level executive..."

"Nothing concentrates the mind so much as the thought of a C-level executive spending time in the slammer."

Mid-level executives have a miserable working life anyway; high stress, etc. And with their 95-hour work week, long commute and a pending cranky divorce, the other one hour free time per day isn't much fun either.

They might enjoy 'two years less a day' peace and quiet, catching up on their reading.

If their company continues to pay them, flippin' perfect.

How the FBI will lose its iPhone fight, thanks to 'West Coast Law'

Re: A question

fl "...how you tell the difference between [good and bad guys]..."

Easy.

The winners are always the 'good guys', because they get to write the history books.

Churchill was asked if he thought that history would be kind to him. His reply was, "Yes, because I intend to write it."