308 posts • joined 16 Sep 2011
Christmas has come early! Hallelujah and so on and so forth...
Most serious Republican candidates stayed away from the last election because unseating a sitting President is hard and, historically, doesn't happen that often. They held off until this time when you can expect fewer Klown Kandidates like Cain, Bachmann, Santorum & Gingrich.
But gosh-darn it! I'm tremendously entertained by Klown Kandidates!
So we are going to have Klown Kandidate Number 1? Three cheers, hooray & have a banana. Heck, it's the Internet, have two!
But while I'm wishing, could someone, somewhere, please (oh please, please, please!) get Cain, Bachmann et al to throw their hats in the ring again?
And even, and yes, I know this is a biggie, can someone urge The Alaskan One to run?
Oh, please think of the children!
The video was made for the American populace... so yes, it was made for children! That way it would fit the American populations expectations.
Remember, whenever you see the Enterprise in space, there's always that background hum. If they want to suggest that the Enterprise is struggling a bit, they mess with the hum a bit.
Of course, they could have played the Blue Danube...
Re: Space Elevator?
How will it avoid getting hit by orbiting space junk? Long story short, it won't. So there'll have to be enough redundancy/toughness in the building material to survive that. That said, there won't be that much junk on an orbit that intersects with the elevator.
A lot in total, yes but not that much in the fairly small volume, as compared to all of Earth's orbital volume, will be prone to bumping into the elevator.
One thing they've discussed for space junk is lasers. Not big blast-em lasers to vapourise them but just to heat them up and so 'nudge' them into raising/lowering their apogee/perigee so as to shorten their orbital life. If you can do that, then surely you can use lasers (small ones, remember) to prod the junk into (or away from) certain orbits so as to diminish the frequency of likely meetings.
Just wait, soon a newsreader will be calling them 'orbital oopsies'....
Re: Less If's please, we're... Done this before?
Those were water landings? I thought they were drone strikes (and before there were drones no less!) against evil, terrorist fish! It certainly explains why we haven't heard of... Salmon Bin Leapin...
Hey, the icon says 'joke', it doesn't say good joke...
Less If's please, we're... Done this before?
...if, and it's a big if...
Gadzooks, sir! Seeing as how SpaceX has Landed a rocket from space before (on water, true, but still, landed), I'd say it's a much smaller 'if' than, say, in 2010.
Surely they're at least at the 'probably going to work' stage now.
Damn you, Eddy!
You owe me a new keyboard, you bar-steward! Literally, I had a mouthful of coffee when I read that.
An upvote, sir!
And you could probably note that the screwing only happens after the third... bounce.
Anyone read Terry Pratchett's Strata?
"The crow hung on to the oxygen handle like grim death, and thought about survival."
A two-hour bounce brings it home just how incredibly weak the gravity is on a ten-billion ton comet. Let's hope it's now safely screwed down (let me be the first to say it, ooh err!) or else it'll be taking another trip once it gets closer to the sun and the outgassing starts
Could someone insert a clip from Bruce Willis' Armageddon please?
1 body landed on, several billion more to go...
That's one small step for Wall-E, one giant leap for Wall-E-kind...
Another (moderate) success for Musk...
Well, just goes to show, you can invite others to copy your battery designs and still make a profit...
Re: Saw this on Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle's novel, Footfall
In the novel, the humans manage to take out a laser not long after a Fifthp ship launches, causing it to lose thrust & so crash.
While hostile military action isn't likely, the chance of a power-outage or BSOD shutting the laser down and so causing a loss-of-vehicle is something to worry about...
Saw this on Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle's novel, Footfall
So... big tank full of fuel & oxidant and someone's going to point a big laser at it...? Well, the video will be fun, at least. I like explosions. (/humour-off)
Seriously though, high-powered lasers are still off in the distance, the power requirements are huge and there's a lot of work to do before you can effectively shoot a laser up a rocket's bum while it's moving without going off-target and causing an oopsie.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that by the time they get all the bits together to make this work, we'll have low-cost rockets and spaceplanes plus enough orbital infrastructure to make this method unneeded.
Now lasers and solar sails in deep space ala Robert Forward's Flight of the Dragonfly, now that's something I'd like to see...
While I have been snarky about VG in the past, I'm pretty sad that this has happened. My sympathies to the family of the dead pilot and my hopes for a speedy and full recovery to the surviving pilot. I even hope that Virgin Galactic gets back on their feet
Re: $200 million?
The reason for the much higher cost by the Americans is this, American companies (the ones involved in government spaceflight anyway) operate on a 'cost-plus' contract. They build the rocket, calculate their costs, add on a percentage (let's say 10% although I have no idea what the actual percentage is) and give the government a bill. In theory, the 10% is their allowed profit.
So how can they enlarge that 10% figure? Simple, jack the costs up. Lockheed Martin and SpaceX have roughly the same number of warm bodies on the factory floor. LM however, has tens of thousands of office staff which count as 'costs'. SpaceX has far, far fewer office bods. 10% of a small number is a small number but 10% of a freaking huge number is... a huge number.
Case in point, the Atlas V which costs at least 180 million (it gets a bit more complicated 'cos there are several different versions of the Atlas V but MAVEN launched on an Atlas V 401 for 187 million) to build & launch versus SpaceX's Falcon 9 which is advertised at 60 million. Boeing got a large amount of money for their CST-100 capsule to take people to ISS while SpaceX was able to bid a much larger amount of money for the same service.
I don't know but I'd imagine that Indian companies involved in spaceflight, and their recent Mars orbiter, are more like SpaceX, as many people on the factory floor as they need and only those office bods that are needed and much, much less like Lockheed Martin or Boeing.
Re: Rocket science is never easy
Yep, you're right. Mea Culpa, mea culpa... Sloppy language, hastily written. Consider it amended to 'rocket engineering'
And the icon? Well, when I wrote the post, the moon was in Sagittarius & Jupiter was rising (probably after sleeping in after a wild night) in the lower-third declension... or something...
Re: Flash! Bang! Wallops!
Kinda yes but funny nonetheless...
An upvote, sir, for a moment of levity amidst sadness!
Let me give an English response... Bugger!
While we don't know what the cause of the loss-of-vehicle was, I think we can safely expect a lot of attention to go to the engines, their age and... gasp... the fact that they're from RUSSIA (oh noes!). Expect much Russian-therefore-rubbish nonsense for the next couple of weeks.
And again, more seriously this time, commiserations to Orbital. Rocket science is never easy, there's a million things that can go wrong when you're at the very edge of what the tech can do.
Well done China! It's looking like they're going to bring this mission to a successful conclusion. Expect the US Government/Senate/Congress to get increasingly more worked up as China gets closer to a successful Lunar Sample Return. Expect the space race to start up again...
Think Nailgun, not Railgun
Think light railgun for soft targets, with a missile launcher for the heavy stuff.
Tanks, helicopters & putting holes in thick cover are covered by the missiles while people, light vehicles & thin cover get shredded by the Nailgun. In fact, with a millimeter-band radar, or a datalink tying into one, you've got a point-defence gun for handheld, infantry-fired anti-vehicle missiles.
Although as I recall, with this type of weapon, it's heat dissipation that's the real problem...
Well if we've got to go faster...
As others have commented I agree that nuclear thermal rockets are the solution here. They'll get you to Mars faster than the six-month journey offered by chemical rockets. Sadly, I doubt we'll see a NERVA-type rocket in operation anytime within the next 20 years or so.
The public will hear, "...blah blah technobabble something complicated NUCLEAR STUFF IN SPACE blah blah..." and are highly likely to freak out leading politicians to block the use of nuclear thermal rockets despite the fact that THEY OFFER TWICE THE PERFORMANCE OF CHEMICAL ROCKETS.
On the other hand, has anyone considered a solar thermal rocket? Much greater performance than chemical rockets, no scary bugaboos, and in the Inner system at least, quite a practical method of getting around.
Of course it'd take 10 to 20 years of research to get the kinks out but hey, we're not going to Mars in that much less than that.
Re: X-37's mess things up...
I agree entirely. As I said in my earlier post, there's nothing (bar one thing which I'll get to in a moment) that the X-37 can do that can't be done more efficiently & cheaply by other means. A rescue mission isn't impossible but it presupposes the idea of a fully-fueled Atlas V sitting on the launch pad with an X-37 ready to go. Possible but not practical.
The wings and cargo bay, plus plentiful delta-v, suggest one mission profile to me. I'm not an aerospace engineer and the profile is a bit James Bondish but it would work.
Imagine a launch from the American west coast that matched orbit with a target satellite. The X-37 pulls it into its cargo bay and then deorbits at the end of its first orbit. A snatch, grabbit & run (sounds like a law firm) mission which would be done and finished so fast that the satellites owners/operators wouldn't have time to react. 90 minutes after launch, the American west coast will have moved about fifteen degrees to the east so the X-37's wings, and the cross-range capability offered by them, would come into play, allowing it to enter the atmosphere, slow down some, turn towards the coast and glide at high speed and from a high altitude back its point of origin.
As I said, it's a terribly James Bondish mission profile and, from a political point of view, just not tenable. The world would be watching so there'd be no secrecy or deniability at all.
Re: x-37's mess things up...
Do feel free to explain what an X-37 is used for then. Is it for a purpose I didn't cover in my post? Is my reasoning incorrect? Please, enlighten us with your wisdom.
And why not put your own name on it too?
x-37's mess things up...
Right, first things first. Kudos to the USAF for a successful mission & getting their bird back. Space flight is hard & isn't something anyone should take for granted.
Second, why? What is the purpose of the X-37? Research into spaceplanes, SSTO, materials development, new-and-improved avionics or sensors? If the U.S. military is doing this then ALL results get classified out the wazoo, never to see the light of day & American companies are strongly discouraged from making or researching civilian space-access or usage technology for fear of finding out, or being told, once they're a few hundred million dollars in, that they're impinging on classified technology.
My opinion if the above is true? STOP the X-37, it's blocking cheap safe civilian access to space, or one route to it anyway.
Third, is the X-37 testing weapons? Weaponizing space is a really bad idea. Once the U.S. starts doing it, Russia & China won't be that far behind. More & more guns, more & more automated because the speeds, distances & human reaction times lead that way. Battle of Camlan, anyone?
My opinion if the above is true? STOP the X-37. It's really taking us down a bad road.
Fourth, is the X-37 spying on or observing... stuff? If it is then surely it'd be simpler & cheaper to just launch the optics/sensor package, or a few dozen of them (no way will a couple of dozen of those things break the bank for the NRO. Remember, those guys built a near-Hubble just because they MIGHT have needed it) into orbit, possibly with an enlarged fuel tank if they really need a lot of delta-V, and send up a dozen more each year.
My opinion if the above is true? STOP the X-37, it's a horrible waste of money.
Fifth, is the X-37 intended to (or be the precursor/prototype to something that can) dock with, or disable, or download from, other people's satellites? It seems a bit unlikely to me, but if it is then no politician will EVER authorize the mission. It's not the 50's anymore, the world, the whole world, is watching. You can't steal/pinch/purloin/nick a satellite & bring it home & not have the world yelling about it before it's even touched the runway.
My opinion if the above is true? STOP the X-37. It's a horrible waste of money & will only encourage other countries to build self-destruct devices into their satellites. We really don't need to add to the space debris problem.
So really? STOP THE X-37!
Re: I Want To Believe
I too want to believe but...
As the man said, "An extraordinary claim without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
What? No KITT?
Listen, if I can't paint it black and have it drive me to the shops, then I for one won't be buying it!
More seriously, while autonomous driving is cool, the legislatosaurus will probably spend ten or more years wibbling about making it legal. As usual, the science is way, way, way ahead of the politics.
Could we set a donations group to get politicians moving faster? Money always seems to get politicians moving faster... for some completely unknown reason of course.
Re: Well this is fun but...
Well actually, Skylon doesn't liquefy the air in microseconds, it just cools it by several hundred degrees in microseconds. It's still gaseous, albeit cold and gaseous, when it mixes with the hydrogen fuel.
It is pretty nifty how they manage to cool, but not liquefy, the air by so much without frosting up the pipes and in such a short space of time but that's the special secret sauce that makes the idea feasible.
And yes, it'd be wonderful to get a Skylon article, maybe with some recent quotes from the REL team, outlining the next few years for Skylon...
Hint, hint, El Reg.
Well this is fun but...
A high volume module costing under 18 million dollars? Great.
An indicator showing how things could be in the future? True.
Something you can build LEO hotels out of? Or research labs? Or entirely private space stations? Right with you.
Even something you can make a habitat module out of for astronauts going BEO? Yep.
But all of this STILL requires... low-cost access to space. 7 astronauts/passengers on a 60 million-dollar Dragon v2 equals... 8.5-and-a-bit million dollars PER PERSON.
By all means, lets have high-volume modules, they're the first step to cheaper space stations and interplanetary craft but, most importantly, gotta get the seat price down.
Skylon, taking 20 passengers for only 10 million dollars works out at 500,000 dollars.
The D will be great but we want three OTHER letters...
By all means, Elon, tell us about the D but when, oh when will we get to hear about three other letters.
Come on, Elon, tell us more about MCT!
Re: In a more interesting universe...
In a more interesting universe, the station would host ambassadors from Mimbar, Centauri Prime, Narn and we'd see a big wurlitzer floating around and a guy called Morden who would...
Hang on, wrong station.
Probably too little, too late from ULA...
A new engine for a (probably) updated, (probably) cheaper-to-build Atlas derivative - the Atlas V Mk II or Atlas 6 (and will there be an Atlas 6 Plus)?
Five years before the engines are ready, probably a bit longer than that for the Atlas V successor to arrive, but unless it'll have things like deep throttling, long lifespan & reusability, then it'll (probably) be competing against an established 1st-stage-reusable Falcon 9 v1.1 with, lest we forget, 2nd stage reusability (probably) coming down the pipe.
So new rocket with no previous track record competing against an established rocket that's already in a dominant position...
ULA will be the new SpaceX...
Without reusability and at a higher selling price...
Good luck with that.
NOTE: Nobody would be happier than me if ULA could actually compete on things like price, payload & other stuff against SpaceX. I just don't think they'll do it. In my opinion, the new rocket will be another expensive, one-time-usage beast and the market will have moved on by the time it arrives.
Re: What a total rip-off!
Yeah, just re-read the NASA twitter feed. You're right, it was the figure bid, not the figure NASA arbitrarily awarded. I just read the numbers and the red mist descended...
Still, it looks really bad (for Boeing) that SpaceX can do a launch for, at best figure for an Atlas V, 3 times less and will provide a passenger-carrying capsule that can land propulsively on land (there's got to be a better way of saying it instead of 'land on land') for half the price of the CST-100 which, I think, will only do parachute landings on water - I'm sure about the parachute bit but I'm assuming the land on water bit.
Anyway, if all goes well, then I firmly expect Boeing to end up with one launch a year (gotta have competition, don'tcha know? Even if that competition is much less capable and much more expensive) while SpaceX, as speculated in the article, takes 99% of the astronauts up to ISS.
What a total rip-off!
Ok, Boeing gets... 4.2 BILLION dollars for CST-100 and SpaceX gets...
Wait for it, wait for it...
2.6 billion dollars.
The company that's doing the most to make space travel cheaper gets... less than the company that's making REALLY expensive stuff and has NO plans to make stuff cheaper.
Can anyone spot the hidden message?
Earth-passing asteroids are nature's way of asking...
'How's that space program coming along?'
The Future is... finally... here.
Electric cars (and batteries of course), solar energy, reusable rockets and reusable BIG rockets. What we've been waiting for since the early days of Dan Dare, Captain Scarlet and yes, even Judge Dredd.
Finally, bit by bit, the future's getting here. High-capacity batteries with a (hopefully) quick recharge time and a long lifespan sold at low, low prices.
Last person using gasoline and an internal combustion engine's a rotten egg!
It shows how powerful the PornStars Union is...
Let this be a warning! Non-union members participating in filmed nookie...
The PSU is waiting to get you. You'll never see it coming...
A Great Man Has Left The Stage...
RIP Robin, you'll be sadly missed...
Spot the Outer Planets Fuel Station of the Future...
Plentiful water, significant temperature difference & a key location on the edge of the Outer System?
Future colony & fuel depot... Called it!
Is anyone surprised?
So NASA is building a massively expensive rocket and has been told that, due to the massive costs, they are highly likely to fall behind schedule?
I'm shocked, shocked! I tell you.
One Giant Leap... Downward?
Well that's a step toward The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress except...
Growing enough food on the Moon to support a large population is still going to be the factor that limits the number of people that can live on the Moon.
That said, the Moon is a great place to do science, research & engineering studies and one day some manufacturing but I doubt we'll ever see a large autonomous population living there permanently.
This Makes Me Want To Shout (In 72 Point!)
So, the US aren't the secret powers behind the scenes?
Well why don't the Swedes do their initial interview in London? It doesn't smell of CIA involvement, oh deary me, no.
And Assange would get a fair trial in the US too.
Wow, I got through all that without vomiting! Yay Me
Kudos SpaceX! Well done on getting your bird away and it looks like a successful deployment of the satellites.
As for the landing of the first stage, as long as they had control of the 1st stage all the way down, and the stress on the 1st stage wasn't excessive, who cares if it popped a gasket after it landed and then fell over?
If they had full control on the way down (without undue stress on the stage) then I think SpaceX should declare victory and move on to a land landing (Wow, that sounds weird!) with their next launch. August, isn't it?
Quote: '...quickie sex in national monuments, art museums and VIP motorcades...' Unquote
Forgive me for this but the first thought to go through my mind was...
All these places usually offer Wi-Fi so... to discourage illicit nookie on their (very public) premises, might they have their Wi-Fi set up to... switch off the contraceptive implant?
That'll dampen their amour...
Well it's nice to see ESA developing the control systems for an eventual Mars landing system... but I'm curious.
Is the software/control system used in the Curiousity landing proprietry information? Why are different agencies (apparently) rediscovering the wheel? Why not share the software/hardware? Yes, you run the risk of the Russians/Chinese/Evildoers Inc getting their hands on it but why worry? Without a fairly big rocket to get your package to Mars, it's not exactly critical information is it?
Now we need to do the same thing again, this time with rockets...
Right, let's do this. The various Senators & Congressmen on the space-related committees want...
to keep highly-trained people in their districts employed, happy, and voting for them.
money to keep flowing to their States/Congressional Districts.
And that's it. Forget a 'grand vision for the future of the American Space Program', forget actually doing anything useful or building anything useful so the US gets this boondoggle.
A very, very expensive rocket, paid for out of NASA's budget and so severely cutting the actual science that NASA could do, which will fly infrequently - once per year is the current plan - with no program that it can serve, no purpose that it can efficiently fulfill.
While the private sector (yes, SpaceX, who didn't see that coming?) is due to introduce a rocket that will carry roughly 75% of SLS's initial payload for less than 150 million dollars, just over 10 times cheaper than the 1.6 BILLION dollars a pop SLS.
And the new President in 2016 (or more likely his/her staff) will look at the costs (high), the flight rate (infrequent) and the benefits (few) and will probably cancel the whole thing. But those jobs building something not-very-useful-and-horribly-expensive have to be saved so...
Design something else, start to build something else, cancel it later. All money down the toilet but hey, the politicians will still have their jobs so that's a good thing, right?
Er, El Reg?
The test was succesful, yes, demonstrating the desired deceleration, but after the test, the LDSD was supposed to deploy a parachute so that the LDSD could be recovered but the chute got tangled and the LDSD landed a bit faster than intended.
All that said, it's a very good sign. If we're going to put big stuff down on Mars, we'll need LDSD technology.
Anyone want to start a bet (or poll)? Will we see an LDSD used on Mars, launched by a FH, an Atlas V, or SLS?
My money's on FH...
Technology needs to catch up to the law...
If the State is going to treat its citizens as criminals (or potential criminals) then people will eventually get around to protecting themselves by...
Installing a 'panic button' on their electronic devices (I'm thinking mostly smartphones). The moment you get nabbed, or have to pass through a checkpoint where your device can be taken, copied & read, you press the button & your phone deletes (after backing up to a secure cloud location) leaving the State with... nothing.
Will this be used by criminals? Yes. Will it be used by vastly larger numbers of citizens who do not want the State to have access to their private data? Yes.
Yes, the State will adapt to this, and the citizens, through technology, will adapt to that and so on...
Me sad now...
So... they've (come close to) nailed down a standard Higgs Boson and will devote more study to it. Great, good for them, Science advances, England endures etc.
Can anyone weigh in on the chances that manipulation of the Higgs Boson in some fashion will allow us to alter or change an objects mass?
After all, if there are no flying cars, as seen on the Mass Effect series of games, in the future then I for one won't go.
I won't, I won't, I won't [Begin Tantrum]
If you build it, they will come...
@ Unlicensed Dremal
Nice point. Elon/SpaceX can't do it all, true... but...
He can do a few FH launches taking a stockpile of food & water, a store of liquid hydrogen, a powerplant (probably nuclear or nuclear-type), a methane production box (turning small amounts of hydrogen, adding large amounts of Carbon Dioxide to get a lot of methane & oxygen) & a methane-fueled rover & probably a habitat module and, of course, an Earth-Return vehicle, all of this ala Mars Direct.
Then he can follow this with a crew (4 people?) in a zero-g habitat/lander. They can live in the already-arrived habitat and stay on Mars for 2 years or so.
Will that be a colony? No.
It will get an awful lot of attention and will start a lot of people working on getting to Mars, dreaming about Mars, hoping to one day go to Mars. The money is likely to follow thereafter.
Quote: The reasons NASA aren't concentrating on this are quite logical. They want to run zero-G experiments, and gauge the effects of zero-G on station inhabitants. Unquote
Bob Zubrin tells a story about way back when high-performance piston-engine (propellers) aircraft were reaching high altitude and the pilots were blacking out due to oxygen deprivation and bad things happened after that. Naturally the brass wanted this to stop - planes are expensive after all and it takes a while to train new pilots - so they turned to medical scientists who wanted to study they effects of oxygen deprivation so while they did get data, planes continued to be lost until the brass lost patience and turned to aviation engineers who just added a bottle of compressed oxygen, masks and a tube to connect the two.
Voila! No more lost planes.
Zubrin goes on to compare this to NASA's current approach to zero-g issues. Some G is better than zero-G so why not make some? Because NASA scientists are busy getting data on zero-G issues. In effect, reducing expensively trained human beings to lab rats so the medical scientists can study bone demineralisation, muscle atrophy etc.
Far better, says Zubrin, to give them some G (Tethers seem to be Zubrin's favourite method) and so significantly reduce the harmful effects. Personally, I'd rather take the engineering approach than the medical approach, especially if I was going to spend a year in space - six months going, six months coming back - plus almost two years (or more) in Mars' .32g environment.
Large rotating space stations? Nice but they'll be a bugger to build, and really, really, ree-ally expensive until we get some kind of mining, refining, smelting & shaping going on in space so stuff doesn't have to be lifted from Earth.
Building a station in Mars orbit and then going down? Check the energy figures, it's cheaper to go to Mars and land and build your industrial infrastructure there and then go up than it is to build in orbit and then go down.
Finally, Bigelow ISN'T making space stations. He has some tech that might, one day, be used to make cheap stations but, as far as I know, he isn't scheduled to put a Bigelow station up any time within the next six years - yes, I've heard about the Bigelow module for ISS, I said Bigelow station.
Oh, and Branson doesn't have a spaceship, he has a sub-orbital plaything that will, if he ever gets it going, give people a few minutes of zero-G.
Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX
Read Bob Zubrin's The Case For Mars. He talks about making methane from a small amount of hydrogen feedstock, brought from Earth initially until a supply (water) is found on Mars, and Carbon Dioxide, from Mars' atmosphere, plus oxygen to fuel any Mars rovers.
Re: Float? More like Sink!
Oh, R&D will never be 'done', I agree, but once they have the big, difficult-to-do stuff (like getting off this planet at a low cost while taking as much mass as possible with you) out of the way, everything else that they're likely to do (like a Mars-orbit-to-surface-&-then-back-to-orbit craft) is much, much simpler.
Given that there'll likely be people living on Mars in the (probably) late 2020's, they, or their backers/supporters back on Earth will likely pay SpaceX to do Mars-related stuff like that.
A publically-owned (read: mostly owned by corporations who WANT a dividend each year) SpaceX is bound to be a more conservative, charge-as-much-as-we-can-for-as-many-launches-as-we-can-do-per-year beast, true but they're not likely to charge so much that they won't fill their roster so they'll STILL be putting a lot of stuff into orbit.
And a new company trying to outdo SpaceX? I wouldn't mind an even-cheaper company arising, and to be honest, I don't think Elon Musk would either. Just look at what he's done with Tesla.
Come to think of it, what are the odds that SpaceX's proprietary technology gets 'outed' in some manner prior to the IPO...
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'
- Yes, UK. Johnny Foreigner has better mobe services than you