Slashdot Mirror


Software Bug Causes Soyuz To Land Way Off

howhardcanitbetocrea writes "A mysterious software fault in the new guidance computer of the Soyuz TMA-1 spacecraft was the cause of the high-anxiety off-course landing over the weekend, according to NASA sources.' Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

531 comments

  1. In Soviet Russia... by TheVidiot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ahhh... it's just too obvious!

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Scoria · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, it isn't. I haven't ever observed this joke. Is this intended to be humorous? In Soviet Russia, what? I'm confused. :-)

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your a subscriber and you don't understand...tisk tisk.

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Scoria · · Score: 1

      My comment was intended to be sardonic. :-)

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    4. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 1

      Well I don't intend to be sardonic. What does that saying mean? What am I missing?

      --
      It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
      - Jerome Klapka Jerome
    5. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Scoria · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yakov Smirnoff, a Russian comedian, established this joke as a portion of his routine:

      "In America, you find the party. In Soviet Russia, the Party finds you."

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    6. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said, "yackov". Huh huh. Huh huh. Huh.

    7. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "Soviet Russia" references may be the obvios start for a thread here... But this is a site for Nerds.

      Did any one other than myself notice that the Soyuz module is named TMA-1?
      If I'm not mistaken, that was the name of the spooky monument site in Clarke's "2001, a Space Odyssey".
      Tycho Magnetic Anomaly One...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Wolfcat · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Capricorn 1 If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence you ever tried.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence you ever tried.
    9. Re:In Soviet Russia... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      "Hal, turn off the light."
      "Dave, did you say something? My mind was 400 kilometers away."

    10. Re:In Soviet Russia... by mahler3 · · Score: 1
      Did any one other than myself notice that the Soyuz module is named TMA-1? If I'm not mistaken, that was the name of the spooky monument site in Clarke's "2001, a Space Odyssey".

      "Take us to the landing zone, Hal."

      "I'm sorry, Dave; I'm afraid I can't do that."

    11. Re:In Soviet Russia... by kfuq · · Score: 1

      come on..

      like there aren't any geeks or nerds in "soviet russia"??

      --
      iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
    12. Re:In Soviet Russia... by jarrell · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it was. In this case, it's not Tycho Magnetic Anomaly, but rather Transport Mir Anthropometric. The TMA's are the "large astronaut" retrofit (The US allows taller astronauts than the russians do; surprisingly few of ours fit the older soyuz, which means they could never be station crew) of the TM model, which, itself, was the unit customized to be the ferry craft for Mir from the T class transport which was supporting Soyuz...

    13. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Threni · · Score: 1

      I always assumed it was a play on:

      "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around."

    14. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Yes, it was. In this case, it's not Tycho Magnetic Anomaly, but rather Transport Mir Anthropometric. The TMA's are the "large astronaut" retrofit (The US allows taller astronauts than the russians do; surprisingly few of ours fit the older soyuz, which means they could never be station crew) of the TM model, which, itself, was the unit customized to be the ferry craft for Mir from the T class transport which was supporting Soyuz...
      If I could mod in a thread to which I posted, I'd give you "+1 Informative"

      Thank you.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    15. Re:In Soviet Russia... by jarrell · · Score: 1

      No problem :-). The sad thing is I made a, well, typo isn't quite right.. That last "Soyuz" should have been "Salyut".. The T's were the Soyuz intended specifically to transport folk to the Salyut stations.

  2. Mysterious? by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Software faults are not mysterious -- people are ignorant.

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Mysterious? by eericson · · Score: 1, Troll

      So wait, (In response to Timbo's comment) You'll fly on a 777 or A320, trust your miltary w/ F-16s, and communicate using software guided Satellites, but you won't trust SDI because the software might be Buggy?

      WTF?

      --
      The evil monkey commands you to dance.
    2. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computers just do what the stupid programmers tell them to do. How could this not be detected when they tested the software?

      They aren't software bugs, they are programmer mistakes.

    3. Re:Mysterious? by gailwynand · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never heard of heisenbugs.

      Y'all may now go back to watching the blinkenlichten.

      --
      A pilot, in those days, was the only unfettered and entirely independent human being that lived in the earth.-Mark Twain
    4. Re:Mysterious? by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

      but you won't trust SDI because the software might be Buggy?

      They don't have to worry, by their logic, bugs in the software for the ICBM's will cause them to land so far off course that the SDI won't have to knock em' down anyway ;-)

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    5. Re:Mysterious? by k_herald · · Score: 1

      Actually I wouldn't trust the SDI because the physics community has overwhlemingly called it "impossible". Have you even tried to design a control system for something as simple as an inverted pendulum? Now extrapolate that to hitting a target about the size of a water-melon at Mach 10 several thousand miles away and several miles up into the atmosphere. All hail defense contractor pork!

    6. Re:Mysterious? by oaf357 · · Score: 1

      One word: Patriot

    7. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: Never worked.
      Never has. Never will. Ask your bum-buddies, the Israelis.

    8. Re:Mysterious? by oaf357 · · Score: 1

      Seemed to do well this time around (ask the Kuwaitis and the American soldiers on the ground). For a /.'er you're a little behind on the times (no offense).

    9. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason is not mysterious. A ___VERY___ large percentage of NASA code is in raw ASM. Thousands and thousands of lines of ASM.

      I mean... come on... at least write it in C... or even... shutter... a type safe langauge.

    10. Re:Mysterious? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The patriot has done an absolutely fantastic job of knocking out short and theater range missiles, a job for which it was not designed. This is a long way from stopping a nuclear re-entry vehicle. We can shoot nuclear artillery through tube 155mm in diameter, assuming that a re-entry vehicle is twice that, it still leaves a pretty small radar cross-section, given the sharpness of the ogive shaped nose i'd guess the cross-section is somewhere between a golf ball and a base ball. Now imagine that the golf ball is traveling 15,000 mph, that's what they are trying to hit.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Mysterious? by cscx · · Score: 1

      Why did this get modded troll? It's a valid point -- those aircraft are completely fly-by-wire. (I htink you meant to say A330 though.)

    12. Re:Mysterious? by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Insightful


      There's a HUGE difference between the Patriot's capabilities and the capabilities needed for SDI. The Patriot does OK (sorta) at intercepting short range ballistic missiles, but would be very unlikely to intercept a suborbital ballistic.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    13. Re:Mysterious? by oaf357 · · Score: 1
      The early warning capability (to a certain extent we already have) would play a major part in helping out with that.

      I'm not defending SDI. But, it is possible

    14. Re:Mysterious? by frankthechicken · · Score: 1

      Seemed to do well this time around (ask the Kuwaitis and the American soldiers on the ground).

      Just not for the British or the Americans in the air I guess

    15. Re:Mysterious? by oaf357 · · Score: 1

      True. But that is probably more operator error than anything.

    16. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, do you have shares in Raytheon or what? The thing is pork, pure and simple. The Iraqis can throw pieces of semi-functioning stove-pipe in the air and it confuses your mighty Patriot, and it costs them next to nothing. For a /.er, you are pretty brainwashed by the chest-thumping American propaganda machine (no offense).

    17. Re:Mysterious? by thogard · · Score: 1

      It may have knocked out up to three planes -oops. It missed most of the small pathetic slow short range smaller than skud missles that it was suppoed to hit.

      And one of patriot radars got blown away with a HARM which is much slower than a nuke. Something says the thing isn't going quite as advertised.

    18. Re:Mysterious? by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Informative

      assuming that a re-entry vehicle is twice that, it still leaves a pretty small radar cross-section,

      There are a few things working in our favor though:

      The launch vehicle has an enormous infrared signature. It's easy to track while the boost is on.

      Since the path of the projectile is ballistic, we can ascertain with a good degree of certainty where our radar should be looking for it.

      Upon re-entry the projectile once again has a huge spike in infrared visibility, and the path is entirely ballistic at this point.

      It's reasonable that we should be able to spot it on radar if we have a very good idea where it should show up.

      It's a hard target to hit, no doubt. But finding and tracking it should not to be the hardest part of the problem.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    19. Re:Mysterious? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They don't have to worry, by their logic, bugs in the software for the ICBM's will cause them to land so far off course that the SDI won't have to knock em' down anyway ;-)

      I see the smiley, but I'll respond seriously anyway: ICBMs work, they've been tested for decades. SDI needs to intercept 100% of incoming warheads, and also cope wth countermeasures such as dozens of dummy "warheads", chaff, simultaneous attacks on the observation satellites, etc. If 100 warheads were launched with 100 megaton warheads, and only one or two got through, you'd lose at least 10 milion people. If 10 got through prepare to live in Mad Max country.

    20. Re:Mysterious? by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      I'm in total agreement. Clearly, this Timothy is an intellectual pidgin, who does not use logic and objectivity in his evalutions of the world. I wonder if he drives a car, you never know when the car's BIOS will cause it to spontanously kill you. Or a computer, for that matter.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    21. Re:Mysterious? by eericson · · Score: 1

      Nah, the A319/20 series is fly by wire too.

      -E2

      (And I got modded down because I spoke ill of the high lords of slashdot)

      --
      The evil monkey commands you to dance.
    22. Re:Mysterious? by more+fool+you · · Score: 1

      two words:
      tiger woods

    23. Re:Mysterious? by mikerich · · Score: 2, Informative
      Upon re-entry the projectile once again has a huge spike in infrared visibility, and the path is entirely ballistic at this point.

      Actually no, both the Americans and the Russians have designed warheads that can be steered off ballistic trajectories during final approach. The Americans fitted them to their Pershing missiles (which have now been withdrawn), the Russians have them on their Topol-M ICBMs.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    24. Re:Mysterious? by zero_offset · · Score: 1
      and only one or two got through, you'd lose at least 10 milion people

      Not all warheads are aimed at large population centers. For example, Kings Bay, Georgia, a submarine base, has an extremely small local population but it warrants something like 12 warheads due to its military value.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    25. Re:Mysterious? by saider · · Score: 1

      But at least we have shown that "hit-to-kill" can work. There are great technical challenges to integrate this technology into a ballistic missile interceptor, but at least they have a good starting point. If they are allowed to continue with development, things will get progressively better.

      Is anyone out there using the 0.96 kernel?

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    26. Re:Mysterious? by RKloti · · Score: 1

      100 megaton warheads? There are no warheads that big, nor were there ever any. The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated [by the Soviet Union] had a yield of 58 megatons, and was much too big for delivery with an ICBM. Most of the regular ICBMs have a warhead in the 1 MT range, while those with MIRVs (multiple warheads), such as Minuteman III and Peacekeeper have warheads in the multiple hundered kiloton range. Still, a one MT bomb is extremely destructive, not the kind of thing you want to land near your place of residence and/or employment, unless it's a reinforced concrete bunker hundereds of meters beneath the Earth's surface. But if you live in a concrete bunker, then you probably have more serious problems than a nuclear attack.

    27. Re:Mysterious? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      If you listen to the Pentagon, they showed that HTK could work 15 years ago (although some think the tests were a little, uh, rigged).

      What I think would have the greatest chance of success against suborbital ballistics would be some descendant of this.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    28. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please learn the difference between who posts articles and who submits them. Remember, italicised text belongs to the person who submitted the article, while normal text belongs to the one who posted it to /. (in this case Timothy). It is a very easy concept but so many people don't seem to understand it.

    29. Re:Mysterious? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      SDI needs to intercept 100% of incoming warheads, and also cope wth countermeasures such as dozens of dummy "warheads", chaff, simultaneous attacks on the observation satellites, etc.


      The only situation that would pose that sort of problem would be a large scale nuclear exchange. I don't think that's the primary nuclear threat to the United States.


      One could further argue that ballistic missiles themselves are no longer the primary nuclear threat, but the lack of any sort of SDI makes it possible for North Korea to destroy the United States by building and launching only 10 missiles. No MIRVs, sattelite countermeasures, etc. required. All we can do is watch them arc over the pacific and decide whether to shoot back. This makes the threshold a burgeoning nuclear power must reach in order to attain mutually assured destruction terrifyingly low.


      If other nations knew they had to build hundreds of missiles, countermeasure systems, etc., to plausibly threaten the United States, we might have a lot less of them trying to build those 10.

    30. Re:Mysterious? by Reverberant · · Score: 1

      Seemed to do well this time around

      That remains to be seen. Everyone thought the Patriot worked well immediately after the first Gulf Wars. It took some time for the military to admit that the Patriot has a 100% miss rate.

    31. Re:Mysterious? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If other nations knew they had to build hundreds of missiles, countermeasure systems, etc., to plausibly threaten the United States, we might have a lot less of them trying to build those 10.

      Anyone who does can spend an extra 10% on measures to defeat SDI. For instance metallic balloons the same shape as warhead look exactly the same on radar and cost pocket change.

      Actually, at the present and for the foreseeable future, NOBODY (new; not including China and Russia who already have the capability) is trying to build a strategic missile force that threatens the US. This isn't something that you can do in the Dr Evil fashion, it's not something you can do in secret any more. The CIA had no credible threats on their reports till the Republicans changed the terms of reference to include the most unlikely threats that had been previously discounted. Thus the military-industrial complex gets an enormous porkbarrel to gorge on for decades to come.

      If the US spent 5% of what it is proposed to spend on this futile SDI on altruistic aid programs they would eliminate enemies and threats much more reliably and permanently than engaging in another arms race and escalating tensions. Isolationism behind an impenetrable magic shield is just a fantasy.

      No national leader is going to launch a ballistic missile attack now, for the same reason no one did in the last 50 years, because it's at best a Pyrrhic victory. Saddam didn't use his "WMD", if he ever had any, even though he was in the most desperate situation imaginable. Kim Jong Il is playing games to get food, everyone know that. Terrorists would use other methods. You can deliver a bomb on a cargo ship, have it detonate in a harbour and goodbye NY, SF, LA, etc.

    32. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Patriot does OK (sorta) at intercepting short range ballistic missiles, but would be very unlikely to intercept a suborbital ballistic.

      The Patriot was unable to tell the difference between an incoming ballistic missile and an RAF Tornado fighter-bomber in the recent Gulf situation (since nobody know whether to call it a battle or a war).

      Given that SDI will be much more complex than the Patriot system, would you be willing to place your trust in the fact that it will 100% of the time be able to tell the difference between the incoming missile it was designed to stop and the 747 bringing you back from your holiday in Europe?

    33. Re:Mysterious? by issachar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, at the present and for the foreseeable future, NOBODY (new; not including China and Russia who already have the capability) is trying to build a strategic missile force that threatens the US

      Uh, have you been paying attention the last few months? Korea has said they already have a nuclear weapon and are developing more. They are also developing long range missiles and working on extending them. They are currently able to strike the state of California. They have also said that they will consider any act by the US such as trade sanctions and act of war that would merit a full response. This would include sanctions for violating the treaty that the Koreans signed with Clinton that promised not to develop nukes in exchange for food and fuel.

      Now what about these facts would lead you to conclude that nobody new is trying to build a strategic missile force that threatens the US? Please note that I am not arguing that SDI is a great idea or that it is a bad idea, but simply pointing out that your argument seems to fly in the face of the observable facts.

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    34. Re:Mysterious? by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

      I see the smiley

      Yeah, I was trying to be sarcastic, but oh well, it provided a nice discussion anyway :) I basically have the same opinion you do on this subject.

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    35. Re:Mysterious? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Uh, have you been paying attention the last few months? Korea has said they already have a nuclear weapon and are developing more....

      North Korea also says that there is no famine there. You believe that too? Even if they had everything they claimed, it wouldn't be a strategic force, at best (worst) they could take out a city or two.

      Now what about these facts would lead you to conclude that nobody new is trying to build a strategic missile force that threatens the US?

      The CIA threat assessment I mentioned earlier. No credible threat for 15 years was the conclusion. Sorry, I can't give a URL, it was something I read so feel free to call me a a liar if you like.

      In the present political climate, what do you think Bush would do if he really believed NK was a threat? Even his most hawkish advisors think they're a joke (at least as far as ballistic missiles).

    36. Re:Mysterious? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      SDI needs to intercept 100% of incoming warheads, and also cope wth countermeasures such as dozens of dummy "warheads",

      Hmm, well there is such a thing as redundancy. You could just as well give 3 independant systems the job of hitting one ICMB.

      Personally, I think the best defense system is just to send up a missle with the most destructive non-nuclear warhead we have... You'd only have to get the thing to detonate within a couple miles of the ICBM to be effective. No more of this ``hitting a bullet with a bullet'' bullshit... Just hit a bullet with a bomb instead.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    37. Re:Mysterious? by lamz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the US spent 5% of what it is proposed to spend on this futile SDI on altruistic aid programs they would eliminate enemies and threats much more reliably and permanently than engaging in another arms race and escalating tensions. Isolationism behind an impenetrable magic shield is just a fantasy.

      No. The fantasy is thinking that sworn enemies of the U.S.A., and the West in general, can be bought. I give them more credit than that. When they say that they want to destroy us all, I believe them. Why don't you? Don't you think that enemies of the West are honourable, at least to the extent that they mean what they say?

      Building SDI is a reasonable response to unreasonable, but very plausible, threats.

      --

      Mike van Lammeren
      It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

    38. Re:Mysterious? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      No. The fantasy is thinking that sworn enemies of the U.S.A., and the West in general, can be bought. I give them more credit than that. When they say that they want to destroy us all, I believe them. Why don't you? Don't you think that enemies of the West are honourable, at least to the extent that they mean what they say?

      Who is "they"? If you're talking about various Muslim radical groups, they aren't fixated on destroying the US. That's the ridiculous conceit I heard after Sept 11th. Their interest in the US is how it affects their countries. I suggested spending money to solve the problems of the Middle East. Or at least so that the US government isn't seen simply as a tool of Zionists and oil barons, as is the common perception there now.

      Building SDI is a reasonable response to unreasonable, but very plausible, threats.

      Well, no, because it can't work, or can be sidestepped, as I mentioned. You just blow a trillion dollars for a false sense of security.

    39. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, what is that ICBM is carrying germs? Guess what, the germs still get through!

    40. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't trust SDI because germ warfare isn't hampered by it. Blow up the missle and you release the germs. Fat lot of good it does then.

    41. Re:Mysterious? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      You could just as well give 3 independant systems the job of hitting one ICMB.

      Triple the budget! And why not?

      You'd only have to get the thing to detonate within a couple miles of the ICBM to be effective.

      The missile is travelling at several miles per second on reentry, it will outpace the blast. You have to be right on top of it.

    42. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that in the near-vacuum of orbital space, the destructive power of a nuclear warhead is *significantly* reduced. Instead of hitting a bullet with a bullet, you're hitting a bullet with a baseball that turns into a bomb if you miss and it comes back to earth.

    43. Re:Mysterious? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Triple the budget! And why not?

      Well that's a piss-poor excuse when it comes to security.

      You have to be right on top of it.

      Not on top, in-front actually...

      With modern (eg. fast) computers, I could design the damn guidance system myself. If you want an example, just scale-up modern processing systems.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    44. Re:Mysterious? by russellh · · Score: 1
      They are also developing long range missiles and working on extending them. They are currently able to strike the state of California.

      I've heard this, but the latest issue of the Economist ("Hell Bent") shows their farthest range as being far short of even Alaska. Which could be wrong... but even so, they haven't tested any such missiles.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    45. Re:Mysterious? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      >>Triple the budget! And why not?
      >Well that's a piss-poor excuse when it comes to security.

      When it is going to come in at hundreds of billions of dollars most optimistically, consuming a good proportion of GDP, maybe you should consider where the money is coming from. Or a better way to spend it.

      With modern (eg. fast) computers, I could design the damn guidance system myself. If you want an example, just scale-up modern processing systems.

      Do it this weekend. After all it's not rocket science, is it?

    46. Re:Mysterious? by eutychus · · Score: 1

      Bombs that large don't exist outside of the US and Russia. The largest bomb ever detonated was designed as 100mt but only produced a yield of 50mt to reduce fallout.

      This bomb (Tsar Bomba) is huge, and must be delivered by a very large plane.

      Generally, missiles carry at most 1000kg payload. This bomb is about 27 times that. I don't believe there is a single bomb anywhere near that size that can be delivered in a practical manner.

    47. Re:Mysterious? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Do it this weekend.

      *Ahem*, it wquld take quite a bit longer than that. Also, I don't have the rocket to put it in, nor do I know the specifics of the rocket's control systems.

      I also wouldn't have the capital to invest in the computing hardware, for something that isn't likely to return any cash.

      After all it's not rocket science, is it?

      You are right, it's not rocket science. It's actually a combination of computer science, and electrical engineering.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    48. Re:Mysterious? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was saying....

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    49. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean, people can make mistakes. Ignorant mistakes are just one type.

    50. Re:Mysterious? by issachar · · Score: 1
      North Korea also says that there is no famine there. You believe that too?

      If they said they had nukes and everyone else said they were lying. I'd say they were lying... But that's not the case. Others either say that they HAVE the weapons, or that they are close to completing them. Just because known liars say something doesn't make it a lie. If they told me the sun gave us heat, I'd believe that too.

      Even if they had everything they claimed, it wouldn't be a strategic force, at best (worst) they could take out a city or two.

      I wasn't arguing in favour of SDI in my post, but you seem to be. Let's say we can develop SDI, but that it will be

      The CIA threat assessment I mentioned earlier. No credible threat for 15 years was the conclusion. Sorry, I can't give a URL, it was something I read so feel free to call me a a liar if you like.

      No, I don't think you're a liar. Let's assume that you're right about the CIA and they're right about the threat. (Given the CIA's track record, at predicting things like the fall of the Soviet Union, that may be overly generous). So there's no threat for 15 years. Wouldn't it make sense to prepare for that threat now? I wouldn't want to be told in 14 years that I had one year to develop SDI. I'm aware of the tech problems associated with SDI, and I think that it's an extremely... "ambitious" project. However, I do think that something needs to be done to contain the threat. MAD was always a stupid idea as it depended on people to behave rationally.

      In the present political climate, what do you think Bush would do if he really believed NK was a threat?

      I think he and his advisors would be VERY careful. NK is not Iraq. The US can beat Iraq without any serious losses. The US can beat NK, but there is a significant risk of MAJOR civilian deaths in the region including civilians in allied nations. (Japan and South Korea). Invading Iraq may or may not have been a good idea, (I think it was), but there was never any risk that TelAviv would disappear under a mushroom cloud. I think the world would be pretty testy if Seoul or Tokyo were wiped off the face of the earth.

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    51. Re:Mysterious? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I wasn't arguing in favour of SDI in my post, but you seem to be.

      No, I was addressing these points:

      1. that the threat (ballistic nuclear missiles from "rogue nations") that SDI is designed to attack is not real
      2. that the huge amount of money SDI would suck up would be better spent removing the reasons for hostility
      3. that SDI will never work reliably; even if it did the nukes can simply be delivered another way, and an unreliable defence against nuclear weapons is pointless
      I wouldn't want to be told in 14 years that I had one year to develop SDI.

      See above. I don't say that there will never be a threat, but that there are much better ways to respond to it than sinking a trillion dollars into defence contractor's snake oil.

      Ultimately, the only defence is to remove nuclear weapons, a process that was proceeding slowly but had promise before Bush decided he wanted to rule the world. The problems of the world are political, and can't be solved by military means alone.

    52. Re:Mysterious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lamz is correct that there is no _strategic_ threat to the USA, but there could be a threat of one or two missiles or bombs coming your way, assuming that some 'Dr Evil' gets charge of a nuclear threat.

      In fact North Korea is more likely threatening Japan, since Japan is more or less a client of the US, within reach of Korean missiles, fabulously wealthy, and has a bit of, errr, history in Korea.

      Events like 911 are the best example of why star wars is an enormous white elephant.

    53. Re:Mysterious? by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Being from the "Rocket City" Huntsville, Alabama which is also the home of the SDI program I am well aware of the failures of defense systems as well as their successes. Point 1: This myth about SDI having to hit 100% is a lie. No defense system has ever worked 100% Given the choice between destruction of nearly all US Cities and trying to save most of them, knowing that the effort may not succeed in all cases I will happily take the choice of trying. Only an insane person would make the choice to lay down and die 100% which is what the opposition to SDI wants to make. This system is not intended to allow us to make war in absolute safety but rather to allow us to have survivors of a war we could not stop. Point 2: Chaffing etc is not the problem one thinks. Yes one can make decoys that are identical externally to the warheads. The problem is that lasers can weigh them instantly! These do not work. Point 3: In combat the lessor system Patriot which is a very old system has proven exceedingly efficient. It even got 2 friendlies who's IFF failed in the most recent war and had 0% misses on engagement.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    54. Re:Mysterious? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If the US spent 5% of what it is proposed to spend on this futile SDI on altruistic aid programs the price would soon go up to 10%, then 15% and so on.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    55. Re:Mysterious? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      the price would soon go up to 10%, then 15% and so on.

      Much better to just kill all those furriners.

    56. Re:Mysterious? by mink · · Score: 1

      "Not on top, in-front actually...
      With modern (eg. fast) computers, I could design the damn guidance system myself. If you want an example, just scale-up modern processing systems."

      Didnt we have this in the 80's via Missle Command

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  3. In other news.... by Surak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft announced that a patch to "Windows XP for Spacecraft" will be available on Wednesday.

    1. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surak is a dork.

    2. Re:In other news.... by jrl87 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've already got it...

      I can't even lauch my rocket now ...

      I press the launch button and it starts to fire up the engine but then the engine falls of and the rocket breaks apart...

      Do you know when they're going to release the patch for the patch?

    3. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA HA HA HA! A joke about Microsoft stability! Classic! Where do you come up with this stuff???

      Idiot.

    4. Re:In other news.... by Dossy · · Score: 1

      Is this the patch that fixes the mysterious "spacecraft activation code" bug?

      -- Dossy

    5. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because I know my monitor falls off my desk everytime I boot up. Oh, and my case, like, flies up, and it, like falls over and stuff come out. Yeah. This one time...

      Dumbass.

    6. Re:In other news.... by the+uNF+cola · · Score: 2, Funny

      Forgive the pun, but you need a non-warez activation key. After billy gave away his, everyone has been false-launching the rocket.

      --

      --
      "I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo

    7. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up: +1 INSIGHTFUL.

      Ok, at least +1 THE TRUTH HURTS.

    8. Re: In other news.... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > I've already got it... I can't even lauch my rocket now ...

      Ask your doctor about Viagra.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Installing the patch for XP/2000 for Spacecraft probably lets Microsoft know all of the launch code passwords. When I installed it in my Rocket, update.exe stole a few megabytes of my life!

    10. Re:In other news.... by darc · · Score: 1

      I was steering a space craft, on the PC, and then, it was like Beep beep beep beep!

      And then, like, half my re-entry window was gone.

      I had to like, pick another landing site. And it wasn't as good.

      Mac OS X for spacecraft.

      --
      Tired of legitimate data sources? Try UNCYCLOPEDIA
  4. Why single out SDI? by 1984 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project.

    Or any software. You might want to consider the software all the weapons systems that actually exist first, or anything in a safety-related environment. Take a look at Risks Digest.

    1. Re:Why single out SDI? by benna · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes but SDI may end up actually sending a laser beam to burn your house down. A FUCKING LASER BEAM!

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:Why single out SDI? by FredThompson · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, well, the computer chip in your car would make the engine blow up while you're driving at high speed on a crowded road. THE FUCKING ROAD!!! A traffic signal could go wrong and you could get in an accident. A FUCKING ACCIDENT!!! The guidance system on an airplane could have a glitch and you crash. A FUCKING AIRPLANE!!! The registers in the supermarket use lasers to determine your bill. FUCKING LASER BEAMS!!!

      You're being FUCKING STUPID!!!

    3. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If SDI was ever engaged, I would be more worried about the pending arrival of a nuclear warhead than the possibility of a software bug causing a laser to misfire...

    4. Re:Why single out SDI? by Mr.Happy3050 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really to nit-pick, but the current plan for SDI does not involve "lasers." The curren plan is to fire a missle at the incoming nuclear delivery system. So instead of a laser frying your house, you have to worry about a missle. Basically, the anti-missle missle will level your house and then the nuke will level the rubble that was your house.

      --
      "All great truths begin as blasphemies." -George Bernard Shaw
    5. Re:Why single out SDI? by benna · · Score: 1

      Yes but after they develop this the eventual plan is to use space based lasers.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    6. Re:Why single out SDI? by Mr.Happy3050 · · Score: 1

      "...the eventual plan is to use space based lasers." The operative word is eventual. For the current anti-missle missle, a "near miss" is a couple hundred miles.

      --
      "All great truths begin as blasphemies." -George Bernard Shaw
    7. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are watching you beena.

    8. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who has ever hunted birds with a 12GA shotgun has doubts about SDI...There's a LOT of sky out there, and not much bird.
      Me

    9. Re:Why single out SDI? by benna · · Score: 1

      Don't you find the term near miss funny. If its a near miss its a hit now ins't it. Damn, we nearly missed.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    10. Re:Why single out SDI? by Doppler00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative

      And yet, you think I would want to put all my trust the sanity of other world leaders to not fire nuclear weapons at the U.S.?

      There is nothing unsafe about a defensive nuclear missle. The key term here is "defence initiative". If the worst case scenerio happens that a weapon is fired at the U.S. at least there is some better chance of attacking the missle before it reaches the U.S. instead of sitting back watching the light show.

      I don't understand why people doubt the technological capability of scientists and engineers to create a defensive system. With the amazing advancements in computers and science, this is just another advancement in technology.

    11. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a laser beam. Oh. My. God.

      As opposed to the thousands of hydrogen bombs with multiple warhead which with half decent deployment can wipe out an area from Washington, DC to Philadelphia quite well. (I am somewhat aware of the physical security needed for a launch.)

      Or, to comment on the destruction of a house, the thousands of fires every year that are caused by people falling asleep while having their last smoke...and flammable mattresses (as opposed to institutional mattresses, which tend to have to meet safety regulations).

      Yeah, I'd be worried about the laser beam too.

      Just a thought, but deployment of the laser beam is to STOP A FUCKING NUKE MISSILE ATTACK. Aside from the fact that we already have missiles under some software control, there is the point of prevention. (Although SDI may not be the best approach to prevention.)

    12. Re:Why single out SDI? by foobario · · Score: 1

      >>You're being FUCKING STUPID!!! Yeah, well given the epidemic numbers of people who display the symptoms, apparently it's a communicable disease. -- Foobario Frobnitzii praying for A FUCKING PLAGUE

    13. Re:Why single out SDI? by pyrrho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      right... I'd much rather you get hit by a LASER from space than have to deal with a misbehaving traffic light.

      By the way, how can a chip in your car make the engine blow up? Is it like that virus that will format your hard drive and eat all the good leftovers in your fridge and unspay your dog?

      --

      -pyrrho

    14. Re:Why single out SDI? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Yes but SDI may end up actually sending a laser beam to burn your house down. A FUCKING LASER BEAM!"

      OK, Ronnie Ray-Gun, real SDI involves ground based kinetic-kill interceptors. If something goes wrong, they go "splash" in the middle of your choice of three oceans (assuming they survive re-entry intact, since they weren't designed to).

      If anything, SDI would be an insurance policy against the technical problems you seem so afraid of. Unlike the US arsenal which targets the middle of an ocean, Russian missiles default to a target within the US.

    15. Re:Why single out SDI? by pingflood · · Score: 1
      By the way, how can a chip in your car make the engine blow up?


      Depends on your definition of 'blow up.' While it's highly unlikely that the engine will literally *explode*, a bug in the ECM software (which controls fuel mixture, spark timing et al) could easily cause a lean condition leading to detonation and possibly a nice hole in a piston. If you want to worry, though, the ABS computer would be a better candidate. ;-)


      Also, with more and more computer control over modern car, software bugs sending your car careening out of control aren't far away!

    16. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "A FUCKING LASER BEAM"

      I think what you wanted to say is, "A FRICKIN' LASER BEAM"

    17. Re:Why single out SDI? by Latent+IT · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not *impossible*... just really not likely. If you have electronic fuel injection, I guess if it decided to pump as much fuel as possible while your engine was idling, there might be so much fuel in the cylinders that the normal travel of the piston would cause enough pressure to burst a seal or two. Does that qualify? =p

    18. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, we stole a George Carlin joke.

    19. Re:Why single out SDI? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "sending a laser beam to burn your house down"

      [the doorbell rings]

      Lady: Who is it?

      Landshark: "Plumber."

      Lady: I didn't hire a plumber. Who is it!?"

      Landshark: "Flowers."

      Lady: "What... for who"

      Landshark: "Plumber"

      Lady:... you're.. that freakin' shark with the freakin' laser on your freakin' head, aren't you?

      Landshark: " No maam, I am just a seabass.. will you let me in please?"

      Lady: "A seabass! Ok!"

    20. Re:Why single out SDI? by sacherjj · · Score: 1

      There is now code in some turbo-charged diesel engines to limit the rpm of the main impellor. See, at very high altitude the blades would try to maintain air pressure. The thinner the outside air, the faster the turbine would have to spin. There are structural limits to metal. Who would drive an 18-wheeler that high anyway? There is a nice shrapnel explosion when a turbine lets go. Needless to say, there is now code limiting rpm.

    21. Re:Why single out SDI? by lgftsa · · Score: 1

      By the way, how can a chip in your car make the engine blow up?

      Just off the top of my head - there exists electronic transmissions which can be either run in auto mode or step-through with buttons on the steering wheel. There also exist ignition systems which don't use a key, or the key is just a sensor switch for the engine management system.

      EMS goes nuts(or freaky hardware fault) and pushes the engine to maximum revs, and ignores the ignition key/kill button.

      At this point you have a choice:

      1. Slip into neutral and watch your engine rev itself to death.

      2. Stay in gear and be going slow enough to nudge against a wall or something and hope the engine stalls.

      3. Find the electronic transmission is locked in drive and bail out at a hopefully reasonable speed.

    22. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Milk nearly came out of my nose. MY FUCKING NOSE!!!!

    23. Re:Why single out SDI? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The four things that you mentioned are extremely mature technologies that have been refined through several generations of mass produced products. Space based laser missile defense can never be fully tested (think of Spies Like Us). It will "always be a beta release" says the article poster. Basically, I know that car computers work very well because they've been tested of millions and millions of miles of real world driving. The space based system currently proposed has failed most of the tests perfomed. The ones it has passed were simplified versions of the tests that it had failed. Honestly, I don't understand spending 10s of billions of dollars defending against the most difficult and expensive way to deliver nuclear weapons. Although they have improved things a bit, our coasts and ports are not being properly secured.

      -B

    24. Re:Why single out SDI? by budgenator · · Score: 4, Informative

      By the way, how can a chip in your car make the engine blow up?
      1. shut off electric fan for radiator.
      2. run engine excessively lean to over heat
      3. leave transmition in first gear
      4. run engine at 9,000 rpm's
      5. continue until engine goes boom crunch, bang bang bang and the connecting rods come out the side of the engine block, and the crankshaft falls on to the pavement.

      Dave?, What are you doing Dave?, you're not mad at me are you Dave? No HAL I'm not mad at you

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    25. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, we noticed!

    26. Re:Why single out SDI? by FredThompson · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sigh...ok...here's how I know.

      I've been a missile launch officer and worked on design of these systems while stationed at an agency that Hollywood seems to think is a bunch of hotshot secret agents performing martial arts moves Bruce Lee couldn't have perfected.

      The 6 sigma (or whatever it is) analysis that goes into Space Shuttle stuff doesn't compare to the level of analysis/oversight for these types of systems.

      Major weapons systems include, at least in the U.S. military, design elements commonly referred to as positive control and assurance. Well, similar terms depending on the weapons system.

      These are to make sure the people/systems issuing a comand are the proper ones and also that what is commanded happens.

      There are so many layers of hardware and procedure involving split knowledge, time-sensitive authorization, and configuration compliance that it is nigh impossible for any major system to be activated improperly or on a whim.

      A LOT of thought and attention goes into these systems. Real Genius, War Games, Top Gun, Spies Like Us, etc. were fictional movies. Those don't represent the way things really are any more than Alias shows what the CIA and NSA are really like.

      Sub-systems are tested for everything, just as they are for other major endeavors like a new car design.

      There certainly comes a time of first use for any system. ALL our weapons systems are thoroughly tested before they're actually used. The missiles whose keys I controlled as a laungh officer were the same type that were test-launched from Vandenberg AFB a number of times. Had we ever launched one directly at some Soviet base to see if it would really work? No. Does that mean it wouldn't? No.

      The basic premise that because something hasn't been done it is inherently impossible to predict what will happen just doesn't make sense. Every day the overwhelming majority of things you do have never happened before in the histoyr of human existance. (You've never put that pen to that piece of paper in exactly that manner, etc.)

      Having said all of that, I agree that ICBMs and, to a lesser extent, SLBMs are not the most likely form of attack. A space-based system DOES, however, provide a focussed developmental environment for a huge number of technologies that would be very helpful for any kind of strategic interception.

      Don't forget, the race to put a man on the moon didn't yield any direct economic profit (we're not selling lunar masonry products, for example) nor does basic research.

    27. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1/2: Sort of Funny

    28. Re:Why single out SDI? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's called "risk analysis". You are far more likely to die from a software bug in an automobile ignition system than you are to die from a software bug in an orbital weapons platform.

      Are you really worried that SDI is going to burn your house down? Consider that SDI has never burned a house down, but thousands still manage to burn down every year.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    29. Re:Why single out SDI? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >I don't understand why people doubt the technological capability of scientists and engineers to create a defensive system

      They do. They also trust the defense firm down the street to find a way to get past these missiles. Can you say, "another arms race?" I thought you could.

      This is why non-proliferation and a treaty against missile defense are excellent ideas. It keeps world powers from wasting all their money on competing technologies when they already can blow everything up. Whatever missile shield you concoct will be broken. Its actually that simple. There's just too much riding on having one nuclear proof nation.

      >And yet, you think I would want to put all my trust the sanity of other world leaders to not fire nuclear weapons at the U.S.?

      Lets not forget the US has had its plans for first strikes released to the public also.

      Actually, I do agree that the submitter is wrong. A pork-barrel weapon system gets a lot more testing and funding than some ex-soviet aging lifeboat.

    30. Re:Why single out SDI? by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's very hard for an ECU to make an engine self destruct on RPM.

      As long as there's still a butterfly valve, connected to a cable, connected to an accelerator pedal, driven by *your* foot, you're fine. Mind you those new Audi's are "throttle by wire", but they're *very* redundant.

      Selecting 1st gear (via your automatic transmission ECU) whilst at 100kph will generally leave a nice compression skid and a stain on the drivers seat - and a bit of damage if you're unlucky. Picking 2 gears at once in electronically controlled autos is also a nice way to burn your transmission out.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    31. Re:Why single out SDI? by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "And yet, you think I would want to put all my trust the sanity of other world leaders to not fire nuclear weapons at the U.S.?"

      I think I may be able to ease your mind about this a bit. Here try this exercize.

      Take a piece of paper and draw a line going down the middle (vertically). On the left hand side make a list of all the countries that have nuclear weapons. On the right hand list all the countries that have actually used nuclear weapons in war.

      Now state at that paper for a few minutes till it sinks in.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    32. Re:Why single out SDI? by peachpuff · · Score: 1
      There is nothing unsafe about a defensive nuclear missle.

      Really? I heard that they sometimes explode when you use them.

      Of course, this story is about things landing in the wrong place--so I guess we don't need to worry about all those defensive nuclear missiles.

      --
      -- . . ramblin' . . .
    33. Re:Why single out SDI? by g4dget · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And yet, you think I would want to put all my trust the sanity of other world leaders to not fire nuclear weapons at the U.S.?

      Yes, I want you to put your trust into the general sanity of other nations. Not "all" your trust, but enough trust not to hunker like a paranoid xenophobe under some supposedly impenetrable shield. And not "all" nations--there are going to be rogue nations. And the US should put sufficient trust in the rest of the world that if the US were to be attacked, alliances like NATO would come to their help.

      Even without SDI and without international help, the US has more than enough power for a devastating retaliatory strike.

      What is happening right now is that US actions are increasingly removed from consequences: the US doesn't have to worry about what anybody else thinks. Bombing Iraq makes France unhappy? Too bad. Threatening North Korea displeases China? Who gives a damn. Iranians are worried about a US invasion? Well, get used to it. Nations are worried about getting flooded because of global warming? We don't care because we don't have to.

      In the end, that approach is doomed to failure. No matter how "safe" (i.e., totalitarian) the US becomes internally, it will remain vulnerable to terrorism. And despite all its military power, ultimately, the US stands and falls with its economy, and the US ultimately can't employ its military force without destroying that.

      Americans need to think long and hard about the consequences of their foreign policy decisions, or America is heading for disaster. And a feeling of vulnerability is part of that. Without it, the US will just keep making bad decisions until it's too late.

    34. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current missile defense plans don't include using nukes to stop nukes.

    35. Re:Why single out SDI? by benna · · Score: 1

      Do you ACTUALLY think I am serious? I am against SDI but not for that reason. Mostly cause its so close to STI and so it allways reminds me of....oh nm on that reason. Also its stupid to get out of the ABM treaty but thats for a differnet topic that will never be posted.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    36. Re:Why single out SDI? by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and you're more likely to die from eating fish than from terrorism, but which noun did we declare war on?

      I guess if North Korea tries to blow up San Francisco it's nice to have something with a chance at stopping it, but considering how fucking icy it's going to be in hell by the time we have a president with a clue about how these things work, I'd just as soon keep the dork in the dark.

      A president who thinks he's got a missile shield is like a middle schooler wearing gang colors in the Bronx who thinks he knows karate. I think that's the worst analogy I've ever come up with. Good lord.

    37. Re:Why single out SDI? by broken_bones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it would be unfair to single out the United States in the way you suggest. If Britain, Russia (USSR), France, Germany or Japan had possed nuclear weapons during the second world war do you think they would have hesitated to use them? We must remember that the human carnage in WWII was imense. Russia alone lost literally millions of people. Given that do you think they really would have cared about killing a few hundred thousand of the enemy's citizens? When Japan or Germany were facing their ultimate demise do you think that they would have hesitated to use a nuclear weapons if they had them?

      Debating whether using the bomb was the right thing to do or not is fine. However I don't think that a case can be made that the US is somehow "worse" or "different" than anyone else for using nuclear weapons. Had any other nation possesed the bomb at that time I don't think they would have hesitated to use it.

      --

      Never disturb your enemy while he is busy making a mistake.
    38. Re:Why single out SDI? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Remember, in 1945, they figured that nukes were just like regular bombs, only with a bigger bang.

      The US held an atomic monopoly between 1945 and 1949. They could have used them on China during the Communist takeover, but didn't.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    39. Re:Why single out SDI? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      And the US should put sufficient trust in the rest of the world that if the US were to be attacked, alliances like NATO would come to their help.

      Recent history argues otherwise. NATO invoked Article V, but used it as an excuse to try to stop the attack on Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    40. Re:Why single out SDI? by hughk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I have sat down and talk with some military about the technology they use. It is generally somewhat behind the times, because of the extensive test procedure it has to go through. However, never underestimate the stupidity of a tired/bored person in the middle of the night - whether civillian or military. Procedures help, but they don't address all problems especially when in a hurry. Think of the accidental destruction of civillian flights. Most technology in the field requires extensive modifications, simply because the designers couldn't forsee how it would be used.

      The thing is that we know that Patriot doesn't work very well in the field (except against friendly aircraft). We know also that the collateral damage from the enemy missle being destroyed is also quite bad.

      SDI is only really effective against ballistic missles in their boost phase. They are more difficult to destroy in their extra-atmosphere and reentry phases. If not completely destroyed during the boost phase (likely), they are more likely to go off course and go somewhere unintended.

      You talk about the probability of the thing working and compare it with an ICBM. Well, no ICBMs were launched in anger, but enough test firings took place to ensure a high probability of success. Not so with SDI.

      The moon program was civil and everything about it was public knowledge. SDI is military and classified. We know that tests have been falsified, we don't know the payola between the gun pushers and those involved with promoting the program within the Government. Any technology spin-offs will start out as classified and remain so. Mostly to prevent people finding out who was paid, how much and for what.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    41. Re:Why single out SDI? by Vicegrip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The best nuclear weapon shield will be hard put at defending itself against an attack that uses brute force to overcome it.

      I couldn't believe my ears a few weeks ago when I heard Richard Perle making the amazing claim that the U.S. would always be safe having a shield because no other country in the world would ever have the technology/money to build one themselves.

      It is an act of stupid arrogance to believe that the U.S. will always have superior technology compared to the other powers in the word-- I'm sure the Romans thought their military engines would protect them forever too.

      Further, one only needs see how just how sensitive and volatile high tech has been in the last few years during times of economic difficulty. Our innovation is tightly tied to economic growth. In three years we've seen massive reversals in the tech industry. Is it not incomprehensibly foolish to fail to consider the possiblity that one day the U.S. won't be the world's bastion of growth or technological progress?

      Indeed, the pillars of today's technology: IBM, Microsoft, Sun etc... already farm out technological work to 3rd world countries around the world-- ideed, the U.S. doesn't even manufacturer a large part of the electronic components it uses.

      I despair that, even though the U.S. absolutely crushed an army once ranked 5th in the world, we're still getting told we need more military protection, more spending in weapons research, and a big shield to protect us from their nasty missles--- this when arms races have universally shown themselves to be precursors to major warfare throughout the history of mankind.

      We don't need more military. We need competent politicians of principle and vision who can think beyond warfare to solve the problems of the world.

      --
      Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    42. Re:Why single out SDI? by trelanexiph · · Score: 1

      quite humping the frickin "laser"! Would you and the frickin "laser" go and get a room or something? (I'm sorry I really just had to after reading the parent)

    43. Re:Why single out SDI? by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you are right but then again maybe you are wrong. I don't think you can even pretend to know what others would have done if they had the chance. Certainly it wasn't long after we dropped our bombs that other countries obtained theirs, they had many chances to use them since then and did not do so.

      "When Japan or Germany were facing their ultimate demise do you think that they would have hesitated to use a nuclear weapons if they had them?"

      When Saddam Hussein was facing his ultimate demise he did not use weapons of mass destruction even though he is a madmen.

      "However I don't think that a case can be made that the US is somehow "worse" or "different" than anyone else for using nuclear weapons."

      I think the case can be made. Japan was looking to surrender when we bombed them. They had let the US know of that fact too. We decided to bomb them anyway because we wanted an unconditional surrender and we wanted to humilitate them. Also we chose to bomb a city. We could have dropped a bomb on tokyo bay to demonstrate our power but we wiped out a city instead.

      Finally after seeing what our bomb could do, and before giving them a chance to surrender we bombed another city. Now that act was an inexcusable crime against humanity. Maybe you can hem, haw, rationalize, and finagle an excuse for the first bomb but there is no rational case for the second one.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    44. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been a missile launch officer and worked on design of these systems

      Sure you have - and why would a launch officer be involved in design? That sounds about as probable as an astronaut being involved in thruster design...

    45. Re:Why single out SDI? by xaaronx · · Score: 1

      "I think the case can be made. Japan was looking to surrender when we bombed them. They had let the US know of that fact too."

      I'm not a WWII history buff, so would you mind providing a credible source for that? Because from what I know Japan was preparing both their military and civilians to fight tooth and nail against invasion and occupation.

      --
      It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
    46. Re:Why single out SDI? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Basically, I know that car computers work very well because they've been tested of millions and millions of miles of real world driving.

      And do you know why car computers work very well? Because they're very simple devices. Now it is true that modern cars have a lot of functionality built in but a really painfully simple ECU can run even the most complicated engines. A tiny and fairly unimpressive microcontroller can do everything needed to run fuel injection. You would need a somewhat more powerful microcontroller to also operate ABS and such, but you could do it all with a pretty pathetic amount of processing power. As it is my car's ECU uses a 3MHz microcontroller with limited register space, and it has sequential fuel injection with assorted california-required crap added to it (it's an '89, and a california model, meaning it has two more sensors than non-california versions of the same car.)

      Anyway we really have no business doing anything with nukes. They're unnecessary. We should instead be looking into the old kinetic-kill-from-orbit stuff (crowbars in space, is that called titan, or zeus?), orbital lasers (manned if necessary), and better ways to deliver big fuel-air bombs which can level cities just fine - no need for nukes. Our assorted bunker-busters do a fine job of digging into the ground, which is all I can think of that a nuke does which is desirable that a fuel-air bomb doesn't. I guess I'm not totally against tacnukes, since they are the ultimate equalizer, I just hope that no one feels compelled to use them without amazing and serious need :/

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    47. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading your post, I now know that the SDI system has a way higher probability of serious bugs that I would have thought. Thanks for the warning.

    48. Re:Why single out SDI? by g00z · · Score: 1

      As long as there is a gigantic jiffy pop located in the center of the livingroom, it's all good by me.

      "Chris, this is Jesus. Have you been touching yourself?"

      --
      "The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
    49. Re:Why single out SDI? by sarabob · · Score: 1
      "When Saddam Hussein was facing his ultimate demise he did not use weapons of mass destruction even though he is a madman." There is *another* rational explanation for this you know, given the balance of available evidence and all that.

      There's still an eerie silence emanating from the "we found irrefutable evidence of WoMD!" camp.

    50. Re:Why single out SDI? by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      Let's ignore the sarcasm that comes from ignorance and deal with the actual question that is buried somewhere inside it.

      If you're going to design something, you need to know how it is to be used. Operational experience of national asset weapons is limited to a very small subset of military officers. All I can really say is that development of operational issues and equipment for nationlal asset weaponry is controlled by veteran handlers. (FWIW, there is no such thing as a lifetime no-talk commitment, it's 70 years from last point of access, I've still got a few years to go ;) My grandfather was the civilian head of contracting at Oak Ridge during WWII and he wouldn't talk about anything before he died. Even to me, which was frustrating, I'd been doing CoS-level stuff and really wanted to know about the history.)

      There have been quite a few astronauts with highly advanced engineering degrees. Maybe some have helped with thruster design. I don't know about that

      By the illogic you use here, there would be NO feedback loop in design of any sort and all users is incapable of design.

      Missileers have one, or very rarely, 2 tours as launch officers then go into other areas. Some stay in related roles like code handling, etc. It's not exactly the kind of experience that can be carried outside the realm you've learned it in.

    51. Re:Why single out SDI? by hswerdfe · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I disagree.

      Canada (greatest country on earth) was the second country in the world with the power to make Nukes.

      Yet We Are still Nuclear Free.

      We canadians actually value life....150,000 people is a fucking lot, do not belittle them.

      The US could/Should have Fired a Warning shots first, (Let the first 1 or 2 off in the ocean).

      The Use of nukes had something to do with ending the war early (about 6 months), and something to do with the US Beating its chest like a gorilla to warn the Russians that they mean buisness.

      as for countries that would use them
      I have to believe your right most countries would have, Rusia would have, Japan Would have, Germany would have used them, But I don't think Britan would have, not that late in the war.

      There citizans acutally knew what war was ....and I don't think they liked it much.

      any way....

      ignore the rest of my ramble ..can you tell I'm bitter at the US over a lot of things, ..

      mostly its tendancy to break treaties and when ever the hell they feel like it.
      Specifically:
      Kyoto
      NAFTA


      Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treat

      --
      --meh--
    52. Re:Why single out SDI? by FredThompson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yoru first comment, I can't be too direct about this but I'll try to explain with an example you can test yourself. Some ATM machines have a time delay mechanism when they eject the user's card. If the card sits in the reader too long, it is pulled back in and the account locked until a bank person resets everything. That's an example of hardware enforcing procedure. Initiating a national asset weapons includes a series of steps, personal actions and hardware requirements that must be done in a specific order for it to work.

      Uh...which generation of Pattiot? Do you know what it was originally designed to do? Scud-busting was an admitted quick hack.

      The current generation, used in Iraq the past month, did do what it was supposed to. The jets it knocked down failed IFF interrogation so that makes them targets.

      wrt, falling debris. Well, duh. Why wouldn't that exist and have a potential to create soem kind of damage? If something's in the air and it blows up, pieces fall down. That's true of everything. Heck, I shot a duck once and shot came back to Earth, so did the dead duck.

      The assumption that "SDI" is only effective during what is considered a boost phase only makes sense if you think it's impossible to detect/track/target/destroy MIRVs. As far as being more difficult to destroy during the re-entry phase, why? Wouldn't they be generating a lot of heat? Might be easier to detect then?

      Why assume a missile would be an alley-oop, over the top lob and not a low-flying cruise?

      wrt test firings of ICBMs, sure LAUNCH was tested under very controlled conditions. Those only flew a short distance, were unarmed, and flew west from the California coast. Find a map that shows magnetic anomalies. AFAIK, none have been fired over the North Pole. That's a heck of a lot different than crews in the field knowing they have real weapons and the only launch orders that come in that environment are real. So...they haven't been "tested" as much, in that regard, as you might think.

      SDI, the term, is a little outdated and if you try to limit it to 20-year-old concepts and technologies, you'll be misleading yourself.

      Everything about the moon program was NOT civilian and was NOT publicly available. It still isn't.

      There were some intercepts that were faked during the Reagan era. Heck of a payoff those had, huh? Soviet Union collapsed because they knew they couldn't compete. In that regard, the system WAS successful. (Sun Tzu: the goal is to get the enemy to surrender without having to fight...) Same with those $600 toilet seats. ("Komrade, they have these huge money scandals and still completely outclass us, we can't compete.")

      I'm not excusing graft, just trying to illustrate a point.

      Lots of things were screwed up on the Bradley project, too. (There's a really cool movie about that, forget the name.) As I recall, the M-16 was also a real mess at first.

      Your conclusion has a number of statements for which you have no validation. It's based on a hypothetical future condition so, by definition, there's no way to state what the outcome will be. history has shown the exact opposite of what you claim to be true. Surface mount electronics, GPS, fiber optics, etc., etc., etc. all come from technologies the military needed. Why would anything based in space be different?

      FWIW, and I know this will irk anyone who has a dogmatic hatred of the military, the first real historic use machining tools and practices was to make uniform firearms. Everything came from that. So, basically, all the quality controla nd manufacturing processes we use, outside hand operations, trace their roots to military needs.

    53. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't that defensive measures are impossible to develop, but they are difficult and expensive to develop. And for every defensive measure I can think of, developing an effective countermeasure is easy. It's an arms-race where the defender is at a disadvantage.

      While usually the defender has advantages in warfare, defending against missiles doesn't quite work that way. This is one of the reasons why the US has been so effective militarily - because it makes heavy use of technologies that are difficult to defend against against adversaries whose own missile technologies are far from advanced.

    54. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the first rule of risk analysis is to minimise avoidable risks.

      Some risks you just have to deal with, but if you can stop your government jeopardising international relations and increasing the likelyhood of that SDI system being tested for real, then why not do something about it?

    55. Re:Why single out SDI? by WampagingWabbits · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do agree that the submitter is wrong. A pork-barrel weapon system gets a lot more testing and funding than some ex-soviet aging lifeboat.

      Whose pork-barrel spaceshuttle is sitting at home, and whose aging soyuz is still flying?

    56. Re:Why single out SDI? by mikerich · · Score: 1
      There is nothing unsafe about a defensive nuclear missle.

      That's the thing about America, it not only spells 'defence' differently, it does it differently as well.

      An anti-missile system allows the country which deploys a system a slight advantage over its opponents. It permits them to contemplate a nuclear first strike on an opponent, in the hope that any retaliation can be defeated.

      It's the same old reasoning we had during the Cold War for successive inventions like the ICBM, solid fuel rockets, Strategic Air Command on permanent heightened awareness, MIRV, ballistic missile submarines...

      There are plenty of people who still consider there to be such a thing as a 'limited' nuclear war or a winnable nuclear war. These people were in the ascendant during the early years of the Reagan presidency and now they're back for Bush 2.

      No country is contemplating a nuclear attack on the US, everyone is aware of the enormous retaliation that would be in store for them if they were to attack the Americans.

      No terrorist group has access to the technologies necessary for a ballistic missile, let alone one tipped with a nuclear warhead.

      So why do it? Well it certainly would do wonders for the sagging share price of Boeing and other aerospace companies who need something to make up for the collapse of the airline industry. And then there are the ideological reasons - runaway defence spending helped destroy the great 20th Century rival to American power, perhaps it can do the same to its 21st Century rivals?

      SDI and NMD are the battleship race of the 21st Century. That ended in tears and the destruction of the World's two greatest imperial powers. Somehow I think that history is repeating itself. At 'best' exploding deficit spending might hobble the American economy and force a more sane outlook on the rest of the World, at 'worst' - well how bad do you want it?

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    57. Re:Why single out SDI? by FatSean · · Score: 1

      Very nice rant. A bit simplistic, but oh well. Now, 150,000 people sure is alot...but add up the rest of the casualties. The US sure lost alot of it's own troops, especially fighting a war that never got to it's own soil (with one exception, of course). If by nuking a few Japanese the war ended early and avoided friendly casualties, I'm all for it. It's WAR pudgy, none of this 'may the best man win' shit, the goal is to win and win fast. Besides, if the Germans made it out of Europe and accross the Atlantic, which country do you think they would have attacked first?

      --
      Blar.
    58. Re:Why single out SDI? by bogado · · Score: 1

      The problem is the timing that the bomb was used. By the time the US bombed japan they were already thinking about surrender, shure they didnt want to sign a "inconditional sureender". But they did want to to talk terms to it. Do you think there was need for bombing, not one city, but two cities?

      In my opinion, and in many more people, there was no need for that. It was just a show of power of the US, a message to the rest of the world, basicly saying the same message that the US sended with Iraq now. If you don't play by my rules we will bomb you till you become ash.

      The only weapon of mass destruction found in Iraq, is oil, it killed thousands of Iraq people and for it many treasures of mankind were destroied. Sure I do think Saddam was a tiran and a dictator, but I do not believe that this war made the Irak people any good. Shure now the US people can enjoy all othe oil....

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    59. Re:Why single out SDI? by JimPooley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When Saddam Hussein was facing his ultimate demise he did not use weapons of mass destruction even though he is a madmen.

      Well, that could just be because Bush is a lying fucker and Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction...

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    60. Re:Why single out SDI? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "And yet, you think I would want to put all my trust the sanity of other world leaders to not fire nuclear weapons at the U.S.?
      There is nothing unsafe about a defensive nuclear missle. The key term here is "defence initiative".
      "

      -1: clueless, reality-detached propoganda

      Perhaps since these "defensive"* missiles are so safe we shouldn't have worried so much about the USSR developing them 40 years ago. But it seems that experts are unanimous in disagreeing with you, as any country with a missile-defence could attack any other country without fear of retaliation. Hence the ABM treaty, which specifically banned missile defenses.

      * That's defence as in 'the ministry of defence', previously the ministry of war.

      b.t.w. how did you get your current job in the US Military, Mr. Saeed al-Sahaf?

    61. Re:Why single out SDI? by jagilbertvt · · Score: 1

      Well said.. 150,000 is a lot fewer casualties than say another 500,000. Not to mention the 500,000 would've included a large number of American casualties. The goal of course was to avoid as few casualties as possible. I won't pretend to know what any other country would've done if they had created a nuclear bomb before us, but why would you try to build one if you weren't planning on using it in some fashion or other?

      Sure we could've lobbed one off the coast of Japan, or brought them to see it tested, but the only problem w/ that is that we only had 2 bombs. We bombed 2 cities to give them the impression that we had a large number of bombs available, so they would be more apt to surrender. Of course, if we had lobbed one off the coast of Japan they would've probably said "Hah! they can't even hit a target!".

    62. Re:Why single out SDI? by redbaron7 · · Score: 1
      I guess your car doesn't have cruise control, then?

      RB

    63. Re:Why single out SDI? by mahju · · Score: 1

      When Japan or Germany were facing their ultimate demise do you think that they would have hesitated to use a nuclear weapons if they had them?

      Just like Iraqi used its weapons of mass destruction as they faced their ultimate demise?

    64. Re:Why single out SDI? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >3. leave transmition in first gear

      Thats easily solved - drive a manual rather than an automatic (which lets be honest , were designed)
      for old people and the terminally lazy.

    65. Re:Why single out SDI? by Splab · · Score: 1

      have you ever stopped and noticed how the US seems to have done everything to others, but when it turns around and bite them in their whiny ass they get all upset? You lost 3000 in those towers... that is less than 1 percent of terrorist kills the US is responsible for. Not to mention how US managed to support the fall of democracy in argentina... In your mind its ok as long as the us does it, but when it goes the other way you get all sobby.

    66. Re:Why single out SDI? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      Ah, IIRC russia has done the same thing as well for the last few years now.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    67. Re:Why single out SDI? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      well if yuo read your history, both Germany and Japan was trying to build the bomb as well. In fact Germany tried to send - when it understood that it pretty much would be screwed most of it's uranium over to japan in a submarine. Germany capitulated however before it reached japan and the German sub gave itself up to the americans - which used the uranium for their own 2 bombs. Also bear in mind that the US only had 2 bombs and they really didn't couldn't waste any for a showcase for the japanese. Remember it took *two* bombs to make japan surrender so I suppose they made the right choice. Not that I believe anyone - especially not civilians - deserve to be nuked, but it probably saved quite a few life rather than having USA invading japan.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    68. Re:Why single out SDI? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Yes, I want you to put your trust into the general sanity of other nations. Not "all" your trust, but enough trust not to hunker like a paranoid xenophobe under some supposedly impenetrable shield. And not "all" nations--there are going to be rogue nations. And the US should put sufficient trust in the rest of the world that if the US were to be attacked, alliances like NATO would come to their help.

      Don't worry LA or New York or DC are taken out, trust your NATO brothers or friendly UN to... uh, nevermind I'm an idiot.

      Its not about retaliations. Its about protecting the citizenry before an attack as such can be launched and people get killed.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    69. Re:Why single out SDI? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      I despair that, even though the U.S. absolutely crushed an army once ranked 5th in the world, we're still getting told we need more military protection, more spending in weapons research, and a big shield to protect us from their nasty missles--- this when arms races have universally shown themselves to be precursors to major warfare throughout the history of mankind.

      Wrong, cold war? I have yet to see the huge fall out of the arms race that occured during the cold war.

      However, I have seen when military spending has diminished we have been hurt because of it. Consider Carter, we have folks captured in Iran(?) and then we send in folks to go rescue them and they get captured!

      Consider Clinton, he cuts military spending and low and behold we have other embarassments under his watch.

      Consider Bush, we have Afghanistan and Iraq, two decisive victories.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    70. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, you anti-Americans, excuse me, peace lovers never seemed to get your panties in a bunch about the Soviet Union's ABM system, complete with nuclear warheads on their interceptors. You know, the one with SA-1 surrounding Moscow with a wonderful phased-array radar system that faced north from Siberia? The one they began upgrading in 1978 with nuclear-tipped SA-6s and a new set of radars? What a bunch of hypocritical bastards!

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_de fe nse/page.cfm?pageID=609

      And say, why is the EU increasing their greenhouse gas emmissions instead of lower them as they claimed they would under Kyoto, which they signed and ratified? Weird how the US doesn't sign the treaty and lowers their emmissions, and the Europeans sign it, use it as an excuse to desecrate the graves of Americans who freed them, then fail to live up to it. Typical socialist "intentions are all that count" loosers!

    71. Re:Why single out SDI? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      And the US should put sufficient trust in the rest of the world that if the US were to be attacked, alliances like NATO would come to their help.

      That is hard right now. There is a lack of trust on both sides. America is the biggest, and people don't trust us to do the right thing. Meanwhile, we Americans collectively (with some dissent) came to a conclusion, found noone willing to agree with us (or at least none of the "important" nations, apparently), and after consideration were unwilling to change our conclusions just because noone else agreed. It's hard to trust that people would come to our aid because something that seems so obvious to so many of us wasn't obvious on the other side of the Atlantic.

      Bombing Iraq makes France unhappy? Too bad.

      Well, like I said, America is the biggest but we're not trusted to do the right thing with that. We're not going to hamper ourselves just so people will be less scared of us. They can trust us, or they can fear us, but we know ourselves and, for better or for worse, the only force making America do the right thing right now is the American people. "Too bad ... get used to it," seems to be pretty much the only possible course of action. I say wait and see; we're not bent on conquest. We know it, and eventually history will bear that out.

      the US stands and falls with its economy, and the US ultimately can't employ its military force without destroying that.

      Non sequiter. Where did you come up with that?

      Without it, the US will just keep making bad decisions until it's too late.

      Most Americans do not think these have been bad decisions. It may be totally obvious that they're bad to Europeans, but only history is the judge of that.

      I tried to stick to generalities here; I'm well aware people all over the place disagree. :)

    72. Re:Why single out SDI? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      this when arms races have universally shown themselves to be precursors to major warfare throughout the history of mankind.

      You mean like the U.S./Soviet arms race?

    73. Re:Why single out SDI? by spruce · · Score: 1

      We canadians actually value life....150,000 people is a fucking lot, do not belittle them.

      Which is why you should be glad we dropped the bomb instead of waging a land war, because many more people would have died.

    74. Re:Why single out SDI? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      There is nothing unsafe about a defensive nuclear missle.

      The problem is, you can turn a defensive nuke into an offensive nuke just by changing the adjective. Do you trust the sanity of the leaders in the U.S. not to do that?

    75. Re:Why single out SDI? by kcornia · · Score: 1

      I'm very puzzled as to why no one has put forth the theory that the reason WoMD were not ordered to be used in Iraq during its death throes is because Saddam Hussein was already dead, and none of the rest of those in the command structure wanted that hanging over their heads...

      Seems to me to be a VERY LIKELY scenario, much more likely than Saddam building the arsenal for 20 years, spewing all his threatening rhetoric, and then deciding not to use it...

    76. Re:Why single out SDI? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Consider Clinton, he cuts military spending and low and behold we have other embarassments under his watch.

      Meaning a blowjob? Hell, we get those no matter how much we spend on the military. ;)

      Seriously, though, you're forgetting Kosovo and the attack on Iraq in 98(?), both decisive victories as massive air campaigns, with no American casualties.

      Consider Bush, we have Afghanistan and Iraq, two decisive victories.

      Well, I'll grant you Iraq, but the jury's still out on Afghanistan... After all, wasn't that conflict not to attack Afghanistan, but to destroy Al Queda and get Bin Laden? And where's Bin Laden now? No one knows, but it looks like he's alive and in hiding. Where's Saddam? Again, no one knows, but there are indications he might have gotten out (but at least with Iraq it wasn't just 'get Saddam' but 'crush the regime'... that's the only reason it was a victory)

      -T

    77. Re:Why single out SDI? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Err, you do realize there's another option here... maybe there WERE NO WMDs! I know, hard to believe... after all, Powell has proof! Well, sorta. Well, grainy satellite photos that kinda look like mobile chem labs and such. A little.

    78. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your version of history reads like a bad scifi book.

    79. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      There's a book called "Downfall" you might want to read.

      The Japanese were killing about 100,000 Chinese a month in 1945. Almost all civilian. Shaving three months off the war more than makes up for the deaths caused by the nukes.

      In the US invasion of Okinawa, more Navy sailors died from kamikaze attacks than Army and Marine troops died taking the islands. The military thought the Japanese would have about 1500 kamikazes defending the home islands. They about wet their pants after the surrender when they found 6000 kamikaze planes.

      If the war had continued, the Japanese people would have endured a winter with no fuel, no transport, and no food. Millions would have starved or died from exposure and sickness.

      And, of course, even if the US had never had the Manhattan Project, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been burned to the ground by B-29 bombers anyway, just like every other city in Japan. They probably had to keep threatening Curtis LeMay with immediate court martial to keep him from burning those cities to the ground as it was.

      Sure, the Japanese were trying to surrender. Just not unconditionally. The military leaders wanted to stay in power and get the chance to rearm. Imagine those psychopaths running Japan in the '50s. In a world with nukes.

      Let's do a little thought experiment. The USSR declared war on Japan about a week before the surrender; in that week they took half of Korea. If the war had gone on for just another week or two, Kim Il Jung II would rule all of Korea, not just half of it. And it's very possible that the Japanese military would have submitted to Soviet occupation to preclude an American invasion, as long as those in power kept most of their power. The officers in power were (quite rightly) scared to death of American occupation.

      Also, Japanese culture made it impossible for them to surrender to American military superiority. But they could justify to themselves having to surrender to American scientific superiority. Even so, Japanese military officers tried to kidnap the Emporer to prevent him from surrendering.

      And if we had the bomb, and didn't use it, Truman would have been carried off by a mob and hung from the nearest lamppost. Also, just how effective do you think the concept of nuclear deterrence would work if we didn't use nukes to end a war we didn't start?

    80. Re:Why single out SDI? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      With both Afghanistan and Iraq the goal was remove the regimes in power at the time.

      Though getting Bin Laden and Saddam would have been nice, neither was the goal. Anyone silly enough to pop up and say they are harboring either of the men wouldn't last long enough to 'yipe' from ass whooping they'd recieve.

      As for under Clinton we also had Somalia incident and the Cole bombing. The Cole bombing I don't think should necessarily be laid at Clinton's feet, but a response to the the attack should not have gone unanswered, and even previously the original WTC bombing should have been responded to.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    81. Re:Why single out SDI? by alienmole · · Score: 1

      It will be interesting to see the reaction the first time a system like this actually does go wrong. The U.S. could end up killing more of its own citizens than any terrorists ever did... Do you trust the DoD to have automatically controlled missiles flying around in U.S. airspace??

    82. Re:Why single out SDI? by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "If the war had continued, the Japanese people would have endured a winter with no fuel, no transport, and no food. Millions would have starved or died from exposure and sickness."

      The war was not going to continue. The japanese were looking to surrender. They had already talked to several nations who were going to act as mediators for a negotiated surrender. That nullifies you entire "millions would have been killed argument".

      "And, of course, even if the US had never had the Manhattan Project, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been burned to the ground by B-29 bombers anyway, just like every other city in Japan"

      No matter how you kill civillians it's unethical.

      "Sure, the Japanese were trying to surrender. Just not unconditionally. The military leaders wanted to stay in power and get the chance to rearm. Imagine those psychopaths running Japan in the '50s. In a world with nukes."

      They could have been disarmed and kept under control. At the time the russians were our allies and the chinese and the koreans hated the japanese. We could have easily held them in check. Not to mention we ended up setting up military bases on japan. It's evil to murder people in order to exact an unconditional surrender if they were willing to lay down their arms.

      "Let's do a little thought experiment. "

      Let's not. It's a silly exercise and your suppositions are plain on stupid.

      "Also, Japanese culture made it impossible for them to surrender to American military superiority."

      Bullshit. You yourself said they were looking to surrender.

      "And if we had the bomb, and didn't use it, Truman would have been carried off by a mob and hung from the nearest lamppost. "

      Nonsense. If the japanese surrendered then everybody would have been happy. Also we could have dropped the bomb in tokyo bay thsu demonstrating our ability to wipe out the nation without actually killing people.

      Finally. Even if you were right in 100% of what you said (and you are not) that might have justified the first bomb.

      Now justify the second one.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    83. Re:Why single out SDI? by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      I guess this is what passes for education in america these days.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    84. Re:Why single out SDI? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
      By the way, how can a chip in your car make the engine blow up?

      Theoretically, especially on a turbocharged vehicle, it's very easy- too much boost and the engine won't take the strain. On normally aspirated engines, it's tougher, but not impossible- engines don't like to be run lean, for example; you can burn exhaust valves.

      In practice, engines grenade from(in order) a)human stupidity(ignoring the apporpiately named "idiot lights") and b)component failure- either sensor, actuator, or regular old mechanical devices.

      The ECU itself rarely, if ever, fails, unless it was very poorly designed. As for the ECUs going nuts, the favorite example is the Audi 5000, except that it was pedal placement(Audis had pedals in -slightly- different positions from US cars) and stupid users(hitting the wrong pedal), not the ECU(which was one of the first to feature a computer-controlled idle, and hence attracted the wrath of countless luddites who predicted death+destruction, and then screamed "told you so!" when it turned out to be something else entirely.)

    85. Re:Why single out SDI? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      well, somtimes the truth is stranger than any (bad) sci-fi. ;-)
      links provided:
      one
      two
      three
      four
      (scroll to end)

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    86. Re:Why single out SDI? by lumpenprole · · Score: 1

      --There is nothing unsafe about a defensive nuclear missle.--

      Wow. That's the most jaw-dropping pile of bullshit I've ever seen. What, is defensive fallout magically good for you because it's defensive? Maybe we could take some of the nuke power plants and christen them defensive so that if they blow, no problem. Pick up the dust and sprinkle it on your cereal, kids! It's defensive!

      Seriously, the Patriot system was deeply flawed, but let's say that the most optimistic assumptions were true and it hit like 50% of the time. That's 50% misses. With a targeted nuke, that's a random pile of death for thousands of years with no real idea where it's going. Great idea.

      --
      Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
    87. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that frickin' laser beam have a shark on it, by any chance?

    88. Re:Why single out SDI? by incom · · Score: 1

      I think Stalinist russia is a diffrent scenario than the USA. And of course a losing country would have been pretty likely to use it, but the US was WINNING, and they used TWO bombs, and on CIVILLIAN targets.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    89. Re:Why single out SDI? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Soon cars will have 48V batteries. This will allow for electronically controlled intake and exhaust valves. In engines that have valves that enter the area swept by the piston, you will snap a valve off if the timimg is off by that much (holds fingers 0.5mm apart).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    90. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      What did he use against the Kurds and Iranians, harsh language? He did have them at one time, and, if he did destroy them, he didn't bother to have the destruction witnessed by the inspectors. Kind of stupid for him to do that, since then he was forced to try to prove a negative.

    91. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the automatic transmission is a car uses a pressure plate to determine if there's too much pressure at a gear, thereby causing it to shift.

      Automatic transmissions are not computer controlled, and they were in cars long before computers were.

    92. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Hmm, let's see:

      Use two nukes, no American deaths, 300,000 innocents die.

      Don't use two nukes, 100,000+ American deaths, well over a million innocents die.

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be burnt to the ground in either case.

      50 million people died in WWII, and about 40 millioln of them were civilians, the vast majority of those were killed by people other than Americans.

    93. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      The US hasn't considered using nukes for anti-missile defense for about, oh, 40 years.

    94. Re:Why single out SDI? by lubricated · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of older automatic transmissions. Many auto transmissions today are computer controlled and you can even get chips for cars that will allow you to rev the engine higher and shift harder.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    95. Re:Why single out SDI? by incom · · Score: 1

      1 nuke on a large millitary target would have been quite enough. And if in the off chance it wouldn't have been, then nuke another MILLITARY target. Nuke apologists are of the same essential breed as holocaust deniers. Heck even a nuke in plain site in the ocean near a large city would have scared them into surrender.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    96. Re:Why single out SDI? by XO · · Score: 1

      Just pop the engine over the redline for a while, don't need to kill the radiator or the fuel mixture.. i've blown two engines in the last few years.. ;-)

      or just cause the oil pump to fail. that'll do it good.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    97. Re:Why single out SDI? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      I'll try to explain with an example you can test yourself. Some ATM machines have a time delay mechanism when they eject the user's card. If the card sits in the reader too long, it is pulled back in and the account locked until a bank person resets everything.

      Ok, this is just too weird a coincidence. An hour ago I noticed an ATM machine beeping, and the person's card still in the machine. It pulled it in, then pushed it out again. (I removed it and took it inside the bank and gave it to a teller.)

      Yeah, irrelevant to the discussion, but just weird timing.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    98. Re:Why single out SDI? by Sinical · · Score: 1
      We need competent politicians of principle and vision who can think beyond warfare to solve the problems of the world.

      But on *this* planet, we work with what we got.

      Additionally, if you think someone in the 3rd world is going to magically come up with some kind of wackiness that will remote the efficacy of a defensive net like that which is being talked about, I think you're on crack. No one is launching a rocket that doesn't have an IR plume, and the track radars that are being built are sophisticated enough that I think stealthing technology would have to be crazy good to avoid being detected -- and what are these parties supposed to test against, since they can't build radars of that sophistication currently, etc.?

      It's more likely a low-tech approach (sneaking over the border) would work better than some fantastical high-tech approach, but obviously we have border guards, so why not have the defensive net and try to cover both angles.

    99. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      140,000 die in the fire bombings of tokyo.
      Over 100,000 die in the battle for Okinawa.
      Over 100,000 die in the blast at Hiroshima.
      Why would the Japanese government have surrendered after the death of a bunch of fish with a bomb dropped on the ocean.

    100. Re:Why single out SDI? by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      I am sure some can be planted along with faked documents.

      I guess it takes longer then expected to plant chemical weapons in iraq.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    101. Re:Why single out SDI? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      A president who thinks he's got a missile shield is like a middle schooler wearing gang colors in the Bronx who thinks he knows karate. I think that's the worst analogy I've ever come up with. Good lord.

      It is a very bad analogy. Especially considering that the prior administration under Saint Bill had the same missile shield, and that should Gore Esq. have won the last election, he would have had that very same missile shield. This isn't something that Bush invented.

      Back to the topic at hand. Should there be nation states with ballistic missiles aimed at the US, then I, as a US citizen, would prefer to have a missile shield of some kind in place, even if it isn't 100% perfect, than to have no shield at all. Notice that I did NOT say that I would before a greater offensive buildup. Nor did I say that I didn't want any other country to have one as well. Stopping 99 missiles out of 100 from getting through is a damn site better than letting all 100 get though.

      I may have issues with specific proposals for ballistic defense technologies, but I do not have any issues with the basic concept. My views on the matter do not shift and sway according to who is currently holding the office of US President.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    102. Re:Why single out SDI? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is impossible, however, with cars which use cable-actuated throttle bodies. Only the newer throttle-by-wire cars will be susceptible to this. And what benefit throttle-by-wire has over a cable, I have no idea, unless the car has a mid or rear mounted engine.

    103. Re:Why single out SDI? by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Good point!

      Still cruise control(s) have a few failsafe's in them.

      One is that the circuit that controls the actuator is routed through a switch on your brake (and clutch) pedal. This is a separate circuit to the one that already tells your cruise control that you've got your foot on the brake.

      Cruise controls will also cut out if they change speed above or below their set speed. Mine's about 20kph... yours may vary.

      Finally, cruise control is still dependant upon the ignition switch, as is your ECU. (Except for a small wire for memory backup)

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    104. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these military agencies had carte blanche to walk into any lab in the us they wanted, that's why innovation happend, everyone worked towards the same goal. Research on other things stopped. So you can still hate the military, there is nothing special about them it was the access they got that was special.

    105. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Over 200,000 died at Okinawa.

      And the 140,000 dead in the firebombing of Tokyo was on the first night. Not total.

    106. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Do you know where they built the torpedoes used against the US fleet at Pearl Harbor?

      Nagasaki. At the Mitsubishi plant.

      The problem with military targets, especially in a country with little usable land like Japan, is that they're right next to cities.

      And if we'd dropped a nuke in the middle of the ocean, they'd have just thought we were a bunch of pussies. Or lousy shots. ;)

      After Nagasaki, Japanese officers tried to kidnap the Emperor to keep him from surrendering. We're lucky we didn't have to bomb *three* cities. They didn't even start discussing surrender seriously until after the Nagasaki bomb (and not discussions with us; we broke their diplomatic codes so we knew what their true intentions were).

    107. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that could just be because Bush is a lying fucker and Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction...

      Or maybe Saddam just dumped all the nasty stuff in the Euphraties river, rounded up the $900 million in cash he had stashed away, and then snuck away to any number of places.
    108. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      200,000 people died in the invasion of Okinawa. I have a real hard time believing less than 300,000 people would die in the invasion of the home islands.

      You really should check out the "Downfall" book. We had the Japanese diplomatic codes broken. We knew what they wanted out of a negotiated peace. Initially their plan was to make an invasion of the home islands so bloody that we would accept terms where they would withdraw from Manchuria and Korea, and there would be no occupation of Japan. The military would remain in control of Japan. That would have been unacceptable in a world with nuclear weapons. It was only after Nagasaki that they began to seriously consider terms acceptable to the US (in their communications to the USSR and amongst themselves).

      The US wasn't going to accept conditional surrender, not without occupation and "regime change". The fscked up Armistice at the end of WWI, which the US thought was a really bad idea, was a direct cause of WWII. The truly evil people running Japan had to be rooted out.

    109. Re:Why single out SDI? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Nothing worse than the Iranians. Both sides used chemicals, but of course only Iraq is persecuted for it. Go figure.

      Maybe they were all used in that war. Maybe they were destroyed by USAXIS-of-Evil bombings in the first gulf war. Maybe he destroyed them before there were any inspectors.

    110. Re:Why single out SDI? by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      " I have a real hard time believing less than 300,000 people would die in the invasion of the home islands."

      Once again they were ready to surrender, there was no real need to invade.

      "The US wasn't going to accept conditional surrender, not without occupation and "regime change"."

      It is unethical to kill people who are willing to surrender and lay down their arms. Do you need me to repeat that for you a few times? In warfare you are not supposed to kill soldiers wawing a white flag. It's evil to do so. If we had entered into negotiations with them we might have found a way to get all that we wanted without committing slaughter. Japan knew it was a defeated army, they were ready to surrender. We did not even attempt such a thing, we simply committed genocide without ever considering an alternative. I don't know what your definition of evil is but to me if a country is given a series of options and it chooses the one that kills the most people then it's evil.

      Once again you keep skirting the real issues. You keep insisting that japan would not surrender unless we dropped nuclear bombs on their cities. This is pure nonsense. Like I said we could have dropped the bomb in the bay, we could have dropped the bomb in less populated areas, we could have dropped the bomb on the north island on top of some mountain. We could have demostrated our ability to kill them by the millions without actually doing so. It was an evil act to drop nuclear bombs on cities when there were alternatives.

      And of course you completely ignored the espcially henious act of dropping the second bomb.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    111. Re:Why single out SDI? by g4dget · · Score: 1
      Recent history argues otherwise. NATO invoked Article V, but used it as an excuse to try to stop the attack on Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan.

      In complaining that NATO members may have tried to stop it, you are presuming that that attack was, in fact, necessary, justified, and effective. That was certainly not clear then, and it still is far from clear. It is something that would have warranted more discussion before going ahead, and there was no time pressure to rush into it, other than domestic US politics.

      In fact, NATO was, if anything, quite supportive of the US efforts and it was the US that declined more NATO participation.

    112. Re:Why single out SDI? by g4dget · · Score: 1
      Its not about retaliations. Its about protecting the citizenry before an attack as such can be launched and people get killed.

      We are not disagreeing on that, we are disagreeing on whether that's a good thing. You seem to think it is. I don't think so. US foreign policy should be aimed at improving the conditions in the rest of the world so that such attacks don't happen. But if US voters have the impression that they live behind an impenetrable shield (an illusion, but just as dangerous as an illusion), they aren't going to make the economic and political sacrifices to make that happen.

      Don't worry LA or New York or DC are taken out, trust your NATO brothers or friendly UN to... uh, nevermind I'm an idiot.

      Yes. The rest of the world has to trust the UN and organizations like NATO. The rest of the world has to live with the possibility that Russia or Iraq or North Korea or India can drop a bomb on them. Or, for that matter, that some US president declares them undesirable and drops a bomb on them. It's what gets people to negotiate and work towards better international cooperation. But the US wants to remove itself from all that and be able to send its military anywhere in the world with impunity, with no international checks and balances, and without the need to talk to anybody about it. And it's already happening: Bush has given the finger to numerous major international compromises that he didn't like for short term economic reasons.

      The only thing that makes this worse is that, in the end, SDI isn't even going to be effective: the US will behave as if it worked, but the US population will still be at grave risk. And enormous sums of money will have been consumed in the process.

      A far more reasonable and effective alternative is to invest all that money in international aid, education, and nuclear weapons destruction and control. But, of course, defense contractors wouldn't make much money from that.

    113. Re:Why single out SDI? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      We canadians actually value life....150,000 people is a fucking lot, do not belittle them.
      *cough*Nanking*cough*Burmah railroad. That's to say, the slant's deserved fucking nuking.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    114. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      point being. The Japanese showed no signs of surrendering even after massive casualties. The OP's point that the Japanese would have given up after seeing a huge nuclear explosion in the ocean or on a strictly military target is absolutely ludicrous.

    115. Re:Why single out SDI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of codes. Ever read Codebreakers by David Kahn ? Great book.

    116. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      And you keep saying they were willing to surrender when what they were willing to do was negotiate a peace. You know, like the peace negotiated at the end of the Korean War and at the end of the first Gulf War, where the fighting stopped but the psychos stayed in control. Those worked out reeaall well for the citizens of North Korea and Iraq.

      The Japanese were not willing to accept a surrender that involved occupation until after Nagasaki. We *know* that because we had their diplomatic codes broken. What reason do *you* have to believe otherwise?

      We had already demonstrated our ability to kill them by the millions, to no effect. The reason they surrendered was because the US had "begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization." That is what it took for them to surrender.

      And of course *you* have completely ignored the 100,000 Chinese and Koreans, the vast majority of them civilians, that the Japanese were butchering every month. I'll save my tears for them.

    117. Re:Why single out SDI? by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      " And you keep saying they were willing to surrender when what they were willing to do was negotiate a peace. "

      Once again it's evil to kill soldiers who are waving white flags. We never entered into negotiations so we'll never know what they would or could have done.

      "What reason do *you* have to believe otherwise?"

      We will never know. We chose to kill them by the hundreds of thousands rather then enter into negotiations. We also chose to slaughter civillians rather then to demonstrate our bombs in less lethal ways.

      At every opportunity we chose to pick the most evil option available to us.

      "And of course *you* have completely ignored the 100,000 Chinese and Koreans, the vast majority of them civilians, that the Japanese were butchering every month. I'll save my tears for them."

      Woo hoo you are less evil then the evil japanese regime you were fighting. Congratulations. I am happy to see that you set the bar so low yourself. I guess being the second most evil person is good enough for you. I should be fair I guess maybe you were the third or fourth most evil.

      Woo Hoo! congratulate us. We are not the most evil people in the world!.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    118. Re:Why single out SDI? by hughk · · Score: 1
      My problem with military procurement is that there is a progression from the military and government to the companies selling the hardware. This smells of potential corruption. Bringing more air in the form of publicity tends to reduce this.

      If a fraction of the amount of money was spent in the state department that is wasted in defence, then it becomes much less likely that wars would have to be fought. Forget the SDIs, the main danger is asymmetric warfare and no ABM, SDI or whatever will ever help against that.

      I disagree with you about the Soviet Union though. The main factors that allowed the fall, was the downing of flight KL007, and the landing of Mathias Rust in Red Square. These two incidents helped Gorbachov initiate a reform within the military which allowed political change to happen. Unfortunately, the reform did not continue and the Russian military machine remains incredibly corrupt.

      I really don't mind a military, but I don't like one that is to big and in bed with the manufacturers. The last time this happened, it was Germany in the thirties. I don't mind government sponsored projects, but lets try to keep them in the open as much as possible, so we can be sure that the best bid really does win and that contractors are properly evaluated on performance.

      Some projects such as the original US space program started off secret, but that was the time of the cold war. Afterwards, almost any design detail was made available. Even better are projects where government aid helps other countries through American companies. Such projects are invaluable for fostering good relations and helps open the door to real commercial deals in the future.

      I am aware that some technology does trickle down out of the military (and of the origins of some technologies), but many more come about through open commercial competition and international cooperation/competition.

      If the military contractors want something new to do, there are plenty of other ways of spending our dollars that could address real problems.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    119. Re:Why single out SDI? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      They were waving white flags? News to me. They were trying to get the USSR to intervene to get a negotiated peace, where they could remain in power, with no occupation. In return, the Soviets would get the Kiril Islands and a whole lot of fishing rights.

      They knew our terms. Unconditional surrender had been the terms since the beginning of the war. They could have surrendered unconditionally at any time. In their secret negotiations with the Soviets, they never came close to acceptable terms. They refused to even consider anything remotely near our terms until after Nagasaki.

      A bad peace can be worse than war. The main reason for WWII (at least in Europe) was the messed-up conditions of the WWI Armistice. The cease-fire at the end of the Korean War has cost countless lives (though there was not much that could have been done differently there). FDR, Churchill, and Truman had brains enough to realize that the Nazis and the Japanese had to be defeated unconditionally.

      Maybe we should have sued for peace right after Pearl Harbor. I'm sure that the Japanese would have agreed to not attack Hawaii, Alaska, or the West Coast if we agreed to let them run rampant in Asia. Then there would be no blood on our hands. Too bad you weren't President back then.

  5. ah, right by MattW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release.

    That's right. Better to have never tried at all than to try and fail, I always say.

    1. Re:ah, right by vandan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The poster was referring to the problems associated with a software bug in Baby Bush's Star Wars project. In this case, failure could mean mass extinctions.

    2. Re:ah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, how does potentially at most incinerating a neighborhood == mass extinctions?

    3. Re:ah, right by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The point is you can never test SDI, because you are working against an opponent that is consciously trying to work around your system. You can never predict how the attack with occur. Then you can never simulate the attack, even as you might predict it -- you can never launch empty missiles at a realistic target. Instead at best you do tests over the ocean. That's why it will always be in beta, which is not a useful status for a safeguard.

      But more concerning is the fact that despite their effort they cannot pass even their minimal tests, and resort to fraud instead. We have tried, and failed. The whole thing is military graft -- money being sent down a pit to profit defense companies. They probably hope to cover up the failure of the system by avoiding any real-world test of the system, though certainly avoiding having missiles launched at the US is a good goal regardless.

    4. Re:ah, right by jrl87 · · Score: 1

      Unless your Microsoft, then you can sell it for $300-$1000 release a series of patches/updates every wednesday and when someone calls to complain you simply ask them
      "Did you log onto Windows?"
      If they respond yes, you tell them "Sorry, by logging onto Windows you waived all rights to tech support; it's your problem deal with it"
      If they respond no, you tell them "You must log onto Windows before I can provide tech support"

    5. Re:ah, right by Chester+K · · Score: 1

      That's right. Better to have never tried at all than to try and fail, I always say.

      Better to not lull yourself into a false sense of security beneath your ABM blanket and make people try firing missiles at you, hoping they won't land, I always say.

      --

      NO CARRIER
    6. Re:ah, right by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      But more concerning is the fact that despite their effort they cannot pass even their minimal tests, and resort to fraud instead. We have tried, and failed. The whole thing is military graft -- money being sent down a pit to profit defense companies. They probably hope to cover up the failure of the system by avoiding any real-world test of the system, though certainly avoiding having missiles launched at the US is a good goal regardless.

      I politely disagree.

      Yes, there was a scandal awhile back about the military having radio-repeaters (forgot the tech-term) on the target missiles. But, like the military said in their rebuttal, if the defense system isn't designed to look for the signal, it doesn't really alter the validity of the test.

      Judging from the PATRIOT III missile system we used in Kuwait recently, the technology is just getting better and better.

    7. Re:ah, right by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Hey, the laser beam could hit a nuclear reactor, how would you like that? Of course the probability of that would be a lot smaller, and I don't think no government would have laser-shooting satellites targetting its own country anyway.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    8. Re:ah, right by Kaeru+the+Frog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh..

      10 LAT = LAT + 1
      20 LONG = LONG + 1
      30 GOSUB FIRELASER
      40 GOTO 10

      I know it won't cause as much destruction as possible but I've forgoten how to for loops in Basic. Besides, everybody knows gotos are funnier.

    9. Re:ah, right by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The point is you can never test SDI"

      Yea you can. You know what decoys the US uses, you have intel on what the Russians use and therefore what the Chinese use. By knowing the throw-weight of the DPRK warhead, the range of the missile and the weight of the missile you can figure out how many decoys the DRPK have.

      Then you mockup a Minuteman II out at Vandenberg the way you expect the OpFor's bird is and fly it, you take that data and compare it to known parameters on your SDI systems and you start making up senarios.

      Saying that it won't work because we don't know what they'll do is like saying an F-15C with AIM-120s can't shoot down a MiG-29 with AA-10s the first time they meet because we don't know what the MiG's capabilities are.

    10. Re:ah, right by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 4, Funny
      Judging from the PATRIOT III missile system we used in Kuwait recently, the technology is just getting better and better.

      Yeah, those British blokes in their Tornado never knew what hit them.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    11. Re:ah, right by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Forget decoys. What if they soak the warhead in liquid nitrogen just before placing it in the missile nosecone? As soon as the booster fairing is ejected, no infrared image to track.

      What if they use gas jets to jockey the warhead around randomly as it travels?

      What if they first nuke the airspace high over the pacific ocean to screw up all of the sensitive detection equipment?

      What if they install a cruise missile on a fishing boat?

      What if they mail the bomb by FedEx?

      I could go on and on. There are literally thousands of things they could do to thwart this system. Most of them cost a tiny fraction of what we're spending. All this system does is create a false sense of security.

    12. Re:ah, right by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "You can never predict how the attack with occur."

      No, I'd have to say that a ballistic flight path is very predictable, and have been for several centuries (in spite of what Pope Urban has to say). At worst they can try decoys, which can only be so effective when you're trying to hide in a vacuum against a black background.

      "Instead at best you do tests over the ocean."

      Over a patch of ocean bigger than the United States, and not giving the interceptor any prior knowledge of the incoming arc. If the system can identify, track, and launch against incoming ballistic targets in that environment, it can do it anywhere.

      "But more concerning is the fact that despite their effort they cannot pass even their minimal tests, and resort to fraud instead."

      I'm sorry, at what point did they say all testing was done and that they were going ahead with full deployment? The US backed out of the ABM treaty for the stated reason that current testing was bending the rules and there was concern that further testing may violate it. We abandoned the ABM treaty to continue testing, not because testing was complete.

      "We have tried, and failed."

      When last I heard, the system being tested hit at least a simple majority of targets used so far.

      "The whole thing is military graft -- money being sent down a pit to profit defense companies."

      I'm sorry, you seem to be confusing SDI with the ISS. :)

    13. Re:ah, right by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "What if they soak the warhead in liquid nitrogen just before placing it in the missile nosecone?"

      What if something dings the supercooled warhead and it shatters?

      "What if they use gas jets to jockey the warhead around randomly as it travels?"

      And then it is how accurate? CEP is important for a nuke or any other missile. A wigglin' MIRV is a MIRV that tumbles and burns.

      "What if they first nuke the airspace high over the pacific ocean to screw up all of the sensitive detection equipment?"

      Military electronics are hardened. Military communications are hardened and redundant. The US military has been buying systems designed to fight a war in a theatre or stratigic nuclear environment for close to 60 years now.

      "What if they install a cruise missile on a fishing boat?"

      That's what TMD upgrades for Patriot and Aegis are for.

      "What if they mail the bomb by FedEx?"

      It's gotta be under 70 pounds for delivery to the door.

    14. Re:ah, right by sean23007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe it's best not to bring these kinds of situations up. After all, we might start bombing fishing boats and FedEx trucks on account of the clear and present danger they obviously pose to national security...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    15. Re:ah, right by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      1. What if it isn't dinged.

      2. A couple of feet will move out of the way of the ABM, but it won't make much difference on a city-sized target. Make sure the summed motion of the jets cancel to zero overall.

      3. I wasn't talking about hardened. Setting off a nuke in the ionosphere makes for some crazy light effects. Kind of hard to see the warhead coming through that.

      4. Hopefully these improved Patriots will shoot down fewer airliners than they did British fighter jets.

      5. You're right on that one. The enemy just going to have to come up with the cash for a charter flight instead.

    16. Re:ah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Code reuse from Therac-25, I see.

    17. Re:ah, right by kindofblue · · Score: 1

      Apparently those jets did not properly emit some signal that the Patriots use to identify friendly aircraft. They were flying low and may have switched the beacon off, or something like that. I think that was the initial assessment, but I don't know what they eventually concluded.

    18. Re:ah, right by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      The point is you can never test SDI, because you are working against an opponent that is consciously trying to work around your system.

      Sounds like you're claiming the Military needs to adopt a 'security through obscurity' approach. I thought everybody already had agreed that was wrong.

      Or does that only apply as an excuse when people want access to source code?

    19. Re:ah, right by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Mutually Assured Destruction is your whole game plan, huh?

      What makes you think every rogue state out there thinks the way you do?

      Please stop thinking this is 1964.

    20. Re:ah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember hearing that the British pilot was well known for being a hot-shot who had a history of goofing off This time, he knowingly flew off course because, hey, he's in a Tornado. The coalition noticed some unknown object flying in, and fired a Patriot missle at it.

    21. Re:ah, right by bellings · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm guessing a Tornado looks exactly like a balistic missle to the PATRIOT tracking system.

      And your ... looks exactly like your ... to me.

      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    22. Re:ah, right by mnemonic_ · · Score: 0

      The warhead would still heat up due to aerodynamic friction, sufficient enough for an imaging IR seeker. And of course, a radar would have no problem gaining a tracking solution.

      Random movement would not be very conducive to accurate guidance of the weapon. It could still be attacked by a weapoing using lead pursuit, then by switching to pure pursuit in the terminal stage.

      Nuking the airspace wouldn't do much to mess up radars, unless we're taking many many petatons worth of nukes.

      Installing a cruise missile on a fishing boat is simply not technically feasible, depending on your definition of "fishing boat" (a fishing boat with the attributes of a destroyer perhaps?).

      Yes, you could mail the bomb.

      There are many different ways to attempt to dodge the ABM system. The thing is, most of them would either not work and are based off of uninformed speculation. Others (such as most terrorist actions) could be effective, but that's a different issue. ABM proponents feel that there are many ways to attack the U.S., with ballistic missiles being one of them that is clear and present. The ABM program is intended to stop that threat.

    23. Re:ah, right by mnemonic_ · · Score: 0

      2. No, a couple of feet will not. While some ABM's are designed to actually impact the ballistic missile, they are also equipped with proximity fuses, which in the case of a miss, would detonate the fragmentation warhead and destroy the ballistic missile.

      4. Technology can't prevent human error.

    24. Re:ah, right by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      I thought in this case it meant that a nuke that would have gotten through without SDI gets through anyway. At least this way we *try* and knock out the inbound weapon. The risk (vaporizing a house) seems worth the benefit (not vaporizing a city).

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    25. Re:ah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same blody blokes who fat-fingered the IFF transponder and looked like an unfriendly to the Patriot????

    26. Re:ah, right by vandan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are assuming that SDI will be used in defense.
      When used for its primary purpose - attacking countries that do not approve of the US regime - the danger is that instead of knocking out a military target, a bug in the software could cause the death of a large number of civilians in a highly populated area............
      Oh yeah.
      It already happened and no-one gives a shit.
      Sorry.

    27. Re:ah, right by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      The Patriot is what's known as a THAAD, theater high altitude air defense. The original version was designed to shoot down aircraft, not missiles.

      Gulf War 2 was the first life fire demonstration of the Patriot's ability to successfully engage aircraft. Unfortunately, it happened to be friendly aircraft.

      It also proved it's ability to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles.

      The simple fact is, while there are other means of delivering nuclear weapons, a ballistic missile is the most reliable way. It's also the only manner in which there is, currently, no effective deployed counter measure.

      I really don't know how these neo-commies like little boy Timmy can sleep at night denigrating BMD as "SDI" (clue: SDI was in the 80s) all the while North Korea is threatening to nuke the United States if we impose economic sanctions on them.

      Folks, the threat is real. If missiles were such an inefficient means of delivery, then why is North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, and every other would be nuclear power eagerly pursuing the developing of ballistic missiles? After all, don't THEY know that you could more easily deliver a bomb using a shipping container?

    28. Re:ah, right by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that SDI will be used in defense.

      What does the D in SDI stand for again?

      When used for its primary purpose - attacking countries that do not approve of the US regime

      You forgot to add a <conspiracy nut> tag to your post.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    29. Re:ah, right by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1


      10 FOR LAT = -90 TO 90
      20 FOR LONG = -180 TO 180
      30 GOSUB FIRELASER
      40 NEXT LONG
      50 NEXT LAT


      Hope that helps!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    30. Re:ah, right by Raindog · · Score: 1

      North Korea is already under sanctions...IIRC.

      North Korea has not threatend to nuke the US (They have threatened to sell nukes though)

      North Korea does not have missles anywhere nearly capable of hitting the United States. They could hit Japan, but not the US.

      The threat from ballistic missles is real, but overrated...there are a billion and one other threats that are probably more severe. However, BMD is a great way to give money to aerospace companies. I would not be so against it if

      A. It really didn't seem like such corporate welfare.
      B. It seemed like it actually has a good chance of workering (it doesnt)
      C. It didn't alientate half of the world, including our allies, in the process of build this system that probably wont work
      D. The administration didn't seem do darn determined to do this regardless of any reality...do you know that normal systems of testing and accounting have been suspended for this program?

      In short, real but remote threat...being used for big money and political gain with little concern for reality.

    31. Re:ah, right by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The point is you can never test SDI, because you are working against an opponent that is consciously trying to work around your system. You can never predict how the attack with occur. Then you can never simulate the attack, even as you might predict it -- you can never launch empty missiles at a realistic target. Instead at best you do tests over the ocean. That's why it will always be in beta, which is not a useful status for a safeguard.

      You can defeat it by having (at least) two competing implementations run by organizations who also build systems to attack test the other's systems in test runs.

      Then, when the implementations are several generations old, old enough to not give away useful clues as to how your systems work now, you release the details of "secret tests" and make the details of their existence public.

      Hmmm...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:ah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it hurt to be so stupid?

    33. Re:ah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recent conflicts are not indicative of realistic defensive capabilities, because the technologies used by e.g. Iraq are far from the state-of-the-art.

      Anyone with nuclear-capable ICBMs is likely to have much more effective countermeasures compared to none at all. And if they're going to launch them against the US, they're going to be taking into account whatever the currently known US missile defense capabilities are.

    34. Re:ah, right by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      And I'm pretty sure that the relatives of the people in the 747 which looked too much like a ballistic missile will accept that explanation too and be proud that their friends and relatives have sacrificed themselves for the greater goal.

      I know that a civilian aircraft behaves completely different from a missile but I'm not so sure that 10 years down the road we won't hear statements why in some crucial part they looked similar to the SDI after all.

      Even more so I think that SDI is probably the most useless way to throw money out of the window.
      There's no chance that it will ever be capable of intercepting enough missiles to stop a first or second strike by one of the bigger nuclear powers and all current and future members of the Axis of Evil(TM) just have to put their bomb in a container and send it by ship. 99% are never controlled before they reach the harbor

      jm2

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    35. Re:ah, right by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      The point is you can never test a military, because you are working against an opponent that is consciously trying to work around your system. You can never predict how the attack with occur. Then you can never simulate the attack, even as you might predict it -- you can never launch empty tanks at a realistic target. Instead at best you do tests in empty fields. That's why it will always be in beta, which is not a useful status for a safeguard.

    36. Re:ah, right by argStyopa · · Score: 1
      The point is you can never test SDI, because you are working against an opponent that is consciously trying to work around your system. You can never predict how the attack with occur. Then you can never simulate the attack, even as you might predict it -- you can never launch empty missiles at a realistic target. Instead at best you do tests over the ocean. That's why it will always be in beta, which is not a useful status for a safeguard.
      ...Which is complete nonsense. SDI is no safeguard, any more than the policy of MAD was a "safeguard".

      SDI is a psychological and diplomatic exercise. I have a 20mm autocannon. You have a one shot pistol. Lethal, but still a popgun. You can try to kill me. But I have just introduced a possibility of failure in your one-shot popgun. Suddenly the calculus changes from "can you get the first shot off?" to "can you survive the significant chance that you won't kill me?".

      Which is why I love scientists and computer geeks commenting on SDI - they always look at it from a system/hardware/reliability point of view, because that's their only toolbox. Even Scientific American felt obliged to snipe at SDI in a recent editorial.

      Would *anyone* take it seriously if the staff of Foreign Policy Review or Henry Kissenger criticized Open Source Software as "simply unworkable, doomed to failure" - of course not. So how geeks that write code (or movie stars, or pop music artists) feel qualified to comment on international diplomacy I'll never understand.
      --
      -Styopa
    37. Re:ah, right by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      My point was that these "what ifs" were all fanciful.

      You can't put a MIRV or warhead in liquid nitrogen and except it to be magically cold when you launch because it takes hours to them mount the warhead and the shroud atop a missile. And you're not going to have Nitrogen pumps up in there because well it's not going to help.

      Cold doesn't reduce a radar signature of something, and no one is going to be able to reduce the rocket plume on launch. The final interceptor is IR guided, but even up at 200-300 miles up there is friction from atmosphere and heat from the sun to warm the cold warhead.

      Little jets making the warhead dance are going to have to complicate your launch system and reduce your throw weight. Remeber that it takes the US the same amount of wieght and space to make an interceptor with little jets as it does to make a MIRV for a 1.2MT warhead from the 60s. The DPRK, Chinese and even the Russian don't have that level of technology, plus the number of launches you need to make sure it works is going to tip your hand.

      Crazy light effects? Radar doesn't get distracted by crazy lights.

      The Patriots have already shot down fewer airlines that British Jets. Zero is fewer than One.

    38. Re:ah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What does the D in SDI stand for again?

      Oh, that's right... Man, it's a good thing that letter's there. Just think how awful it would be if someone could change it to an "O" for "Offensive". Fortunately, no one would ever think to do that so we're safe as a clam that's under the sand where no one's diggin' for 'im.

    39. Re:ah, right by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 1
      You are certainly right, that SDI is a political, not physical tool. At least as it is proposed.

      It seems very likely to me that SDI is just a cover for the militarization of space. Current treaties and general agreements keep the US from putting offensive weapons into space. SDI, however, would be much more effective as an offensive weapon than a defensive one -- attacking unprepared targets from space is far easier than prepared targets (like a missile), and the kind of weapons used to take down a missile should be able to kill a person from space as well.

      Politically this makes more sense to me -- other countries are very much opposed to this not because they worry about the US becoming inpervious to missiles (they know it is not a practical goal, and they don't care to attack the US anyway). An offensive weapon from space, however, should be extremely troubling to anyone.

    40. Re:ah, right by Sinical · · Score: 1

      You know dick all, frankly.

      I love how it is so easy to wave your hand and accuse thousands of hard-working scientists and engineers of fraud and deception, rather than acknowledge that hitting a goddamn target the size of a small car with something the size of a basketball (or slightly larger, depending) with closing velocities of 15,000+ feet per second is trivial.

      Yeah, people basically just sit around all day and dream up ways of burning cash. For fuck's sake, no one would dream of trying to detect some little tiny target that's hundreds of miles with an IR sensor, or try and discern decoys from real targets. No one would work on next generation Kill Vehicles that work like shotguns to blast every single incoming vehicle, decoy or real warhead alike.

      No, basically it's all a giant scam that will never produce giant targeting radars that are the sweat and tears and blood of thousands of man years of effort, or try and accurately simulate the most complex interaction of systems that the world has seen, coordinating space-based sensors with ground tracking radar, Aegis systems at sea, plus a string of interceptors somewhere else. No, people just basically fuck off because there's there's nothing interesting or challenging or technically sweet to do.

      Yeah, it's all a scam. You caught 'em. Good job.

    41. Re:ah, right by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer we bomb UPS trucks instead. Fedex doesn't damage packages as much.

  6. Wonder if they........ by Garion911 · · Score: 1

    Tried to browse pluto, and got back ""???

    --
    Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
  7. space agencies make some big mistakes by rritterson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sounds similar to the crash landing one of the mars spacecraft had when the operators forgot to convert English units to metric units.

    You'd think that in such operations, where you only ever get one chance, they would have the most error free systems possible. I'm surprised they didn't feed the computer simulated data and found where it would take them.

    --
    -Ryan
    AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    1. Re:space agencies make some big mistakes by s20451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'd think that in such operations, where you only ever get one chance, they would have the most error free systems possible.

      They do go to great lengths to remove the errors. In fact the Challenger investigation singled out the methods used for validating the shuttle's software as a model for the other parts of the program to follow in improving safety. Also, the article said that the backup system kicked in automatically and led to a safe, albeit off-target, landing. So in fact the overall system worked as expected.

      And as for the "big mistakes", it's very easy to point fingers afterward and boil a problem down to a catch phrase. However, engineers aren't idiots; almost all accidents involving spacecraft are a result of a long string of seemingly innocuous miscommunications, coincidences, and bad luck. Consider the story of the Ariane 5, which was destroyed because of an overlooked feature in a piece of code reused from a smaller rocket. No software engineer can say that they haven't made a similar mistake.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    2. Re:space agencies make some big mistakes by smithmc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd think that in such operations, where you only ever get one chance, they would have the most error free systems possible.

      Given the track record of the Soyuz vehicles, I'd say they're pretty damned error-free, all things considered.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    3. Re:space agencies make some big mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't confuse the scale of the mistake with the scale of the consequences.

      One-line error in Microsoft Office = tech support gets a few more phone calls
      One-line error in guidance software = state funerals for our brave heroes

    4. Re:space agencies make some big mistakes by Pyrometer · · Score: 1
      Consider the story of the Ariane 5 [around.com], which was destroyed because of an overlooked feature in a piece of code reused from a smaller rocket. No software engineer can say that they haven't made a similar mistake.

      Well I have never made such a mistake. Now back to that third wheel :)

    5. Re:space agencies make some big mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think that in such operations, where you only ever get one chance, they would have the most error free systems possible. I'm surprised they didn't feed the computer simulated data and found where it would take them.

      The problem with simulations is that you can only simulate scenarios which you thought of in the first place. Humans set the boundaries for any given simulation, and humans evaluate the result.

      Spacecrafts are very complex and they are subjected to extreme conditions with physical abuse, radiation, temperature changes etc. You can simulate each part for itself, but it's very hard, if not impossible, to simulate the whole system under the right conditions -- which, again, might be unpredictable..

      Mattias

    6. Re:space agencies make some big mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No software engineer can say that they haven't made a similar mistake.

      I can say that my mistakes have yet to crash anything... (maybe the stock of my company, but that's about it...)

  8. Re:MUSLIMS ARE ALL EVIL by benna · · Score: 1, Insightful

    FUCK YOU!!! No I am not muslim but really thats out of line. Far worse than most trolls. I will not be a coward and post this under my name but please don't mod me down for this. Not asking to be modded up either but this guy deserved that.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  9. Great... by DCowern · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we have frikken astronauts beating up on poor anonymous software developpers... quoth the article

    There was also the real possibility of crew error, and on Sunday, the head of the corporation that builds and operates the Soyuz spacecraft, Yuriy Semyonov, suggested that "one of the Americans" had pushed the backup-mode activation button. Bowersox was the only American who had any active role in the descent (it was astronaut Donald Pettit's job to follow the checklists), and he denied touching the button -- which, he joked, was being guarded carefully by Russian cosmonaut Nikolai Budarin. "We don't think we did anything to cause that to happen," he later said to a NASA press official.

    Yeah... right... if I had a nickle for every time I heard an end user say something similar to that ("I swear I didn't touch anything... it just... crashed..." or "The files just... disappeared! Gone! Disappeared! I didn't do anything!") I'd have...well...a lot of nickles...

    /me mumbles bittlerly and goes back into his development hole :P

    1. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... right... if I had a nickle for every time I heard an end user say something similar to that ("I swear I didn't touch anything... it just... crashed..." or "The files just... disappeared! Gone! Disappeared! I didn't do anything!") I'd have...well...a lot of nickles...

      Apparently the concept of robust software is foreign to you. If your software can just "crash" from the user touching something, then maybe you should quit quit blaming the user and actually fix the design so they can't crash it so easily. Its moron's like you that give software a bad name.

    2. Re:Great... by PD · · Score: 1

      You know, when the user selects FILE->EXIT and clicks NO when asked if they really wanted to save the file, it's not the programmer's fault. The switch to select the ballistic descent is on the commander's flight stick, and it's protected by a little guard that you have to flip up to activate it.

    3. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to design a spacecraft to not crash, particularly when it has a tendency to do so while hurtling towards the surface of the earth.

    4. Re:Great... by IICV · · Score: 1
      The people they put on spaceships (so-called astronauts) have to undergo rigorous training, both physical and mental, along with being able to expertly carry out their tasks along with having a knowledge of everyone else's task, in case of emergencies.

      (it was astronaut Donald Pettit's job to follow the checklists)

      WTF? Nasa spent a million dollars to send a fully trained human PDA into orbit?

    5. Re:Great... by alacqua · · Score: 1
      Now we have frikken astronauts...

      ...with frikken lasers on their heads.

      Now I see the SDI connection.

      --

      Move on. There's nothing to see here.
    6. Re:Great... by glwtta · · Score: 1
      "I swear I didn't touch anything... it just... crashed..."

      I guess that takes on a whole new meaning in this context...

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    7. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't your software save the last 5 active edits "just in case"? Wouldn't take much disk space, and I'm sure would make many a fast-clicking user feel gratified over your thoughtfulness and insight.

      But nooo, you'd rather blame everything on the user rather than write robust software.

    8. Re:Great... by sean23007 · · Score: 3, Informative
      From the Moscow Times:
      The Energia engineer noted that one of the astronauts "pushed a wrong button" while the capsule was still in orbit, but he insisted that this could not have affected the descent. He said Mission Control noticed the error and corrected it before it could have done any damage.
      So it really wasn't the astronaut's fault, at least according to the Russians.
      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    9. Re:Great... by PD · · Score: 1

      Well then, there's always going to be the user that wants to get back the 6th edit.

      Not my fault if the user is that stupid. I believe in asking the user and if they confirm their stupid action, go ahead and do it.

    10. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they forgot and left the windshield wipers turned on during decent and it caused the guidance system to crash. I've seen some weird bugs that dont turn up unless you activate a second or third party program at the same time. Try and report it and you get a standard reply "Dont rum them together."

      So in conclusion: Turn off the soyuz wipers before decent or you could end up landing in France and have the country once again surrender to invading forces.

    11. Re:Great... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yeah... right... if I had a nickle for every time I heard an end user say something similar to that ("I swear I didn't touch anything... it just... crashed.

      They probably filled up the hard-drive with porn for the station crew and then tried to erase it to cover their tracks, ruining important stuff. It can get lonely and boring up there in the space station. Porn is a premium.

    12. Re:Great... by Erbo · · Score: 1
      Bowersox was the only American who had any active role in the descent (it was astronaut Donald Pettit's job to follow the checklists), and he denied touching the button...

      Hey, I'll back him up on this one...Bowersoxes never press the wrong buttons! :-)

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
    13. Re:Great... by ciaohound · · Score: 1

      "I'm telling you the hatch just blew!"

      --
      Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  10. SDI? by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project"

    Strategic Defence Initiative = the star wars project

    What was the thinking behind clarifying that to the Slashdot crowd?

    Microprocessor, main processing unit of your computer...

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:SDI? by howhardcanitbetocrea · · Score: 1

      arrogance=stupidity...or shouldn't I define that?

      --

      President ISES
      (International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
  11. How did you bring SDI into this? by helix400 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Talk about your flaming articles

    Its fine to discuss a bug in a new Russian guidance system...but to immediately jump into a hot political topic like the SDI star wars system and then vastly overgeneralize it with "It'll never work, because it relies on computers" shouldn't have any place in this story.

    1. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by nexex · · Score: 1

      yea, i noticed his free pot shot...like saying i will never drive a hydrogen car because of the hindenburg. totally unrelated and contributes nothing to the story

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
    2. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not be very familiar with Timothy. All conservative political positions will somehow result in armageddon, apparently.

    3. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling the users seems to be slashdot's reason for existence (substitute fancy French replacement if you wish). More trolling == more comments posted == more ads 'viewed'.

    4. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by vandan · · Score: 1

      Oh the horror!

      Someone got a story posted to Slashdot that contained anti-Bush propaganda.

      You wouldn't last long at http://www.kuro5hin.org

    5. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the hell did you get the anti-Bush propoganda thing from? Your just as bad as the article's author pulling SDI out of thin air. Nowhere did it mention Bush, and nowhere did it hint it was an attack on him. This is just the old SDI debate thats over a decade old.

    6. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Jester99 · · Score: 1

      Ooh, a troll. Well, I'll bite.

      The SDI is a Bush initiative. Before that, it was the initiative of the other republican presidents. The project was not given a cent under Clinton (a democrat).

      So, yes, it was anti-Bush propaganda, because Bush wants the SDI.

    7. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by PissedOffGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      you're an idiot. the point is that the whole article is a troll, much like most other articles on slashdot. oh but wait, you're a troll too.

    8. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by howhardcanitbetocrea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess the point wasa little subtle for you, but it was that if we can't bring back a spacecraft (done hudreds of times now) successfully, do you really have faith in a software system's ability to shoot down an incoming missile without having ever been used in anger before. Of course, I guess if they get the testing right and it it DOES manage to shoot down one incoming missile, you better hope the baddies of the moment only decide to shoot one missile at a time and not 50 or 100 or...

      --

      President ISES
      (International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
    9. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by p2sam · · Score: 1

      hehe, baddies. of course, all your enemies must be the bad guys.

    10. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by MondoMor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hello you pedantic, arrogant ass. If you did any research, you'd find that this is the first landing of this model Soyuz spacecraft, so this software is new.

      I'm assuming your tone is because Slashdot is hiring new "editors" and you're trying to show how well you can act like one.

    11. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "(B)ut to immediately jump into a hot political topic like the SDI star wars system and then vastly overgeneralize it with "It'll never work, because it relies on computers" shouldn't have any place in this story."

      Welcome to Slashdot!

    12. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      I guess the point wasa little subtle for you, but it was that if we can't bring back a spacecraft

      "We" are not the Russians. We don't hold airlocks shut with a c-clamp, for example.

      do you really have faith in a software system's ability to shoot down an incoming missile without having ever been used in anger before.

      I don't understand...are the missiles angry or is the software angry? Or is it the laser that's in a foul mood?

    13. Re: How did you bring SDI into this? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      > So, yes, it was anti-Bush propaganda, because Bush wants the SDI.

      Ah, yes. His faith-based missle defense.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    14. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We" are not the Russians. We don't hold airlocks shut with a c-clamp, for example.

      If it is stupid and it works... it ain't stupid. While many people joke about the apperantly lowtech russian spaceprogram, they seem to forget a few things.. like the fact that the russians operate on a shoe-string budget, that they have, for a lot less money, spendt a lot more time in space, that Mir - which a lot of people seem to dis these days - was up there there and operating for more than twice its intended lifespan...

      But you're right... "we" (or rather you) are not the russians - but you might learn a few things from them when it comes to operations in space.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    15. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      And I guess reality is too blunt for you. The Soyuz program has a bad record of missing their landing targets. But they still make it more than they miss. NASA has an excellent record. But let's assume that SDI is all screwed up, and it fails one time in a hundred. So when the baddies launch 100 missiles, the odds are pretty good that they'll shoot down 99 of them. It's a damned shame about that one city, but it's a damn sight better than 100 smoldering cities.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    16. Re: How did you bring SDI into this? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. His faith-based missle (sic) defense.

      Ah, a faith based missile defense. Good description for what we have now. A system where we gamble everything on the faith that no suicidal despot with nuclear weapons won't nuke us in fear of our devastating retaliation. BMD is a step in the right direction...moving away from a "faith based" defense system to one rooted in physics and actually shooting down incoming missiles.

      Or maybe you like the little blackmail game North Korea is running, where they are now saying if we stop giving them stuff for free, they will nuke us.

    17. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you might learn a few things from them when it comes to operations in space.

      like how NOT to blow up the reentry vehicle for one?

    18. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by axxackall · · Score: 1
      "We" are not the Russians. We don't hold airlocks shut with a c-clamp, for example.

      That's right. "You" are Americans. As such you prefer to kill 7 crew memebers (again and again) when they fly in comfortable conditions.

      --

      Less is more !
    19. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by YetAnotherAnonymousC · · Score: 0, Troll

      Reminds me of those "space pens" that NASA spent a bunch of time to develop for the Apollo program. The big deal is that they work in a zero-gravity environment. The Russians... they just used pencils.
      (I originally read this long ago in The Straight Dope, but I'm too lazy to look up the story link)

    20. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      That's right. "You" are Americans. As such you prefer to kill 7 crew memebers (again and again) when they fly in comfortable conditions.

      Point of order - 1st time occurance is once. 2nd time occurance is 'again'. To get to 'again and again' you need at least 3 orrcurances.

      -T

    21. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by rev063 · · Score: 1

      Urban legend. See www.snopes.com for the details. Having conductive lead dust (or broken pencil tips) floating around all those electronics in zero-G isn't a great idea.

    22. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by axxackall · · Score: 1
      Indeed I don't need one more such tradegy. I would rather withdraw all my arguments then look for their confirmation.

      My point was, that already twice America lost 7 crew members, killed by very comfortable, but yet dangerous vehicle. Comparing to Soyuz - it's too high price. And I mean first of all human lives when I said "price".

      Although, the economics of NASA is also a big looser and would not work even a day without such big pockets as US Goverment opens for it.

      --

      Less is more !
    23. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant to say 'conductive carbon dust' (aka: graphite).

    24. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by YetAnotherAnonymousC · · Score: 1

      Right you are. *sheepish grin* Looks like I've learned my lesson for the day.

    25. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      While many people joke about the apperantly lowtech russian spaceprogram, they seem to forget a few things.. like the fact that the russians operate on a shoe-string budget
      This is exactly my point. The original poster was trying to compare the reliability of a low-budget (as you note) Russian-designed craft with a very (very, very, very) high-budget U.S. military program.

      As it is, even this Soyuz made it back alright--just not quite where it was supposed to be.

      In fact, I am always in awe of people who take risks for the sake of exploration, whether they do it with a lot of expensive safety precautions or not. But the argument that SDI is invalid because Soyuz didn't land where it was supposed to is inappropriate.

    26. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by howhardcanitbetocrea · · Score: 1

      Your argumant makes total sense to me in a perverse kind of way. A poorly programmed ground- based altitude warning system was partly responsible for the 1997 Korean Air crash in Guam that killed 228. Faulty software in anti-lock brakes forced the recall of 39,000 trucks and tractors and 6,000 school buses in 2000. The $165 million Mars Polar Lander probe was destroyed in its final descent to the planet in 1999, probably because its software shut the engines off too early. And you are confident that the SDI software that has never been used in a real-life (or death) situation can control whatever is going to shoot down 99% of whatever is incoming.nbsp;nbsp; If so, I would like to sell you some of whatever that crap is that is supposed to make your dick bigger because you will obviously believe anything. Of course, one smouldering city of 5 million is a small price to pay...unless of course you or someone you know lives there.

      --

      President ISES
      (International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
    27. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by howhardcanitbetocrea · · Score: 1
      Despite your unwarranted insults, I thank you for reinforcing my point. New software is inherently unreliable.

      new editors at /.? Sorry, I have better things to do than get involved in the politics of a web site.

      --

      President ISES
      (International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
    28. Re:How did you bring SDI into this? by howhardcanitbetocrea · · Score: 1
      I guess the point was a little subtle for you, but it was that if we can't bring back a spacecraft...

      Who wants to take bets that since Americans were on board, NASA was involved?

      I am suprised at the naivety of the supposed intelligent people here.

      Of course, the "we" wouldn't include America, which everyone knows has a perfect record of bringing back...oh, hang on...perhaps you haven't heard.

      --

      President ISES
      (International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
  12. Destructive Testing by peacefinder · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

    Well, let's hope it stays in beta. Real world testing would be a major bummer!

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    1. Re:Destructive Testing by nalfeshnee · · Score: 1

      oh i don't know -- as long as your country doesn't have any obvious terorrist connections or vast natural resources.

      bush seems to be doing exactly that kind of 'beta-testing' of late. and with success: i guess "new world order version 2.0" is about ready for public release...

      nalfy

      --

      -- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --

  13. Obvious but true... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...high-anxiety off-course landing..."

    Any landing that you can walk away from is a good landing. Especially when you're talking about a manned re-entry vehicle.

    Lest we forget, the last time an Earth-bound crew were returning from space their orbiter disintegrated and all seven astronauts were killed. Landing a couple of hundred miles off course and having to wait two hours for groundside assistance is a small price to pay for a safe return.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Obvious but true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this so insightful? I think the description of "high-anxiety off-course landing" was extremely accurate, and not exaggerated at all.

    2. Re:Obvious but true... by WasterDave · · Score: 1

      Lest we forget, the last time an Earth-bound crew were returning from space their orbiter disintegrated and all seven astronauts were killed.

      Exactly. At least the Russian built re-entry vehicle was mechanically able to take it. It's like it just sat back and said "five G, nine G - same difference, let's just get white hot today rather than red" and took it like a man.

      Dave

      --
      I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
    3. Re:Obvious but true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the russians may have primitive technology, but at least it works. the yanks would be eating their
      own shit out of hunger if it wasn't for the russians. hmm who else has working space tech-
      the french, the japanese.. guess uncle sam has
      to beg nicely to these countries to give them
      some resupply missions...

    4. Re:Obvious but true... by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      They build them strong - snipped from an entry for soyuz 5 :

      "Volynov remained behind for what was undoubtedly the most unbelievable re-entry ever survived. The PAO service module of the Soyuz failed to separate after retrofire. While this had occurred on various Vostok and Voskhod flights, and on one Mercury flight, it was a much more serious problem for Volynov, where the module was much larger than a small retropack. Furthermore, once it started reaching the tendrils of the atmosphere, the combined spacecraft sought the most aerodynamically stable position - nose forward, with the heavy descent module with its light metal entry hatch at the front, the less dense service module with its flared base to the back. Volynov at once appraised the situation and considered all possibilities and realised that there was nothing he could really do.

      The spacecraft was re-entering air-lock forward and with every minute the G forces increased. Volynov did his duty with all of his strength but this became increasingly difficult since he was hanging in the straps of his seat with the G forces assailing him in the opposite direction from what planned. Soon a strong smell penetrated the cabin - the rubber gaskets of the hermetic seal of the hatch were burning. The hatch had a light covering of heat protective resins, but at the last moment these could not hold out and the vaporised into fumes that immediately spread throughout the cabin. Volynov could remain conscious for only a few seconds after this.

      He remained alive when a miracle occurred - a miracle for which he could thank the designers who had included a strong titanium frame which helped the airlock hold out against the onslaught of the superheated plasma. The PAO service module finally separated from the SA re-entry vehicle. The capsule turned around to an aerodynamically stable position at hypersonic speed and the heat shield finally took the brunt of the heating as designed. The spacecraft continued on a 9 G ballistic trajectory. The damage to the capsule resulted in a failure of the soft-landing rockets. The landing was harder than usual and Volynov broke his teeth. The capsule was recovered 2 km SW of Kustani, far short of its aim point, on January 18, 1969 at 07:58 GMT. It would be seven years until Volynov flew again, on Soyuz 21. "

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    5. Re:Obvious but true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time you land off-course you make the baby Jesus cry.

    6. Re:Obvious but true... by nalfeshnee · · Score: 1

      "The PAO service module of the Soyuz failed to separate after retrofire. While this had occurred on various Vostok and Voskhod flights, and on one Mercury flight..."

      Whoa there -- the Soviets flew to Mercury??!?!!

      I knew they had a lot of space experience but that's outtasite.

      Nalfy

      --

      -- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --

    7. Re:Obvious but true... by slyborg · · Score: 1

      Source please!

      That's horrifying! Those early Soyuz were just excellent. Soyuz 1 Komarov dies when the parachutes tangle. The Salyut 1 crew suffocates after cabin depressurization during de-orbit. I didn't even know this story. Wow.

    8. Re:Obvious but true... by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      I picked it up from somewhere, but a google search for soyuz 5 will get you a link or three.

      Fair enough, those things often broke, but they were still rather robust if you treated them badly. I consider a partial re-entry with the heat shield on the wrong end a pretty good case of "operation outside design parameters".

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  14. Blame the Americans! by Jonin893 · · Score: 0

    Yuriy Semyonov, suggested that "one of the Americans" had pushed the backup-mode activation button.

    Of course we blame the Americans!

    At least it's good to know that it's not just my codes that seem to be faulty.

    1. Re:Blame the Americans! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      It's a long shot, but was anyone carrying a cell phone? "Hi honey! Yeah, I'm in the space capsule..." :^P

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  15. Re:AH HA! by benna · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nah it was probobly the added weight of the americans that threw it off course.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  16. Re:Lower cost to consumer? by Badge+17 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TMA-1? (Must suppress Arthur C. Clarke-inspired giggle).

    Maybe the problem was in that gigantic magnetic field wiping some data... (TMA stands for Tycho Magnetic Anomaly, aka the monolith in 2001)

    I think the next spacecraft (TMA-2) should be nicknamed "big brother."

  17. Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What we in the West call "bugs", the Japanese call "spoilage". I find this nomenclature honest and refreshing. "Bug" implies that the problem is some independent agent, when in fact the problem is the "spoiled" code itself.

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Enry · · Score: 4, Informative
      Calling a fault a bug is historical.

      First computer bug. You will need to scroll down to the bottom to see the it. The rest of the page talks about Grace Hopper, who helped coin the phrase.

    2. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, that's nice,but what you said has no bearing on the parent post...

    3. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, I work for one of the largest software companies in Japan, have been employed here for 2 years, and worked for a couple of lesser IT companies here for a few years before that. I have _NEVER_ heard the term, "spoilage" used (even in its katakana equivalent). "Bagu", however, is used all the time.

      I call bullshit here.

    4. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I found this a very interesting comment, and might start using this term. However, what term do they use to refer to the procedure of removing such mistakes from code?

      Later, Tim. I'm off to Despoil some code.

    5. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Daleks · · Score: 1

      "Bug" implies that the problem is some independent agent, when in fact the problem is the "spoiled" code itself.

      The story goes as such. There once was a problem with the ENIAC. The problem caught the attention of a government official. Said official called an individual working on the project, purported to be Grace Hopper, and inquired as to the source of the problem. Said individual said, and I quote to the best of my ability, "Sir, there is a bug in the system." Apparently a moth had died in the internals causing a malfunction. A moth most definitely qualifies as an "independant agent." More interestingly, this moth is supposedly in a museum. Perhaps this is the origin of displacing the responsibility for programs gone awry onto third party agents? I always knew the bugs had it in for us.

    6. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by t0ny · · Score: 2, Funny
      Calling a fault a bug is historical.

      First computer bug [navy.mil]. You will need to scroll down to the bottom to see the it. The rest of the page talks about Grace Hopper, who helped coin the phrase.

      Does anyone else find it ironic that Grace Hopper found a bug?

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    7. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "Bug" in a program is called a "Bagu" in Japanese. "Bagu" is merely the Japanese pronunciation of "Bug". Spoilage would be "Fuhai" perhaps? This is only used to describe decaying food/plants/what-not, or to describe politicians and police officers. Please check your facts before you post.

    8. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for pointing out the same thing I posted SIX HOURS EARLIER, fuckhead.

    9. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had bothered to read the first comment you'd know that what you have just typed is wildly inacurate.

      While we're on the subject, they were called "Bugs" long before Grace Hopper found the moth; note that the log entry clearly states "First actual case of bug being found", implying that they had found plenty of "bugs" before then.

    10. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, you sure are cranky.

    11. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, you're cranky. Bad day, huh? Working for the biggest software company in Japan and getting pissed off because I didn't notice your under-rated comment and essentially posted the same thing? So, you work for NEC or Fujitsu? Either way, I hope I never cross your path. Actually, you should pray that I never cross your path, since I very likely dish your company work and could very likely make your day quite misserable. Never know which other "Gaijin" is reading /. bro!

    12. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm really fuckin' scared. Listen, Japan doesn't need your type here. Take your fat, filthy, stupid ass back to America and stop nanpa'ing the chicks in Roppongi. Take your English teacher buddies with you, while you're at it.

    13. Re:Bugs = "Spoilage" in Japan by leandrod · · Score: 1

      Better yet, defects. Simpler, more direct, more descriptive, easier to translate.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  18. If you are are going to slag someone off by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    You should really ensure it is the right person. The comment looks like it belongs to the submitter, not Timothy.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  19. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project."

    If it's our last line of defense.... and it is... we have no choice in the matter, do we? By the same token, I will never trust what you say. It only takes one non-sequitur to make you an idiot.

  20. driving in winter by jakedata · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    When I found myself in an uncontrollable decent down a certain snow covered hill, I activated my backup deceleration system too. I aimed for a snowbank and hit the gas.

    Though my landing was rough, the passengers and craft were both salvageable. Sounds rather similar to this decent.

  21. Landings like us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only Chevy Chase held the wires together longer, the landing might have been on target.

    My guidence counselor couldn't guide me to the bathroom if he tried.

  22. Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... by RTMFD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By your logic I will never drive my car again. It's got so many embedded controllers and runs so much code that I could never trust it. Plus, it was written by evil capitalists and isn't under the GPL, so it obviously can't be reliable.

    What total bullshit!

    1. Re:Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... by benna · · Score: 1

      Correct!

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have anything useful to say Beena?

    3. Re:Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm beginning to suspect Beena might be some kind of distributed post generator. Perhaps a beowulf of them.

    4. Re:Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... by enkidu · · Score: 1

      No, you missed it. Your car and all of its embedded controllers gets a real world test everyday you drive it, tens of thousands of hours of component level and integration testing. It is impossible to run an integration test of any SDI system and, when completed, would contain a couple orders of magnitude more code than is in your car.

      --

      There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
      -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
    5. Re:Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So...we are all unpaid beta testers? Would you call a driver that gets horribly disfigured/maimed by a "bug" and sues a paid beta tester?

    6. Re:Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... by enkidu · · Score: 1
      Nice troll. I'll bite, if only to add some information.

      First, I didn't see beta mentioned anywhere. And yes, we are all "Gold master" testers. The integration beta testing is done in labs, test tracks and factories. You can run the same tests over and over again. You can run different tests over and over again. A global missile defense shield cannot be tested under real operating conditions before it is deployed.

      For example, the first time the Aegis cruiser system (designed to track and destroy 20 targets over a 300 mile radius) was field tested it was given 17 targets to shoot down. It missed 6. Now increase the complexity of a Aegis cruiser by 2 orders of magnitude and tell me that it will work perfectly the first time.

      --

      There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
      -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
    7. Re:Hmmm... I guess I missed your logical leap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but they beta-test your car in most if not all the possible ways you could drive it before release. What kind of bete-test can you do on the missile defense system? Test it on empty missles that you shoot over the ocean, so that if you miss no problem. You missed the point.

      -AX

  23. This can only mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that NASA engineers are having a bad influence on Russian Space Agency engineers.

  24. It was trying to get to Jupiter by tuxlove · · Score: 1

    The reason it went off-course is because it was trying to reach Jupiter, obviously. Why the hell else would it be called TMA-1? It seems to be a couple years behind schedule. :)

  25. slagging the right guy by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Good point Chuck.

    Furthermore, since eericson's gripe is not relevant to my thread ("Mysterious?"), he/she should start another.

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:slagging the right guy by damiam · · Score: 1

      But then his comment wouldn't be the 5th one from the top. :-)

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  26. I can see it now by jrl87 · · Score: 1

    "Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

    Hey, Bob, how come every time I try to shoot that stupid skeet there's a bright flash and it just disapears?

  27. Informative Article about Software Bugs by cars_r_us · · Score: 1

    The following http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/736/papers/ariane5rep .html provides great insight on how buggy software can screw up space vehicles. It is the result of the ARIANE 5 accident investigation. Before reading it one cannot really image what integer overflow can do!

  28. Any landing you can walk away from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is a good landing

    1. Re:Any landing you can walk away from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if your crew of 60 billion dies? I guess it's ok still, unless you're a fag. I'd sacrifice 60 billion people for my life in an instant.

  29. Space men are brave creatures by Hao+Wu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You sit behind a computer and critisize other computer people. You say things like, "Oh. Programmers sent our space men hurtling toward their firey grave."

    Look at the facts. Not one space man perished in this. Space men have only died in shuttle disasters, such as in 1986 and also a few months ago. Nobody died from this Russian misfortune. Every man is OK.

    Don't critisize so quickly, lest YOU get the same treatment.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
    1. Re:Space men are brave creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, dumbass, check your facts.

    2. Re:Space men are brave creatures by sickmtbnutcase · · Score: 1

      Nope, three Apollo astronauts didn't die in the capsule while sitting on the launchpad...

    3. Re:Space men are brave creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not all. Three cosmonauts died before reentry in Soyuz 11, when the cabin depressurized after the descent module seperated.

      -j

    4. Re:Space men are brave creatures by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Apollo was long ago. Their familys are long dead, and the friends of the scorched astronaughts are mostly retired and senile. I can't see your point.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    5. Re:Space men are brave creatures by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      Not too mention a number of cosmonauts too. I seem to recall that one big soviet rocket not only took out the crew, but a number of ground crew and scientists.

    6. Re:Space men are brave creatures by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      Was it due to broken software?

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    7. Re:Space men are brave creatures by Joseph+Wharton · · Score: 1

      Space men have only died in shuttle disasters, such as in 1986 and also a few months ago.

      I beg to differ. Many people, both Russian and American, have died in the quest for space exploration. Apollo 1 was one such disaster. All three Apollo 1 astronauts died due to a cabin fire. And there have been almost countless Russian incidents in which cosmonauts have died, most of which occured during the race for the moon in the late 1960s.

      --
      Quality or Quantity, don't tell me they're the same.
    8. Re:Space men are brave creatures by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      Nope, American astronauts dies on the launchpad.

      LOTS of Cosmonauts also died.

    9. Re:Space men are brave creatures by Tosta+Dojen · · Score: 1
      The point is that you say, "Look at the facts," then incorrectly state that space men have died only in shuttle disasters. Three men died in Apollo 1 (a non-shuttle craft) one in Soyuz 1 and three in Soyuz 11 (both Russian non-shuttle craft).

      Next time make sure the 'facts' you are spouting are correct.

      --

      I have a strong belief in the Second Amendment.

  30. IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA (actually KAZAKHSTAN) by sulli · · Score: 3, Funny

    the dept. forgets to read YOU!

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  31. SDI funds basic research too by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release

    Irrelevant. SDI, then and now, is a proven way to fund some basic research. The public is not that interested in science except to counter a perceived threat.

    FWIW with your attitude we would not have the F16, F18 (?), F117, B2, and the various other aircraft with fly-by-wire control systems. The space shuttle too. Also do you think 'beta' mechanical devices are inherently safe and function properly? Again, the space shuttle, both disasters.

    1. Re:SDI funds basic research too by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Military research is a waste. What good does classified research do for us? Pay for intelligent people to work on problems, the solutions to which we'll only see when it is deamed irrelevent... that's not a smart deal.

    2. Re:SDI funds basic research too by cranos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate to say this but Military Research has led to some of the biggest break throughs in our life time. Without the V1 and V2 rockets we wouldn't have had Saturn 5, Satelites, Velcro, Microwave ovens, High Strenght Materials, Computers, the Internet all can be traced back to military research.

    3. Re:SDI funds basic research too by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Military research is a waste

      Nearly everything researched is a dual use technology, much of it is directly applicable to the space program. Even with the time needed for a technology to become declassified we are most likely receiving that technology earlier than a pure civilian market would have provided it.

      Secondly, if we did not have military research and only spent money on 'peace' we would soon be taken over by 'less enlightened' folks.

    4. Re:SDI funds basic research too by sigwinch · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Military research is a waste.
      Nuclear power, the magnetron, guidance systems, nitinol (nickel titanium Naval Ordnance Laboratory; a.k.a. memory metal), antidotes for acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, vaccines for a variety of horrible diseases, protocols that revolutionized emergency medicine in the '70s, demining research and development, vast improvements in cryptography, spread spectrum radio, countless advances in metallurgy, etc.
      What good does classified research do for us?
      Nothingk, comrade! Is plot by capitalist pig-dogs to take means of production away from ... uh ... I get back to you.
      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    5. Re:SDI funds basic research too by kdart · · Score: 1

      And how many billions did that cost? I think we would have done better investing in research that was directly targeted at solving the worlds problems (energy, recycling, food, overpopulation, etc.). Some spin-off technologies is good, but how much more could we have achieved if our focus was different?

      --

      --
      The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
    6. Re:SDI funds basic research too by telstar · · Score: 1
      "Some spin-off technologies is good, but how much more could we have achieved if our focus was different?"
      • I suppose you've devoted your life to these pursuits as well? Seriously, not everbody wants to research the same stuff, nor is everone capable of solving the world's overpopulation or energy problems.

    7. Re:SDI funds basic research too by Viper1969 · · Score: 1

      Well, Microwave Ovens are a spinoff of RADAR which was invented really to detect planes, not the V1/V2s, but it was military researchs.

    8. Re:SDI funds basic research too by cranos · · Score: 1

      If you have a look at the history of science and progress you will see that the greatest leaps of progress have been made during times of war. The first world war started off with cavalry charges and ended with tank charges. The second world war started with prop aircraft and ended with near super sonic jets. Computers came into their own during the second world war as the need to crack increasingly complex codes went beyond the ability of the crackers of the day. Radar was developed to detect enemy aircraft before they blew the shit out of you.

      War is bad, it kills maims and injures millions, but it also focuses the creative mind.

    9. Re:SDI funds basic research too by kdart · · Score: 1

      The main focus is set by the Government, and what they want to spend the money on. I did work in the defense industry for while. That was because that's where the jobs were then. If the government were to change the spending focus, I am sure the "interest" would follow as well. I certainly would not have minded working on an energy research project, rather then military applicatations.

      --

      --
      The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
    10. Re:SDI funds basic research too by kdart · · Score: 1

      That is very true, historically. I was merely asking the question: What would happen, now, in our supposedly more enlightened and peaceful age, if we decided to focus on other issues with the same kind of enthusiasm. And besides, the original topic about the fallout from space program spending, not war spending. 8-)

      --

      --
      The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
  32. Classic! by twitter · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    the button -- which, he joked, was being guarded carefully by Russian cosmonaut Nikolai Budarin. "We don't think we did anything to cause that to happen," ..."They didn't do anything," MSNBC.com was told. "[They] just let the auto system control."

    Sure thing, Captian Squiming Hatchblower. "It just blew." Could be, stranger things have happened. Wouldn't you know a software bug would be blamed when something unexpected happens on a capsule manned with one trained cosmonaut and two passengers who might be able to read Russian. Let's see them reproduce the error. Given the same inputs the computer will do the same thing everytime. M$NBC believes it, it must be true!

    They walked away, it was a good landing button press or not button press.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Classic! by adamnap · · Score: 1

      Russian is not too tough, and remember, they were astronauts on an international space station. It's not like they worked at white castle.
      Even if they were not ultra-fluent, they probably had some language training.

  33. Uh, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with that kind of reasoning we'd all be sitting on trees picking bugs out of our fucking skin.

    1. Re:Uh, yeah... by Surak · · Score: 1

      Hey! Speak for yourself! I still am! :)

    2. Re:Uh, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JFC, you again. YOU. ARE. NOT. FUNNY. Stop trying. It hurts. You only could have made it worse by adding a smiley.

      Mods, please don't debase yourself by modding this up.

  34. How does the posit read? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Straight from /usr/share/games/fortunes/fortunes:

    Shaw's Principle:
    Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.

  35. I prefer "defect" by xant · · Score: 1

    And I'll keep calling them that until we have software recalls.

    (I develop software.)

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  36. Space Lasers Are Cool! by albamuth · · Score: 1
    C'mon, didn't you ever see Bubblegum Crisis episode 6 (original series)? They're only bad if a meglomaniacal bionic superhuman somehow gains total control of them with his mind...


    hmm...

    --
    [pink beam of light]
  37. How much you wanna bet?? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    That they are using pirated copies of M$ XP that they bought in bulk from China for .99 cents a CD????

    Or maybe they downloaded it with Kazaa!!

    LOL!!!

  38. Might one say that Soyuz... by tds67 · · Score: 1

    ...crashed while browsing the atmosphere? (By the way, software doesn't kill people, people kill people.)

  39. Re:Lower cost to consumer? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

    Soyuz TMA-2 is currently docked at the International Space Station. The next one up will be TMA-3 and they will return in TMA-2. That way they always have the freshist one available for emergency escape.

  40. Re:AC TO MASSON: WHERE'S THE BEEF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find this to be one of the most interesting completely opaque and obscure trolls. Thank you.

  41. Soyuz is not perfect... by Maimun · · Score: 4, Informative
    Nothing is perfect, of course, but after the destruction of Columbia in Feb, many were pointing out how well does the simpler design of the Soyuz capsule work, as opposed to the too-complicated shuttle.

    Well, not always. In the 70's (or early 80's ... I think the 70's) all of the Eastern block countries sent their cosmonauts to the Salyut space station (that was before Mir). The Bulgarian cosmonaut Georgi Ivanov was very close to having a deadly accident because of the Soyuz. They could not dock for some reason, spent about 24h flying by the Salyut, and finally had to re-enter using auxiliary engines, and having precisely one try to fire them. They got lucky here, the engines worked and they entered the atmosphere in so called "ballistic trajectory" (how can it be non-ballistic?), with 9-10G overload.

    I forgot to mention, there were two of them, the Russian Nikolay Rukavishnikov was the commander of the mission, G. Ivanov was the second guy.

    This spring, several weeks after Columbia broke apart, there was an interview with G. Ivanov in a Bulgarian newspaper online, when he recalled how he himself was close to having a fatal accident back then. The reason was a malfunctioning fuel pump of their Soyuz.

    1. Re:Soyuz is not perfect... by Hentai · · Score: 4, Informative

      In this context, "ballistic" probably means "unpowered". A ballistic trajectory is a trajectory acted on only by gravitational forces - as opposed to aerodynamic or self-motive forces.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    2. Re:Soyuz is not perfect... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      The difference is, when Soyuz breaks, people almost die. When Shuttle breaks, people really die. It's an important distinction.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    3. Re:Soyuz is not perfect... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      They got lucky here, the engines worked and they entered the atmosphere in so called "ballistic trajectory" (how can it be non-ballistic?)

      Ballistic reentry is one that has no significant lift, only drag. For various reasons that results in losing more of the speed at lower altitude in the thick atmosphere, which makes the braking more intense.

      By controlling the angle of the capsule the Soyuz can achieve some lift, and hence lose more speed at a slower rate at higher altitude, reducing the peak acceleration.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:Soyuz is not perfect... by wjsteele · · Score: 1

      Actually... it's not controlling the angle of the capsule, but the center of mass that is important. When the center of mass is above the centerline, small amounts of lift can be produced. This is how the Soyuz does it. When the guidance computer failed, the backup system was much simpler and defaulted to a rotisserie mode that rotated the craft so that any error would be "corrected" by the next 180 degree rotation just like the rifling of a gun corrects the flight path of a bullet.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  42. Better Question by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does the sawed-off shotgun in the Souyz capsule to fight off wolves violate the provisions that demiliterize space?

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/05/05/soyuz.l an dings.ap/index.html

    "In 1976, a Soyuz spacecraft came down in a freezing squall and splashed into a lake; the crew spent the night bobbing in the capsule.

    Eleven years before that, two cosmonauts overshot their touchdown site by 2,000 miles and found themselves deep in a forest with hungry wolves. That's when Russian space officials decided to pack a sawed-off shotgun aboard every spacecraft."

    If they can launch a shotgun hundreds of times, then why can't the US launch some lasers?

    1. Re:Better Question by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... because everyone would be a little more worried about lasers sitting on a satellite that are designed to shoot things on Earth than they would be about a shotgun inside a capsule. I mean, what if they did shoot it toward Earth? Is anything in danger? And if they shot it in space, they would screw themselves up just about as much as they would the target (momentum change from the discharge). I wouldn't worry about it.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    2. Re:Better Question by kisak · · Score: 1
      If they can launch a shotgun hundreds of times, then why can't the US launch some lasers?
      howdy,

      Well, you see Wyatt, a shotgun might have been a high tech weapon in your days, but a modern laser is a much more a wild weapon than anything out of the old west. It is even more than a 100 times more effective than a shotgun, hard to belive! Anyway, you could have really cleaned out Tombstone with one of those laser thingis.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    3. Re:Better Question by alienmole · · Score: 1
      Does the sawed-off shotgun in the Souyz capsule to fight off wolves violate the provisions that demiliterize space?
      [...]
      If they can launch a shotgun hundreds of times, then why can't the US launch some lasers?
      Simple practical reasons, really - anti-missile lasers are just no good for defending your crew against wolves!
  43. Explanation by yerricde · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm confused.

    In Soviet Russia, joke explanation reads YOU!

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Explanation by mrjive · · Score: 1

      The cartoon Family Guy also paid tribute to Yakov in the episode There's Something About Paulie

      --
      If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -George Carlin
    2. Re:Explanation by invid · · Score: 1

      1) In Soviet Russia...

      2) all your base are belong to YOU!

      3) ???

      4 Profit!

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    3. Re:Explanation by delay · · Score: 1

      I think there's more to it. While we in capitalist western societies are tought that one person can make a difference, and have an impact on society, Marxists believe that individuals are a product of their environment and are thus shaped by it. So they believe that you don't influence your environment, but that your environment influences you instead.

      --
      What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?
  44. Fail-safe design by fname · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's actually a clever piece of work. Basically, software has to make calculations in order to provide a "soft" entry, 5 Gs approximately. If there is an error, the module goes into a ballistic entry mode, and it is more like 7-8 Gs, rougher but survivable.

    On (nearly) every manned spacecraft ever flown, every system has a hot-backup that kicks in if the first one fails. The exceptions are systems for which it is basically impractical to have a backup-- can't really have redundant heat shields, as the weight is too much. But for electronics and software, this is standard. This story would have gone practically unnoticed if Soyuz had notified Star City that they were doing a "ballistic" entry, in which case they would have been located much sooner.

    This landing showed that the Soyuz has a robust design; if Endeavour enters the atmosphere at the wrong angle, could it recover? What if the flight landing computer failed? NASA has a lot of these things covered; for many problems it is probably more robust than Soyuz, for others it is less robust. Soyuz has the advantage of much more flight experience; I doubt that it's a coincidence that this anomaly happened on a flight with a newly upgraded Soyuz.

    1. Re:Fail-safe design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it is more like 9-10G on ballistic. Without a G-suit many people would be likely to black out. (this is a prolonged force remember)

  45. SDI by MickyJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As everyone knows, SDI cannot stop terrorists from flying planes into buildings, using suitcase nuclear weapons, launching missiles from off-shore platforms, etc, etc.

    But, SDI is really another way to spend billions on research (just like the space race used to be the research money hole). There is no doubt good things will come from it, but at a very high cost.

    1. Re:SDI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about it this way:
      If the program is cancelled the government is not going to reduce the budget by that amount, they will simply spend it elsewhere. Much better that it is spent to hire engineers and programmers then on more government welfare programs.

    2. Re:SDI by sigwinch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's all about the threat model.
      As everyone knows, SDI cannot stop terrorists from flying planes into buildings, using suitcase nuclear weapons, launching missiles from off-shore platforms, etc, etc.
      But lots of nations don't destroy for the hell of it, they do things for a purpose. Consider a nation like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They don't want nukes so they can carry out an attack. Actually attacking would put them at the sharp end of a very pointy stick. Not even the Glorious Leader is that stupid. What they need is to create an unmistakable threat of an attack, in order to extract concessions.

      A suitcase nuke or an offshore platform doesn't create a sustainable threat. If you advertise a suitcase nuke, it gets taken away. If you don't advertise it, you don't get concessions. If you actually use it, not only don't you get concessions, but the Marines get sent in back home. Ditto for an offshore platform.

      What you have to do is create a credible, sustainable threat, which means nuclear ballistic missiles in your own territory. That raises the bar high enough that the US will (probably) leave you alone as long as you don't actually launch.

      But consider what happens if the US and allies have a missile shield with an 83% failure rate. 83% is terrible, right? Wrong. It means the enemy has to play Russian roulette to make that threat. If they win, the peasants get a little more food or heating oil. If they lose, the Marines spread them out on a cracker and eat them as a snack. Even a crappy missile defense system makes a huge difference in the strategic balance.

      It also makes a big difference in an all out nuclear exchange between major powers. 83% losses is vastly better than 100% losses.

      --

      --
      Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end. ;-)

    3. Re:SDI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah name me ONE thing that can work properly. Yet to bitch about SDI. Billions of Dollars into AIDS research and we cant find cure...should we stop as well? Billions in car industry and then all of a sudden your radio goes out because it blew a fuse. Should we stop spending money on education, IT OBVIOUSLY gives out retards who cant even think logicly...you are a prime example of that too. And of course people who modded you up out of political reasons and not because you fucking make any sense. Jeez it doesnt work on everything then it must be bad. So next time your computer craps out, I hope you will be saying the same thing "Wow obviously my free speech doesnt work, cause I cant deliver my faggot like opinion to others! Obviously WHY SPEND Billions of dollars on computer if they cant work properly either and they cant make me dinner!

      You Sir are a Fucknard. And all of you who modded are dumbfucks. And yeah Im rude, get over it.

    4. Re:SDI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you need to learn to read and interpret, retard. You've obviously got issues, mental ones.

  46. a bug in the SDI code could suck. by sstory · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, I'd hate to be shot in the face by a space laser.

  47. Funny That! by Rouslan · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's funny to notice, that in Russian newspapers the reason for this lending trouble is stated as "the American cosmonaut pushed the wrong button so the capsule started acting up..." Obviously the guy did not receive any previous training in landing procedures on this capsule, so he pushed the first familiar button, I guess. Again, interesting why they say one thing in Russia and completely different thing here??? Any ideas???

    1. Re:Funny That! by Detritus · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that in past news stories, such as the submarine the Russians lost due to a torpedo malfunction, some Russians will immediately blame "evil foreigners", without any evidence to back them up.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Funny That! by cranos · · Score: 1

      Probably for the same reason they say one thing in the States and something completely different in the rest of the world.

    3. Re:Funny That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American astronauts going to the space station ALL get training in flying a soyuz; because, it's the escape module. Read some more of the stories, One of the Americans was saying he was glad he got to use all those months of training...

  48. New here? by MondoMor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In order to get a story submitted, it must have a snide remark or overgeneralization. Articles that aren't flamebait are boring, apparently. Especially with timothy and michael picking the stories. Those two horse's asses are the biggest trolls and FUDders on Slashdot. CmdrTaco is up there too, though he just likes to post duplicate stories (can't bother reading his own site) and whine about SPAM.

  49. Defect is good by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Defect is good. I can work with defect.

    --
    -kgj
  50. But you'll trust Kim Jong Il, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    After all, since he's not an American he must be all right.

    Even if he's starving his country by the millions, even if he runs a regime that kidnaps Japanese children just to teach their spies Japanese. After all, he's opposed to GWB so even Kim Jong Il must be a good person and should be trusted to not use nukes. After all, if he is an evil person it must somehow be the fault of evil capitalist bankers, right?

    Sorry, but given the potential damage a knucklehead like that North Korean Stalinist can unleash, I'll take anything I can get that makes it harder for that idiot to threaten where damn near anyone of us live.

  51. heisenbugs by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Okay, granted, heisenbugs appear more mysterious than, say, bohr bugs.

    But the same is true in both cases: nothing is mysterious if you know the facts.

    The problem -- the cause of Mystery -- is that we may not have the capacity to get and understand the facts. Source code, compiler behavior, object code, operating system behavior -- the level of complexity may exceed our smarts.

    --
    -kgj
  52. TMA-1 ? by merlyn · · Score: 1
    Is that an ignorant joke, or some serious tongue-in-cheek on the part of the russians?

    TMA-1 was the name of the obelisk found on the moon in the novel 2001. Tycho Magnetic Anomoly 1, if I recall correctly.

  53. And don't forget the one that bounced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the parachute didn't open...

  54. Slashdotted... by sean23007 · · Score: 1

    So here's a whole list from Google News.

    --

    Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  55. CTRL-ALT-DEL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a reflex. The US astronaut is an MCSE.

  56. "Bugs" was around long before computers by mjhans · · Score: 1

    The idea of originally calling them "bugs" because of an actual insect is incorrect.

    People have been using the word "bug" long before computers to describe anomolies in system behavior. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/bugaboos.html

    The fact that somebody actually found a real bug sometime later on was kind of ironic, so that story is what people remember...

  57. Missile Defence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release.
    When Kim Il Jong decides to take out San Francisco, you will be able to explain to the country that trying to save 3 million lives just was not worth it, the damned thing probably wouldn't have worked.

    Do you realize how callous, adolescent and asinine you sound?
    1. Re:Missile Defence by Cackmobile · · Score: 0

      'Cause thats going to happen. Why would he do that and garautee the annihilation of his entire country.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  58. Job Available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    software engineer, must have top clearence, ability to write bug free code, former microsoft programmers need not apply

  59. Not a bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, they don't know if it was a software bug. At this point that is pure (though somewhat educated) speculation.

    The only thing known for certain, is that the backup guidance system took over and landed the craft safely.

    It is possible that pilot error caused the switch to backup, or mechanical failure, or a software design error, or a software bug.

    1. Re:Not a bug by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      Actually, they don't know if it was a software bug. At this point that is pure (though somewhat educated) speculation.

      Yes, but what can you expect from closed-source Russian software? If only they'd been running an early version of the 2.4 kernel, they'd --

      Oh, right. It would have still been swapping madly as it gouged a fifty-meter crater into the steppes of Kazakhstan.

      Really, folks, one would expect an audience with a higher-than-usual proportion of programmers to be at least a little sympathetic to the fact that all of us, no matter how good we are, no matter how well we design, implement, and test, will inevitably let some bugs slip through. And as noted in the parent post, the backup system did kick in and work like a charm. I wish that would happen when X started to crash!

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  60. IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SPACECRAFT LANDS ON YOU!

  61. Offending code found in code review... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    char *string = "seineew era sreenignE ASAN";

    char foobar[10];

    strcpy(foobar,string);

    display();

  62. Yanks stop hassling the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it all the news stories recently in the US press recently seem to have a dismissive, almost mocking, view of the Russian space programme? Words like primative, old technology, not as advanced as American keep coming up over and over again. The Russians have vastly more experience in manned space flight than the Americans and arguably a much better success ratio. It pisses me off the "American must be better" attitude you see in the western press these days. They should remember who it is keeping the whole ISS alive while the shuttle isn't around.

    1. Re:Yanks stop hassling the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True the american press is retarded and they are writing about what they do not understand. If the russian equipement is primitive so is the American stuff. The russians are so impressive because of the feats they accomplish. Soviet engineers build in 90% the features and quality for 10% of the money. Look at the space program, if anything we should study them to be more cost effective. We spent money to design a space pen the Russians used a pencil. Just remember the Soviets discovered the futility of a space shuttle, we still have not, we are focusing on expanding it.

    2. Re:Yanks stop hassling the Russians by Remlik · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember an article a few months back about the ISS possibly going dark because the russians couldn't come up with the cash to foot their end of the bill, nor complete the modules there were supposed to on time.

      Where do you think the Russians are getting the money to pay for their space program now...Cough US...cough.

      Oh and the Russians killed a lot more astronauts during the cold war than they are willing to talk about. Lets not get sniggly over success ratios.

      --
      Apple free since 1990!
    3. Re:Yanks stop hassling the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It pisses me off the "American must be better" attitude you see in the western press these days.

      Which is exactly the attitude Russians have... Oh, stupid American presses wrong button...

  63. Glass Cockpit? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I saw an interview over the weekend with the space Tourist guy where the fact that this particular capsule was one of the first Soyuz with a "glass cockpit", similar to what has recently been installed on the shuttle fleet.

    As a software QA guy, I know what kinds of havok a UI defect can cause in a software package. Is it possible that insufficient QA is going into the interface software for these "Glass Cockpits"? There's a time and place for everything, and at the moment, I'd feel a lot better with hardware switches for most spacecraft function (particularly with something as old as Soyuz) than with the kinds of UIs that I've seen in terrestrial software...

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  64. In Soviet Russia ... by njchick · · Score: 0, Funny

    wrong buttons press YOU!

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia ... by Exiler · · Score: 1

      Not untill they can open the ship to the vacum of deep space, and even then I think it'll be more sucking than pressing.

      --
      Banaaaana!
  65. What languages do Soviet coders use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in military applications? I always wondered.

    Does the US government still insist on using ADA?

  66. The original poster speaks by helix400 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess the point wasa little subtle for you, but if we can't bring back a spacecraft successfully...do you really have faith in a software system's ability to shoot down an incoming missile...

    Your point was an editorial opinion. This is Slashdot, "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Slashdot is a place for summaries and links to news stories...but not these politically left/right wing or ignorant opinions of news stories.

    Really, would Slashdot be a great site if all you saw were stories like these?

    Anthrax Genes Mapped
    xeroxman writes "The BBC reports that scientists have mapped out the genes that make up anthrax. Personally, I find this scary. Mother Nature never intended for us to gain the knowledge of what makes diseases so deadly. This could easily fall into the wrong hands."

    Georgia Plans For More Broadband
    southener writes "According to the Atlanta journal, the state government is spending $500 million to lay fiber to more cities. Ya, great plan Georgia...what a waste of money. 20% of the state's population lives in poverty. I'll never vote for those Democrats again."

    Linus Turns Up Dead
    An anonymous coward writes "Sad news today. Linus Torvalds was found dead on the side of I-5 outside of Oakland. No other details as of yet. We can only hope that Christians won't make this more painful for us all by saying he's now living in this magical "heaven" place..."

    1. Re:The original poster speaks by planux · · Score: 1

      I-5 doesn't go anywhere near Oakland... DUH!! BTW, this is humour.

  67. I don't know who's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the head of RKK Energia appeared on one of Russian TV channels yesterday and said that one of the American astronauts pressed the wrong button. Of course that wasnt the official position of RKK Energia on the matter, but I think he knows what he's talking about. What's interesting is the silence of American press about him saying this.

  68. New Twist by dbCooper0 · · Score: 2
    ...this is an article I found off Google News. Seems there's talk about the "wrong button" being pushed by the Russian dude.

    The head of the Energiya Space Corporation Yury Semenov said that all possible causes of the inaccurate landing were being examined.

    "We must examine all causes. ... There was a version (of events) that (flight commander) Nikolai Budarin pushed a button on the control panel," he told the ITAR-TASS news agency.

    Go figger...the events to follow should be interesting.

    --
    db
    Cig:
    ôô
    /`
  69. On missile flight paths by qaffle · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing information in the early Iraq war days that cruise missiles don't actually fly in straight paths; they are capable and programmed to somewhat dart around while flying.
    I know not many countries have cruise missiles they can launch at us, but I'd assume any country capable of launching nukes from a distance could setup the missiles to fly erratic flight plans.

    1. Re:On missile flight paths by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      SDI is intended to be a defense against BALLISTIC missiles; not cruise missiles. They call them BALLISTIC missiles because they follow a BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY. We aren't worried about cruise missiles because no other country appears to have anywhere near the technical infrastructure to create and deploy cruise missiles comparable to even the first generation cruise missiles deployed by the U.S. Even if they did, only the Russians currently have the capability to get a cruise missile launch platform within range of the U.S. with some minimal hope that it won't be detected.

      If you're talking about manuevering the re-entry vehicle, even on a MIRV (two generations plus beyond what the N. Koreans might be able to flight test), the "impact points" of the warheads are severely constrained by basic orbital mechanics. "Rocket Science" to a huge degree comes down to simple Newtonian physics. You only have so much "delta v" to expend to change the basic balistic trajectory even with a MIRV.

      Bottom line: cruise missiles (which are manueverable) are beyond the technical capability of most countries. First generation ballistic missiles are not manueverable and follow a simple ballistic trajectory.

      And, yeah, I used to write targeting software for U.S. ICBMs.

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    2. Re:On missile flight paths by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cruise missiles do not fly intercontinental distances, at least no sane designs intended to carry thermonuclear warheads. And while they're nowhere near as visible as missiles coming in on a ballistic arc, they are very slow (compared to spacebourne weapons) and simple for conventional anti-air defenses to hit. Realistic nuclear cruise missiles are tactical weapons designed hundreds of miles at best, and even then require some sort of air superiority in the target zone and/or an undetected firing platform (such as a nuclear submarine). And this says nothing of the required technology base to build one.

      Stratiegic Defense Initiative is intended to take out stratiegic nuclear weapons, the ones that are designed to cross oceans. And the only realistic way to get a missle to fly over oceans (without a fleet of B-52s hovering just outside the target's borders) is to lob them over a sub-orbital arc. These weapons are essentially in free-fall as soon as the boosters fall away, which happens well before the warhead crosses the target's horizon.

      "but I'd assume any country capable of launching nukes from a distance could setup the missiles to fly erratic flight plans."

      Consider the decades of time between the development of ICBMs and cruise missiles. And again, these missiles would have trouble crossing the Atlantic Ocean, let alone the Pacific. What are these missiles going to do, hook up to a refuelling jet two or three times during its flight?

      The focus on stopping ballistic missiles is both because such missiles are the easiest to build (remember that ballistic missiles were used in WWII) and the most difficult to stop. Any other form of delivery can be stopped by conventional means.

  70. Seriously though obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    is a growing concern in America associated with severe morbidity, predisposing to serious medical conditions.
    For instance obesity is a risk factor, meaning thought to be causitive, in the pathogenesis of diabetes, heart, kidney and liver disease. In addition one should consider the psychological impact of being obese in American society.

    ...also in the article: the accidental landing site was miraculously close to a small tavern serving local speciality vodkas. The crew where reportedly stranded for hours. They were in good spirits when they were rescued.

  71. Another, less Microsofty article by ExileOnHoth · · Score: 1

    For those loathing to click on msnbc, here is a less Microsoft-profiting and more insightful article at space daily:

    Pushing "wrong button" may have caused Soyuz space landing error

  72. Um, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The former Soviet space program lost a goodly number of men, and very possibly a woman. It appears the first woman in space may have failed to return to Earth.

    That being said, don't think I'm trying to diss the astronaut/cosmonaut corp. Quite the other way round. Let's not forget any of the people who tried and died getting outside the atmosphere and back.

    Let's try learning some of the relevant facts before running our sucks. And you other idiots---this has zilch to do with SDI, go start another thread! The Soyuz landed safely, as it almost always does. We've all had caps land way off target over the years. No harm, no foul.

    Welcome home to the 'nauts, by the way. Toddling off to bed now . . .

    Have a nice war,
    Mal the Elder

  73. SDI is not a failure by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    It's just incompletely developed.

    Who can argue that having an anti-ballistic missile system isn't a good thing? For pity sake, all you have to do is have a quick gander at the Korean Peninsula... makes me long for the Reagan SDI spending days. An insular, isolated, brainwashed and despotic regime like North Korea's (with nukes, BTW... and the ballistic missiles to deliver them) is all the reason I need to throw some tax dollars at the problem; bring it on. Deterrence only works if you are dealing with a reasonable adversary; north korea has proven to be anything but.

    Will SDI have software problems? Undoubtedly... but that's what testing and retesting and retesting and retesting are for... Even if it's not perfect, it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Let's choose; NO defense... or a semi-effective missile defense... hmmm... We live in an ugly, jealous, uneducated, demagogue-driven world, and unless some incredible global philosophical/religious epiphany occurs, peace will be achieved as it always has been; through diplomatic maneuvering backed up by superior firepower.

    SDI... spend the money. Nuclear technology gets easier every year, and the US has plenty of enemies. Without some kind of missile defense, sooner or later, we're gonna need some pretty thick sunglasses.

    They may get some of us, but personally, I'd like to survive long enough to deliver the counterpunch.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  74. Greedy moderator bastards.... by Leeji · · Score: 2, Funny

    You greedy moderators are all bastards. I wanted to mod this +funny, but selfish moderators before me already capped the post! CAPPED THE FUCKING POST!!!

    --
    It all goes downhill from first post ...
  75. About your .sig by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

    Flags aren't generally designed to be of a size to cover shame.

    What the heck is 'covering shame' in the first place?

    Howard Zinn's flavor of revisionist history gets laughed at these days. Face it: the 'New Left' is old and tired now.

  76. The SDI by mnemonic_ · · Score: 0

    I also wouldn't trust the SDI. Neither did scientists, who believed its satellite laser weapons technology was too under developed at the time, with some believing the entire program might cost upwards of $5 trillion.

    Which is why the program was canceled in the 1980s. We now have the ABM program, using more conventional technologies (anti-ballistic missile missiles, more effective radars) as well as more radical types (the Airborne Laser (which is far less ambitious than the laser weapony of the SDI), also rumors of a classified plasma-toroid firing weapon).

    The ABM program is far more realistic than the SDI.

  77. Mysterious Software Fault? by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 1

    How is a software fault "mysterious"? Is it like some moondust bounced off the side of the rocket and cause the hardware circuits to have some sort of spasm, causing the rocket to land several hundred miles off course?

    Anyone who says a software fault is "mysterious" is probably like one of those people who say "well my program worked yesterday but it doesn't work now and I didn't change anything. In fact, that is _the most common excuse for someone's program not working.

    Let's look at this scientifically, something is not scientifically and logically correct - let's leave the mysteries to the X-Files (when it was on).

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  78. Bokes need to fix their IFF box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were hit because their IFF (Identify Friend/Foe) beacon was not working.

    A tragic accident, but not the fault of a software defect in the Patriot III.

  79. Submitter is a florkin idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. This poster ought not drive, fly, or talk on the phone either. There are computers running all of those, so they will never work.

    I'm getting sick of every slashdot article being warped into some liberal freak cause. If you use logic and look at most of this stuff with some sense of objectivity, these panicked liberal moans are usually just the stupid and uninformed taking their single brain cell for a walk.

  80. Capsules should be the defalt recovery method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly right. Sure it was a rough ride, but it was an entirely survivable, safe ride.

    I doubt any Space Plane design could survive a similar problem. Once a space plane gets out of attitude, it's going to burn up. There's no designing around that.

    But the Soyuz modules are basically spherical and mostly impervious to thermal overheating. Nor do they "feature" exceedingly fragile thermal tiles.

    I think a low-cost "Soyuz type" re-entry vehicle should be designed and be the primary method of manned space recovery. Capsule type re-entry vehicles have the highest standards of safety in the industry.

    In fact, Shuttle has killed many times more people than both Russian and US capsules combined.

    1. Re:Capsules should be the defalt recovery method by fname · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Challenger had nothing to do with it being a plane design instead of a capsule; it was a launch failure that was related to a problem with the solids. And shuttle's death toll is higher because the program was a mess pre-Challenger, and there are 7 on board instead of 1-3. Even Columbia was largely a launch problem, although little noticed until re-entry. Of course, if the TPS of the capsule/ shuttle is not exposed at lift-off, then it can't be damaged.

      And yeah, capsules are probably safer, although less versatile. Doesn't mean the approach of a space place should be abandoned. It has a lot of advantages. And note Soyuz is not perfect, as have been 2 re-entry failures, out of about 200, although that number may be off. But it's a similar rate compared to the shuttle re-entry experience.

    2. Re:Capsules should be the defalt recovery method by iamr00t · · Score: 1

      IIRC the capsule is also used on launch, and rockets have escape mechanism with additional boosters
      (check the page for description of how it worked too) on top of the rocket that carry top part away from exploding rocket or ejection seats.

    3. Re:Capsules should be the defalt recovery method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I doubt any Space Plane design could survive a similar problem. Once a space plane gets out of attitude, it's going to burn up. There's no designing around that.


      Except that the "out of attitude" was a compromise attitude caused intentionally by the backup system. A similar problem on the Shuttle would probably be a computer failure, in which case the other four would deactivate it and continue with the original program -- IOW, handling it better. Furthermore, there isn't as much of a difference in attitude tolerance as you imply; the Soyuz still has a heat shield, which still has to be pointed in the right direction. And the Shuttle has a fairly large window of what would be considered in attitude. There are strong arguments for alternative crew-transport vehicles than the Shuttle, but yours aren't them.
  81. Military Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Software + Military Application can be dangerous.

    The other day we had a speaker who showed us some of the stuff he was working on. 'Land Warrior' basically an IFF system for marines.

    You plant this black box on the side of your rifle, and aim it at someone. Thing sends out an infrared laser w/ some data encoded into it, and the helmet pings something back to the gun (if it's a friendly). A little red light comes on if it's cool to fire. Kinda like glorified laser tag or something.

    Anyway, you can imagine what would happen if there were some bugs in the software or if it didn't run quickly enough. (All code = assembly). Anyway...

  82. Cruise missiles can be mad stealthy. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Any other form of delivery can be stopped by conventional means.

    I think there was one strategic weapon system that really scared the Soviets: the AGM-129A Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). Unlike the earlier Boeing ALCM, the ACM (now supported by Raytheon) has extremely low radar-cross section, very quiet engines, improved guidance systems and somewhat longer range than the earlier ALCM (about 3,000 km or 1,863 miles).

    With ACM, Soviet ground detection radars would be rendered obselete, and its very low noise signature meant ACM could also avoid detection by noise sensors, too. That meant ACM would stand a pretty good chance of reaching its target before radar-guided defenses could "engage" the target. 460 AGM-129A missiles were built, though there is talk of restarting AGM-129 production with a conventional unitary or cluster muntion warhead version assisted by GPS guidance that will allow the older ALCM to be phased out.

    1. Re:Cruise missiles can be mad stealthy. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "has extremely low radar-cross section, very quiet engines, improved guidance systems and somewhat longer range than the earlier ALCM (about 3,000 km or 1,863 miles)."

      The Atlantic Ocean at its narrowest seems to be around 2200 miles, but I don't think Sierra Leone will be involved in a shooting war with Brazil any time soon. It's about twice that to get from Portugal to Maine, similar to the distance from Pyongyang to Anchorage. From Pyongyang to Honolulu seems to be ~6500 miles.

      In other words, you're still going to need a delivery system.

      "With ACM, Soviet ground detection radars would be rendered obselete,"

      Like the ones that helped shoot down an F-117 over Belgrade?

      "and its very low noise signature meant ACM could also avoid detection by noise sensors, too."

      No mention of thermal signature, which is the Achilles Heel of many aircraft (something the Soviets learned the hard way in Afghanistan).

      "there is talk of restarting AGM-129 production with a conventional unitary or cluster muntion warhead version assisted by GPS guidance that will allow the older ALCM to be phased out."

      With all these bells and whistles, who's going to pay for it? After all, we won't be shooting at anybody with anything resembling technological parity any time soon.

      At any rate, this is all moot. It still flies like an airplane and therefore is still as vulnerable as an airplane. Giving something an ECM advantage doesn't make it physically impossible to shoot down (I reference the F-117 again). On the other hand, until SDI and/or ABL pan out, putting something on a fast ballistic trajectory does.

    2. Re:Cruise missiles can be mad stealthy. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Referencing the F-117 again is probably a mistake. One of them is a fluke. Two of them would be news.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  83. Flt Lt. Kevin Barry Main & Flt Lt. David Willi by reality-bytes · · Score: 2, Informative

    The crew of that Tornado GR.4 belonging to 9 Squadron RAF Marham were known for their concientious attitude towards their work along with their great experience on Tornados.

    Neither officer was reknowned for 'goofing-off' as they knew like any-other RAF crew that such behaviour leads to a court-martial in jig-time.

    It is know that they were in the right place at the right time and it might also be worth pointing out that it is highly unlikely that they would deactivate the IFF when they knew that Rapier systems were deployed (You don't even know they are there till they fire).

    The current status of this 'friendly-fire' incident according to both the US and UK is that it is under investigation. you may like to read this article on possible bugs in the Patriot system software.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  84. Security is a process, not a product. by Inoshiro · · Score: 0, Troll

    But if Bush goes mad, and he sends out the order, we're fucked.

    "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" says it all, really.

    Accidental activation won't happen, only willful malice and intent to kill will. Precisely the things which shouldn't have a system to activate in the first place.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  85. Oh, man. by cybermage · · Score: 1

    That's like landing a space shuttle in the LA river, or something.

  86. Don't Use Windows ! by anandcp · · Score: 1

    I keep saying, don't use Windows CE for controlling the spacecraft. Do people listen?
    Mission Control: Hello, Microsoft, we have this problem with Windows CE which made our Soyuz capsule land offway. What's the reason?
    Microsoft Support: First of all, Such usage in production systems void all warranty. Secondly did you apply Patch #3156B before applying WindowsUpdate #675581 while the moon was full?
    When will people listen?

    --
    -------- Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate -- the bombs always hit the ground.
  87. Yeah, but still no integration test by enkidu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What you're talking about is component level testing. Unfortunately, all that testing doesn't substitute for a true "shakedown" integration test. Look up the AEGIS cruiser system (actually sort of a mini-SDI for a ship). On it's first full integration test, it failed to shoot down 6 out of 17 targets due to software errors. Now, make the integrated platform 2 orders of magnitude more complicated than that (and at least one order of magnitude more complicated than ANY software project attempted to date) and you can see why I'm skeptical of the chances of SDI working as advertised.

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  88. graceful failure is a good thing by sbwoodside · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's a system that failed gracefully. Consider a simple taxonomy of software bugs:
    - you lose data
    - you corrupt data

    The second one is far, far worse because the failure makes changes to your data and you know longer know what is right and what is wrong. The same situation maps onto this failure. The automatic primary system failed, and lost data. But it did not /corrupt/ data. A kernel panic serves exactly the same purpose. The kernel detects that it can no longer rely on itself, instead of continuing to operate it shuts down. The potential consequences of continuing in any form, might results in writing random or bad data to the hard drive, or who knows what else. It's better to system panic and stop doing anything.

    Code that fails gracefully is good code.

    simon

  89. beta release by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 1

    what will always be a beta release

    Ah.. it is OSS ;-)

  90. Re:Lower cost to consumer? by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

    TMI man, TMI...

    --
    Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
  91. Can't you feel the love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    QUOTE:' Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

    Let's play word association boys and girls...

    Article: Problem with a Russian RV.
    Timmah!: SDI is dangerous

    Article: Problem with a Russian RV.
    Dashslot: Those damned Americans and their measurement system.

    I love this place! (If you didn't hate, we wouldn't be a playa)

  92. The difference... by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    ...between american and russian space engineering.

    Russian: oops, bug, looks like we'll land in Kazakhstan.

    USA: oops, bug, we're confetti.

    1. Re:The difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhat true; but:

      the Russian system is designed to bring home three (3) people + 100 pounds of cargo, and is disposable.

      the American system is designed to bring home seven (7) people and 100 TONS of cargo... And is (supposed to be) re-usable.

  93. well... by borgdows · · Score: 1

    You win again gravity!

    -- Zapp Branigan

  94. In United States... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they search soviet software for bugs.

  95. Formal Verification by Mr.Locke · · Score: 1

    The Russians are not the only ones with shuttle problems. Unfortunately the list is long:

    Ariane 5 (1996) - distruction at 40 seconds after launch. Cause: 64-16 bit conversion generated an uncatched exception in both main and backup module.

    Mars Pathfinder (1997) - was frequently reseting. The cause: priority inversion between processes with shared resources.

    Mars Climate Orbiter (1998) - desintegration while entering the athmosphere. Cause: errors at conversion between American and European metric system.

    As you see, what happened with Soyuz was nothing compared with the rest.
    A efective solution can be Formal Verification (.ps article by Joost-Pieter Katoen) - authomatic tehniques for verifying finite state concurent systems as is defined in Clark, Grumberg and Peled's book - Model Checking

    1. Re:Formal Verification by Cackmobile · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid to say its not American to European systems. ITs AMerican to rest of world system.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  96. OT: family guy by dakers27 · · Score: 1

    Family guy rules, glad to see it got picked up by cartoon network, it was definitely one of the funniest shows i've ever watched. Maybe we'll see some new episodes eventually :)

    1. Re:OT: family guy by mrjive · · Score: 1

      See if you can track down the unaired episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein." It's only available on the non-region1 season 2 dvd set, and was never aired in the States (mostly because it's very very politically incorrect, but hilarious nontheless).

      --
      If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -George Carlin
    2. Re:OT: family guy by dakers27 · · Score: 1

      I've seen it, and its a great episode. I plan on ordering the whole set of faimly guy dvd's once they've all been released in the US. If you've never been to http://www.familyguyfiles.com They have a family guy trivia thing there, pretty good way to waste some of your freetime :)

  97. ASCI vs The Earth Simulator by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Ok I'll apply capitalism,
    on one side put the countries who have nukes,
    and on the other side, put the amount of money they spend on research.

    then ring any countries that are planning to develope new nukes (against the NPT)

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  98. MOD PARENT UP, FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    young grasshopper.

  99. Re:Cruise missiles can be made stealthy. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Actually, the AGM-129 ACM uses better understanding of stealth technology than the F-117A, which is based on Lockheed's original research into reducing observability of an airplane.

    Because of the AGM-129's design, it probably has a very small fraction of the F-117A's radar cross section, even lower noise levels and just about zero IR signature.

    I still see the possibility of restarting the AGM-129 production line, essentially trading in older ALCM's for the ACM on a one-to-one basis.

  100. It may not have been software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russians are blaming the software because they needed to backpedal from their previous "The American hit the wrong button" statement -- a simple political solution.

    The analysis hasn't been done yet; and, it could have easily been a hardware failure (I don't believe the astronauts / cosmonaut made such a mistake). The entire Nav system on the Soyuz was a new model, never tested in actual flight (this was the first time a Soyuz TMA has made a decent). For all we know, a gyro failed...

    The software actually did it's job: It recognized it had a bad dataset and defaulted to the backup system.

  101. Eyeballs down vs eyeballs in by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    The Soyuz spacecraft is a blunt-body reentry vehicle that generates a small amount of lift. With the proper guidance active, that lift can mitigate the G-forces to about 4 or 5. When they make a "ballistic entry", they are going straight in and pull about 8 or 9 G's. The G forces are even higher for some abort trajectories -- I believe a long while ago they had an in-flight abort where they had to separate from a misfiring booster, and you pull a lot of G's in the steep suborbital reentry.

    If things are done right, those G's are in the direction pushing you into the seat cushions (eyeballs in). An F-16 pilot pulls G's eyeball's down (towards the feet), and those are the G's that can cause blackout from blood pooling in the legs after being drained from the brain. The eyeballs-in G's don't do that -- they are merely very uncomfortable, although they can mess up your inner ear temporarily and make you headachy and dizzy.

  102. Vacation over by space_hippy · · Score: 1

    Guess my semi-vacation is over. For the longest time all I had to deal with was managers that where out to justify there jobs due to the fear of budget cuts. Now I will have to deal with an actual schedule push to get the shuttles back flying.

  103. You earned the "AC" on that post by ianscot · · Score: 1
    How dark a day is it when we start presuming that our glorious technology couldn't be to blame, so we reach for excuses to do with the pilots in the Tornado "goofing off"? Does it pain you at all to slander the dead this way?

    You provide no motive for this supposed recklessness -- "because, hey, he's in a Tornado" doesn't explain anything at all -- and your "I remember hearing" amounts to the regurgitated speculation of a Fox News anchor, I'm betting. I especially loved the "The coalition noticed" part -- where you don't want to deal with the fact that it was an American Patriot crew shooting down a pair of British fliers.

    You, friend, are living Orwell's worst nightmare.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  104. SDI: Gold Version by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release.

    No, it might not always be a beta release.
    We hope it will always be a beta release.
    There is a possibility that the code will be tested enough in the real world to reach "production" status, but we hope the situations which exercise it in the real world will never happen.

  105. Been there by Pink+Puffer · · Score: 1

    The Russian factory's replay to call for help is typical. My company would always tell me - it was working when it left the shop, what did you do to it?

  106. technophobia by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release.

    You could use that argument against any weapons system that uses a computer. You could also further expand that statement to say that computers can never be used for important tasks. It is amazing how quickly politics can make luddites of us, isn't it?

  107. SDI by sunbane · · Score: 1

    "Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

    You mean which is why we DON'T NEED the Strategic Defense Initiative... with accuracy like that, we are safer with the Russians aiming at us!

  108. RETITLE: Soyuz story causes Offtopic fiesta by slyborg · · Score: 1

    Ok, the top-level reference shouldn't have mentioned SDI, but sheesh.

  109. normal training required. by twitter · · Score: 1

    Those guys spend months learning how to switch buttons in proceedures trainers. If you don't know exactly where the buttons are and have the reflexes to push them in the right order, you might not have time to punch them. You don't just jump into someone else's capsule and fly it. The language barrier makes it so you can't even figure out what to push. If that capsule was designed to be operated by more than one man, they are lucky they made it back at all.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  110. Re:What, exactly, is the problem? by adamdeprince · · Score: 1

    You are refering to the Tsar Bomba, a selectable yeild 50 or 100 Megaton weapon built as a one-off technology demo that was fired at the lower setting. The claim of a 57-58 Megaton yeild was the result of a misestimation by the west and the subsequent and understandable reclutance of the Soviet scientists to say "Um, no, it was actually a bit weaker than that"

  111. Okay, test it by jdavidb · · Score: 1

    Fire cold missles at an abandoned spot in the midwest, or over the ocean. Test the system.

    1. Re:Okay, test it by enkidu · · Score: 1

      But such a test wouldn't include multiple large population centers' cell phone, television, radio, WiFi interference, multiple flying objects, ships (if near the water) and other factors. Nor would the missiles/decoys be coming from around the globe. Now that really wouldn't be a full integration test, would it?

      --

      There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
      -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  112. There is no software problem by Cackmobile · · Score: 0

    There is no software bug. The Soyuz craft landed perfectly, Praise Allah. The infidel journalists reporting otherwise will roast in hell. In fact the are commiting suicide at the walls of Moscow.

    M.S.S.

    --sorry just been reading welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com What a riot that guy is/was.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  113. Friendly fire expertise by John+Bayko · · Score: 1
    On a tangent, why is it it's always "American forces accidentally shot down/bombed/fired at ... in a friendly fire incident..."? Something approaching a quarter of the ground troops were British, why didn't they seem to have "blue on blue" incidents?

    Possible explanations:

    • Americans are just more accident prone due to procedures, discipline, lines of communication problems, or something else. U.S pilots who bombed Canadians in Afghanistan were on speed (on orders), which is not condusive to good decision-making.
    • The American military is just more effective due to superior equipment, training, etc., so that they are able to take out targets more quickly and effectively than British forces, giving them less time to identify and avoid mistakes.
    • American incidents are reported, British ones are covered up.
    • Americans are world pariahs, friendly fire incidents are blown out of proportion by world media.
    Any suggestions?
    1. Re:Friendly fire expertise by kingkade · · Score: 1

      Everybody seems to hate us, maybe because it's acceptable to hate the big guy. What people don't realize that we're not an entity, we're a bunch of people too. People make mistakes. Mistakes become horibble mistakes in war, I guess.

    2. Re:Friendly fire expertise by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, there were some British-only friendly fire incidents.

    3. Re:Friendly fire expertise by mcpheat · · Score: 1

      I think that it was only one (between a couple of tanks near Basra).

  114. China as an enemy or America as an enemy? by reality-bytes · · Score: 1

    Just a thought, nobody ever seems to mention that China could deliver a nuclear payload just about anywhere, they have decent ICBM systems (after-all they are looking to send a man on a couple of orbits later this year).

    I know that China has no terrorist leanings or interests but it is amusing that America almost appears to be ignoring their old worst-nightmare (A communist country with nuclear capability).

    To be fair China is a very level-headed country and have always stood by their no-first-use policy, but backing it up with a Mutually Assured Destruction policy if you hit them. ;) Its funny now how they take their Communism in a very Neo-Capitalist way :)

    I can't help thinking that Americas worst enemy could turn out to be itself in terms of total global alienation.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:China as an enemy or America as an enemy? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      China appears to be slowly making the transition to a capitalist democracy. The current leader of China has stated that, while he doesn't think that China will become a democracy under his leadership, it probably will under his successor's.

      I don't think you can say the same thing about North Korea. Engagement will work with China; we'll probably have to contain North Korea until it collapses.

  115. huh???? by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

    Wha?!!! The cold war spawned at least two large scale wars and a plethora of endless small scale ones in which scores of humanity suffered immensely.

    Your statement about Carter is absolutely absurd. First, the helicopters crashed because of a sandstorm. Second, in case you didn't notice, that happened during this last conflict too. The U.S. lost a number of helicopters directly or indirectly to the sands of the desert-- and in one case, the pilots were captured as well.

    But I see from the rest of your comments that you're really just putting down spin.... My recommendation: stop basing your perspective of the world on what CNN tells you and open your eyes.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
  116. Velcro by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    Velcro was invented by a Swiss guy walking his dog in the 1940s, according to velcro.com

  117. speaking as a pilot by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    'Any' landing you can walk away from, is a good landing.

    flying is like sailing; but in 3 dimensions, and in a medium that's alot thinner, and more turbulent.

  118. Mod parent up by jensend · · Score: 1

    Wow. I haven't seen a more accurate parody of the direction Slashdot story postings are going. People seem to think that every post needs to inspire discussion- by flaming on some topic only slightly related.

  119. Human Error, not Software Glitch by chriscokid · · Score: 1
    Evidently the real cause of the 'error' in the landing is that one of the American crew pressed the wrong button which started a more ballistic re-entry program. This is somewhat understandable since they are not familiar with this spacecraft.

    Someone from the Russian space centre revealed this right after the landing, and later the story was changed to a "software glitch". It is always easier to blame a computer than human error, which happens more often.

    Here is the link to the Russian site that describes this, translated by www.translate.ru. Check the last paragraph.

    Chris

  120. It's all fault of by TheDukePatio · · Score: 1

    Moose and Squirrel!

    --
    To Alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
  121. TMA-1 stands for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Transpot Module Anthropometric (#1?)
    http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/iss/s oyuz-tm a/soyuz-tma_02.html (www.energia.ru)

  122. Problems.... by reality-bytes · · Score: 1

    North Korea AFAIK has never signed an anti-proliferation treaty on nuclear or other arms. It wouldn't be Americas place to 'contain' or otherwise act against North Korea unilaterally.
    It would require that all countries that have signed anti-proliferation treaties to first attempt to engage in talks and then discuss together any further action

    If America constantly cuts everyone out of the 'loop', everyone else will create a new 'loop' which will exclude America. - This is what I was getting at when I mentioned 'global alienation'.

    At the moment, to an outsider, America appears as an unfriendly, neurotic and potentially dangerous creature.

    Hmm, this thread has gone so far off the main topic that I'm going to need a GPS & some binoculars to find my way back :)

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  123. one line of mistyped code....and launch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release."

    But you trust the code controlling the missles that are pointed at us right now?

  124. Pershing missiles weren't so perfect by aoeu · · Score: 1

    I was stationed in Germany with Pershing 2 missiles. For those of you who don't know thers were Intermediate range, two stage, solid fueled, semitrailer launched missiles with WMD warheads. I remember when one burned in Heilbron killing people. We didn't think that it was very well tested or perfect.

    --
    All your database are belong to U.S.
  125. NASA Inventions? Maybe not. by aoeu · · Score: 1

    Who is to say that these things wouldn't have been found anyway.

    --
    All your database are belong to U.S.
  126. Goofy Star Wars reference by rpg25 · · Score: 1
    Which is why I will never trust the Strategic Defence Initiative - the star wars project. It only takes one line of mistyped code in what will always be a beta release.

    OK, I think the SDI is goofy, too, but what you've said makes no sense --- unless you never get on an airplane, that is. What the heck do you think your flight management system and autopilot run on, if not software? You think the pilot is using a sextant up there?

  127. getting picked up by rpg25 · · Score: 1

    In the MSNBC story they say:

    They then waited two hours to be spotted by a search plane, and several hours more for the arrival of the first helicopter.

    Anyone know why that was? I would have thought it would be relatively easy to find a spacecraft that had a working transmitter. Is there any reason they can't just, for example, consult a hand-held GPS and radio in their location for a pickup? Seems odd that they have to be spotted by a search plane.

  128. Wrong place, right number of pieces by aaaurgh · · Score: 1

    Did any of the last shuttle pieces reach their intended landing zone? ;-)

    Say what you like about the Russian space program, the fact is that they've done bloody well on a shoestring budget. If if weren't for them, the astronauts would still be up there, rapidly running out of supplies.

    --

    Go permanent? In your dreams and my worst nightmares.
  129. Precisely my point by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    K.I.S.S. engineering.

    You want to move cargo, use a big dumb cargo booster. Moving people and cargo in the same box, then making a half hearted attempt to reuse the airframe, that's daft. So's sticking stubby little glider wings on an orbiter - when the russians have repeatedly demonstrated that 'chutes work fine.

  130. Bugs, Spoilage, Defects by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    "Defect" is a good word for bad code -- a machine word for a machine environment.

    "Spoilage" makes more sense for corrupted data. When my floppy disk passes too near a magnet, the disk suffers from a kind of rot -- less mechanical, more organic in nature.

    --
    -kgj