HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edotto@uipsuxb.ps.uiuc.edu (Edward C. Otto III)
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:17:04 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>I don't know about you guys but as far as I am concerned that show lost
>all credability when they said that COBOL was (roughly): "the computer
>language most programmers prefered to use". :-)

Well now...

Sorry - but you quoted out of context - I re-ran my tapes to find that
segment...

The entire quote was 'the language that programmers prefer to use for
business applications'.

That still IS true - or should I drag up that floating point vs. fixed
point question - not to mention the imbedded sorts, the ability to
retrieve any one record based on secondary key, etc., or the report
writer section of the Level II implementation.

The one thing I was dissapointed in that I missed during the first time
I watched the shows was the inaccuracy of the coding examples, and the
elimination of BASIC entirely from any mention in the show. Some of the
ForTran examples were actually BASIC under another name.

--
Edward C. Otto III   	    *  E-mail addresses:  e-otto@uiuc.edu
Printing Services Office    *  Phone:  217/333-9422
54A E. Gregory Drive	    *  "The only thing we have to fear is
Champaign, IL  61820	    *  24 line .signature files..."
From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: A quick question about distances
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:44:06 GMT
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

What units of measure of length are there larger than a parsec?
Thanks in advance,
Terence
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:08:10 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

rhl@d62wdf.mitre.org (Roger H. Lincoln) writes:

> I seem to recall an episode of Nova in 1989 about the first moon
> landing where they told how the on-board computer was overloaded by
> all the incoming data and flatlined seconds before landing so that the
> pilot had to land manually.

These were the "infamous" "1201 & 1202" codes that indicated a 
data overflow. It was also on the LEM computer and they may have 
been refering to the CSM computer in the statement, but even if it 
was teh LEM computer, it still worked "flawlessly" since the 
computer handled the overflow situation, as it was programed to 
do, and the landing continued. What happened was that more data 
was comming in than the system could handle so it just ignored the 
"non-critical" data and went on. The manual takeover was due to 
large rocks in the landing spot, not due to the computer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.space:7383 sci.physics.fusion:976 sci.research:486 sci.energy:2464
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:38:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.q3wXiB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Phil G. Fraering writes:
 
Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
>
>A thought comes to mind: as soon as the "inner solar system" is open
>to us, why are all the propulsion engineers going to lose their
>positions?
 
Because once space becomes economic, the field will become highly 
competitive and they aren't used to operating in such an environment.
 
It is a problem all inventors face and it is a major reason the
Japanese are eating our lunch.  We are good at innovation.  Our
business types are good at ripping off innovation from inventors
and making them committ suicide.  But the Japanese are better at
the game of inventor rip-off than our businessmen.  Hell, at least
the Japanese pay SOME royalties.
 
The technosocialists play on this fear in inventors to get them
to buy into "free" bureaucratic cash which is, in fact, the biggest
inventor rip-off of all.  Ever signed an inventions agreement?
At NASA or DoE you don't even get to sign -- it is automatic.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Xref: sparky sci.space:7363 sci.physics.fusion:968 sci.research:481 sci.energy:2458
From: pgf@usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:00:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: srl06.pgf.702745208
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>For example, everyone receiving money directly or indirectly
>from these projects knows that if they actually do open
>up access to space or actually do solve the fusion problem,
>their personal positions will disappear and they will receive
>no royalties from the technologies they develop at government
>expense.
[...]
>They stretch out each little technical innovation for as long
>as possible extracting as much money as possible from Congress
>while providing minimal returns and engaging in character
>assassination of any "outsiders" who come up with innovations
>that might work quickly and cheaply.

A thought comes to mind: as soon as the "inner solar system" is open
to us, why are all the propulsion engineers going to lose their
positions?

After all, there's the good ol' Alpha Centauri Probe Propulsion
Project that is going to eat up a _lot_ of manpower...

Instead of Space Industrialization wrt Earth, let's have it for
Space Exploration! Let's industrialize space so we can finally
launch some starprobes and answer the Fermi Paradox!

_NOW_ does industrialization sound any better than the Mad
Dash to Mars? Mars is lifeless anyway, but Alpha Centauri has
two stars with lifezones where planets may be found.... and
if that's no dice, there's always Tau Ceti.

An _unmanned_ Orion won't need nearly all those shock absorbers that
a manned mission would :-)

--
Phil Fraering pgf@nasa12.usl.edu 318/365-5418
"How about a dragon that breathes neutrons instead of fire?  Kills the
elves, leaves the buildings intact..." - Nick Szabo
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Reducing launch costs--vehicle production
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 16:00:20 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>Would launching smaller vehicles make standardization and mass-
>production easier to achieve?  Or do they have the same complexity
>as the big rockets, only in smaller packages?

That depends on who you ask.  Some designers have advocated mass-producing
small boosters to bring costs down.  Others, such as Capt. Robert Truax
(the father of the Polaris missile) believe the way to achieve economies
of scale is by building very large, simple rockets instead.


>How important is vehicle recoverability?  It seems it didn't help the 
>Shuttle much.  

It's not recoverability that's important, it's reuseability.  If the
Shuttle could be recovered intact (instead of in pieces) and reused
the next day, it would be *much* cheaper to operate.


>From an idealist standpoint, it seems it'd take too much
>manpower to go get the used vehicle, truck it around, clean it off, 
>check all the systems and replace those needing repair, and then prep it for 
>launch again.  

Funny.  The airlines don't seem to have much of a problem with it.
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:42:21 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: rhl@d62wdf.mitre.org (Roger H. Lincoln)

In article <RHL.92Apr15081746@d62wdf.mitre.org>, rhl@d62wdf (Roger H. Lincoln) writes:
>
>Has anyone seen the PBS series "The Machine That Changed The World"?
>Last night (episode 2 I think) told about the role that the Apollo
>moon project had in miniaturizing the computer.  The told (and showed)
>how the on-board computer was responsible for guiding the lander down
>to the surface of the moon.  The concluded by saying "it performed
>flawlessly". 
>
>I seem to recall an episode of Nova in 1989 about the first moon
>landing where they told how the on-board computer was overloaded by
>all the incoming data and flatlined seconds before landing so that the
>pilot had to land manually.
>
>Which story is correct?  Or is there a new definition of the word
>"flawlessly" that I wasn't previously aware of?

In fact, the stories are somewhat exaggerated.  It's not fair to say that the
on-board computer flatlined, nor to say that the pilot was forced by the
computer to make a manual landing.  The computer was reporting a "program
alarm", which meant it was being given too many tasks to accomplish.  It was
dumping its tasks list and continuing.  It was later figured out that the cause
was a radar being left on and returning data for the computer to process (I
vaguely recall it was left on "accidentally on purpose"--it was decided not to
switch it off without realizing the effect that inaction would have).  Mission
Control had correctly told the astronauts to ignore the program alarms less
than 30 seconds after they started.  The computer did perform as it was
programmed to do, and did do what was necessary to do the landing.  Although
it's certainly possible to land a spacecraft under fully automatic control (US
Surveyors and Soviet Lunas had already done the trick), I believe it was always
planned that the final approach of the LM would be performed manually.  In the
case of Eagle, this was probably a good thing, since it had overshot its
planned landing site and Armstrong had to fly past a boulder field they were
heading for.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com    {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:58:29 GMT

In article <GABRIELE.92Apr8110315@solecism.aero.org> gabriele@aero.org (Mark Gabriele) writes:
>I will provide a simple example.  Say that a hypothetical space-based
>system consists of a thousand units, which have a mean time between
>failure of 100 years.  Then we can expect that some of them will begin
>to fail soon.  More than that.  It could be that some of them choose
>to fail in an unsafe fashion.  The odds of this might be very poor -
>call it 1 in a million per year - but again, you're still gambling,
>and people get (un)lucky all the time.  Careful design cannot prevent
>that.  Unfortunately, if one of these things decides that the shuttle
>is an Enemy Attacker, nobody can do much to stop it from going off and
>killing the thing - it's not like you can walk up and pull out the
>plug.
>
>Contrast this with a Patriot system.  Say our Patriot has a failure
>and decides that Air Force One is the Enemy.  (ok, this might be a
>feature rather than a bug  :)  Our Patriot might mark the target and
>say to its operator:  "I am going to engage this target in 10 seconds
>and there is nothing you can do to stop me".  But there *is*.  The
>operator can, if necessary, drop a grenade on top of it.  It's messy,
>but it works.  
>
	Hmm, maybe.  COnsider this.  Yhe grenade doesn't work, the 
operator is asleep, or the operator is not physically near enough
to the battery.  As I recall with the patriot system, there is
a centrla CI3 station with multiple batteries attached.
	Or consider a AEGIS system where it controls
missiles on DIFFERENT boats.  You might not be able to relay
the message in time.

	Of course, the Pebble could be equipped with a
destruct mechanism.  Now, you may say, "But that could fail"
well, so could your grenade.  Remember, under your scenario
you need multiple failures that help each other.  Ie. the missile
is armed and released, and the targeting system works, etc.

	I don't think it is a major concern in this case.

>The moral is that strategic weapons should *always* be kept under
>physical control.  Proposals to do otherwise are just dangerous.
>
>=Mark
>(gabriele@aero.org)


-- 
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  Strider@acm.rpi.edu
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."  
Carpe Diem                     | 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:26:33 GMT

In article <92099.220351DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>The advocates of complicated systems usually underestimate the problems
>associated with their construction and operation.  SDI is by no means
>unique in this regard.

Ahh.  I see the "those weapons designers have no idea of the complexity of
their task" argument has come up again.  It's been repeated so many times it
must be true.  There were many complicated systems which "can't work" that
actually did work -- and worked well -- in the Gulf, among them being JSTARS,
the Patriot, the Nighthawk, and the Apache.  Complicated tasks often require
complicated systems, but that in no way guarrantees a lack of success.

We had to fight a war to dispell Dan Rather's "There's no such thing as a
surgical strike" myth.  Hopefully, Brilliant Pebbles will not need to be 
similarly tested.

Mike

PS: From the information I have access to, most of the SDI tests have been
largely successful.  Anyone have information on recent advances?

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: PLEASE READ THIS!
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:56:18 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr16.002205.6554@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>	He told me that now that the Soviets are out of money, they can't send
>up a shuttle to bring back their remaining astronauts.

This silly myth seems to come up weekly.  The Mir cosmonauts always have a
Soyuz docked to Mir, ready to take them down at a moment's notice.  One of
the cosmonauts was up longer than intended due to reshuffling of the crew
assignments, but there has never been any problem with bringing them down
in a pinch.
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Alternative methods of propulsion
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:40:41 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr14.135927.6346@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>What research/investigation has been done on sending
>energy to a rocket from ground-based lasers...
>Has anything like this been researched?

There is a small research project on laser propulsion active at LLNL.  It's
practically the only serious work the US is doing on advanced propulsion.

>Wouldn't there be an advantage to the rocket not needing to carry
>any fuel along?

There still needs to be reaction mass, even with an external energy supply.
However, yes, there are substantial advantages.

Here's a summary I posted a while ago:

--------
From henry Mon Nov 26 16:13:12 EST 1990
Article: 25794 of sci.space:
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: WINLAND@ACC.FAU.EDU (Ken Winland)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: SUB SPACE
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:37:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet

SUB SPACE  Kenneth Winland
From: hughes@gary.enet.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: More Titan Sources
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:31:01 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <453@rml.UUCP>, jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes...
>Um, right. [treading on thin ice here]. I guess you missed my original 
>post on this subject. My first job out of college was as flight support 
>for one of these vehicles and I'm just now, 14 years after leaving the 
>program, getting around to building a flying model of it.
> 
Yup, I did not see the original post. The local news server was down for a few
days and apparently dropped some messages..

I was under the impression that the Agena was slightly different for each
mission which is why I suspected that the Agena dimensions would be classified.
I'd be pleasantly surprised to find that they actually managed to standardise
them.

> 
>Thanks for the tips, but a few minutes with "Janes" provided me with 
>all of the basic dimensions.
> 

Which edition of Janes (year, spaceflight vs aircraft?) did you use? If you
extrapolating from their drawings of the Commercial Titan, note that the first
stage is (from memory) slightly longer than the first stage of the 3B (it is of
course spot on for the 34B). 

Somewhere I have a color photo of a 3B launch. I even looked for it over the
weekend, but no luck yet. I've always wanted to build some Titan 3 models,
preferably with some realistic staging.

gary
From: nitin@uvs.edu.sr (Nitin Dixit)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: HELP
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:09:07 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Universiteit van Suriname,via URC dep.; Suriname, South America

HELP
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: iac1@ra.msstate.edu (Ian Chen)
Subject: Help needed for research! :)
Keywords: help
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:42:22 GMT

Hello!

I am currently doing a research project at Mississippi State University
and I am studying the u.s. space program.  If anybody has any information
regarding any funding, programs, future programs, accomplishments, etc.
or sources, please let me know, or if there is someone i can talk/mail
to regarding these things.  My research deals with justifying the
current or increased funding levels (or even a decrease of, or restructuring
of the current programs)...

Please respond to me by e.mail if possible...

-Ian

-- 
 Ian Chen a.k.a. Merlin @ Quartz, IscaBBS, and MUDS      iac1@ra.msstate.edu 
 Co-owner of the Official Fuzzy Blue Blanket (tm)        iac1@msstate.bitnet 
 "It's not that, it's the chemistry..."        Keep the candle burning...     
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: THE FEDERATIONERS HAVEN'T DIED!
Organization: Americans to Draft Fujimori
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:28:28 GMT

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.133734.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>> For those of you who do not know what i am
>> talking about, the group is working on a way to get to space with out the 
>> assitance of nasa. The project is trying to create a drive crystal that if
>                                                       ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> succesful will go beyond using rocket fuel. 

>I think this must be the legendary Hall Effect Thruster...

>CAPTAIN BILL'S CHICAGO TOURS             Bill Higgins
> See the Loop by Submarine!              Fermilab  
>Shopping?  Take our convenient           higgins@fnal.fnal.gov
>Bathyscaphe to Marshall Field's!         higgins@fnal.bitnet


No no no... that only used monolithium, very primitive...
BTW, though, Lady Rhayvn (excuse me if I misspelled the name)
seriously, how does your drive thing work? I have a couple
ideas for drive systems of my own, and I'm generally interested
in other people's. 

BTW, Bill, I love that .sig... maybe after the loop dries up,
you could discover Atlantis.

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl05.cacs.usl.edu 318/365-5418
"I'm a personal visionary. I can see into the future, only way off
to the side." - Stephen Wright
"How about a dragon that breathes neutrons instead of fire?  Kills the
elves, leaves the buildings intact..." - Nick Szabo
From: STENGEL@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Robert F. Stengel)
Reply-To: STENGEL@pucc.Princeton.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: New Astronauts
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 92 12:47:29 EDT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article

15 new astronauts were recently named by NASA.  Who are they, and what are thei
r backgrounds?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:13:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <GABRIELE.92Apr9094352@solecism.aero.org> gabriele@aero.org (Mark Gabriele) writes:

>Henry points out that there are other circumstances, like space
>launchers, that could go haywire and take out a big chunk of a major
>city.  He's right.  But in those cases, we weigh the risks of disaster
>against the possible gains and decide to do it.  In this case, you are
>dealing with a weapon.  The only possible gain is that in the event of
>a missile attack, then, maybe, if it's the right kind of attack, we
>can engage the enemy and (again maybe) hit some percentage of his
>weapons.

So?  And what are the possible gains from an ICBM launch?
Xref: sparky sci.space:7576 news.answers:1079
From: stanleyw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (wong wing sang)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: test
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:00:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

this is a test.
From: brent@cco.caltech.edu (Brent R. Eubanks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: U.S. black programs
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:25:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: cco.1992Apr13.002507.14314
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Please post the rules list.  I am very curious.

thanks

-- 
Brent Eubanks                "The meek shall inherit the Earth --
brent@cco.caltech.edu         The rest of us will go to the stars." -- R.H.
--
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:34:42 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <RHL.92Apr15081746@d62wdf.mitre.org> rhl@d62wdf.mitre.org (Roger H. Lincoln) writes:
>I seem to recall an episode of Nova in 1989 about the first moon
>landing where they told how the on-board computer was overloaded by
>all the incoming data and flatlined seconds before landing so that the
>pilot had to land manually.

Not quite.  Due to a procedural error, the LM computer was having overload
problems on the way down.  It responded properly; the only problem was that
its complaints were an annoying distraction at a busy time.  The actual
landing guidance continued to function properly.  Neil Armstrong did take
over manual control, not because of computer problems but because the
preprogrammed trajectory was taking the LM down into an area that looked
too rough to him.
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry