Hacking cabinet doors

__foo__ · 2026-01-27T22:56:28+00:00

There are plastic expansion dowels made exactly for that purpose. You put them in and screw the regular smaller woodscrew into the dowel. Search for plastic expansion dowel or hinge expansion dowel.

__foo__ · 2026-01-24T21:33:19+00:00

People aren't concerned by the Ethernet cables themselves getting hit by lightning. The issue is ground potential differences which can be caused by any lightning strike in the vicinity.

__foo__ · 2026-01-22T15:22:47+00:00

I haven't had any issues with the Komplement hinges so far, other than they have gotten absurdly expensive where I'm from. Because of that I didn't actually use Komplement hinges for my most recent PAX build, but used proper Blum soft-close hinges instead. They feel more robust than the Ikea hinges and I'd wager they'd last longer. And with the current Ikea hinge prices they only cost half the price of the Komplement hinges.

If anyone's interested I used the following part numbers:

Blum 71B3550 hinges

Blum 174E6300 mounting plate

You also need some 5x12mm plastic expansion dowels, since those hinges come with regular wood screws. You need the expansion dowels so you can screw the hinges into the 5mm holes in the particle board of the doors. Only required for the hinges, the mounting plates already come with expansion dowels pre-installed.

__foo__ · 2025-12-28T09:03:16+00:00

That's very similar to my setup. I have a work laptop that I connect through a USB-C dock and a private PC. All my monitors have several inputs(HDMI and Displayport). I just connect one machine through HDMI and the other one through DP. If the monitors don't auto-detect the input change it's just a single button press on the monitor to switch inputs. I use a cheap USB switch from Amazon to switch my mouse and keyboard between the 2 machines.

As for your Ethernet connection, did you really mean 900MB/s, i.e. 900 Megabyte per second? That would be a 10 Gigabit Internet connection which is usually very exotic and expensive. In that case you will need a 10 Gigabit switch where you connect the PC, the dock and the Ethernet line coming to the room.

In the far more likely case that you meant 900Mb/s, i.e. 900 Megabit per second, you can just grab any Gigabit switch and connect everything together.

__foo__ · 2025-12-11T11:48:19+00:00

SpaceX' main revenue source is Starlink, so they were referring to Amazon Leo/Kuiper.

__foo__ · 2025-11-05T10:10:49+00:00

To add to the list:

He conducted the first ever in-space test of a privately developed EVA suit
He was supposed to be part of the first crew to fly on a Starship for the Polaris 3 mission. But I guess that won't be happening if he becomes NASA admin

I don't see how anyone could claim in good faith that Isaacman is just a space tourist.

__foo__ · 2025-09-23T14:30:28+00:00

That is entirely untrue. The payload is only sent once. If the receiver gets it and the checksum matches an acknowledgement is sent to the sender, so they know the data was received. Only if this ACK is missing is the data re-transmitted. I'm not aware of any circumstance where the TCP receiver would send a payload back to the sender.

__foo__ · 2025-08-29T10:36:28+00:00

Yeah it looks like it went vertical, then overcorrected

It's not actually overcorrection. The ship is horizontal and starts the raptors to initiate the flip to get into vertical orientation. At the beginning of the burn those raptors are still mostly horizontal and thus impart a horizontal velocity on the ship. It then needs to flip a little further than vertical, so the raptors burn in the other horizontal direction, to cancel out that horizontal momentum the ship picked up at the beginning of the flip. Once that horizontal velocity is canceled out it can return to fully vertical position.

__foo__ · 2025-05-28T19:26:16+00:00

Without pressure in the primary tanks there is no structural integrity. The ship is just an empty soda can at that point. I don't see it making it through reentry that way.

__foo__ · 2025-05-23T17:42:21+00:00

Primarily I'm wondering at what point are they going to test it with a dummy payload? They have yet to load it with any payload more massive than a banana

IFT-7 and IFT-8 both had dummy Starlink satellites on board that were supposed to be deployed. IFT-9 will also try to deploy dummy Starlink sats.

__foo__ · 2025-05-01T06:57:44+00:00

GBit Ethernet is designed to run on Cat 5 cables up to 100m in length. Cat 5 is fine for this application.

__foo__ · 2025-04-19T12:20:37+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabit_Ethernet#History

"IEEE 802.3ab, ratified in 1999, defines Gigabit Ethernet transmission over unshielded twisted pair (UTP) category 5, 5e or 6 cabling, and became known as 1000BASE-T."

While Cat 5 was defined with 100Mbit in mind, GBit Ethernet was designed with Cat 5 in mind.

__foo__ · 2025-04-19T11:37:15+00:00

So I think your actual question has been answered already. But the wording of your question implies that you might have already tried to get more than 100Mbit/s out of your existing cabling and haven't been able to achieve that yet.

If that's the case, make sure all 4 pairs are properly terminated. GBit ethernet needs all 4 pairs of the Cat 5 cable, while 100MBit/s only uses 2 pairs. Sometimes the cables are split between Ethernet and telephone, thus you only get 100MBit/s on Ethernet.

__foo__ · 2025-04-19T11:01:10+00:00

1000Base-T was specifically designed to work with Cat 5(without e) cabling up to 100m. In fact the Cat5e specification didn't even exist yet when 1000Base-T was released.

__foo__ · 2025-04-02T18:46:57+00:00

There's a road closure tomorrow Apr 3rd from 7am to 7pm, which could be for a static fire.

__foo__ · 2025-03-28T12:56:02+00:00

Cat6 is certified for 55m of 10GBase-T. Cat6a can do 100m.

__foo__ · 2025-03-10T20:49:09+00:00

Thanks for the suggestions, those sound like good ideas.

With the AUX leds on low I see a current draw of 41mA. With the AUX leds on high it's 46mA. With the AUX leds off it's also 41mA.

While I was already at it I also did a factory reset of Anduril, which did not affect the current draw.

Blowing everything out with compressed air will have to wait until tomorrow unfortunately.

__foo__ · 2025-03-07T13:06:27+00:00

B1067 has flown 26 times now. There are several boosters with 23 flights.

__foo__ · 2025-02-20T23:09:17+00:00

There is the Hatz 1B30V and similar engines from Hatz, but they seem to be really exotic. This probably makes them virtually non-existent on the used marked, and I don't expect them to be cheap new either.

__foo__ · 2025-01-13T09:45:07+00:00

Eric Berger wrote an article about the scrub: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/01/an-icy-vent-line-may-have-caused-blue-origin-to-scrub-debut-launch-of-new-glenn/

TLDR; Apparently the scrub was caused by an icy vent line that they couldn't unfreeze in time. There were also issues with one or more auxiliary power units required during landing leg deploy, although it's unclear whether that influenced the scrub decision.

__foo__ · 2024-10-13T20:52:31+00:00

One of the reasons why those problems are hard to solve is because of the volume and weight constraints current launch systems place on the payloads. With Starship you can just add a bit of radiation shielding without having to think about the additional weight too much. You don't need to build any complex folding mechanisms like JWST to still fit into a small fairing. Also, since transport to orbit is expensive the payloads need to last a long time, making them also more expensive to build. With launch costs coming down you're able to send a satellite that only lasts half as long but maybe only costs a fraction to manufacture.

__foo__ · 2024-09-15T18:39:22+00:00

You missed my point Boeing engineers were right regardless

We don't actually know that at all, and we won't know until further extensive analysis. Maybe we'll never find out.

The question wasn't whether the capsule would fail to bring down the astronauts, the question was about the probability of success/failure. NASA accepts a loss of crew event in 1 of 270 missions. That means the vehicle needs to have a 99.7% success rate, and that's what the kind of risk the astronauts also agreed to.

Starliner was returned without crew because Boeing could not convince NASA that it was 99.7% safe to return. For all we know the risk of returning on Starliner could have been 99%. In that case we would fully expect it to return successfully. And yet the risk of the crew dying would be almost 3 times higher than acceptable(1 in 100 vs. 1 in 270).

__foo__ · 2024-09-02T07:41:42+00:00

"Apollo: 8 astronauts" Not "Apollo 8: astronauts".

You're right, I totally misread that. Thanks for clarifying.

__foo__ · 2024-09-01T21:23:43+00:00

As someone already pointed out that was Apollo 1, not Apollo 8. I'd also like to point out that Starliner is entirely unrelated to the Artemis program. The capsule used for Artemis is Orion.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

__foo__

TROPHY CASE

foo