Actually LS is an abreviation for LSE brings up Digital's Language Sentsitive Editor (LSE) which was based on TPU. TPU was like a much higher level EMACS largely programmed in its own language. LSE made programming very easy with builtin language and procedure call skeletons as well as excellent folding. LSE was quite expensive when originally distributed (you got TPU bundled) for non-educational users, so many people missed out on it.
Yeah but file versioning was from the file system (ODS) which was really Andy Goldstein's thing.
Forget NT/XP, I want it back on Linux now - I really miss it, especially whenever I screw up. Of course I have no chance adding versioning to WInodws, but I know that someone could at least do that to Linux.
Regrettably, I don't thin k it will happen. A lot of Unix people who briefly touched VMS looked upon this as an inconvenience. VMS had its problems compared to Unix, but this was't one of them.
VMS could be mismanaged so that it would crash, if ALL logging options were enabled. But that doesn't make it bad for it to have had so many different logging options.
This was a *feature*. If you were trying to create so many events as to blow the audit subsystem, the system manager had the *option* to tell VMS to shut itself down so as to protect the audit trail for forensic analysis.
If you want reliability and security, OpenVMS is still the only answer. Their clustering is the best around, probably because they have had it for over 20 years. That is a lot of experience.
Go to Eurex, for example. They are the largest electronic financial derivatives exchange in the world and their core systems run OpenVMS. SWIFT (the money transfer people) still do a lot with VMS as do many other people.
I have been looking at the problem of rewriting exchanges onto modern, cheaper hardware platforms with other operating systems. It really isn't easy.
This question was already raised in the earlier discussion about Columbia.
What Feynmann had was scientific street cred (a Nobel from QED) but he was a kind of all purpose physicist who had probably taught some of the NASA people. He also had "the common touch", he was an exceptional communicator.
This made his comments difficult for either NASA or anyone else to ignore. A lot of people started to hear about the beuraucratic bs that was going on inside NASA with administrators playing CYA. It was not possible to trust anyone who couldn't be absolutle independent of NASA. Remember a lot of scientists connected with spaceflight have funding that comes either directly or indirectly via NASA.
Personally, I would invite someone from ESA to particpate in the panel. The Russians would be better (man-space flight expertise), but effectively they are also NASA funded now.
The RCS shuts down when the shuttle gets a reasonable air-pressure around it (somewhere around 250,000 feet) and the control surfaces becomes usable. At this point the rudder and airlons can be used through hydraulics. The APUs giving electrical and hydraulic pressure are powered by the catalytic decomposition of hydrazine. The APUs are small turbines and have all the problems with turbine failure when close to other equipment.
The Apollo Service module had a fuel cell. This itself is intrinsically safe, shame about the O2 containment though.
APUs are normally very safe. The main risk is shedding of blades. Normally an internally mounted turbine has some containment to prevent this kind of damage. The shuttle's does but the equipment area is very cramped. If fuel lines were ruptured by the blast then it is likely that the corrosive action would cause major problems.
Dave's exec code was good (forget that PL/1 compiler) but one of the other architects who was critical to VMS development was Andy Goldstein. He was responsible for amongst other things, the file system design (and much of the original code) and the security architecture.
Yes, thanks for correcting me. I did a look up myself later and had found the propellants. Nitrogen Tetroxide is still very corrosive and Hydrazine extremely so. I believe that the variant used is UDMH (Unsymetrical dimethyl hydrazine).
A lot of NASA is/.ed at the moment for some strange reason (and it probably is mostly not/.ers). However an informative link on reentry procedures is here. And another good one is the checksheet for a shuttle simulator here. In the example given in the latter link, the shuttle is returning from the ISS, but it is also going to land at Canaveral.
I'm sure some better stuff is available or will be, on the web, but at the moment it appears that RCS (reaction jets) is used down to about down to 83Km (250000 feet). At this point flight surfaces are used.for manouvering. They then do some serious braking down to 67Km (200,000 feet) killing the vertical speed. This appears to be whe the disaster ocurred.
Um the thing Feynman had was complete credibility at all levels. Scientifically, he was known to be a bit of a maverick - but WTF, he was very often right and did get his Nobel for QED. The fact he could demonstrate intellectual rigor as well as integrity meant that everyone had to cooperate and to listen to the results.
He was also very good at explaining things. The bit of seal in the cold water glass was a beautiful piece of theatre.
Finding someone with just the integrity, let alone the depth would be difficult. I guess the only way would be to find an actor......... (We couldn't find Feymann, but would Gandalf do?)
It depends upon when the breakup took place. You are right about the Nitrogen Tet rather than the RFNA, but as you say both are extremely nasty. Hydrazine is also very corrosive (it can go through glass).
I do agree that this is mostly to put off collectors, there will be very little evidence left over as to what caused this disaster and NASA will need all the pieces it can find, together with location data.
They won't have much fuel left, but they always check about contamination on the ground after normal landings.
The idea of slaloming at that kind of speed certainly emphasises the stress the shuttle is going through at that point. (I have enough problems slaloming on skis, so I can appreciate this).
I haven't got mod points, but I hope somebody else has so more people see this.
The worrying this was that Feynmann himself in the book "Surely You're Jokeing, Mr Feynmann" who wrote that the rate of around 1% shouldn't have been news to everyone because this was well known to the engineers. As was the business about the seal not flexing.
I wonder who will take on Feynmann's job on this one? It needs a panel member of equal scientific depth but with the ability to communicate.
Apparently when the Russian capsule separated a ball valve did not close so the air drained out. The astronauts clearly attempted to correct the situation (a hand control had been changed), but they just died of hypoxia within a minute or so.
This is why wearing space suits was made compulsory during landing (also for NASA, who were briefed on this). At least one of the flight crew would wer the suit in case of problems.
Height is one problem, you need your own oxygen supply for a starter. The wind resistance or lack of it at that altitude is another, parachutes wouldn't really work. You have to free-fall a long way, somehow preventing yourself from spinning or tumbling, which would make you pass out.
I have heard about a Frenchwoman who was supposed to be jumping from a stratospheric balloon at around this height and then freefalling for a long time. I do not know if it was ever done. Other altitude parachuting attempts were also made from balllons.
The main issue is the forward velocity of the shuttle. Forget gravity, the simple speed that the shuttle would have been travelling at when it broke up would have precluded any easy bail out.
No, but they are used to position correctly at the first stages of reentry (to get the reentry burn pointed in the right direction) and then the attitude adjustment. The fuel can't then just be dumped.
I don't even know if control serfaceses can be used at the next stages (the firey ball) because of the attitude of the shuttle and the ablation. Thecontrol surfaces can only be used after the speed has droped to something more reasonable.
Very unlikely. This was about 400,000 feet up at the point when contact was loss (quote from NASA spokesperson). There are very few people with equipment that could do this (think Starwars). It may have been possible that it caught some debris at the early stages of reentry which then turned into a disaster when most of the braking takes place.
Sabotage is possible, but again very unlikely. With an Israeli on board security would have been air-tight.
The Shuttle fleet is aging but NASA iis not getting the money (it goes to the Pentagon instead).
A rocket Engine is big and solid. Please remember that with the shuttle, the main engines are on the craft and they are extremely tough. In any case, although the main structure is fairly lightweight and there are main components that aren't. This is why people cared about Spacelab and Mir coming down.
You can not parachute from 200,000 feet. You have to free fall for a loong time. The escape facility is really if you can't land the thing and can only really be usable from about 20,000 feet or less. Even then, jumping from such a hright requires special skills. Usually jumps take place from less than ten thousand.
In former times, the shuttle would be flown over a upwards facing camera (used for checking out spy sattelites), looking for missing tiles.
Red Fuming Nitric Acid + Hydrazine, I think are on board. These are hypergolic (recting spontaneously don't need an igniter) which is why they are ideal for manouvering jets. They are also exemptionally nasty.
Under normal circumstances, the shuttle is checked and astronauts don't leave for a good 15 to 30 minutes after the shuttle has landed.
No, and I don't think the Brits even had nuclear powered artillary. The only tactical stuff for the battlefield was a short range missile (about 20-40 miles), called Honest John (a US design) which could carry a nuke.
The records around that time were a little hazy. My version comes from the lowest estimates, but of course you could say that his political schemeings invited Operation Barberossa and so the deaths from the "Great Patriiotic War" were really his fault. Again, I used a low estimate for Mao, at around 20 mill - but I didn't include the cultural revolution.
I wouldn't just name the communists for that, the fascists were about the same: "Work makes you free" and all the rest of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually LS is an abreviation for LSE brings up Digital's Language Sentsitive Editor (LSE) which was based on TPU. TPU was like a much higher level EMACS largely programmed in its own language. LSE made programming very easy with builtin language and procedure call skeletons as well as excellent folding. LSE was quite expensive when originally distributed (you got TPU bundled) for non-educational users, so many people missed out on it.
Forget NT/XP, I want it back on Linux now - I really miss it, especially whenever I screw up. Of course I have no chance adding versioning to WInodws, but I know that someone could at least do that to Linux.
Regrettably, I don't thin k it will happen. A lot of Unix people who briefly touched VMS looked upon this as an inconvenience. VMS had its problems compared to Unix, but this was't one of them.
Go to Eurex, for example. They are the largest electronic financial derivatives exchange in the world and their core systems run OpenVMS. SWIFT (the money transfer people) still do a lot with VMS as do many other people.
I have been looking at the problem of rewriting exchanges onto modern, cheaper hardware platforms with other operating systems. It really isn't easy.
What Feynmann had was scientific street cred (a Nobel from QED) but he was a kind of all purpose physicist who had probably taught some of the NASA people. He also had "the common touch", he was an exceptional communicator.
This made his comments difficult for either NASA or anyone else to ignore. A lot of people started to hear about the beuraucratic bs that was going on inside NASA with administrators playing CYA. It was not possible to trust anyone who couldn't be absolutle independent of NASA. Remember a lot of scientists connected with spaceflight have funding that comes either directly or indirectly via NASA.
Personally, I would invite someone from ESA to particpate in the panel. The Russians would be better (man-space flight expertise), but effectively they are also NASA funded now.
The RCS shuts down when the shuttle gets a reasonable air-pressure around it (somewhere around 250,000 feet) and the control surfaces becomes usable. At this point the rudder and airlons can be used through hydraulics. The APUs giving electrical and hydraulic pressure are powered by the catalytic decomposition of hydrazine. The APUs are small turbines and have all the problems with turbine failure when close to other equipment.
APUs are normally very safe. The main risk is shedding of blades. Normally an internally mounted turbine has some containment to prevent this kind of damage. The shuttle's does but the equipment area is very cramped. If fuel lines were ruptured by the blast then it is likely that the corrosive action would cause major problems.
Dave's exec code was good (forget that PL/1 compiler) but one of the other architects who was critical to VMS development was Andy Goldstein. He was responsible for amongst other things, the file system design (and much of the original code) and the security architecture.
Yes, thanks for correcting me. I did a look up myself later and had found the propellants. Nitrogen Tetroxide is still very corrosive and Hydrazine extremely so. I believe that the variant used is UDMH (Unsymetrical dimethyl hydrazine).
I'm sure some better stuff is available or will be, on the web, but at the moment it appears that RCS (reaction jets) is used down to about down to 83Km (250000 feet). At this point flight surfaces are used.for manouvering. They then do some serious braking down to 67Km (200,000 feet) killing the vertical speed. This appears to be whe the disaster ocurred.
He was also very good at explaining things. The bit of seal in the cold water glass was a beautiful piece of theatre.
Finding someone with just the integrity, let alone the depth would be difficult. I guess the only way would be to find an actor......... (We couldn't find Feymann, but would Gandalf do?)
I do agree that this is mostly to put off collectors, there will be very little evidence left over as to what caused this disaster and NASA will need all the pieces it can find, together with location data.
They won't have much fuel left, but they always check about contamination on the ground after normal landings.
I haven't got mod points, but I hope somebody else has so more people see this.
I wonder who will take on Feynmann's job on this one? It needs a panel member of equal scientific depth but with the ability to communicate.
This is why wearing space suits was made compulsory during landing (also for NASA, who were briefed on this). At least one of the flight crew would wer the suit in case of problems.
I have heard about a Frenchwoman who was supposed to be jumping from a stratospheric balloon at around this height and then freefalling for a long time. I do not know if it was ever done. Other altitude parachuting attempts were also made from balllons.
The main issue is the forward velocity of the shuttle. Forget gravity, the simple speed that the shuttle would have been travelling at when it broke up would have precluded any easy bail out.
I don't even know if control serfaceses can be used at the next stages (the firey ball) because of the attitude of the shuttle and the ablation. Thecontrol surfaces can only be used after the speed has droped to something more reasonable.
Sabotage is possible, but again very unlikely. With an Israeli on board security would have been air-tight.
The Shuttle fleet is aging but NASA iis not getting the money (it goes to the Pentagon instead).
A rocket Engine is big and solid. Please remember that with the shuttle, the main engines are on the craft and they are extremely tough. In any case, although the main structure is fairly lightweight and there are main components that aren't. This is why people cared about Spacelab and Mir coming down.
In former times, the shuttle would be flown over a upwards facing camera (used for checking out spy sattelites), looking for missing tiles.
Reentry speed is 12,500 mph. This is many, many times the speed of sound, like about 20x.
Under normal circumstances, the shuttle is checked and astronauts don't leave for a good 15 to 30 minutes after the shuttle has landed.
I'ld be most dissappointed without recourse to that as a weapon. This was the great highlight of DOOM!!!!!
No, and I don't think the Brits even had nuclear powered artillary. The only tactical stuff for the battlefield was a short range missile (about 20-40 miles), called Honest John (a US design) which could carry a nuke.
I wouldn't just name the communists for that, the fascists were about the same: "Work makes you free" and all the rest of it.